i understand Mises, he mistakes a partial truth for the whole.
unfortunately, this causes much confusion
How do i get there?
Go east.
it’s not “wrong” but it’s not a complete or sufficient answer
but that provides a market opportunity to write on the subject
Interesting perspective. I really think there are just multiple (objective or subjective) standards of value for subjective value in the sense that the Austrians mean it, and there is also another type of value, the value at exchange, which is part of a broader objective cost (what is being given up, what does the actor forfeit? this can be an input into a standard of value system)
Like I thought that it was obvious that Mises and Menger were not giving a complete solution to what people do value nor what they should value, they were not trying to. There is no contradiction still in the core essentials of the economics they put forward.
That being said, it is one of my goals to learn the Aristotelian branch of philosophy better. I tend to agree with Aristoteleans on so very much stuff though I arrived at the conclusions entirely without a guide. That's always a good sign.
I don’t remember the exact quote off the top of my head but it’s something like “value is not inherent in the object, it is within us” -Mises
Thats the problem when you invert the order of operations,
Philosophy: metaphysics, anthropology, epistemology, ethics ALL come prior to economics.
when you skip over, it’s easy to build off incomplete information.
it’s ironic that the Austrians are the spear head against all the lunacy of today’s monetary system, yet they provided the axiomatic foundation for fiat: monetary gnosticism
value by decree
I understand there are different types of value, the issue is what creates it, brings it into existence, and a hylomorphic answer is the only logically valid one
Yeah it comes prior and everyone has their own version of it they develop as they grow up. I'll have to learn more about hylomorphic metaphysics to understand you any further, I've been meaning to get to it soon.
all good, funny how ideas laid out by Aristotle thousands of years ago end up being proven most relevant today.
when it’s true, it lasts
in my book, i do my best to explain hylomorphism for the average person, something that easily makes sense and can be applied day to day.
I have all the line citations in the footnotes if you wanted to read the relevant passages yourself
