Can't believe people take this guy seriously

Can't believe people take this guy seriously.

Stop posting.

>be ancap/lolbertarian fag
>shill this dude endlessly
>actually read his book
>muh (((free market))) so great utterly BTFO
>"n-no guise, he's bad. Can't believe people take this guy seriously"

Wow, really makes you think.

Milton Friedman never had a real job. AHAHA

>Smith
>Friedman
Lmao top pleb, start with Rothbard

Rothbard and praxeology are a joke. The maximization of total utility is the only advantage of the market economy over a command economy. Praxeology claims that utility is unmeasurable, and as such implicitly rejects any advantage a market economy may have had.

Take a hint guys and become NEET master race your economic idols were all NEETs you are basically suckers they told you to go work. What a bunch of cucks desu baka senpai

You are just too stupid to understand the subtleties.

kek

He had a full time jobs as the Scottish customs commissioner.

Ironically Smith was just fine with protecting native industry

(((Ricardo))) is the one that said all outsourcing is good no matter what. Gee I wonder why.

I love that picture so much

Doesn't it state that utility is subjective, therefore no 3rd party can measure agregate utility accurately and indeed, agregate macroeconomic data itself does a poor job of reflecting economic reality.
It does not reject that market participants themselves act as to maximize their own subjective utility.

>It does not reject that market participants themselves act as to maximize their own subjective utility
Yes, but the advantage of a market economy is that it maximizes *total* utility. The fact that every individual maximizes his or her utility does not mean that total utility is maximized.

You are getting everything wrong

Praxeology has nothing to do with the subjective theory of utility or marginal utility

marginal utility was developed by William Stanley Jevons

Praxeology was created by Ludwig von Mises and is a bizarre cult like theory about trying to say how humans "ought" without reference to morality. That's why the title of Mises' book is "Human Action" i.e. I'm going to tell you how humans ought to act.

It's not even an econmic text really.

also fun fact: Mises didn't support ancaps he was a social democrat. Rothbard projected his own belief of "anarcho capitalism" (which he later admitted was nonsense as anarchism and capitalism are mutually exclusive) onto Mises.

You can look into this libertarian nonsense and it's just jewish cult piled on top of jewish cult.

praxeology has nothing to do with economics or marginal utility

at least not directly

It's just "Mises' opinion on how humans should act "logically" i.e. it's another jewish cult just like Ayn Rand's cult or Sigmund Freud's cult.

what do you think about Hobbes?

Seriously, do nobody on Sup Forums know this old image macro I am making fun off?

If economic actors maximize their utility, final resource allocation is necessarily Pareto efficient for all participants and therefore subjective utility is maximized for each individual.
Even if total utility is deemed immeasurable, market economy assures that resources are optimally allocated.

Yeah, I know praxeology is supposed to be deduction method for economics. However, isn't one of the things commonly argued for in Austrian circles is that utility, as viewed from 3rd parties perspective, isn't a priori knowledge and therefore cannot be deductively proven. Which makes it invalid in Austrian eyes.

It's not necessarily Pareto efficient, because even if government intervention initially makes someone worse off, they can be compensated for this later.

It's not about economics though it's about "Human Action"

>utility, as viewed from 3rd parties perspective, isn't a priori

a posteriori knowledge isn't "invalid"

I don't know where you got that idea.

If a posteriori knowledge is "invalid" then literally all forms of science are bunk.

Government does not possess required information to compensate individual an adequate amount of utility since, as you stated previously, according to Austrians government cannot measure utility. Even more so, given subjective nature of utility, government is incapable of maximizing aggregate utility in society. Only market participants themselves acting in their self-interest are capable of maximizing their own utility and since it is true for all individuals, overall utility is maximized.

Actually, subjective theory of utility is objection to redistribution. If there were 10 apples and 2 economic actors, if we knew marginal utilities of each apple consumed by each actor, we could meaningfully redistribute apples and maximize overall utility in society, but since utility is immeasurable and subjective, any 3rd party trying to redistribute wealth, would be playing guessing game.

