Political science essentials ?

>forceful aggregate utility with the "common good" in mind
vs
>the utility that rises from an aggregation of competitors each striving for personal goal
Stop speedreading

JS Mill, On Liberty and Utilitarianism

Retarded, it is but simple enough to see that competition only brings ruin in every age in history

No, Mises EXPRESSLY denies the possibility of comparing different persons satisfactions ipso facto and thus of arriving at estimates of any aggregate utility. It's pretty central to making things like progressive taxation illegitimate in his eyes.

Competition has notting to do with aggregation, some form of social utility would still exist even in it's theoretic absence

Oh that's what you meant
Yes, it's rather obvious that every person values everything differently, no two people can hold the same idea of value over a number of things, you confuse market value as something every person agrees upon, when the market itself is ruled by each person's individual bias on the relative price of goods

In a void, perhaps
In a free market (or any, really) system, there are no two things that are not linked
And in this case, aggregation of any one good is but the failure of the market to meet the demand (whatever that may be) with supply, which is why you obviously have cycles

>every person values everything differently
Wouldn't that render the general idea of utility for economic analysis useless?

>no two people can hold the same idea of value over a number of things
Yet you pretend you're quantifying something and claim the free market will maximize it.

>you confuse market value as something every person agrees upon, when the market itself is ruled by each person's individual bias on the relative price of goods
Isn't your theory of the relative prices of commodities based on the concept of utility?

Mises doesn't believe in aggregate demand.

>economic analysis useless
But it is the very basis of Austrian economics that states that economic analysis can but provide a simple means to predict a fluctuation or a trend, but by no means be accurate enough as to when it will happen, because in the end, it is up to people behaving and factors that are simply unknown
ie everyone could tell dotcom was a bubble, but noone knew exactly how long people's absolute denial of impeding doom and governmental funding would prolong it
>you pretend you're quantifying something and claim the free market will maximize it
I do not quantify anything, and Mises certainly did not either, but he did make the case that a free market system with free individuals of which each knows their own self better than others do, can and will work better for those individuals than any centrally planned system
>based on the concept of utility
Marginal utility, as opposed to for instance labor theory
Which, as I said, differs for each individual
Economics is not math, it is not physics, it is not a science. Economics is a philosophical attempt to gauge people's demands, and how far they'd go to meet them

>Austrian economics that states that economic analysis can but provide a simple means to predict a fluctuation or a trend, but by no means be accurate enough as to when it will happen, because in the end, it is up to people behaving and factors that are simply unknown
So you can predict downturns will occur but not when or how severe? I guess that explains all those great "Austrian" monetary wizards predicting hyperinflation since 2008.
Also it depends what you mean by "Austrian" e.g. the early Austrians thougth their analysis justified progressive taxation but obviously we can't compare peoples utilities since if a millionaire values a dollar much less than someone less well off that could lead to some pretty problematic conclusions and hurt the notion of the natural harmony of interests.

>I do not quantify anything, and Mises certainly did not either, but he did make the case that a free market system with free individuals of which each knows their own self better than others do, can and will work better for those individuals than any centrally planned system
You can't logically justify that without resorting to some notion of a general welfare which requires going beyond your self-imposed limits.

>Economics is not math, it is not physics, it is not a science
What you're doing is stating unfalsifiable moral axioms.

what are some of your favourite anthropological works, out of interest?

>austrian economics

Attached: 08a.gif (347x244, 3.72M)

not who you're responding to but sure to cause butthurt

primitivism.com/original-affluent.htm

>not when or how severe
You can of course predict the severity, but anyone that claims that "this crash will happen now" because the numbers say it will, is retarded, especially when the government can just step in and prolong a boom or delay a crash
As I said, those calculations would exist in a vacuum, but you're in the real world
>unfalsifiable moral axioms
Not exactly, what I'm doing is stating that people *tend* to value things this way, that when you do certain things some other specific things will occur in the future, and so on and so forth
I'm sorry that economics can't make you rich by telling you how the market will move next, but if it could then everyone would be an economist
Just go to /biz/ for a day ignoring all the shilling and laugh at all the broke economics MSc fags and their Keynesianist theories and predictions

just read the Monarchy chart

Something to chew on

Attached: 7E1EE502-5073-4230-8973-4A16669C369B.jpg (2000x4045, 2.58M)

This doesn't stop Misesfags from making predictions and being wrong in the most hilarious fashions which even the most basic understanding of sectoral balances would clarify. You really don't understand the nuances underlying value theory and the historical development of understandings of relative prices and the ideology behind it all.

>people make wrong predictions (usually with personal bias)
>people have all read X and like it
>therefore, X is wrong
What you're trying to do is completely ignore every factor that can actually unbalance your theory, or at the very least dampen it, and based on that attempt to make a plan for the economy or for the general future of it
It simply doesn't work that way
It might on chance, but never on principle
It is the very reason communism and socialism are flawed in their very conception, it's not some half-assed undergrad bullshit
Even if you didn't have the government intervening based on interests and corporate relationships/lobbying/what have you, you still can not analyze how the public will move and what goods they will "favor", at least not in any meaningful sense
The best you can do is guesswork and safe bets
I for one don't see bread going out of style

Start with the Greeks (Thucydides, Plato, Aristotle)

thanks buddy!

The Republic
The Prince
Critiqueof Judgement
Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch
The Decline of the West
Industrial Society and Its Future
The Communist Manifesto
God and the State
The State and Revolution
Revolt Against the Modern World
The Culture Industry
Living in the End Times
Against Liberalism

These are a varied and contradictory collection of works but a close reading of all of them will give you a basic idea of how the majority of modern politics functions on a philosophical level