/lit/ - Literature

sounds interesting

>>15040752

I think the point of the book was to more cast doubt on these terms than to suggest we live in a “planned economy”. As in, maybe distinguishing between “planned” vs “market” isn’t that helpful and hides more about the economy we actually live in than it reveals, and also hides possibilities (obviously lefty in nature since the writers are socialists)

>>15040752
I remember Evola saying that communism and capitalism aren't all that different.
They're both trying to turn the world into a big factory in which every human is just a cog in a machine.
He even claimed that capitalism is worse than communism, because people participate in it voluntarily.

>>15040895
>Evola

>>15040895
I thought Evola was a proto fascist?

The book say we can do plane economy because we have bigger computers now so you know who needs 3 bread and who needs 5 bread you don't need an abacus and an abacus supervisor you can do it on an AI computer like Amazon has but the question of systemic motivation remains as there is no profit motive in communism so what inefficiencies would then thus emerge? Interesting stuff if a bit gay

>>15040874
But if our economy is planned in a few select boardrooms from top down, that is literally planned economy.

>>15040932
The book say we are already living in a planned economy, where most of the economic activity we partake in is in the hands of a few gigantic institutions.

Who cares if its state or private?

>>15040932

Jesus, where did you learn to write?

>>15040752
>capitalist planned economy
you mean mixed market economy?
yes like every country on earth

>>15040916
then you thought wrong and should probably read him.

>>15040950
Karl Marx would probably care if he wasn't dead

>>15040956
On the streets, primarily; followed by graduate work at the school of hard knocks

>>15041059
nah, that would be way better than what we have.

In proper social-liberalism we have options, we have a market economy with many economic actors doing their thing

Neoliberalism is building a giant beurocratic mess of a planned economy...

>>15040895
Evola is the retard' guenon and that's really saying something.

>>15041205
Planned economy is more efficient and less of a mess than market economy.

>>15041236
Are you an actual stalinist? Are you actually evil?

>>15040910
>>15040916
>>15041226
3 replies and not a single actual argument.
never change /lit/.

Yes. But the planning is not very good

>>15040916
yeah we don't say that word around here

>>15041205
>nah, that would be way better than what we have.
we have a mixed market economy retard.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed_economy

>>15041345
either read the book, discuss the idea of the book or be a faggot. Right now youre doing the latter.

>>15040752
no, we are living in a free market economy.

>>15041396
>being THIS mad that you're proven wrong
we live in a mixed market economy get over it

>>15041421
I think you might be a little retarded, just a little.

>>15041400

>>15040752
>anglo "socialism"

>>15040752
>capitalist planned economy
Makes no fucking sense as a planned economy is impossible

>weimar
Which is ironic since they got out of their crisis by reducing the monetary base, STOPPING printing money, stopping fixing prices, reducing income tax from 85% to 18%, among other measures to ensure a FREER MARKET, and then statists all over the world called it the "german miracle", and that the Marshall plan was responsible for it even though it was just a money lend for germans to buy american manufactured goods and even then it was just 1.2 billion dollars for the whole europe, basically nothing

>>15040916
Evola self identified as a SuperFascist

>>15041433
>I think you might be a little retarded, just a little.
yet you're the one crying lmao

>>15041465
>weimar
>Marshall plan

I love you. You epitomize /lit/

>>15041465
Planned economy has been entirely possible since the days of DOS and Doom brother

>>15041400
brb gonna open my insurance company ;)

>>15040895
>I remember Evola saying that communism and capitalism aren't all that different
This is something only a socialist would say, at which point the person is already brain dead

>They're both trying to turn the world into a big factory in which every human is just a cog in a machine
No nigger, capitalism is a system of voluntary trade using a currency and the possibility of owning said currency and goods that it buys (private property)
What ACTUALLY seeks to turn people into cogs in a machine is the STATE as it sees you as cattle that should only pay taxes and nothing more, hence why you'll be shot if you resist paying taxes in any socialistic country, even that which evola wanted

>He even claimed that capitalism is worse than communism, because people participate in it voluntarily
No, he claimed it was worse than communism because he was like every other mafia criminal that wanted to be a parasite over others work, and was afraid of people getting rich and technologically advanced enough to be able to choose which services and goods they need or feel it's better for them

>>15041512
ohnonono we have an actual libertarian.

>>15040950
>The book say we are already living in a planned economy, where most of the economic activity we partake in is in the hands of a few gigantic institutions
Except we aren't
https://www.google.com/amp/s/fee.org/articles/socialist-mag-mega-companies-like-amazon-and-walmart-show-that-central-planning-would-finally-work//amp

These giagantic corporations still need a system of prices to base their management on, and even then they constantly need to review the numbers to conform to reality, not the opposite

>>15041400
>no, we are living in a free market economy.
Yeah a free market economy where you can't use other currencies other than the state, you can't choose not to pay taxes, you can't sell oil if you find it in your garden, you can't employ someone without following strict government directives, one where the State keeps printing money and bailing out failing companies and banks
Yeah man totally free market

>>15041491
Im talking about the piece of land called germany you idiot, where the land called weimar republic was

>>15041564
If it weren't for the state, where would your property rights come from?

>>15041278
Yes.

>>15041579
This has to be a troll, why are all libertarians like this?

Maybe its like asking; why are all morons moronic?

>>15041492
>Planned economy has been entirely possible since the days of DOS and Doom
It has not and never will be as in the absence of private property and a market in the factors and means of production—along with capital markets and a relatively stable unit of money, which acts as the common denominator of accounting—the absence of prices for such factors would make economic calculation (i.e. cost and capital accounting) of projects being embarked upon impossible.

>>15041492
https://mises.org/library/review-oftowards-new-socialism-w-paul-cockshott-and-allin-f-cottrell

Besides, the State will always lead to crisis like we're seeing in venezuela and Argentina (and shortly in the entire world) due to debt creation to print money, which will lead to people creating ways to ESCAPE the State, like venezuelans creating hardware to buy and sell using bitcoin even without energy for some time
There is no where to run, socialism will end as humanity progresses

>>15040895
>He even claimed that capitalism is worse than communism, because people participate in it voluntarily.

That seems like a retarded opinion. Somehow being a forced slave is better than being able to voluntarily choose something else...

>>15041512

>he claimed it was worse than communism because he was like every other mafia criminal that wanted to be a parasite over others work

What do you think of our current system? Corporate culture seems to have devolved to this state, where cronies and talentless men become 'managers' that leech off of those with ability, while stifling said ability and garnishing the profits of those who are actually productive.

>>15041584
>If it weren't for the state, where would your property rights come from?
If you're asking how people would own land without the State, it has happened already in the US, there's a good book about it called bounderies of order by burton foldom

I doubt a single person in this thread could construct a basic neoclassical growth model using utility maximization calculus and Solow growth mathematics.

If you dont have formal, mathematically rigorous training in this topic, perhaps consider using this opportunity to learn rather than pontificate. After all, who would stand for a bunch of laypeople with a Dr Oz book giving their opinions on brain surgery?

>>15041684
>What do you think of our current system?
Absolute shit, it's a literal fascist economy (what they call "crony capitalism" now)

>Corporate culture seems to have devolved to this state, where cronies and talentless men become 'managers' that leech off of those with ability, while stifling said ability and garnishing the profits of those who are actually productive
Said companies should not exist and in a free market would break, either for not being able to compete or for losing productive members to better companies, the only reason they exist is because the Stafe keeps bailing them out and provides them with credit by artificially lowering interests rates (meaning the government prints money and gives them to these bad companies, which lets these companies survive until the government has to raise interest rates again, when then will cause a crisis, some companies will be able to get that sweet FED money, others will not)

>>15041699
The US worked by way of genociding indians westward. Settler colonial state works fine as long as there is fertile land to settle. But good luck finding such land today.

But who wants to live on a small farm anyways?

>>15040752
I thought it was obvious

>>15041717

>>15041717
Next your going to be telling me that I shouldn't be sucking dicks. Nice try looser.

>>15041717
>I doubt a single person in this thread could construct a basic neoclassical growth model using utility maximization calculus and Solow growth mathematics
And I doubt you could understand human action can't be described properly by mathematics, as if it was possible the 2008 crisis would have been predicted by academia (which wasn't by the way)
You can't quantify human action
Take the langragian multiplier used for consumer behavior, there one's utility depends on goods "x" and "y". The ability to have said goods is constrained by one's income and the prices paud for said goods.
To determine the "optimal" state the consumer can enjoy you idiots then use multivariable calculus to reach the equilibrium point, at that point the marginal utility of good "x" divided by the price of good "x" is equal to the marginal utility of "y" divided by the price of that good.
The problem with it is that this solution makes no sense, utility (consumer satisfaction) can't be measured in cardinal terms, you can say you like dicks more than balls, but you can't put that preference on cardinal numbers because you're that much if a faggot

>>15041717
Economics are different from anthropology retard.

>>15041732
>The US worked by way of genociding indians westward
So you're telling me the State is a genocidal sociopathic mafia? I agree

>Settler colonial state works fine as long as there is fertile land to settle. But good luck finding such land today
The book I refer to talks about the old west in areas where there were no indians even, so it was basically free market acting

>>15041732
>>15041699
also interesting note, Abraham Lincoln once likened wage labor to slavery. Turns out classical liberalism has very little to do with modern capitalism.

>>15041684
There's nothing wrong with being a man.

>>15041803
>utility (consumer satisfaction) can't be measured in cardinal terms
It can, but that point has nothing to do with the predictability of the 2008 crisis.

>>15041877
>It can
How? “utils” cannot actually be observed, measured, or compared between different economic goods or between individuals.
Its judt mental masturbation from people playing make believe

>>15041820
>the State is a genocidal sociopathic mafia

I mean sure, but most of the genociders were friendly settlers.

>The book I refer to talks about the old west in areas where there were no indians even, so it was basically free market acting
>the old west

Yes the "wild west" what a time of peace and prosperity. All a bunch of desperate gangsters and miners whoring about until they return east with their gold.

Is that your utopia?

Maybe it's because I'm European and I visit mostly American websites, but I really struggle to understand people who refer to the West as "capitalist" in a derogatory way. We have fucking free healthcare and welfare for anyone who doesn't want to work... you really think that's capitalism worth complaining about?

>>15041803
>NOOOOOO YOU CANT JUST MODEL THINGS USING MATHEMATICS WHAT ABOUT THE SPECIAL SPARK OF THE DIVINERINO WHAT ABOUT HECKIN GOOD FREE WILL NOOOOOOOOOOOO

>>15042027
You can predict economical events, just not with maths

>In using mathematics as the main tool for advancing economic thought, economists must operate on the assumption that human action adheres to a constant mathematical formula
>This is not to say that the use of logic is inappropriate in economic science. Indeed, the Austrian methodology draws heavily upon logical inferences in deducing economic science from the initial observation that people act
>However, while one can make logical deductions in observations of human action, it is impossible to make those deductions with the precision that mathematical reasoning requires. It is one thing to say (again) that I like chocolate better than vanilla; it is quite another to claim that a bit of chocolate gives me 6.7 "utils" of pleasure and that the same amount of vanilla yields only 4.2 "utils." The former way of "measuring" my preferences is entirely appropriate. That latter method, however, is not only inappropriate, but also downright silly. Yet, that is what the economic "mainstream" claims passes the "market test." One can only be thankful that mainstream economists are not in charge of building bridges, highways, and other structures

>>15041962
not being able to buy a luxury yacht with Jeff Bezos’s money is literally slavery

>>15041913
Utility and consumption sectors are simply just analyzed by the consumption patterns and market behavior of the individuals. You'd be surprised how much economic understanding has not even fundamentally moved beyond the basic mathematics from Pareto.

I mean, I'm reading Werner Hildebrand and he's still talking about Walrasian equilibriums (within the Core) and Paretian utility. An Edgeworth box, which some mathematical economists, is really the progenitor of the indifference curve utilized by Irving Fisher and Vilfredo Pareto.

Mathematical economics has come very far in definition and specificity, but the basic concepts are largely the same as they were for the last hundred years. We're just trying to specify whether you could measure the consumer or consumption sectors inherent functions (whether they be cardinal or ordinal) and whether they converge to a specific set of functions even if the distribution of the Walrasian equilibria is different?

So you can see that given identical behavior the market can fundamentally be different. Theoretical, mathematical economics basically tackles the issues you're talking about and then some.

But they move past it and still model economies regardless of that and they find that there is an existence of a compact subspace within the economy that comprises all Walrasian equilibria called the 'core'. This fundamental idea is present in Von Neumann and Morgenstern's Theory of Games and most game theory books published afterwards as well. The fundamental core of the game is the set of all Walrasian distributions within the σ-algebra C (of all non-atomic coalitions that could possibly form).

>>15040895
wow evola sounds hopelessly retarded

>>15042061
>>15041913
So to answer your question, utility is really just measured through probability or counting measures, as part of a subspace within a σ-field that is the mapping of the economy.

That is the short answer.

>>15041803
lmao you don't understand basic micro
>The problem with it is that this solution makes no sense, utility (consumer satisfaction) can't be measured in cardinal terms, you can say you like dicks more than balls, but you can't put that preference on cardinal numbers because you're that much if a faggot
doesn't matter, you don't have to assume cardinal utility has ontological meaning to calculate optimal consumption bundle, you just need to have a differentiable function that properly maps the preference schedule onto real numbers with linear ordering. according to basic theorems of micro, the equilibrium result will be invariant with respect to a monotonic transformation and therefore many different functions with different associated marginal utilities will yield the same equilibrium conditions which makes your objection baseless, no one in mainstream econ really thinks that cardinal utility has any ontological being, they just consider it a useful tool of analysis.

>>15042126
>doesn't matter, you don't have to assume cardinal utility has ontological meaning to calculate optimal consumption bundle, you just need to have a differentiable function that properly maps the preference schedule onto real numbers with linear ordering. according to basic theorems of micro, the equilibrium result will be invariant with respect to a monotonic transformation and therefore many different functions with different associated marginal utilities will yield the same equilibrium conditions which makes your objection baseless, no one in mainstream econ really thinks that cardinal utility has any ontological being, they just consider it a useful tool of analysis.
IN OTHER WORDS
When asked why they engage in such activities, economists usually admit that they cannot take cardinal measures of individual utility, nor can they compare the utility of one individual to another in cardinal terms. However, they then do it anyway, saying that while their activities are technically wrong, they pass the "market test" in economic analysis. People, they add, will "act as though they are engaging in measurement of cardinal utility," even if they really are not. In other words, even if something is not true, we pretend that it is true and act accordingly.

Youre just retarded, and admited being so
>. . . if a mathematical equation is not precise, it is worse than worthless; it is a fraud. It gives our results a merely spurious precision. It gives an illusion of knowledge in place of the candid confession of ignorance, vagueness, or uncertainty which is the beginning of wisdom.

>>15042110
>utility is really just measured through probability or counting measures
Its not, as this would mean its atributed a cardinal value

>>15041622
Read the book you pretentious faggot

>>15042094
>But they move past it and still model economies regardless of that and they find that there is an existence of a compact subspace within the economy that comprises all Walrasian equilibria called the 'core'. This fundamental idea is present in Von Neumann and Morgenstern's Theory of Games and most game theory books published afterwards as well. The fundamental core of the game is the set of all Walrasian distributions within the σ-algebra C (of all non-atomic coalitions that could possibly form).
This insanity now? The equilibrium economy is by definition a changeless and unending round of robotic behavior, everyone on the market has perfect knowledge of the present and the future, and the pervasive uncertainty of the real world drops totally out of the picture. Since there is no more uncertainty, profits and losses disappear, and every business firm finds that its selling price exactly equals its cost of production

>>15042180
No it could mean we're interpreting utility as being unique up to an order-preserving transformation (ordinal utility function). Mathematical economics is not solely focused on linear utility values...

:3

>>15042200
shut the fuck up you nigger, people like you are the reason I had to put 90% of my savings in gold and bitcoin

>>15042162
>nor can they compare the utility of one individual to another in cardinal terms
lmao you're a special kind of stupid. cardinal utility is used as a method of formalizing individual consumer choices, not optimality of distribution which is where you'd be interested in comparing intersubjective cardinal utilities. utility is not a fluid that a central planner might distribute among his subjects, it's simply a useful mathematical tool.
>People, they add, will "act as though they are engaging in measurement of cardinal utility," even if they really are not. In other words, even if something is not true, we pretend that it is true and act accordingly.
this is literally how any science works, the physicist has never seen an electron in his life and for all he cares an electron as described in textbooks might not even exist but the mathematical models of quantum physics yield testable results and generally do pretty well in confrontation with empirical reality.

>>15042229
>Mathematical economics is not solely focused on linear utility values...
>:3
Mathematical economics is not focused on reality to begin with
>>15041803
>>15041913

>>15042224
That's kind of the point of what I said... that the 'information set' of all the players in the game is imperfect, so given identical utility functions different Walrasian equilibria prevail for the market.

Actually, it's found that even with perfect information, different Walrasian equilibria could prevail. (I think it would be trivial to observe this in a case where the set of all preferences aren't convex at all, but solely monotonic, then you would necessarily be dealing with a subSPACE of which all the distributions of the Walrasian equilibria are a part).

>>15042240
>lmao you're a special kind of stupid. cardinal utility is used as a method of formalizing individual consumer choices, not optimality of distribution which is where you'd be interested in comparing intersubjective cardinal utilities. utility is not a fluid that a central planner might distribute among his subjects, it's simply a useful mathematical tool.
No, its not a useful tool, its absolute nonsense
At the interval level, we are saying that there is an identifiable, constant unit for measuring utility or preference. This necessarily implies that the nature of the satisfaction we derive from consumption of different goods is qualitatively the same. That is, the satisfaction or utility I get from drinking a big glass of iced tea after mowing the lawn, or from reading a good book, or riding my bicycle on the MKT Trail, or giving a really good economics lecture, are all qualitatively the same and therefore can be measured with the same scale, even though they may differ in magnitude.

It also implies that this completely internal event that we call satisfaction, which has no extension in space and no observable characteristics, is somehow objectively measureable at all. This is all patent nonsense, and we haven't yet even addressed the question of whether that identifiable unit of utility is the same for different individuals.

At the ratio level, we are saying that the concept of zero utility is meaningful. But how can this be? What is the total absence of satisfaction? Is utility always positive, like length or weight, or can it be negative? Could dissatisfaction be "negative" utility, or does that just mean that our actual "level" of satisfaction is lower than we would like?

We are all dissatisfied to some degree all the time, or we would never act. So are we always climbing toward zero on our utility scale, or climbing toward infinity? A ratio-level measure requires a nonarbitrary zero point, but there is no way of finding that. Zero utility is obviously nonsense; again, this is shown to be true before we ask whether my zero point and yours are the same or different.

>>15042242
We get that you childishly don't like mathematical economics, I'm just refuting your error of interpreting all utility functions as unique up to a linear transformation.

There are other ways to measure utility. And as a matter of fact, probabilities state that given every way you could behave, you don't behave the same way every time, and really your effective strategy in the σ-field economy is a Borel-measurable set of commodity preferences. So obviously not 'measuring your good x as bein 3.5 utils duurrrrrrrr'.

>>15042286
>I'm just refuting your error of interpreting all utility functions as unique up to a linear transformation.
Do you know what "take the X used for" means?
>>15041803
Its an example of how the simplest tool in mathnomics is utter bullshit, as the level of complexity arises the unrealisticness increases as well

>>15042274
>At the interval level, we are saying that there is an identifiable, constant unit for measuring utility or preference. This necessarily implies that the nature of the satisfaction we derive from consumption of different goods is qualitatively the same. That is, the satisfaction or utility I get from drinking a big glass of iced tea after mowing the lawn, or from reading a good book, or riding my bicycle on the MKT Trail, or giving a really good economics lecture, are all qualitatively the same and therefore can be measured with the same scale, even though they may differ in magnitude.

You both are obsessed with this interpretation of cardinal utility. Again, there were some assumptions made in John Von Neumann and Oskar Morgenstern's Theory of Games and Economic Behavior that required a linear utility value (which later economists would define as the cardinal utility function).

There are much more ways to measure utility, and Pareto, the father of scientific economics, measured utility using matrices of second-order partial derivatives. In other words, your utility actually is FIRST AND FOREMOST, measured against the utilities of all other individuals in the economy/society. This is a more rational valuation of utility and in line with Walrasian equilibria, but it does not give us the greatest results we could possibly receive.

Regardless, thanks to Shapley and Aumann, we do find that the Core of the game has a unique value, meaning that regardless of the Walrasian equilibria of your particular situation, given the parameters of the economy or society, the set of all possible outcomes would be represented as a certain value within the Borel-measurable sigma-field of the economy, based on the relative 'strength' or 'probabilities' or coalitions to form in the Borel-measurable set 'C'.

The fact that someone called this nonsense earlier is ridiculous in and of itself, but it's clear you don't want to consider mathematics, even if it expresses the same point that you are trying to say with the English language and more. Also that it moves BEYOND the initial understanding that was previously only able to be transferred using the English language.

Just some food for thought.

>>15042300
I know how to spot a 19 year old from very far away, kid, I've been on 4chan for a little while. You are saying linear utility this, cardinal utility that.

Do you even understand the difference between a cardinal utility function and an ordinal utility function?

>>15042274
>t. has never read an advanced textbook in microecon
>At the interval level, we are saying that there is an identifiable, constant unit for measuring utility or preference.
no it doesn't say that, you're hillariously misinformed lmao. utility analysis consists in this - suppose the individual's preference schedule is such that reading a good book is higher than drinking a big glass of iced tea, then simply proceed to ascribe a bigger numerical value to reading a book than to drinking iced tea, f.e. u(reading) = 2 > u(drinking) = 1. now proceed to find a differentiable utility function that has these properties and you're good to go - nothing of value was lost by assuming the function is differentiable and that preferences can be mapped onto reals, however we gained a lot because now our hypothetical Walrasian system can be solved (topologically speaking, this requires the assumption of differentiability which is precisely the point Caplan stressed in his critique of Austrian economics - if we were to have it the Mises' way we wouldn't be able to even talk about market equilibrium as there'd be none). so as you can see, all utility analysis requires is that different goods/activities can be compared with one another.
>
It also implies that this completely internal event that we call satisfaction, which has no extension in space and no observable characteristics, is somehow objectively measureable at all.
no one has ever bothered measuring utility so I don't know what you're talking about.
>his is all patent nonsense, and we haven't yet even addressed the question of whether that identifiable unit of utility is the same for different individuals.
why would you want to do that? do you want to redistribute money from the rich to the poor in accordance with the "greatest social good" principle?
> Is utility always positive, like length or weight, or can it be negative?
no and you'd know that if you ever bothered to read anything beyond your Austrian bullshit, utility can be negative, in fact the entire neoclassical doctrine of wages is based on the assumption that working is a disutility or negative utility.

>>15042332
>your utility actually is FIRST AND FOREMOST, measured against the utilities of all other individuals in the economy/society
So he assumed peeople are all npcs that follow the manade? This is still an austistic defintion as it means some consumer satisfaction is measured against the satisfaction of all other individual consumers, which is not what happens in reality at all

>>15042441
>it means some consumer satisfaction is measured against the satisfaction of all other individual consumers, which is not what happens in reality at all
It means that with respect to money, which is then compared to different goods with respect to the utility of that good to the masses, which is how exchange prices originates.

An exchange price has nothing to do with how much you enjoy, or how many utils you get out of something. All we know as scientific economists, is that you will buy something if the utility you get from it is greater than the exchange rate.

>>15042441
>So he assumed peeople are all npcs that follow the manade?
brainlet post. be honest - do you even know what a Hessian matrix is? how can you possibly believe you're in a good position to scrutinize mainstream economics when you obviously have poor knowledge of it?

>>15042085
This is what first world socialists actually believe. They literally want a repeat of the Soviet Union.

>>15042340
Preference scales are of course ordinal. Likert scales are also ordinal; these are the "strongly agree, agree, neutral, disagree, strongly disagree" types of questions you see on surveys or course evaluations. Ordinal data exist as a list, ordered from best to worst, most desirable to least desirable, or according to some other relevant criterion. The distinguishing feature of ordinal data is that there is no implied "distance" from one rank to the next. For example, the question of how much more you agree if you mark "strongly agree" rather than "agree" is meaningless
The category of cardinal data actually contains two subcategories. The next step up from ordinal is interval-level data. We don't encounter interval-level data much in the social sciences, but it is fairly common in natural sciences. Temperature is a commonly used interval scale. The amount of temperature change measured by one degree Fahrenheit is (roughly) constant over the range of temperatures encountered in the real world. When we say that 70°F is ten degrees hotter than 60°F, or that 90°F is five degrees hotter than 85°F, those are meaningful statements. Moreover, we can say that those two intervals are comparable; a ten-degree interval is twice as big as a five-degree interval. However, we cannot say the same thing about the temperatures themselves; to say that 90°F is "twice as hot" as 45°F is again meaningless
The final category of data is ratio-level data. Ratio-level data differ from interval-level data in that they have a meaningful zero point. The reason we can't meaningfully say that 90°F is twice as hot as 45°F is that the 0°F point was chosen arbitrarily. It doesn't have any connection to the actual heat content of the thing being measured. Length, on the other hand, is a ratio-level measure. Zero length is a clear, easily definable concept

>>15042489
>>15042340
Moreover, a negative amount can have meaning in a ratio-level measure. For instance, we use the negative sign to denote a sum of money we owe as opposed to money we have. A negative temperature just means it's getting colder.
When we transform an ordinal preference scale into the utility function that our neoclassical friends love so much, it has to become ratio-level data. The operations of calculus that we perform on utility functions, like differentiation and constrained optimization, require ratio-level numbers. Anything less than that gives meaningless results. You can see, then, that imputing cardinality is not one error, but two together. In treating preference scales as ratio-level data, we are adding two characteristics to the scale that were not there before
At the interval level, we are saying that there is an identifiable, constant unit for measuring utility or preference. This necessarily implies that the nature of the satisfaction we derive from consumption of different goods is qualitatively the same. That is, the satisfaction or utility I get from drinking a big glass of iced tea after mowing the lawn, or from reading a good book, or riding my bicycle on the MKT Trail, or giving a really good economics lecture, are all qualitatively the same and therefore can be measured with the same scale, even though they may differ in magnitude
It also implies that this completely internal event that we call satisfaction, which has no extension in space and no observable characteristics, is somehow objectively measureable at all. This is all NONSENSE, and we haven't yet even addressed the question of whether that identifiable unit of utility is the same for different individuals

>>15042472
Soviet Union was based
t. know people who lived there

It's socialism for the rich, paid for by everyone else.

Governments all over the world are centrally planning more and more, it's capitalism until companies take on losses, then it's socialism so they don't go under.

Frankly it's disgusting.

>>15042503
>>15042489
But you still haven't addressed whether participants in the economy having identifiable ordinal utility functions wouldn't work, you've still only tackled cardinal utility functions.

All you've said is that ordinal utility functions aren't quantifiable, but if they are all mapped on the same topology, do they not converge to a quantifiable core?

>>15042513
You don´t need anecdotal evidence. Surveys say pretty clearly that most Russians have better opinion of SSSR and socialism than they do about capitalism.

>>15042503
At the ratio level, we are saying that the concept of zero utility is meaningful. But how can this be? What is the total absence of satisfaction? Is utility always positive, like length or weight, or can it be negative? Could dissatisfaction be "negative" utility, or does that just mean that our actual "level" of satisfaction is lower than we would like?
We are all dissatisfied to some degree all the time, or we would never act. So are we always climbing toward zero on our utility scale, or climbing toward infinity? A ratio-level measure requires a nonarbitrary zero point, but there is no way of finding that. Zero utility is obviously nonsense; again, this is shown to be true before we ask whether my zero point and yours are the same or different

You're all educated morons

>>15042464
>how can you possibly believe you're in a good position to scrutinize mainstream economics when you obviously have poor knowledge of it?
Because it seems even an illiterate janitor knows that money doesnt create wealth

>It means that with respect to money
When I was talking about the utility of goods, are you seriously that dumb?

>>15042527
>But you still haven't addressed whether participants in the economy having identifiable ordinal utility functions wouldn't work
I have
>>15042162
>>15042489
>>15042503
>>15042535

>>15042535
>You're all educated morons
I find that being educated is a good thing generally speaking, discounting the idea of even measuring utility in the terms of every other participant in the economy fundamentally goes against Leon Walras, and therefore Karl Menger.

Congratulations.

>>15042529
>Surveys say pretty clearly that most Russians have better opinion of SSSR and socialism than they do about capitalism.
Young europeans and americans in college, specially women, also have a better opion of SSSR and socialism than in capitalism, some even try to convince others to vote in bernie sanders

>>15042547
Right, and I referenced two of those posts where you mentioned and briefly glossed over a rather faulty definition of ordinal utility (it's wrong, very wrong) and you decided to basically move on to talking incessantly about cardinal utility again.

Bud, see this post.
>>15042555

>>15042555
>discounting the idea of even measuring utility in the terms of every other participant in the economy fundamentally goes against Leon Walras, and therefore Karl Menger.
>Congratulations.
Dont think for a second I didnt notice your strawman, socialist scum

>>15042594
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%A9on_Walras
>Elements has Walras disagreeing with Jevons on the applicability, while the findings adopted by Carl Menger, he says, are completely in alignment with the ideas present in the book (even though expressed non-mathematically)

Huh.

>>15042514

>>15042535
>What is the total absence of satisfaction?
I dunno, ask your girlfriend

>>15042647
Ask your mom

>>15042555
>>15042464
>>15042457
fine you destroyed me, I didnt understand 99% of your posts and I was just trying to post anything related to what you might have been saying to win a discussion
my feelings over economics that uses difficult maths is still that of contempt because it never works and its hard to understand, while austrian economics is simple and its seems to always work on my daily life

>>15040895
>evola

>>15040895
>everyone is a cog in a machine
Yup Evola is an actual retard. Read Marx and Lafargue one of the final goals of communism is to reach a post work society.

>>15040895
Based Evola
Read Baudrillard's small essay on Bataille to confirm

>>15043182
>one of the final goals of communism is to reach a post work society
What is a post work society, you mean when people go drink at the happy hour?

It's planned in real time tho.
The legit parts of psychology enable npc farming.

>>15044326

>>15041400
>Free market
>Government gives 3 trillion in gibs to the banks and big companies
>Free market

>>15044562
Yes.

>>15044573
The only freedom you have is to get fucked in the buck by the 1% bucko

>>15044562
They were set free and were eventually able to buy the government. What do you not understand about capitalism?

>>15044915
Why people think it's a workable system. If it's based on people selfishness then clearly someone will destroy it for everyone else as soon as they can. As evidenced by our modern economy.

>>15040752
Still hasn’t disproved Hayek

>>15040932
BAP, is that you?

The amount of people in this thread spitting absolute nonsense about socialism is far too fucking high.

It is very simple. If you want to discuss communism or socialism without looking like a fucking imbecile, then read Marx at the very least. In particular Capital and Grundrisse.

>>15041326
The only people who hate that word are cryptofash

>>15041226
Forgot the (pbuh)

>>15046517
I don't know if you've noticed, comrade, but we are practically surrounded by cryptofash.

>>15042472
most modern socialists are demsocs or some form of anarchist dipshit

>>15046538
don't bully him, he probably gets all of his political knowledge from anime image boards and twitter

>>15040916
Yes, he invented fascism.

>>15046474
I know this might seem really fucking stupid because we're on a literature board but you can't expect everyone in the world to read theory

In order to increase class consciousness we can't just expect a layman to read 100 year old books. It's up to the people who can read those books to elucidate their fellow man.