Re: [LeftLibertarian2] RE: Cato Essay #71
- Will you be going over the relation to "conscience" and "consciousness" -- more than just a similarity in sound and spelling in earlier philosophy, from what I've read.Regards,DanMy short story "Residue" now available for Kindle at:
On Apr 4, 2013, at 8:51 PM, "George H. Smith" <smikro@...> wrote:
I will only be posting one more essay on the calculation problem, at least for now, and it will be little more than a basic summary of the Misesian argument. I had planned to continue my discussion of the arguments for and against persecution, which will eventually bring me to at least one essay on the idea of “conscience,” but I needed to do some more reading, research, and thinking. I therefore decided to buy myself some time by using material on the calculation problem that I wrote (in the main) around 15 years ago, while I was living in SF. The fact that I can draw from hundreds of files containing previously unpublished material is a great help. I always need to rewrite such material to some extent, especially when I only have notes or rough drafts to work with, but that still takes less time than writing essays from scratch.
Thanks, George. It's been a long time since I've read HA and Socialism. I've never read EPoE. Consider it a serious lacuna in Austrian economic education that I should rectify. (I should actually reread his major works -- the ones I have read, I mean -- but my focus is now on things noneconomic -- and I want to stick to a certain path for the next year or so.)
By the way, will you be going over the various calculation debates, including the more recent ones?
My short story "Residue" now available for Kindle at:
On Apr 4, 2013, at 4:01 PM, "George H. Smith" <smikro@...> wrote:
Mises never claimed originality for his basic point about economic calculation under socialism, nor did I attribute such originality to him in my essay. In Socialism (Liberty Fund ed., p. 117, note 7), Mises mentions a number of predecessors, such as Gossen, Barone, and Pierson.
The only discussion by Weber that I can recall offhand appears in the first volume of Economy and Society, in which he briefly mentions that a “planned economy” will result in the “inevitable reduction in formal, calculatory rationality which would result from the elimination of money and capital accounting.” This passing observation, however, is not the same as the Misesian argument.
Although Mises praised Weber as “one of the most brilliant figures of German science of the twentieth century…a pioneer and trail blazer.” he disagreed with Weber on some fundamental issues, such as the nature of theoretical economics. On this see the lengthy discussion of Weber in Epistemological Problems of Economics, Chapter 2 (“Sociology and History”). Next to Human Action, this is probably the best theoretical book that Mises ever wrote.
Sent: Tuesday, April 2, 2013 10:56 AM
Subject: Re: [LeftLibertarian2] Cato Essay #71
That and you mentioning him being "original." Juan's conception of originality is rather strict. Since Weber and one other guy in the 19th century came up with similar calculation arguments, Juan tells us Mises was completely unoriginal here. I take it Juan think him either a plagiarist or just a step away from being one.
By the way, it's been a while since I read Menger, but wasn't he a little unclear about the subjectivity of value, at least in some of his writings? I mean it seemed that way to me. Or maybe I'm mixing him up with someone else.
Is referring to Mises as “a brilliant economist” and “an interdisciplinary thinker of remarkable breadth” not permitted in Juan’s alternate universe?
I eagerly anticipating Juan's analysis of your first paragraph there. You do realize with that you might cause him to go into orbit? :)
Ludwig von Mises and Economic Calculation Under Socialism
Smith discusses the theory of value that provided the foundation for the Misesian argument that rational economic calculation is impossible in a socialistic economy.
My Cato Essay #71 is now up.
- Except when they got drunk and argued. The cops had to called in quote often, I've read.Regards,DanMy short story "Residue" now available for Kindle at:
On Apr 7, 2013, at 8:10 PM, J Olson <jlolson53@...> wrote:Well, that's a pretty persuasive point - that the two were friends - re Mises' interpretation of Menger's ideas. You wouldn't expect people who knew each other well to argue without some substance in their differences...JeffOn Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 12:02 PM, George H. Smith <smikro@...> wrote:JeffO,
You are correct, which is why Mises characterized Menger’s dichotomy as “pointless.” Mises believed that Menger’s overall treatment of value was consistent with subjectivism, but that he slipped up occasionally.
But Mises seemed to have a more serious objection to comments that Menger included in the 2nd edition of Principles. Mises called the following statement by Menger a “notorious slip”: “Rational theory and practical economics will have to enter into the investigation of real wants, i.e., wants which correspond to the objective state of affairs.”
Mises was a friend of Menger’s, and was intimately familiar with his work. I therefore tend to trust Mises’s interpretation of his theory of value.