<< “I AM making an effort to understand [Mises]”. No you’re not. >>

Um, how about this quote from Mises’ ‘Economic Calculation in The Socialist Commonwealth’, a stultifying and boringly inane paper if ever there was one!.... except for this from Chapter 45:

< (4) Finally, we have environmental policies, which are becoming progressively broader in scope and more draconian in enforcement. To the extent that such policies go beyond the protection of individual rights and property—and they are now far, far beyond this point--they become antisocial and destructive of capital and living standards. In fact, in many if not in most cases, it is the obliteration of economic productivity per se which is intended and which constitutes the in-kind welfare subsidy to the well-heeled and well-organized minority of upper-middle class environmentalists. >

< The connection between environmentalism and socialism is even stronger when we realize that what socialism brings about unintentionally--the abolition of humanity as a teleological force shaping nature to its purposes--is precisely the aim of the radical environmentalist program. >

( :> |

Heavens to murgatroid, your Herr Mises was as mad as a hatter!

continued

<< d) It would be less sustainable not more, because of the economic calculation problem, which you’ve admitted you don’t understand http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3839 >>

Oh no, Jardie, Izzy and Humey – you’re all the same dude!! Wow, how many more monikers do you have on this forum??

The first thing I notice is that this general thread received precisely NO responses. Maybe that it is an indication that I’m not the only one who didn’t understand it, at least not in the way that you expressed it.

I remember reading it a whole bunch of times, because environmentalism and any critique of it is right up my alley. I couldn’t make enough sense of it to respond.

But upon rereading it another half a dozen times, I might be able to agree that economic calculation certainly does not take into account things like minerals still in the ground, wilderness in national parks or granny’s assistance in looking after the grandkids.

This is a fundamental fault of our economic system which is based on the highly flawed indicator; GDP. This indicator is much more flawed than this – it also counts economic activity generated by bad things like smoking, floods or road accidents as positive contributions! In fact, it is a shockingly poor indicator of economic growth, let alone our quality of life that is supposed to be directly related to economic growth, let alone our long-term prosperity!

But your use of this as something against environmentalism is entirely misplaced. Environmentalists have been raising just these concerns for a long time (bearing in mind that ‘environmentalist’ is a very broad term, as is ‘economist’ and that some understand this while others don’t, just as some economists worship GDP and endless economic growth while others can see it all in a more realistic manner).

Where do you get this assertion that many environmentalists have hostility towards producing things at a profit? And how does this relate to your explanation of economic calculation?

Oh, of course, von Miseries said it, therefore it is gospel, end of story!

continued

<< (What government is “supposed to do” is set out in the Constitution, at Section 51: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s51.html
Please show us where it says “managing sustainability”.) >>

Oh, so because sustainability is not mentioned in the constitution, our government is not supposed to try and achieve it?

Surely you are not suggesting this, Jardine.

Don’t you think that when the constitution was drawn up, the word ‘sustainability’ was probably not really well known, at least not in the sense that we are using it?

I doubt that at that time anyone was thinking too much about the size and rate of growth of the Australian population (along with per-capita consumption, environmental alienation, etc) becoming a problem to manage with respect to resources, infrastructure and ongoing demand/supply balance. I’d put it to you that nothing like that was even remotely in the brain-space of our illustrious forefathers!

Don’t you think that sustainability is inherent in the very purpose of government! If we are not going to have a government which strives to balance supply and demand and make sure that our life-supporting resources and mechanisms are in place now and into the indefinite future, then what is government actually doing?

For goodness sake, a sustainable future is indeed inherent in the very purpose of government! Surely you wouldn’t argue that it is the role of government to direct us down an unsustainable path or to just carry on with no regard to sustainability or antisustainability?

And of course, there is nothing in the constitution which goes against the pursuance of a sustainable future, is there.

The list of legislative powers of the parliament to which your link refers me is moot in our discussion. It doesn’t tell us anything one way or the other.

continued

<< “What is so different about sustainability?” The officers in charge of providing roads and hospitals etc. don’t need to ensure that the resource-use of people in 50, 500, 5,000, and 50,000 years’ time is not compromised. Those in charge of sustainability do. >>

No they don’t. We’ve been over and over this.

We know what the most unsustainable aspects are and hence what needs to be addressed most urgently. There is no requirement to know every little detail up front. We just need to head in the right direction and then progressively refine the overall policy platform…. in just the same way that government has approached all sorts of issues over the years.

<< *Change* your anti-sense, anti-human, anti-freedom beliefs! >>

WTF are you on about here??

This is completely disconnected with anything that we’ve discussed so far (or at least the last two are!).

It’s even crazier than your statement following your explanation of economic calculation that environmentalists have hostility towards producing things at a profit!

You make these wild assertions with no attached explanation or connection to what has gone before, let alone any proof. And yet you insist that I prove the validity of my position. Wow!

Ludwig, rationalwiki.org has a 'bemused' take on von Mises. Referring to "Human Action"...

"He then proceeds to derive his immutable "laws" of economics from a single axiom, the "action axiom." Mises doesn't formulate it as simply as his followers like Rothbard, who usually state it simply as "Humans act," or "Individual humans act with a purpose," this is the essence of the axiom. Mises, however, distinguishes what he calls "action" from instinctual behavior. Action is defined as behavior that is done with some intention in mind, i.e. goal-oriented. While he admits the possibility of materialistic explanations, he argues that the assumptions of dualism and free will are necessary for a "science" of human action.

Of course, besides the problem of deriving an entire system of faith-based economics from a single axiom, Mises runs into the problem of making a clear-cut distinction between "action" and "instinct" that doesn't exist in psychology and the cognitive sciences (indeed, he dismisses the whole of psychology, anthropology, etc. as merely "historical" and thus unable to make any predictions).

Mises also claims this tautological axiom is irrefutable, and thus a rock-solid basis for all economic theory. If you attempt to refute the claim that humans act, then you are, by definition, acting! "

and

"From here, Mises goes into how awesome completely laissez faire market policy is, gold buggery, and other typical Austrian hijinks. However, sane students of economics probably closed the book way back at the point when Mises declared his "theories" unfalsifiable."

[Check out Mises' letter to Ayn Rand from 23 January 1958.]

Wm Trevor

“faith-based economics”

What’s that supposed to mean?

Austrian methodology is based on logical deductions from axioms.

It’s no more “faith-based” than logical deductions from axioms generally. Trigonometry is based on logical deductions from the axioms of Pythagoras’s theorem. Is trigonometry “faith-based”, according to you?

You don’t refute Mises theory by merely expressing disapproval or incredulity, and citing misrepresentations from hostile secondary sources.

But your ridicule of the very idea of irrefutability could only make sense if all propositions were capable of being true. It’s you with a faith-based methodology, not me.

Besides, how can you assert Austrian methodology is more faith-based than Ludwig’s:
1. AT NO STAGE has he given ANY reason for his belief that government can achieve sustainability. He merely insists that it must be true because he wants it to be true, or because government takes action in other areas, or because government is supposed to do it because government is supposed to do it.
2. He admits they cannot know what they would need to know.
3. He admits they would need to control every single human action.
4. He admits he can’t understand the argument from economic calculation, but which he insists must be wrong.

Yet after conceding that they can’t do what they would need to do, he nevertheless merely insists that government can do it. What is that if not a faith-based methodology?

“Mises, however, distinguishes what he calls "action" from instinctual behavior.”

I don’t think that’s correct. Can you cite an original source?

The critical distinction is between voluntary action, and non-voluntary action such as the knee-jerk reflex. Austrian theory doesn’t apply to the knee-jerk reflex. It applies to all purposive human action.

An axiom provides a good root of logic from which logical deductions can be derived. If you agree with the proposition “man acts”, then there is no issue.

But if you deny it:
“No he doesn’t!”
then in denying it you had to perform a self-contradiction and hence the proposition is axiomatic.

You are proving, not refuting Austrian theory.