Re: Hayek and Praxeology Revisited
But in this case, is Y not just an aggregation of X's? Isn't it sufficient to know that in an exchange there are two or more actors, each valuing what he is trading lower than what he expects to...
View ArticleRe: Hayek and Praxeology Revisited
The goal is to demonstrate a logically necessary connection between phenomena X and Y. If X happens, then Y must happen. Hayek held (as did Mises) that the necessary connection between A and B...
View ArticleRe: Hayek and Praxeology Revisited
But did Mises ever claim that the increase in person 1s demand for A, necessitates the increase of price of A as effected by person 2? I would think this would be an infringement on the...
View ArticleRe: Hayek and Praxeology Revisited
He claimed, I believe, that credit expansion of a certain kind (phenomenon X) must necessarily lead to a slump (phenomenon Y)---a market phenomenon defined in terms of the interactions of a number of...
View ArticleRe: Hayek and Praxeology Revisited
So, in reference to your earlier point, does not the notion of actor A engaging the market, as his action, also fail to necessitate a responsive action in actor B?
View ArticleRe: Hayek and Praxeology Revisited
"So, in reference to your earlier point, does not the notion of actor A engaging the market, as his action, also fail to necessitate a responsive action in actor B?" The argument is not that from the...
View ArticleRe: Hayek and Praxeology Revisited
Ah. Right. Don't you think that the Hayekian notion of an actor engaging with the market kind of conceals the point of the action? Are you suggesting that a solution to Hayek's criticism is that...
View ArticleRe: Hayek and Praxeology Revisited
"and Rothbard's theoretical paradigm in which praxeology is reduced to a method of economics (market study), with the implication that the realm of interpersonal actions is to be studied by other...
View ArticleRe: Hayek and Praxeology Revisited
Jargon: OK I think you're not totally understanding the argument. Hayek asserts two things: 1) Market study cannot be a priori 2) If we assume that X is the object of an actor's action, we may...
View ArticleClik here to view.
Re: Hayek and Praxeology Revisited
Adam Knott: Jargon: OK I think you're not totally understanding the argument. I think that's very possible. Then why doesn't it apply when the object of the social scientist's own action is a price,...
View ArticleRe: Hayek and Praxeology Revisited
"Why do we care what the social scientists actions are and how does that pertain to economics?""I was under the impression that you were making the case that Hayek's criticism of praxeology not...
View ArticleRe: Hayek and Praxeology Revisited
Jargon: One more thing:"I was under the impression that you were making the case that Hayek's criticism of praxeology not applying to interpersonal exchange could be resolved by somehow stating that...
View ArticleRe: Hayek and Praxeology Revisited
The argument that praxeology doesn't apply to interpersonal exchange [as distinct from market phenomena--groups of people, prices, interest rates, etc.] would be resolved by considering another person...
View ArticleRe: Hayek and Praxeology Revisited
Jargon: Here is the passage from Hayek:"From the fact that whenever we interpret human action as in any sense purposive or meaningful, whether we do so in ordinary life or for the purposes of the...
View ArticleRe: Hayek and Praxeology Revisited
Thanks for holding my hand through this. Isn't this kind of begging the question on the nature of action? Meaning: if I want to buy an apple, my means are body, energy, time, and money and my...
View Article
