4
5

Praxeology (praxis) "action", is the deductive study of human action, based on the notion that humans engage in purposeful behavior, as opposed to reflexive behavior like sneezing and inanimate behavior. (self.CapitalismVSocialism)

LowReadyNeeds 15 Labor Vouchers for tendies が 投稿

This is the most fundamental basis for Austrian econ and seemingly a very contentious idea for socialists.

Put aside the incompleteness of such a theory for it was never meant to be the entirety of Austrian econ (though I would argue it's the most important aspect) or any other theory, and given the definition (it seems very clear most socialists who harshly criticize it have no idea what the word even means, hence defining it right in the title) describe why praxeology itself is an inaccurate approach.

As a side note, it brings me much enjoyment to watch socialists who believe in LTV critique the alleged "lack of impiricism". Not only is such a critique incoherent (neither praxeology nor Austrian econ reject the validity of empirical research rather reject the conclusiveness of attempting to quantify all of economic activity.

So all that said, I think thr Austrian school as a whole is lacking and I think the inconclusiveness of MMT is overstated however this post is specifically asking for socialists to state their contention with praxeology itself, not necessarily the conclusions that the Austrians have seemingly derived from it.

全 69 件のコメント
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]warped655UBI|Socialized Needs|Worker's MoP|Prod./Serv. Market|Democracy [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Its hard to discern what specifically separates automatic and conscious behavior, other than one is conscious and one is not.

The difference between Praxeology and LTV in terms of legitimacy is that LTV is a way of looking at specific economic relationships and the results of those relationships. Its a framework or perspective that observes and suggests end results. While Praxeology tries to assert certain "fundamentals" as true in terms of human behavior for both economic justification and ethical justification.

IE, LTV is flawed and incomplete, but is at least falsifiable. Praxeology is incomplete to such a degree that it is not falsifiable.

People who think LTV is the best method of framing economics are wrong. People who think Praxeology is the best method of framing economics are not even wrong.

[–]ShortSomeCashLibertarian Municipalist/Lazy Moocher [スコア非表示]  (5子コメント)

describe why praxeology itself is an inaccurate approach.

Because it's entirely theoretical and tautological instead of experimental. Without any way to falsify hypotheses, they remain the borderline religious ramblings of the kind of people rich, white and boring enough to become economists.

[–]LowReadyNeeds 15 Labor Vouchers for tendies[S] [スコア非表示]  (3子コメント)

Which economic theories are experimental?

[–]ShortSomeCashLibertarian Municipalist/Lazy Moocher [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

None, economists are philosophers

[–]LowReadyNeeds 15 Labor Vouchers for tendies[S] [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

What would be the purpose of viewing this forum for someone who rejects economics and philosophy?

[–]ShortSomeCashLibertarian Municipalist/Lazy Moocher [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

I don't reject either, I just reject their axioms as objectively true. Almost all philosophers have both something important to contribute and an accompanying mountain of bullshit. That goes for everyone from Locke to Marx. I've only found a few with no obvious bullshit, but they still have points I disagree on.

Take keynesianism as an example. It's a great microcosm of capitalism itself, it's clearly unsustainable in the long term, but you can't argue with results

[–]bridgeton_manClassical Economics (true capitalism) [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Angry latino from a working class background who went on to become an economist here,

In fact, it may burst the stereotype bubble here, but our profession has a wide diversity of background to it. and most economists these days are all about the use of empirical, data-driven methodology, since that's what's increasingly being applied int he kinds of marketplaces where economists tend to get found. Ranging from financial markets to energy utilities, to multi-national corporations.

[–]fadlpadlAnarchist [スコア非表示]  (33子コメント)

All of the things involved in the praxeology are just assumed axiomatically, making it worthless.

[–]soskroodBicycles are use based property [スコア非表示]  (20子コメント)

All of the things involved in the math are just assumed axiomatically, making it worthless.

[–]fadlpadlAnarchist [スコア非表示]  (19子コメント)

Actually not true, although a lot of things in math ARE defined axiomatically. Heck even in physics.

However they provide conclusions that can be tested, argued, proven, and so on. Praxeology explicitly rejects any such attempt, it's JUST axioms.

[–]soskroodBicycles are use based property [スコア非表示]  (18子コメント)

The difference is the subject matter. Math deals with (usually) physical things that you can indeed measure.

Praxeology deals with humans which are notoriously fickle - so fickle that it seems stupid (to me) to use the instruments of hard sciences to evaluate the soft science of the human economy.

Furthermore, just like in math the axioms are useful so long as they are not proven to be incorrect. If you want to attack praxeology, you must attack the axioms it rests on instead of saying 'look - axioms - therefore wrong' which is essentially your argument.

So - do humans engage in purposeful behavior like Praxeology contends, or no?

[–]eeeezypeezyLibertarian Socialist [スコア非表示]  (12子コメント)

So - do humans engage in purposeful behavior like Praxeology contends, or no?

Sometimes yes, and sometimes no. Dialectical materialism provides a framework for understanding the interplay of culture and free will, material and ideal.

[–]soskroodBicycles are use based property [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Dialectical materialism

Funny, as the contributors to dialectical materialism also happened to run their countries into the ground. Call me a skeptic, but those people aren't very high on my list of bright thinkers.

I like the Thomas Sowell criticism:

What Marx accomplished was to produce such a comprehensive, dramatic, and fascinating vision that it could withstand innumerable empirical contradictions, logical refutations, and moral revulsions at its effects. The Marxian vision took the overwhelming complexity of the real world and made the parts fall into place, in a way that was intellectually exhilarating and conferred such a sense of moral superiority that opponents could be simply labelled and dismissed as moral lepers or blind reactionaries. Marxism was – and remains – a mighty instrument for the acquisition and maintenance of political power.

[–]LowReadyNeeds 15 Labor Vouchers for tendies[S] [スコア非表示]  (10子コメント)

I won't even get into the absurdity of dialectical materialism or how even modern Marxists frequently reject it however even if we grant that it's true, it does not negate the existence of purposeful behavior, it merely places less emphasis on it.

[–]eeeezypeezyLibertarian Socialist [スコア非表示]  (9子コメント)

You should get into both of those things!

Praxeology is rooted in conclusions drawn from oversimplifications and biased assumptions, imo. "Thought experiments A through Y, conclusion Z, and so we can say..." It's not a rigorous or particularly useful method for understanding economics.

I think historical materialism is the best framework we have for understanding how we moved from tribal gift economies and so on to the highly stratified, technologically advanced global economy we have now, and for attempting to understand how the internal contradictions of one epoch will lead inevitably to the next, which will have its own contradictions. It doesn't take any particular arrangement of society and production as ideal.

[–]LowReadyNeeds 15 Labor Vouchers for tendies[S] [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

Praxeology is rooted in conclusions drawn from oversimplifications and biased assumptions

I think historical materialism is the best framework we have

😮

[–]eeeezypeezyLibertarian Socialist [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Historical materialism is rooted in empirical observations of the interplay of different socioeconomic forces. Not in imagining what an ideal buyer would do if presented with identical products from two ideal sellers or whatever other nonsense libertarians wank over.

[–]Lorck16Liberal | Anti-Communist [スコア非表示]  (6子コメント)

It doesn't take any particular arrangement of society and production as ideal.

Lol.

I think historical materialism is the best framework we have for understanding how we moved from tribal gift economies and so on to the highly stratified, technologically advanced global economy we have now

No, it is so wrong, in so many ways, it is not even funny.

[–]eeeezypeezyLibertarian Socialist [スコア非表示]  (5子コメント)

No, it is so wrong, in so many ways, it is not even funny.

Obviously I disagree with you on that. You can explain yourself or leave it there, suit yourself.

[–]Lorck16Liberal | Anti-Communist [スコア非表示]  (4子コメント)

Explain what? How the model that you described fails to address anything it is supposed to address?

[–]LowReadyNeeds 15 Labor Vouchers for tendies[S] [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

Lol, he won't answer, he went on a pants pissing rant when I asked

[–]fadlpadlAnarchist [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

Please stop saying things, you make the world a worse place when you do.

[–]Adam_MarxNAP-compliance is a matter of defining 'agression' [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

anarchist

[–]zuzak427Swashbuckling Voluntaryist | Spooky Comrade [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

The difference is the subject matter. Math deals with (usually) physical things that you can indeed measure.

In that case, it can't be said that things are assumed axiomatically. You can't have it both ways.

[–]fadlpadlAnarchist [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

That is untrue, I can reject praxeology based on the very nature of what it is. I reject it because it rejects the notion of being tested, it rejects the notion of being questioned, and the asserts things axiomatically which you then ask to be argued against based on axioms. Which I can't, because of course I can't, any support for my argument would run smack dab into the fact that you assumed it axiomatically and it can't be questioned.

The primary idea in Praxeology, the statement that people have free will, is not itself the problem, it's anything after that, and anything after that you need to defend, and its not defended, its axiomatically assumed.

It's unfalsifiable, and therefore not worth bothering with.

[–]LowReadyNeeds 15 Labor Vouchers for tendies[S] [スコア非表示]  (11子コメント)

Solid argument

[–]fadlpadlAnarchist [スコア非表示]  (10子コメント)

Thanks.

