Mises for Dummies
I’m just about to embark on reading von Mises’ Human Action, a project that will no doubt occupy me for some time. And I keep seeing the words ‘praxis’ and ‘praxaeology’ used to describe said ‘human action’. Now this looks awfully like a wank word to me (something I dislike postmodernists and lawyers doing, let alone anyone else). Because I don’t like wank words, and because the only God I worship is one called ‘clear and simple expression’, I’d like some explanation.
I’m not an economist – as Mr Tex pointed out in his debut post, I too just have a pretty fair idea of what works – but I’m willing to learn. This post is a call to all you economists out there (and there are a lot of them on this blog) to educate this libertarian lawyer.
What the Hell is Mises on about?
9 Comments
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
-
Recent Comments
Libertarians and ele… on Libertarians and elections (an… 
Dom Vasta on Libertarians and elections (an… 
Shem Bennett on Libertarians and elections (an… 
'Nuke' Gray on Libertarians and elections (an… Dom Vasta on Libertarians and elections (an… 
TerjeP (say tay-a) on Libertarians and elections (an… TerjeP (say tay-a) on Libertarians and elections (an… 'Nuke' Gray on Libertarians and elections (an… Shem Bennett on Libertarians and elections (an… 
Brendan Halfweeg on The Santa Claus Governmen…
Catallaxy Files- Open Forum: February 11, 2012 February 10, 2012 Sinclair Davidson
- Not all recessions are caused by the Fed February 10, 2012More middle of the night blogging. My economics is classical. The almost perfect overlay of my own book can be found in a series of notes taken by Nicholas Kaldor at the LSE in 1927-29 from lectures delivered by the great American economist, Allyn Young. These notes were only published around a decade ago but [...]Steve Kates
- Where’s Romney? February 10, 2012It is quite extraordinary to watch the American political process up close. Now, I admit I have been busy and I don’t watch much of the television and do not read a lot of the press. But before I arrived the thing I did want to do was see more of Mitt Romney since from [...]Steve Kates
- inCISe
- More on PHI rebate means test February 10, 2012When I wrote in Incise yesterday, ‘Rebate should not be means tested,’ I did not expect events to move quite as quickly as they have. The government seems confident it has the numbers to get the means test through. I wouldn’t be surprised if Rob Oakshott and Andrew Wilkie have indeed swallowed the government’s nonsensical arguments, but it will be interestin […]Robert Carling
- Quiggin versus Carling and Kirchner February 9, 2012John Quiggin accuses Robert Carling and I of ‘an appalling breach of elementary standards of research’ for not acknowledging that Alberto Alesina’s work on the effectiveness of fiscal stimulus and consolidations is ‘highly controversial.’ In fact, we referenced Alesina’s work precisely because it has featured so prominently in public debate, including in the […]Stephen Kirchner
- Police going too far February 9, 2012According to an article in the Sydney Morning Herald, police are lecturing parents for letting their children walk to the shops or catch a bus on their own, with senior police saying such incidents will be reported to the Department of Community Services (DOCs) if a child is considered at risk. But when is a child ‘at risk’? One mother was told it was inappr […]Sara Hudson
- More on PHI rebate means test February 10, 2012
- IPA news
- Let European dogs lie February 9, 2012Australians will be surprised to learn that, apparently, the federal government now has responsibility to help the city of...
- It's time to bring back the thrift February 9, 2012Ted Baillieu plans to shave 3600 jobs from Victoria's bloated public service. The state of Wisconsin in the US, with a...
- We'll huff, we'll puff, we'll blow the budget into surplus February 8, 2012Bill Clinton famously said, "It's the economy, stupid". So it is. Unsuccessful politicians might be inclined to argue,...
- Let European dogs lie February 9, 2012
Praxis is practice within context. Someone willing to pay $20 for a toaster at a shop would probably not be willing to spend that amount for a toaster at a garage sale even if it was brand new.
Hey — I’ve just started reading the same book!
I thought praxeology just meant the study of human action — including not just economics but also the study of human action that is outside the market. The idea is that economics is just one part of a broader “science” called praxeology. It’s not a mainstream economic term and I only hear it used by Mises type people. A synonym might be “social science”. I agree it sounds like a wank word.
I think Mises promises more than he delivers.
The whole idea of reducing economics to a purely deducive ‘science’ (I hesitate to use the word science, that isn’t science in my book) is problematic in itself.
I prefer to get my libertarian economics from reading the New Institutional Economics. I’d regard both Hayek and Coase as founding members of this school.
http://www.isnie.org/
It is the study of human action, not just economic action. In the context of economic behaviour it means human economic behaviour in different contexts.
Should have said that first time around.
What is Mises on about?
Well, I COULD give you a longwinded philosophical answer tracing his roots back to the methodenstreit and continental rationalism, but I wont. Ill give you the quick understanding.
Praxeology is a study of human action based upon the notion of purposefulness. According to Mises, all human action is purposeful (aka Teleological, Conative). All human action is a means to achieve the actor’s ends.
“Because I don’t like wank words”
Whatever you do then, do NOT try and read Albert Jay Nock.
That gasbag was the Thomas Pynchon of Libertarians. Oy.
“I think Mises promises more than he delivers.”
Only true from the perspective of expecting that it all can be tied down to bivalent deductive reasoning. Mises is a guy that really delivers.
Skeptic. You have chosen to dive straight into the key canoninical work. Which may well prove to be the most time-effective way of going about things.
But my tip would be for you to have the indexes of “Man Economy And State” (Rothbard) and “Capitalism” already up and on your computer so you can cross-reference for ease of explanation as you go through “Human Action” slowly.
I thnk if you do it this way you’ll get a better education then most and only have to read it a couple of times. Then you’ll be over at Cattallaxy scolding me for getting things wrong.
I’ll be back to give my own take on Praxeology. But I’d rather consult these two indexes first so I don’t say anything thats too horribly wrong.
But just off a standing start in practise it appears to be armchair thinking with a huge emphasis on A PRIORI.
And what you do is you build up the body of knowledge, in the first instance, by establishing truths that of necessity must be right. Or that can only be wrong in the most extremist, unlikeliest of circumstances.
So for example if the production of goods is held static (in an example of arm-chair philosophising) and I double the total volume of spending on these goods and services, then it is just inveitable that the price of the goods and services must double as a result.
Now you can bring in a bunch of quibbles… for example the trade balance could blow out and the prices rise only a little…. But the assumption was that all other things remain equal.
So you build it up like this.
Where you can lock in near-axiomatic thinking you lock it in.
You’ve got to be able to lock in the strongest propositions so that you can build on them.
http://www.mises.org/rothbard/mespm.PDF
Here’s the man, economy and State pdf.
http://www.capitalism.net/Capitalism/CAPITALISM_Internet.pdf
And here is Reismans “Capitalism”
Here is Reismans only mention of the term:
” Regrettably, this criticism applies to the great von Mises and his efforts to portray economics as merely the “hithero best developed part” of an allegedly wider science of human action know as praxeology…..
……I wish to note, indeed to stress, however, that even when I have ultimately come to disagree with some position of von Mises, as in this case, I do not recall ever having read so much as a single paragraph of his writings that did not serve as the most powerful stimulus to my own thinking. Therefore, I urge everyone to give the most serious consideraration to every portion of his writings.”
It’ll take too long to type out what the note (12n on page 61) was comparing this to and may be a breach of copywrite.
The note is made on page 42 of the book (92 of the pdf) and it follows an extended discussion of what the study of Economics really is and how best to define it.
Reisman defines economics as the study of the production of wealth in the context of the division of labour. And then he systematically explains why competing definitions are not as good or inadequate.
Hence the note on praxeology.
We see here Reisman will spend years if not decades just getting things right.
Here is Reismans only mention of the term:
” Regrettably, this criticism applies to the great von Mises and his efforts to portray economics as merely the “hithero best developed part” of an allegedly wider science of human action know as praxeology…..
……I wish to note, indeed to stress, however, that even when I have ultimately come to disagree with some position of von Mises, as in this case, I do not recall ever having read so much as a single paragraph of his writings that did not serve as the most powerful stimulus to my own thinking. Therefore, I urge everyone to give the most serious consideraration to every portion of his writings.”
It’ll take too long to type out what the note (12n on page 61) was comparing this to and may be a breach of copywrite.
The note is made on page 42 of the book (92 of the pdf) and it follows an extended discussion of what the study of Economics really is and how best to define it.
Reisman defines economics as the study of the production of wealth in the context of the division of labour. And then he systematically explains why competing definitions are not as good or inadequate.
Hence the note on praxeology.
We see here Reisman will spend years if not decades just getting things right.