Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
SubG
Aug 19, 2004

It's a hard world for little things.

icantfindaname posted:

Standard neoclassical microeconomics from Walras onwards basically assumes perfect information and knowable, quantifiable utility preferences for all agents and is thus 100% as subject to the Austrian critique as central planning. If you assume all the stuff that the Greg Mankiw 101 textbook assumes central planning works fine. More than fine, it was basically invented by neoclassical micro guys, Kuznets and Leontief. It’s just linear algebra
Even more fundamentally, even comparatively rigorously derived economic theories (like Marxian labour theory of value) rely on the presumption that there's some fundamental "stuff" at the heart of economic behaviour (like socially necessary labour time) that can be expressed in discrete units which are universally interchangeable. Which has a certain amount of appeal in that this resembles how we currently like to derive formal theories, but even in e.g. Marx (who spends a lot of time on this sort of thing) it's more or less just something we have to accept as axiomatic. Same with other difficult questions, like how to even define synonymy.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply