La Bocca della Verita

"Mises may be correct (each actor acts on his...

2012-05-26T10:13:19.563-04:00

"Mises may be correct (each actor acts on his own value scale)"

Geertz never denies this.

It's funny to see Mises sometimes declare that...

2012-05-26T10:11:27.178-04:00

It's funny to see Mises sometimes declare that every animal is the implacable enemy of every other animal except its mate and offspring, as though he had never encountered pack or herd animals!

Thanks! Fixed.

2012-05-26T10:10:14.136-04:00

Thanks! Fixed.

I wonder if the confusion here comes from whether ...

2012-05-25T18:09:00.707-04:00

I wonder if the confusion here comes from whether one uses AND vs. OR vs. XOR to join analyses.

I think the correct operator is AND. Mises may be correct (each actor acts on his own value scale), but Gertz may be correct as well (cultural influences are responsible for many of the orderings on our scales).

I'm not sure if the other operators are useful. XOR seems wrong. OR is probably wrong.

broken link

2012-05-25T18:04:24.962-04:00

broken link

Forget people. The methodological individualists s...

2012-05-25T17:02:31.438-04:00

Forget people. The methodological individualists show no understanding of mammals.

Do they skate around carrying sticks at their conv...

2012-05-25T15:25:51.892-04:00

Do they skate around carrying sticks at their conventions?

Was it a convention of Keynesian economists ?

2012-05-24T23:39:41.494-04:00

Was it a convention of Keynesian economists ?

The photo is of a gimmicky "mouth of truth&qu...

2012-05-24T12:44:17.174-04:00

The photo is of a gimmicky "mouth of truth" machine in Siena -- you put money in, and the truth about you spits out. The real "mouth of truth" is in Rome from 1st century AD.

Which is sad that I didn't know the title (hun...

2012-05-24T12:41:53.041-04:00

Which is sad that I didn't know the title (hung up on "Bocca" - I know Verita, because my wife has a little figurine of the statue from her travels.

Meh - it doesn't do anything to the English. B...

2012-05-24T12:40:37.166-04:00

Meh - it doesn't do anything to the English. But no I know what your title means. I never bothered to look it up before.

btw - google informs me that your page is in Itali...

2012-05-24T12:39:45.308-04:00

btw - google informs me that your page is in Italian, and it prompts me to translate :) I wonder what would happen to the English if I do.

Yes. This is why I don't really care ab...

2012-05-24T12:39:02.740-04:00

Yes. This is why I don't really care about all those interpersonal utility comparison complaints.

You should only really care about interpersonal utility comparisons if you think there's some value to appeasing Felix.

Otherwise, who cares?

Granted - people who also don't worry about interpersonal utility comparisons should be more explicit about what it is they can "prove". Many are explicit about this (http://factsandotherstubbornthings.blogspot.com/2011/10/who-said-it.html), but many aren't.

"Sure; but then you leave yourself open to th...

2012-05-24T11:55:22.327-04:00

"Sure; but then you leave yourself open to the charge "Well, Romer is popular BECAUSE she over-simplified Keynes, while it is Brown that really gets it.""

Maybe, but the original point was determining what is *typical*, not "deep" or "true" or "thorough". Hopefully those things coincide, but they don't necessarily.

"If I am writing a paper on Hayek's business cycle theory, I certainly don't need to have read The Road to Serfdom or The Fatal Conceit, or 80% of what he wrote."

Certainly true. But my original point was consulting 100 books dedicated to a single topic. So if you are writing a paper (or a detailed and damning blog post) about Hayek's business cycle theory, and especially his views on the effects of trade, then surely you must consult "his 1927 weekly report for The Austrian Institute for Business Cycle Research on trade fluctuations in Bohemia!"

-Ash

"(1) we also learn things other people tell u...

2012-05-24T10:32:03.379-04:00

"(1) we also learn things other people tell us to learn;"

Absolutely.

"(2) when looking for "typical" views, it doesn't make sense to go after "obscure" anything"

Sure; but then you leave yourself open to the charge "Well, Romer is popular BECAUSE she over-simplified Keynes, while it is Brown that really gets it."

"However, hopefully you'll agree that's not scholarly and academic..."

Not to read all 100 of someone's books before saying ANYTHING about him? No, that is flat-out wrong. It would be unscholarly to write a *biography* of the person without reading (almost) everything they wrote; but a paper discussing one aspect of their work? Then you just have to have read what is relevant there. If I am writing a paper on Hayek's business cycle theory, I certainly don't need to have read The Road to Serfdom or The Fatal Conceit, or 80% of what he wrote.

While I agree with the general thrust of your post...

2012-05-24T02:31:49.141-04:00

While I agree with the general thrust of your post, I have a few nits to pick.

First, and I think you flirted with this in your post, is that what we choose to learn is hugely dependent on what others we trust instruct or inspire us to learn (and to avoid). Think of the required readings in a class, or the footnotes in a book, or the recommendation of a friend or parent.

Second, i think your observation of the Lord Keynes-Murphy row is misguided. Murphy was looking for standard, mainstream consensus. Now, I've never heard of E. Cary Brown, but a quick Google Scholar search seems to imply that his biggest claim to fame is the AER article the LK referred to, with about 270 citations. Christina Romer, on the other hand, has at least 7 publications (again, according Google) that have over 300 citations. Surely, then, when one is looking for the "typical" and "serious" view, the view of one of the most well-known, and widely read people in the field should be more likely to be considered than that of an *obscure* (by today's standards) figure?

Lastly, at least it makes *sense* that if you are going to categorically criticize (or critique) the thinking of a single person, it seems only fair to consider the entire corpus of that individual person's thought on the subject. But, I'll concede that if a person that written 100 books on the subject, and the thinking does not seem to have changed much in 10 or 20 (or maybe even 5) books from across the timeline of the anthology, then it might be sensible for a person to casually claim they "know" the authors position. However, hopefully you'll agree that's not scholarly and academic--which is a completely separate matter altogether, especially since scholars and academicians can be monetarily compensated for their time learning about other things.

In conclusion: (1) we also learn things other people tell us to learn; (2) when looking for "typical" views, it doesn't make sense to go after "obscure" anything; and finally (3), selective and cursory readings are ok for a casual understand, but probably can't be classified as scholarly or academic.

"If so, I will overlook your hurtful comment....

2012-05-24T00:35:04.434-04:00

"If so, I will overlook your hurtful comment."

The one where I implied you were unfamiliar with the work of obscure Keynesians from the 50s?

I am very sorry about that.

as if, faced with the problem of catching a li...

2012-05-23T23:13:17.752-04:00
as if, faced with the problem of catching a lion, their solution was "Catch two lions and let one go!")

Did you make that up? If so, I will overlook your hurtful comment.

I think Bryan Caplan's idea of an ideological ...

2012-05-23T20:08:17.574-04:00
I think Bryan Caplan's idea of an ideological Turing test is a useful way to figure out if you should pay attention to people who are inclined to ignore. Some code monkey needs to do some work on a platform for that kind of thing.

I actually did read those. And, if you look at th...

2012-05-23T10:55:31.154-04:00
I actually did read those. And, if you look at the one by Holcombe, you find that his example is the thoroughfares between businesses. He states that this is common property, but I think that is ridiculous. Rather, thoroughfares are private property that the owners have seen fit to allow others to use for mutual benefit. This isn't too much different than a business putting a butt-can outside their door so that smokers don't litter his entrance with cigarette butts.

To be fair to everybody here Kevin Carson isn'...

2012-05-22T22:57:27.792-04:00
To be fair to everybody here Kevin Carson isn't the first guy I'd go to to gauge what libertarians generally think (not because he's not one, but because he wrote a book on the labor theory of value) .

Fortunately Stephen Kinsella does us the favor in the comment section of pointing out several other relatively prominent libertarians who argue such a thing can exist.

Gene, we can't discuss this here, but there...

2012-05-22T21:45:38.101-04:00
Gene, we can't discuss this here, but there's something I need to talk to you about, concerning your recent defection from libertarianism... Shh! I don't want anyone else to hear me.

I always do that and it usually works. There was, ...

2012-05-22T19:31:06.557-04:00
I always do that and it usually works. There was, however, one time when I spoke to an owner quietly about an issue I had with a product and he went ballistic. Apparently he had a reputation for poor customer service, rudeness, and high prices. His shop closed down the next year. Felt good.

Well, I am aware of anthropological studies that s...

2012-05-22T18:02:31.823-04:00
Well, I am aware of anthropological studies that say that communal property preceded private property. However, we don't know whether those beings that they were looking at were conscious as we are or not. Also, we don't know whether they understood private property, but decided that sharing was the best course of action. One thing that I do know is that current humans tend to know "mine" before "ours", and typically only share out of personal kindness rather than any sort of inherent aspect of the societal structure.

"It is my belief that even the conception of ...

2012-05-22T17:48:05.577-04:00
"It is my belief that even the conception of any other form of ownership is preceded by private property."

Maybe, but I doubt it. I think the first property was probably clan property, and private property only evolved later from that.