Erdel von Mises

The relationship between pleasure and desire?

Does Game Theory Contractuarism ist an Intucionist or Natulalist theory?

@PhilipKlöcking Hello

And Hedonism would just considering only short term factors in the Utility Calculation.

I guess Eudaimonia would be when one have a preference with low term sacrifice to big long term gains. But it would no explain the concept of moderation.

What would be the relation of this Kind of Utility with Eudaimonia?

Note that in this context Utility is defined as Subjective Preference e.g. if some subject have to choose between using a Red Hat and a Blue Hat and he did choose Blue Hat, that is because that thing have more Utility for that individual.

Is the ethical thing to do.

Hedonism Ethics would mean that one just does what they think give the most pleasure.

In the relation of Eudaimonia with Utility.

I may to read that book.

@PhilipKlöcking Note the Law and ethics are no necessary the same. Certainly it is a we "know" since times of Cicero, but a we have that dogma since Cicero that private property have their social responsabilities.

@PhilipKlöcking What are that "Property has its [social] responsibilities" is known since Cicero?

There are Kantian-like schools of ethical tought, that replace the Kantian element of the End to another thing?

Why is the epistemiologic justification of the AS-AD model?

@Yasskier I don't think that Germany wanted war with Russia because the Kaiser Wilhelm II did no fear Russia as the treat to Germany, but America as the treat to Germany. Also the Kaiser was a close friend of Franz, therefore it must have a big effect in the managemtn of the Kaiser of the crisis, but even with Germany wanting war with Russia, the scalation of the war is blame of Britain (with the divide and conquer) and France (with the revanchismo).

@Yasskier We are no speaking international treaties, we are speaking about treason the Kaiser.

@Yasskier In the side of Germany there is no way that German inteligence know about this and do nothing to stop it, because it would mean high treason against the Kaiser Wilhelm II, who is a near friend of Archduchy Franz. And please the evidence about the Austrian side.

@Yasskier No, (1) this is no unralated, were talking about a affirmation in the response that started this conversation "the adtitude of Wilhelm II is what put Germany in war with nearly all Europe at the same time", and I argue with that affirmation (I am maybe wrong, but i think it to be unlikely). (2) I am no deying reality.

@Jos May no be needed, you still can negotiate a peace, but unless the French are willing to negotiate peace once you stop them in the border (a very unprobable thing), there is no more that advance prefelibly to the capital.

@Yasskier Gavrilo Princip was a British a, I am just kidding, but the assesination of Archduchy Franz was made sponsored by Serbia.

@jamesqf (1) I never said that the British-German fighting were on German territory. (2) Belgium was invaded but just because they don't allow to pass troops. (3) France was no being invaded, and unless you offer peace negotiations there is no moere than advance until the capital. Do no you need advance to the Capital to win?

What means FWIW?

@Jos (1) Why a comments would affect the question?, In any case would angry the moderator against my account if there is a agression etc. Or could angry a mob. (2) Why my arguments make you think that I am biased?, In any case is your bias against critics, because you had never said why my arguments are wrong. and (3) T.E.D. forgot tag you.

@T.E.D. Bismark dismissed Bismark for several motives (I have to check it), but Wilhelm know that British were the Natural allies of Germany, and getting tunnel vision with the Natural alliance Germany-British was his mistake, if Wilhelm realized that the birtish are decided with the divideand-and-conquer in contineltal Europe, Wilhelm could have avoided any war in contineltal Europe, just with a reconciliation with the French. Also in the British parliment there were three factions the first wanted divide-and-conquer, the second wanted alliance London-Berlin and the last were the undecided.

Let us continue this discussion in chat.

@1muflon1 (1) Forget about my rephrasing of ABCT, it does no make sense. (2) "Again there are several independent test one can use as well as one can test assumptions of ATBC" I would like to speak about this but I still had no checked the axioms of ABCT.

(3) "The issue is that in agent based modeling it does not make sense to talk about deficiency of aggregate demand since you model every action of individual independently and you don’t aggregate to whole society" It would no be exactly Agent modeling, but if you aggrupate some agents, and consider things like probability of a repentine change of consumer habits by thing like television, etc.

@1muflon1 (5) "it’s funny you invoke DQ thesis since that thesis is precisely about how important it is to not just look at a theory itself but examine the assumption of theory as well." Bad for Mises to say that everyone is rational always, but depeding in what you are aiming the thing that are rational change (e.g. eat 10 kg of sugar dialy does no is rational if you want to be healty, but it does if you want to be diabetic). Is to say that it possibly is no so inconsistent assumption at the end.

@1muflon1 (3) I am suspicsious that the main reason because is claimed that agent-based modelling is unable to capture shortfall in aggregate demand is because it is very unlikely by itself in that system unless external intervention. (Is no goverment external intervention?).

@1muflon1 (4) "literally ATBC cannot be rephrased in such terms since according to Mises Theory of Money and Credit Part III the business cycle is driven by failures of firms due to malinvestment, that is due to shifts in supply no demand." Sorry, my fault, but ABCT still can be rephrased to say that lose economy policy cause malinvestment, then malinvestment causes shortfall in aggregate demand, and shortfall in aggregate supply...

@1muflon1 (1) "it’s not about complexity of modeling it’s just that the concept of existence of aggregate demand does not make sense if you reject the AD-AS framework. It’s the same as epicycles make sense in Ptolemaic model but 0 sense in Copernican model." please, give the theorems or references of that affirmation.

@1muflon1 (2) "Mises was trying to formulate general theory of business cycle, Mises argued that the Austrian business cycle is the theory that actually explains observable recessions not that it’s a theory that explains possible mechanism for recessions that never occurs in real life." Still by Duhem-Quine thesis the data may no be correctly interpreted, but if would like to leave room for another causes of recession.

@1muflon1 (1) I am sure that the aggregate demand shortfall can be modeled with agent based modeling, probably a very complex one, and possibly grouping agents, that act imperfectly as every human. (2) "I am not oversimplifying, show me some place where Mises or Hayek claimed recessions can occur due to demand shortfall." They don't have to, they just have to never said it to be impossible. (3) Also, I am tinking that is reasonable to rephrase ABCT to say that lose economy policy cause malinvestment, then malinvestment causes shortfall in aggregate demand, and shortfall in aggregate demand...

@1muflon1 "Even in this much looser sense the ATBC can be falsified locally given that for all years we have data, they show that crises happened for various other reasons, so locally ATBC is falsified". There is a important thing in how the data is interpreted because by Duhem-Quine thesis is no possible to test individually a hypothesis, because it does imply take some other assumptions, and there is room for mental and verbal gymnasics for justify imaginary concepts that have no real ground.

@1muflon1 (1) "First of all in ABCT demand shortfalls are impossible" where Mise or Hayek said it? (2) So fallacy of oversimplification, that recessions only can be caused by one cause, and there can't be multiple causes.

(1) That ABCT does not say that recessions can be caused by demand shocks and demand shortfall, does no mean that recessions can't be caused by demand shocks and demand shortfall, therefore it does no contradict ABCT. (2) "Number 2 are technological shocks that technically could occur in ABCT but should not be causing recessions." When the ABCT said that it cannot cause recessions? (3) It only falsies the theory if you can see A and ¬B at the same time, because it is how material implication works.

@1muflon1 It is no true because the geocentric model is falsed by contradicting evidence, but (at least for what do you said me) there is no contradicting evidence against ABCT.

@1muflon1 For what you said, there is no reason to discard ABCT, but is reasonable to say that there is no conclusive evidence to support ABCT.

@1muflon1 I still had to check the base assupmtions and the proof. But I can talk somthings about the observation part, exactly how it is considered inconsistent?, because a arbritary interpretation of the data, or because another thing.

@Magmatic If you ask a Austrian Economists he will say you, that the Buisness Cycles is blame of goverment.

@1muflon1 What happened with the ABCT (Austrian Business Cycle Theory) of Ludwig von Mises?

@1muflon1 Also, there is the affair that nobody knows everything and the unfeassibility to mesure the exact effecs of lose monetary policy because cantion affect and the nature of chaotic systems.

@1muflon1 "even if you make the theory self consistent by assuming some behavioral theory of human action, then you still run in the problem that in real world we can’t observe loose monetary policy leading to more malinvestment" data missinterpretation can explain this because DQ thesis.

@1muflon1 I think that the entry about the criticism of rational expectation explain what this is no a valid critic.

@1muflon1 "I am well aware what mises meant by rationality. When I use word rational I do not mean smart I just mean that people follow their preferences -that sort of rationality is inconsistent with ABCT" So you are saying that the proof of given of Mises does no follow from his assumptions?

@1muflon1 (1) Forget about my rephrasing of ABCT, it does no make sense. (2) "Again there are several independent test one can use as well as one can test assumptions of ATBC" I would like to speak about this but I still had no checked the axioms of ABCT.

(3) "The issue is that in agent based modeling it does not make sense to talk about deficiency of aggregate demand since you model every action of individual independently and you don’t aggregate to whole society" It would no be exactly Agent modeling, but if you aggrupate some agents, and consider things like probability of a repentine change of consumer habits by thing like television, etc.

@1muflon1 (3) I am suspicsious that the main reason because is claimed that agent-based modelling is unable to capture shortfall in aggregate demand is because it is very unlikely by itself in that system unless external intervention. (Is no goverment external intervention?).