your wrong – it is NOT impossible to measure efficiency — astute capitalists do it everyday. Otherwise profitable enterprises and capital accumulation would be a "shot in the dark
A “shot in the dark” is a good way of putting it actually. Obviously you aren’t the least bit familiar with economics. Their “measurements” are nothing more than conjecture. As Mises said:
All the prices we know are past prices. They are facts of economic history. . . . The experience of economic history never tells us more than that at a definite date and a definite place two parties A and B traded a definite quantity of the commodity a against a definite number of units of the money p.
if it was impossible to measure then economics would not be able to confirm this. In sum, your statement is utter confusion.
Economics doesn’t confirm anything more than people make guesses.
moreover, what does the statement or “interpersonal utility” have to do with debunking anything I have offered on this thread ?
Are you kidding me?
*aesthetic goals are incalculable in economic terms, in contrast profit seeking investors, firms, and societies can identify real costs and returns for economic goals – as a result of the inability to quantify the economic benefit of these goals, there exists the problem of economic calculation for those actors who place aesthetic goals ahead of economic goals.
Any Societies that identifies costs and returns are claiming to measure interpersonal utility (they are arbitrarily placing cardinal values where there are only ordinal ones and then trying to compare them). Real costs are subjective, to quote S.C. Littlechild:
1 Cost must be borne exclusively by the person who makes decisions; it is not possible for this cost to be shifted to or imposed on others.
2 Cost is subjective; it exists only in the mind of the decision-maker or chooser.
3 Cost is based on anticipations; it is necessarily a forward-looking or ex ante concept.
4 Cost can never be realised because of the fact that choice is made; the alternative which is rejected can never itself be enjoyed.
5 Cost cannot be measured by someone other than the chooser since there is no way that subjective mental experience can be directly observed.
6 Cost can be dated at the moment of final decision or choice.
Your attempts to distinguish between “aesthetic” and “economic” are complete garbage all factors of cost are placed on an ordinal value scale. Only the individual can determine what their factor translates to in dollar amounts.
of course, that is a sad fact of economic reality-- namely if the owner of a valued resource fails to efficiently manage his valued resources, he will fail economically.
Correct! Economically speaking, one who fails to manage his resources will be outcompeted not outgunned. The fellow who owns property yet, isn’t in debt, and it eating, drinking, etc… hasn’t failed economically.
here you contradict yourself in the same post. you claim to know that leisure has a greater value than timber (an arbitrary and subjective assertion) and yet in another post you claim that efficiency is impossible to measure.
Wow! Your intellectual dishonesty is alarming; not only did you chop the post up, you rearranged it. Let me re-post it in its entirety:
This is true, however its impossible to measure efficiency and it implies that societal welfare is based on something objective, yet economics shows that interpersonal utility is impossible to measure.
If a Forest owner, say Mr. Smith, knows the alternative uses for his land and chooses not to forgo deforestation and chooses leisure yet is forced by another party (potential investors, firms, and society(s)) to do anything other than his original intentions, he is obviously worse off. More timber may be produced for “society” but that obviously has a lower value than leisure. There is clearly no economic grounding for saying that “society” is better off of more efficient given the fact that utility has been lowered.
On the free market, all individuals must either remain on the same utility plane or move to a higher one, voluntary actions increase societal utility. Coercion, is involuntary and therefore must reduce at least one persons utility-plane, thereby lowering all societal utility as well. Given the fact that it is impossible to compare interpersonal utility, it can never be said with absolute certainty that societal utility has been increased.
The assertion that leisure has a greater utility than timber “you claim to know that leisure has a greater value than timber (an arbitrary and subjective assertion” is definitely subjective and obviously not arbitrary. Mr. Smith not chopping down has trees makes it logically indisputable that in his current situation he values his leisure more than the timber. You second claim “you claim that efficiency is impossible to measure” isn’t contradicted, as I don’t once say efficiency is being measured.
in reality, Calculating the value of timber relative to leisure is the task of entreprenuers and investors – if a successful investor determines that a valued resource can be reallocated to a more profitable use in some other capacity - then thy will be done. If he is wrong, then he loses capital and becomes a more marginal figure in the economy.
Correct, a shot in the dark. You cannot see the future just as you cannot see in the dark.
by what economic calculation do you determine that reallocating land for timber production is less profitable than using the same land for leisure?
Are you sure you are responding to the right quote? I said utility has been lowered.
“same utility plane or move to a higher one” ?!?!
Econ 101! To say society is “better off” is to say they have moved to a higher utility plane.
not all transfers of valued resources can be done by voluntary and peaceful means for the reasons I outlined in numerous posts
That is false, all transactions can in fact be done voluntarily. The reasons you have outlined simply state that theft shall occur if the parties cannot come to an agreement. The fellow who won’t sell his tree farm for less than $10100 isn’t any different than a fellow who won’t sell his car for less than $2,000. If the parties cannot reach an agreement, neither items transfer. Capitalism.
(1) if the owner of a valued resource does not manage his resource efficiently (economic efficiency) then he will have less capital available for security.
(2) if an investor who covets the mismanaged resource determines through economic cost analysis that he can employ the resource(s) more efficiently AND the resource is not available for peaceful voluntary exchange AND the investor determines that he can annex the resource(s) using coercion to a net profit – then coercion it is .
IN sum, what does your interpersonal argument have to do with the economic calculations that led to an economically inefficiently managed resource being annexed by force ?
To determine that the owner is managing his resource “inefficiently” is an attempt to compare interpersonal utility. An impossibility. The owners utility function obviously differs from that of the entrepreneur, so his calculations determine nothing about how efficiently its currently being used.
Again, If profit and loss calculations were not possible in the free market – then successful enterprises and investments would be a “crap shoot”
Another fine word for it. Any calculation about the future is only speculation.
trillions of transactions take place everyday in which individual actors base their decisions on cost/benefit analysis of whether the transaction will reap a profit. Of course, every single human endeavor has some measure of subjectivity, however successful investors and firms employ sophisticated economic tools to determine whether a particular enterprise will be successful or not and take action accordingly.
Trillions of crap shoots. Fortunes lost and made day by day.
Of course, every single human endeavor has some measure of subjectivity, however successful investors and firms employ sophisticated economic tools to determine whether a particular enterprise will be successful or not and take action accordingly.
So Mises (as well as the whole of Austian Economics) was wrong?
As a result, Mr. Smith’s decision that aesthetic goals are more important than economic goals will leave his valued resources economically under utilized.
Under-utilized is subjective.
as a result, his valued resource will also be under defended since security is funded by economic capital as opposed to “aesthetic capital”.
This result is pure fantasy on your part. There isn’t any reason to think he hasn’t external resources, or that courts, insurance, land groups, conservation societies, etc… don’t exist.
the decision to forego maximum economic profit may be irrelevant to you and Mr. Smith – but to a profit motivated investor and his PDA of choice, it is an opportunity to use coercion to successfully release a heretofore untapped resource to overall societal economic benefit.
It certainly is an opportunity to attempt to claim an untapped resource. However, concluding that it will be an “overall societal economic” benefit is a complete guess. You’ve already admitted that society doesn’t necessarily benefit from immediate consumption. Aside the necessity of conservation, there’s the re-allocation of resources, overproduction, potential gluts, etc…
inane retort deviod of fact, logic, and empiricism.
A simple “no” would have been sufficient.
“never said such a thing”
lol
The LOL worthy quotes are where now? Wait I have a good response to that
“hiding behind intellectually vacant retorts is not an effective rebuttal Retopper.”
your a genius angurse ! you have made coercion and armed conflict obsolete – we simply needed to inform the aggressor that we dont consent to his coercion. And that private property rights are sacrosanct just because we say so!
Well, thank you. Once people understand grammar school logic such as A ≠ ¬A and coercion ≠ consent. We can move on to private property.
once again, inane retort.
Definitions are inane? How about “nobel peace prize for you right there with jimmy carter and barry obama.” Is that also inane?
an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods,-- Merriam-Webster
And that denotes annexation where? In fact if you follow the definitions (as inane as they may be you’ll find:
the exclusive right to possess, enjoy, and dispose of a thing : ownership – Merriam-Webster
It is going to suck when the native americans inform us that we now have to return their private property back because coercion is a contradiction to private property — Shucks !!! and I just spent $10k in closing costs for a rental property on former Chippewa land.
Obviously you didn’t do a very good job calculating. I don’t really know how to return stolen property to the dead, and over generations, also they will need to overcome the burden of proof. But, yeah, it probably will suck, why do you think criminals go to such lengths to avoid bein caught?
sad how alexander, ceasar, tamerlane, temujin, charlemagne, napoleon, lincoln, roosevelt, hitler, stalin, mao, et al didnt know about this “with the owner’s consent” thing.
Oh, I forgot about those legendary capitalists like..um… Stalin. Really?
for a laugh see the exchange below:
So more blatant dishonesty? That wasn’t an exchange at all!
How exactly is saying, I don’t disagree that poor managers will have less capital, multiple times mind you, a contradiction?
Contradiction - opposition between two conflicting forces or ideas
(Remember, logic dictates that A=A)
(note your argument is a strawman that assumes that external resources are available to an owner – something beyond the immediate scope of my argument)
The “immediate scope” of your argument is pure fantasy. Come back to the real world.
(note your argument is a strawman that assumes that external resources are available to an owner – something beyond the immediate scope of my argument)
(note your argument is a strawman that assumes that external resources are available to an owner – something beyond the immediate scope of my argument)
(note your argument is a strawman that assumes that external resources are available to an owner – something beyond the immediate scope of my argument)