I believe that one of quarter-stones of Mises argument is that economics isn't empirical science and all arguments should be deductively proven to give them logical rigidity.

Either way, the advantage of a market economy over a command economy is greater economic growth, and since Austrians don't use econometrics, they cannot lay claim to this.

>supported by a university
yeah, we was an academic
>never had a job
pick one, genius

>tutoring
>real job
Those that can, do. Those that can't, teach.

Lol. Maths is exactly the same, it's not proven or disproven by empirical evidence. If the first mathematician was jewish, Sup Forums would be saying that it was jewish craft to trick the goyim.

Stop wasting everyones time Anders.

It's one of advantages, greater economic growth is vague term in terms of determining what causes it. However, what can be surely said is that inability to measure aggregate utility does not disprove that markets maximize economic surplus or achieve Pareto efficient allocation within economy.
Also, subjective theory of utility helps to prove that no centralized body is capable of collecting same amount of information as market and therefore is not able to make optimal decisions.

>never held a job
>economic adviser to Ronald Reagan

k

> Government does not possess required information to compensate individual an adequate amount of utility
Major economics misunderstandings come from failing to understand that fact.

>University lecturer
>Tutor for aristocrats and wealthy brats
>Government minister
>Published philosopher, economist, moralist
Well, more than you'll ever accomplish in life. Those who can't do, become critics.

> all applications of his theories have lead to a better understanding of the driving factors behind economies

FTFY

>People unironically think Adam Smith is an ancap

Adam Smith advocated a regulated free market, where self-interest ruled over from selfishness, and the law was above the beliefs and desires of individuals.

Basically, Smith + Keynes are the master economists - and all the rest are subverting jews.

>economics isn't empirical science

In other words economics is just "philosophy" i.e. you can make up whatever bullshit you want regardless of the facts.

That would make economics even weaker and less accurate than social sciences like sociology.

>describes something that can be seen in the natural world
>describes something that makes predictions which we have seen to come true
>doesn't have a piece of paper from a modern university to say he thinks right
>OBVIOUSLY THIS MAN IS WRONG ABOUT EVERYTHING

The modern left, everybody

He became rich by playing the stock market. The dude wasn't just some dumbass.

...

He became rich by marrying into a wealthy family, being born into a wealthy family, and being appointed to a lucrative job as a customs official.

He didn't make money gambling on the stock market.

In the old days the stock market wasn't great at getting you money.

> Doesn't know maths isn't an empirical science

Empiricism works well for empirical sciences, when social sciences(like economics) start implementing that, everyone starts interpreting the facts like they want. Performing experiments in a controlled environment in a lab is very different from performing them in something as arbitrary and with as many variables as an economy. So I think that Mises is more consistent than any empirical approach.

See Empirical evidence in economics has limited value, as there are nearly infinite number of different variables and states which should accounted for, and given nature of economics are rarely repeatable. This makes observers mistake correlation for causation.
Even worse, theories which are based solely on empirical evidence cannot be proven or disproved completely. As there always is variable, state of variable or scenario which wasn't tested. Therefore, best you can do is to say that theory is correct with some kind of potential error alfa.

I can see a need for and appreciate empirical testing as a means to prove logical observations made in theoretical background but to use them as everything is madness. It gives way for nonsensical theories like Phillips curve and so on.

>Theory which gives policy proposals for combating economic downturn is responsible for wealth created in economic boom.

Kek. You have to be mad to believe in Post-Keynesianism

>never had a job except for that time he was a professor at a university which i guess isn't actually a job because shut up

>never had a job except for those jobs he had that I literally mention in the next sentence

>Marxism is so shit that even when compared to the most extreme possible alternative Marx is still an unemployable NEET
Commies, when will they learn?

By Austrian logic, a command economy is Pareto-efficient, because somebody would be made worse off by the transition to a market economy. If those who are made worse off could be compensated it would be a different story, but like you said, Austrian economics don't allow for compensation.

Mathematics is much more rigorous and formalized though.

So the two biggest champions of authentic Western economic thought are Paul Krugman and a degenerate queer. Oh boy..

I've been looking for this meme top kek