But really, it's all that needs to be said.

Everything involved in what you support is merely assumptions supported by nothing but the assumption that it must be true, and if you can merely assume without evidence, backing or even rhetorical flourish, why can't I dismiss without the same?

The answer is I can. Fuck your axioms.

[–]LowReadyNeeds 15 Labor Vouchers for tendies[S] [スコア非表示]  (9子コメント)

There's no evidence that humans act purposefully?

[–]fadlpadlAnarchist [スコア非表示]  (8子コメント)

Yeah that's not all praxeology is, and in fact praxeology itself would reject your statement as it claims to not need evidence. If praxeology was merely the assumption that humans do things that aren't the result of actions happening to them, that would b a statement on the nature of will, for philosophers and neuro-scientists.

What this is, is that it's a cop out. You're supporting a weaker position (Humans do things that aren't sneezing) and then once everyone accepts that you're switching to the strong one (Science doesn't work and also laissez faire capitalism is a good idea)

Praxeology is a school of thought that rejects science, has made a LOT of axiomatical assumptions, and then continues to build on these axioms with more axioms, and axioms down the line based on those axioms which were based on axioms. It's all sophist wankery.

[–]LowReadyNeeds 15 Labor Vouchers for tendies[S] [スコア非表示]  (7子コメント)

Ah, you're just making shit up that I literally addressed in my OP knowing ahead of time this would be the lying (perhaps just really stupid) sophistry attempted by socialists. 10/10 expected socialist bullshit.

Next.

[–]fadlpadlAnarchist [スコア非表示]  (6子コメント)

Except you didn't address it, and you don't get to just say "NO U" on the sophist wankery.

I've told you why praxeology is dumb, and if that doesn't help we'll just define it so axiomatically. Which you seem to be fine with.

[–]LowReadyNeeds 15 Labor Vouchers for tendies[S] [スコア非表示]  (5子コメント)

I preemptively addressed it in my OP. Read and repeat until you're either smart enough to not literally regurgitate a trope I refuted before you even predictably parroted it or until the glorious revolution occurs and you no longer have to be burdened by your own stupidity and failure.

[–]fadlpadlAnarchist [スコア非表示]  (4子コメント)

That didn't happen dude, you need to pull yourself up by your own bootstraps and realize that you made a shitty defence for a shitty idea, and when explained why it was shit you pointed to something that didn't address it.

My derision of your little philosophical stance (Because that's what it is) doesn't belie its conclusions, which is what you addressed. I criticized its foundation. It's only a set of axioms.

[–]IotaCandle [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

While humans do engage in part purposeful behavior, their perception, data processing and means of action are subject to so many biases that building economical or social theories with this sole axiom as a basis is useless.

Furthermore, the concept of praxeology is so vague that it pretty much amounts to making shit up while dismissing very useful empirical evidence.

[–]LowReadyNeeds 15 Labor Vouchers for tendies[S] [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

Furthermore, the concept of praxeology is so vague that it pretty much amounts to making shit up while dismissing very useful empirical evidence.

What evidence does it dismiss and what does it "make up"?

While humans do engage in part purposeful behavior, their perception, data processing and means of action are subject to so many biases that building economical or social theories with this sole axiom as a basis is useless.

Ironically you've just more or less described the basis of Austrian econ.

[–]IotaCandle [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Austrian economists choose to use praxeology because empirical study does not go their way. I believe that if you have to continously ignore real life evidence in order to support your ideology, there might be something fishy to your method.

[–]Adam_MarxNAP-compliance is a matter of defining 'agression' [スコア非表示]  (8子コメント)

What the fuck is this?

[–]LowReadyNeeds 15 Labor Vouchers for tendies[S] [スコア非表示]  (7子コメント)

Which part would you like clarified?

[–]Adam_MarxNAP-compliance is a matter of defining 'agression' [スコア非表示]  (6子コメント)

None, I'm just confused why you're bothering to engage in meaningful dialogue.

[–]LowReadyNeeds 15 Labor Vouchers for tendies[S] [スコア非表示]  (5子コメント)

Lol

Sometimes I enjoy letting socialists openly demonstrate not only their bizarrely hostile stupidity but also their complete inability to do anything other than recite tropes. It's fun to not shitpost and let socialists prove that they turn everything to shit.

It's hilarious to me that you can literally refute a straw man right in your post and they'll immediately respond with the exact strawan and then just throw a tantrum if you point it out.

[–]Lorck16Liberal | Anti-Communist [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

I have met some Socialists here who got their shit refuted and admitted so. Then in the same day, they used the same thing again, to another person.

