Philosophical Foundations of Carl Menger

Posted by dbhalling 3 years, 11 months ago to Philosophy
4 comments | Share | Flag

Menger is arguing that science involves a theoretical side that is impervious to empirical data. This sounds a lot like Brentano’s idea of “inner perception”, which “provides an unmistakable evidence for what is true.” Menger says there is a second side of economics (science) which is empirical and never provides “exact” true theories in economics or science generally.
SOURCE URL: https://hallingblog.com/2016/12/06/philosophical-foundations-of-carl-menger/


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by Zenphamy 3 years, 10 months ago
    Menger is a fool talking to other fools.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 3 years, 10 months ago
      This is a side post for an article I have written on the epistemology of the Austrians (Menger, Mises, Hayek). I submitted the paper to the Journal of Ayn Rand Studies.

      Too many Objectivists fall for the Austrians and believe that Austrian Economics is compatible with Objectivism. As a result, they do not try to discover an economics that is consistent with Objectivism.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Snezzy 3 years, 10 months ago
    Going out on a limb, I offer a bit of commentary on wealth and value.

    An objective system of economics must address the creation of wealth and the trading of values.

    Some would-be economists within Objectivism use the phrase "value for value" which to me suggests that the values involved are somehow equal. That can no more be true than a statist's assignment of a "just price" to anything. Rand said (and I quote only from memory) that the concept of "value" implies an answer of "to whom? And for what purpose?" Thus giving a dollar value to goods, even heavily traded commodities, captures only the price at the moment, paid and accepted by the parties to the trade. In a thin market the dollar value might be even more tenuous.

    Wealth, in my view, is created by agriculture, by mining, and by manufacture. All else is the moving, preservation, use, or destruction of wealth. Sometimes it is all of those things at once, as the value of the wealth differs over individual people and their purposes.

    Has any economic theory addressed these issues from an Objectivist standpoint? Certainly not Menger's. Or is there someone ready to put that theory together?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 3 years, 10 months ago
      Wealth is created by the mind applied to objective problems and the result is inventions or technology..

      I have thought about writing a piece on what would be an objective standard of value in economics. The most important objective value/need of humans is the ability to obtain enough calories (obviously you need air and water and micro nutrients, but this is a convenient stand in). The question is how much on average do you have to work to obtain enough calories for one day. For most of human history it took a full working day for most people to obtain enough calories for a day.

      With this you can more accurately compare prices across different time frames.

      Back to your question, other than me I do not believe any Os have addressed this issue at least not well. Most Os with an economic bent have accepted the Austrians with some reservations. Richard Salsman has rejected the Austrians, but I do not see that he has solved these problems
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo