Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week

[Einherjar86]

It doesn't have to be monetary value. Money is merely a transaction medium. It perceives wealth and power available. Value. Collectives are no more noble than this. (Actual) Collectives are formed in ways that the participants perceive will bring them the most individual value.

It does have to be monetary value when wealth and power are commodified and monopolized.

It was the language intended by the writers. That doesn't necessarily say anything about the rest of the culture/people brought into submission at the time.

I don't understand. I agree it was the language intended by the writers; but it could also be intended for the purpose of empathic persuasion rather than intended as actual principles to operate by. Whether or not other people even read the Constitution or how they understood it is beside the point.

 

[Dak]

It does have to be monetary value when wealth and power are commodified and monopolized.

Money is a means of exchange. Anything and everything can have monetary value, and such value can fluctuate constantly depending on individual valuations. To claim something has monetary value is kind of an empty statement without either a load of assumptions or careful dictation of context.

I don't understand. I agree it was the language intended by the writers; but it could also be intended for the purpose of empathic persuasion rather than intended as actual principles to operate by. Whether or not other people even read the Constitution or how they understood it is beside the point.

While I think it's fairly obvious that the preamble should not be considered part of the [governing] portion of the Constitution, the "general Welfare clause" has pretty much justified everything a libertarian would have a fit about.

I concur with Lysander Spooner:

But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.

This was written well over 100 years ago, way before the World Wars and New Deals.

 

[Einherjar86]

Money is a means of exchange. Anything and everything can have monetary value, and such value can fluctuate constantly depending on individual valuations. To claim something has monetary value is kind of an empty statement without either a load of assumptions or careful dictation of context.

In the historical context of early America and/or early expansion and colonization of the continent, monetary value is important because everything is quantified in terms of currency. In such a situation, any claims to wealth or power made by governmental institutions must also be claims to possess a certain amount of monetary value. If the government takes part in capitalist enterprise, then it looks to assert its dominance and power in forms of capital accumulation. Furthermore, if it desires instruments to perpetuate its power, those instruments can only be attained by spending money. The government thus invests money in areas that benefit its interests.

While I think it's fairly obvious that the preamble should not be considered part of the [governing] portion of the Constitution, the "general Welfare clause" has pretty much justified everything a libertarian would have a fit about.

I concur with Lysander Spooner:



This was written well over 100 years ago, way before the World Wars and New Deals.

Of course that clause would drive a libertarian to fits; I'm not saying the government operates in ways that are either collectivist or free market. But it does manipulate the language of collectivism in order to appeal to certain altruistic ideals; not to convince people to act that way, but to persuade them to submit.

I didn't think Lysander Spooner was capitalist in any remote sense of the word.

 

[Dak]

In the historical context of early America and/or early expansion and colonization of the continent, monetary value is important because everything is quantified in terms of currency. In such a situation, any claims to wealth or power made by governmental institutions must also be claims to possess a certain amount of monetary value. If the government takes part in capitalist enterprise, then it looks to assert its dominance and power in forms of capital accumulation. Furthermore, if it desires instruments to perpetuate its power, those instruments can only be attained by spending money. The government thus invests money in areas that benefit its interests.

Wealth yes, assuming government has monopolized money creation. Power only indirectly, as it is used to pay for the military. The state participates in capital accumulation purely by existence, as land is capital, as are the people if taxes are levied. Military wealth/power is another form.

I didn't think Lysander Spooner was capitalist in any remote sense of the word.

Individualist anarchist, entrepreneur. Looks like he was to me. I know he supported the labor movement, which in and of itself is not "anti-capitalist". Where unions go awry is when a business must hire union employees. People should have the right to form the organizations and associate as they so wish, whether it be a business or a union. Part of freedom of association is to not hire unionized workers.

 

[Dak]

http://mises.org/daily/6262/Capitalism

@Pat

Yes I know, as if you don't have enough to read.

 

[Einherjar86]

http://mises.org/daily/6262/Capitalism

@Pat

Yes I know, as if you don't have enough to read.

Christ, where do I even start?

Much of what Mises says is accurate; where he errs so often isn't in his assessment of a capitalist economy, it's in his criticism of Marxism. This is why he strikes me so often as an irrational and excessively emotional writer. He gets so worked up when someone is criticizing his precious capitalism that he doesn't take the time to truly understand the argument.

He acknowledges that there is a "beginning" of capitalism:

Two hundred years ago, before the advent of capitalism, a man's social status was fixed from the beginning to the end of his life; he inherited it from his ancestors, and it never changed. If he was born poor, he always remained poor, and if he was born rich — a lord or a duke — he kept his dukedom and the property that went with it for the rest of his life.

And I agree with this; capitalism did in fact introduce a greater degree of social mobility and economic freedom. I don't agree in his teleological reasoning (i.e. that capitalism is the best of all possible systems).

Capitalism coincided with several complementary philosophical movements: Locke's individualism and Hume's skepticism, most importantly. Capitalism makes sense within this philosophical-historical context, and it is certainly true that it preempted a reconstitution of the human subject that provided more individual liberty and mobility for far more people.

Marx himself acknowledges that capitalism coincided with an emancipatory cultural movement that saw the decline of feudalism and the rise of a more modern, less authoritarian form of life.

For Mises, capitalism is the culmination of thousands of years of human history in bondage to some form of authoritarianism, although technically using this term prior to the Middle Ages is anachronistic. Once capitalism hits, standard of living increases, and it becomes impossible for him to conceive of flaws in the system that justify questioning it as a whole. Teleologically, capitalism is the epitome of human history for Mises. It is the end of history.

I don't believe in an end of history, and I don't believe that capitalism truly constitutes an end of authortarianism. It's never in the theoretical principles of a system where abuse appears; it's in their manifestation in practice.

The famous old story, repeated hundreds of times, that the factories employed women and children and that these women and children, before they were working in factories, had lived under satisfactory conditions, is one of the greatest falsehoods of history.

Who "famously" told this story? Who actually believes that women and children lived in relatively satisfactory conditions during the Middle Ages? No respectable historian or modern student of the humanities, that's for sure. The majority of people lived in abject poverty, that's the standard lesson taught in history classes. It isn't taught that living conditions for the working class immediately improved after the advent of industrialism, if that's what Mises is peeved about; but then, it's true that they didn't. Everyone didn't suddenly have extra money with which to move into a better house, and the conditions in which plenty of workers spent their days and nights weren't enviable. It's true that capitalist production created a surplus of goods to complement a growing populace, but it isn't true that it turned everyone's home into a lap of luxury. In this case, it isn't twentieth century historians I trust; it's primary source documents.

Mises is unable to qualify Marx's argument as anything other than illogical rhetoric aimed at exploiting human suffering because he refuses to consciously accept the idea that history might continue after capitalism and might discover a different route. Throughout all ages of the past the ruling ideology has rationalized itself to itself, so that eventually no other possibility exists. History happened the way it happened because it had to happen that way; and capitalism stands poised to accept the equivocations of scholars and rhetoricians that speak to its ethical inexorability.

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

Jesus, my mind just melted

Ein, what did you Major in? if ya don't mind my asking.

 

[Einherjar86]

I majored in English, but I have a Master's in the Humanities from Chicago. Most of my knowledge in theory/philosophy originated there. I just started my English PhD at Boston U this fall.

 

[Dak]

For Mises, capitalism is the culmination of thousands of years of human history in bondage to some form of authoritarianism, although technically using this term prior to the Middle Ages is anachronistic. Once capitalism hits, standard of living increases, and it becomes impossible for him to conceive of flaws in the system that justify questioning it as a whole. Teleologically, capitalism is the epitome of human history for Mises. It is the end of history.

Freedom of association and expression (among other freedoms) leads to the exact opposite of the end of history. To have an "end of history" you must have a stasis, rigid and unchanging institutions, customs, etc.

Who "famously" told this story? Who actually believes that women and children lived in relatively satisfactory conditions during the Middle Ages? No respectable historian or modern student of the humanities, that's for sure. The majority of people lived in abject poverty, that's the standard lesson taught in history classes. It isn't taught that living conditions for the working class immediately improved after the advent of industrialism, if that's what Mises is peeved about; but then, it's true that they didn't. Everyone didn't suddenly have extra money with which to move into a better house, and the conditions in which plenty of workers spent their days and nights weren't enviable. It's true that capitalist production created a surplus of goods to complement a growing populace, but it isn't true that it turned everyone's home into a lap of luxury. In this case, it isn't twentieth century historians I trust; it's primary source documents.

Reading comprehension failure. It's a common story, no one famous in particular told it. But I know I read these sentiments in the course of various textbooks and some left leaning works, essentially a more modern take on the "noble happy savage", the noble happy peasant. Of course increases in living standards are not immediate, in fact, capitalism requires saving first, which may be an initial decrease in living standard, to increase it in the long term. We may revisit Bastiat's "That which is seen and that which is not seen". Capitalism cannot guarantee ALL will benefit (particularly those who do nothing), and yet it most certainly has, as even the poorest elements of society living on the castoffs are generally in better position than most of humanity through most of history, having at least such essentials as shoes and enough calories.

Mises is unable to qualify Marx's argument as anything other than illogical rhetoric aimed at exploiting human suffering because he refuses to consciously accept the idea that history might continue after capitalism and might discover a different route. Throughout all ages of thexian econo past the ruling ideology has rationalized itself to itself, so that eventually no other possibility exists. History happened the way it happened because it had to happen that way; and capitalism stands poised to accept the equivocations of scholars and rhetoricians that speak to its ethical inexorability.

Yet you are not putting forth any substantial rebuttal to Mises qualification of Marx. Even were Austrian School's (since I want to distinguish the Austrian school of capitalism from the mainstream economic branches like the Chicago School and Keynesianism) teachings ever found dominant at some point in the future and then eventually abandoned, this does not change the status of critiques of Marxian economic thought.

It's pretty obvious that all Capitalist economic theory is not one homogeneous suite, lthough it's possible it's not obvious here because the few that discuss things in this thread from a capitalist view are more or less Austrian.

Mainstream economics disagrees quite often with the Austrian approach, and we see where it has lead in the global economic situation. Austrianism is really not compatible with the coercive state, and so will be more or less marginalized as long as the state exists. For a state to accept Austrianism would be suicide in the long term, as all historical sources of state funding and function would be rightly, ideologically, off limits.

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

I majored in English, but I have a Master's in the Humanities from Chicago. Most of my knowledge in theory/philosophy originated there. I just started my English PhD at Boston U this fall.

Well that explains it.

Every time you and Dak go back and forth I'm on Google half the time looking for definitions and terminologies. I'm out of my league.

Am I the only person that reads these debates? lol

 

[Einherjar86]

Reading comprehension failure. It's a common story, no one famous in particular told it. But I know I read these sentiments in the course of various textbooks and some left leaning works, essentially a more modern take on the "noble happy savage", the noble happy peasant. Of course increases in living standards are not immediate, in fact, capitalism requires saving first, which may be an initial decrease in living standard, to increase it in the long term. We may revisit Bastiat's "That which is seen and that which is not seen". Capitalism cannot guarantee ALL will benefit (particularly those who do nothing), and yet it most certainly has, as even the poorest elements of society living on the castoffs are generally in better position than most of humanity through most of history, having at least such essentials as shoes and enough calories.

It's not "reading comprehension failure"; it's poor writing. Mises said that this story has been repeated hundreds of times; he makes it sound as though it's some mainstream belief, which is completely misleading.

No respectable textbooks or history classes promote the idea that the peasants/farmers prior to industrialization lived in satisfactory conditions or conditions that were superior to modern industrial conditions. The valorization and elevation of the noble peasant who lived happily off the land and enjoyed a simple, pastoral existence is the myth of the Legitimists. These were members of the late and dwindling aristocracy who sought to preserve their status by appealing to the simpler and superior ways of medieval feudalism. It's commonly viewed today not as a historical fact, but as an ideological maneuver that is incredibly misleading. Modern historical materialists in the Marxist tradition in no way maintain the fantasy that feudal peasants enjoyed some kind of ideal pastoral existence.

Yet you are not putting forth any substantial rebuttal to Mises qualification of Marx. Even were Austrian School's (since I want to distinguish the Austrian school of capitalism from the mainstream economic branches like the Chicago School and Keynesianism) teachings ever found dominant at some point in the future and then eventually abandoned, this does not change the status of critiques of Marxian economic thought.

Marx's legacy is in his refutation of capitalism as a natural system and his exposition of it as an ideological framework that relies on consistent and homogeneous values. The reason why Mises's vision is an "end of history" view is that it puts forth the opinion that free market capitalism is ultimately the best economic system. It isn't some institution-less mechanism that simply exists as a natural structure; it's a man-made ideology that thrives on a specific set of values.

There is no guarantee of the values of capitalism to be found a priori, or in nature. All the values that capitalism requires to persist can be refuted and negated, thus obviating any argument to naturalize it.

 

[Zephyrus]

Well that explains it.

Every time you and Dak go back and forth I'm on Google half the time looking for definitions and terminologies. I'm out of my league.

Am I the only person that reads these debates? lol

I read them half the time and they remind me why I'm studying the ancient world, because they knew fuck all about economics.

 

[viewerfromnihil]

The "famous story" seems to be a mis-step on Mises' behalf. Many historical textbooks (undergrad texts that I've read at least) have a tendency to avoid delving into living conditions of the "common man" prior to the industrial revolution, but I haven't yet seen a historical work that speaks of the pre-industrial revolution living standards of peasants in a commendatory manner. When speaking of living conditions during the industrial revolution, however, living conditions consume a large portion of the text. From this, I can see where Mises is coming from, but the "famous story" is more a lack of a story.

Well that explains it.

Every time you and Dak go back and forth I'm on Google half the time looking for definitions and terminologies. I'm out of my league.

Am I the only person that reads these debates? lol

I try to read most of them.

 

[Einherjar86]

Here's an interesting article (by a science fiction writer) that deals with the "death of communism." He isn't so interested in communism's economic components, but in what it came to signify for twentieth century revolutionaries:

http://www.aeonmagazine.com/world-views/ken-macleod-socialism-and-transhumanism/

Now, with the death of communism and social democracy's struggle to sustain its postwar gains, the idea of the whole of humanity as a potential political subject barely exists. Socialism is dead, and its death — as Nietzsche observed of God’s — has had unexpected effects. One of the less happy consequences of the end of socialism as a mass ideology is the end of humanity as an imagined community. This has consequences in our real communities; the rise of far-right parties across Europe is one of them.

 

[Dak]

Good discussion material here, will try and hit it when I'm not limited on my phone.

 

[Dak]

It's not "reading comprehension failure"; it's poor writing. Mises said that this story has been repeated hundreds of times; he makes it sound as though it's some mainstream belief, which is completely misleading.

No respectable textbooks or history classes promote the idea that the peasants/farmers prior to industrialization lived in satisfactory conditions or conditions that were superior to modern industrial conditions. The valorization and elevation of the noble peasant who lived happily off the land and enjoyed a simple, pastoral existence is the myth of the Legitimists. These were members of the late and dwindling aristocracy who sought to preserve their status by appealing to the simpler and superior ways of medieval feudalism. It's commonly viewed today not as a historical fact, but as an ideological maneuver that is incredibly misleading. Modern historical materialists in the Marxist tradition in no way maintain the fantasy that feudal peasants enjoyed some kind of ideal pastoral existence.

Can you say that with certainty regarding the textbooks of Mises' era?

Marx's legacy is in his refutation of capitalism as a natural system and his exposition of it as an ideological framework that relies on consistent and homogeneous values. The reason why Mises's vision is an "end of history" view is that it puts forth the opinion that free market capitalism is ultimately the best economic system. It isn't some institution-less mechanism that simply exists as a natural structure; it's a man-made ideology that thrives on a specific set of values.

There is no guarantee of the values of capitalism to be found a priori, or in nature. All the values that capitalism requires to persist can be refuted and negated, thus obviating any argument to naturalize it.

I think you are mixing apples and oranges here, and I think we have sort of touched on this deviation in the past. I would agree that mankinds default nature is not pure capitalism. It would quite clearly lean towards mercantilism (protectionism in general), or something of a similar nature relative to the institutions, technology, and capital available.

Economists in the Austrian school sought to find and teach the natural economic laws, not what humanity as predisposed always to follow, but what would work and not work depending on what was done, just as 2+2=4 (regardless of what symbology is used).

Keynesianism, Communism, Moneterism, etc are all other theories on economic "law" and what is possible or not possible. So far we are living the result of Neokeynesianism, which is more or less an amalgamation of Keynesian and Friedmanite (Moneterist) thought.

The "famous story" seems to be a mis-step on Mises' behalf. Many historical textbooks (undergrad texts that I've read at least) have a tendency to avoid delving into living conditions of the "common man" prior to the industrial revolution, but I haven't yet seen a historical work that speaks of the pre-industrial revolution living standards of peasants in a commendatory manner. When speaking of living conditions during the industrial revolution, however, living conditions consume a large portion of the text. From this, I can see where Mises is coming from, but the "famous story" is more a lack of a story.

Am I the only one who finds this discrepancy worth noting? Shifts towards capitalism made these very questions possible (for obviously questions on the plight of the peasant would be met with.....nothing available for them more or less), and yet this is ignored. Again, the seen versus the unseen.

Here's an interesting article (by a science fiction writer) that deals with the "death of communism." He isn't so interested in communism's economic components, but in what it came to signify for twentieth century revolutionaries:

http://www.aeonmagazine.com/world-views/ken-macleod-socialism-and-transhumanism/

I think the rise of the nationalist parties should be of no surprise, except to those who thought that basic human responses were completely malleable, the "blank slate" theory.This is the pendulum swing amongst the false dichotomy of World Government or Nation States. Nation States are failing, but growing the root of the problem is not the solution, and trying to build it (world/regional government) piecemeal allowed it to fail before it was fully in place. Our most base instincts reveal themselves in times of trouble, and as such tribalism is revealing itself in the only way most people know how in modern times (politically speaking, obviously not referring to sports teams), and that is via nationalism, and protectionism.

Unfortunately, and using Europe as an example, the Golden Dawn approach is no more an answer to the problems various Euro countries face any more than the Euro itself was an answer to prior problems.

 

[Einherjar86]

Can you say that with certainty regarding the textbooks of Mises' era?

With certainty I can't; but I can say that Mises.org is clearly perpetuating that belief, not by any conscious or intentional fault of their own but simply by reprinting it.

I will say that by the 20th century Legitimism was under heavy fire, especially in academic circles. György Lukács criticized them in his book The Historical Novel, and that was published in 1937. Now, as far as textbooks go, I'm not sure; Lukács was a confirmed Marxist, and Marxist ideas weren't exactly proliferating in early 20th-century American high schools. However, criticism of Legitimism extends beyond Marxism. As Mises points out, the first critics of capitalism were members of the traditional aristocracy. So capitalism opposed the Legitimists as well. All I'm saying is that Mises's accusation that communists supported Legitimist doctrine is misguided.

I think you are mixing apples and oranges here, and I think we have sort of touched on this deviation in the past. I would agree that mankinds default nature is not pure capitalism. It would quite clearly lean towards mercantilism (protectionism in general), or something of a similar nature relative to the institutions, technology, and capital available.

Economists in the Austrian school sought to find and teach the natural economic laws, not what humanity as predisposed always to follow, but what would work and not work depending on what was done, just as 2+2=4 (regardless of what symbology is used).

Keynesianism, Communism, Moneterism, etc are all other theories on economic "law" and what is possible or not possible. So far we are living the result of Neokeynesianism, which is more or less an amalgamation of Keynesian and Friedmanite (Moneterist) thought.

Economic law is "household law"; domesticated law. Which economic laws will work depend on the individuals practicing them; I'm simply skeptical that economic law is also natural law. Praxeology offers one of the best arguments for this; but praxeology, especially in Mises's understanding of it, has to come into serious question today. So much of praxeology depends on dated conceptions of the human mind and consciousness; conceptions which are today suffering under the onslaught of modern cognitive neuroscience.

Am I the only one who finds this discrepancy worth noting? Shifts towards capitalism made these very questions possible (for obviously questions on the plight of the peasant would be met with.....nothing available for them more or less), and yet this is ignored. Again, the seen versus the unseen.

We need actual examples if we're going to discuss this. It has not been my experience, but anecdotal evidence isn't sufficient.

 

[Dak]

With certainty I can't; but I can say that Mises.org is clearly perpetuating that belief, not by any conscious or intentional fault of their own but simply by reprinting it.

I will say that by the 20th century Legitimism was under heavy fire, especially in academic circles. György Lukács criticized them in his book The Historical Novel, and that was published in 1937. Now, as far as textbooks go, I'm not sure; Lukács was a confirmed Marxist, and Marxist ideas weren't exactly proliferating in early 20th-century American high schools. However, criticism of Legitimism extends beyond Marxism. As Mises points out, the first critics of capitalism were members of the traditional aristocracy. So capitalism opposed the Legitimists as well. All I'm saying is that Mises's accusation that communists supported Legitimist doctrine is misguided.

You have to remember Mises completed his major works in the 20s-50s. You of all people know there is a variety of "Marxian" thinkers and writers, but most likely Mises (and Rothbard) were mostly going off the writings of Marx, Hegel, etc instead of later followers.

Economic law is "household law"; domesticated law. Which economic laws will work depend on the individuals practicing them; I'm simply skeptical that economic law is also natural law. Praxeology offers one of the best arguments for this; but praxeology, especially in Mises's understanding of it, has to come into serious question today. So much of praxeology depends on dated conceptions of the human mind and consciousness; conceptions which are today suffering under the onslaught of modern cognitive neuroscience.

TBH this reminds me of charges that capitalism requires "perfect information and always rational actors" (a charge that somehow doesn't also apply to everything else, including government). This charge completely misses the point, and is frought with underlying ideals of "objective" valuations.

I don't understand the statement re: "domesticated law". The argument from any particular economic school is "do this, and this will happen". So far Austrians have the best track record. We also have to look beyond an individual case and also take opportunity cost into account among other things, since if we merely observed a Pharaoh and ignored opportunity cost, Egypt's economy was as good as anything possible (look at Pharaoh's success and living standard!).

We need actual examples if we're going to discuss this. It has not been my experience, but anecdotal evidence isn't sufficient.

I'm not sure what you mean so I'll try to clarify my own statement as upon rereading it was rather vague.

Why are living standards only suddenly a concern once the peasants are in the factory instead of engaged in feudal peasantry? Maybe because our expectations were changed by the very productions they were engaged in? Of course there will be a delay between increases in living standards and the actual production efforts, and the rise in living standards post-feudalism has been more or less ignored.

 

[Einherjar86]

You have to remember Mises completed his major works in the 20s-50s. You of all people know there is a variety of "Marxian" thinkers and writers, but most likely Mises (and Rothbard) were mostly going off the writings of Marx, Hegel, etc instead of later followers.

The fact remains that Marx saw capitalism as a positive reaction to feudalism, and disparaged the Legitimist argument.

this reminds me of charges that capitalism requires "perfect information and always rational actors" (a charge that somehow doesn't also apply to everything else, including government). This charge completely misses the point, and is frought with underlying ideals of "objective" valuations.

I don't understand the statement re: "domesticated law". The argument from any particular economic school is "do this, and this will happen". So far Austrians have the best track record. We also have to look beyond an individual case and also take opportunity cost into account among other things, since if we merely observed a Pharaoh and ignored opportunity cost, Egypt's economy was as good as anything possible (look at Pharaoh's success and living standard!), and the technology as advanced as possible.

I don't see how an evaluation of contemporary neuroscience has no consequences for economic theory, especially if economic theory relies on a theory of human action.

Economy comes from Greek: "oikos nomos," or "household law." It adopted its current usage because it applies to artificial, anthropocentric institutions (that's my opinion, anyway ).

I'm not sure what you mean so I'll try to clarify my own statement as upon rereading it was rather vague.

Why are living standards only suddenly a concern once the peasants are in the factory instead of engaged in feudal peasantry? Maybe because our expectations were changed by the very productions they were engaged in? Of course there will be a delay between increases in living standards and the actual production efforts, and the rise in living standards post-feudalism has been more or less ignored.

My meaning was that we need actual evidence if we're going to argue that final point one way or another. We can't just take it for granted that "the rise in living standards post-feudalism has been more or less ignored." That has to be somehow verified, because it's a big part of Mises's problem with Marxism. He accuses Marxists of promoting some ideal pastoral existence prior to capitalism. Now we're suggesting that early textbooks skip over this topic.

This has not been my experience. My own education has stressed the poor living conditions of feudal peasants; but I'm saying that anecdotal evidence isn't sufficient to make such an argument. My, and your, experience cannot suffice to support our claims. I'm not sure how to get such evidence, because I don't know any reliable surveys of peasant living conditions as reported by secondary education textbooks.

 

[Dak]

I don't see how an evaluation of contemporary neuroscience has no consequences for economic theory, especially if economic theory relies on a theory of human action.

Economy comes from Greek: "oikos nomos," or "household law." It adopted its current usage because it applies to artificial, anthropocentric institutions (that's my opinion, anyway ).

I don't think the origin of the word really matters much in this case, since it's clearly been divorced from it's roots for hundreds (if not thousand?) of years.

Neuroscience might be able to help us understand how people create their subjective valuations. Off the top of my head I'm not sure what that really changes (practically speaking) though.

I'm more concerned on the ability to manipulate being enhanced for those [in the know] by advances in neuroscience, akin to the effect people like Bernays has had. IE, if we [poke] this part of the brain, we can make people do this.

My meaning was that we need actual evidence if we're going to argue that final point one way or another. We can't just take it for granted that "the rise in living standards post-feudalism has been more or less ignored." That has to be somehow verified, because it's a big part of Mises's problem with Marxism. He accuses Marxists of promoting some ideal pastoral existence prior to capitalism. Now we're suggesting that early textbooks skip over this topic.

This has not been my experience. My own education has stressed the poor living conditions of feudal peasants; but I'm saying that anecdotal evidence isn't sufficient to make such an argument. My, and your, experience cannot suffice to support our claims. I'm not sure how to get such evidence, because I don't know any reliable surveys of peasant living conditions as reported by secondary education textbooks.

Stress it but how? Just saying "it was really bad" is not the same thing as saying "Look at how horrible it was vs what it could have been because of these evil [blank]. Frankly the living conditions of the feudal peasant couldn't have been much improved even with a "nice overlord" due to the system. The living conditions of peasants are generally mentioned matter of fact rather than as a fault.

Obviously the rise in living standards has not been ignored in general, what I mean is the rightful causal connections are either not made, or glossed over.