[–]LowReadyNeeds 15 Labor Vouchers for tendies[S] [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

They should conclude all their posts with "amen"

[–]Adam_MarxNAP-compliance is a matter of defining 'agression' [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

I got bored of that real quick after that one weekend I posted 3 good threads and got only bullshit back. I think I'll stick with trolling for a while.

[–]fadlpadlAnarchist [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

You have never posted a good thread if you have to be completely honest.

[–]Adam_MarxNAP-compliance is a matter of defining 'agression' [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Guess you weren't around

[–]yhynyeAnti-Capitalist [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

What is the significance of the observation that humans sometimes act purposefully (and sometimes don't)?

I guess we can predict what someone will do by asking them what their objectives are. Good rule of thumb, certainly.

But if humans were never dishonest in stating, or mistaken in pursuing, their objectives, well, there'd be no such thing as politics, would there.

What determines people's objectives in the first place? Human designs seem somewhat stable, but hardly fixed.

Frankly, the incredible amount of bullshit that humans are inclined to come out with makes me somewhat sceptical of the just-ask-them method.

Perhaps if you would elaborate on some of praxeology's deductions or conclusions?

[–]badassusernmHave a downvote! [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

This is the most fundamental basis for a fringe school of Austrian econ that only a handful of keyboard capitalists in bowties take seriously.

FTFY, but seriously, marginal theory is the basis of the Austrian School, not Praexology.

and seemingly a very contentious idea for socialists

I don't see it as being contentious at all, just worthless assumptions that don't tell us anything.

describe why praxeology itself is an inaccurate approach.

Because it doesn't matter that individuals "act purposefully" when we can never know what the specific purpose of each individual is. What exactly are you trying to "study" if any macroeconomic observation can be rejected simply because it doesn't square with the micro?

[–]LowReadyNeeds 15 Labor Vouchers for tendies[S] [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

FTFY, but seriously, marginal theory is the basis of the Austrian School, not Praexology.

Solid random ad hominem however marginal theory is the basis for all modern economics. AE incorporates praxeology as the basis for its theories. Not saying you're necessarily wrong but I am saying you missed the point.

I don't see it as being contentious at all, just worthless assumptions that don't tell us anything.

Studying purposeful human behavior doesn't tell us anything??? As I've already stated, I agree that praxeology is inadequate however in some way its been used in essentially all economic thought for two centuries and the idea of praxeological study goes back to Greek philosophers.

What exactly are you trying to "study" if any macroeconomic observation can be rejected simply because it doesn't square with the micro?

I don't even know what this is supposed to mean. Praxeology doesn't reject generality or trends....

[–]nichnickLibertarian Socialist [スコア非表示]  (13子コメント)

Are you drunk?

[–]LowReadyNeeds 15 Labor Vouchers for tendies[S] [スコア非表示]  (12子コメント)

Another solid argument.

The socialist brain trust is really firing on all cylinders this morning.

[–]nichnickLibertarian Socialist [スコア非表示]  (11子コメント)

You presented nothing to argue against. You just vomited out some nonsense and expected us to address it.

[–]LowReadyNeeds 15 Labor Vouchers for tendies[S] [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

Lol nobody expects you to understand anything

[–]nichnickLibertarian Socialist [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

"REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE"

-LowReady

[–]Lorck16Liberal | Anti-Communist [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

You can argue against praxeology. Many Socialists disagree with that and say that the whole Austrian school of economics is wrong because it is based on it.

[–]nichnickLibertarian Socialist [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

There's no foundation to praxeology. It's assuming humans are rational animals when that is demonstrably false.

[–]Adam_MarxNAP-compliance is a matter of defining 'agression' [スコア非表示]  (6子コメント)

So, like every thread started by a socialist?

[–]nichnickLibertarian Socialist [スコア非表示]  (5子コメント)

"REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE"

-Adam_Marx

[–]Adam_MarxNAP-compliance is a matter of defining 'agression' [スコア非表示]  (4子コメント)

/u/nichnick 's autistic screeching intensifies

[–]nichnickLibertarian Socialist [スコア非表示]  (3子コメント)

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/86/c7/23/86c723b1af1c8c3f5c3cf4ebfc762ccc.jpg

[–]Adam_MarxNAP-compliance is a matter of defining 'agression' [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

Accurate rendition of me removing you from your basement with a trophy weapon

[–]nichnickLibertarian Socialist [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

http://www.reactiongifs.com/r/ktf.gif

[–]Adam_MarxNAP-compliance is a matter of defining 'agression' [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Your cooperation is noted. In work camp, you may qualify for full rations.