Although I agree that austrian economics is explicitly more subjectivist, and only implictly objective in it's conception of value, and neoclassical school is fully subjective. I would disagree that a shift towards a classical conception of exchange of value and money is necessary. Firstly the fact that both people with their own standards of value benefit from trade(even if unequally), is the reason people engage in it in the first place. Secondly, the reality that money has to already have to have a pre-existing objective value, such as with the adoption of specie historically(this is pointed out by mises in his theory of money, as well as alan greenspan in gold and economic freedom), which had both aesthetic values and as a commodity before it's adoption as money, doesn't mean that money as a medium of exchange isn't fundamental. Ultimately the classical economic conception of value was intrisinicist, and I'll also point out that two people can be fully rational but have different personal values, and thus trade based on this.
I completely reject the idea that Austrian economics holds an implicit conception of objective value. I think this article does a pretty good job of explaining why that's wrong. I even think that Austrians are MORE consistent than the neoclassicals in their radical subjectivism.
I suspected, however, that Objectivists wouldn't be persuaded. I plan to publish a longer essay with a new conception of economic value that should settle this once and for all.
I'll wait for it hopefully you mention menger in depth. I still find the article I shared with you on X by Robert tarr a more compelling description of their differences.
I didn't see this comment. You are extremely rude so I'll reply under the same token: "He loves here because he loves HER." Gee, what a profound remark! He loves her because he loves her. This, in essence, is the level of your cognition. I'm sure your wife is pleased to hear that you have no standards. I now ask you not to comment here again or you'll be blocked.
Although I agree that austrian economics is explicitly more subjectivist, and only implictly objective in it's conception of value, and neoclassical school is fully subjective. I would disagree that a shift towards a classical conception of exchange of value and money is necessary. Firstly the fact that both people with their own standards of value benefit from trade(even if unequally), is the reason people engage in it in the first place. Secondly, the reality that money has to already have to have a pre-existing objective value, such as with the adoption of specie historically(this is pointed out by mises in his theory of money, as well as alan greenspan in gold and economic freedom), which had both aesthetic values and as a commodity before it's adoption as money, doesn't mean that money as a medium of exchange isn't fundamental. Ultimately the classical economic conception of value was intrisinicist, and I'll also point out that two people can be fully rational but have different personal values, and thus trade based on this.
I completely reject the idea that Austrian economics holds an implicit conception of objective value. I think this article does a pretty good job of explaining why that's wrong. I even think that Austrians are MORE consistent than the neoclassicals in their radical subjectivism.
I suspected, however, that Objectivists wouldn't be persuaded. I plan to publish a longer essay with a new conception of economic value that should settle this once and for all.
I'll wait for it hopefully you mention menger in depth. I still find the article I shared with you on X by Robert tarr a more compelling description of their differences.
I didn't see this comment. You are extremely rude so I'll reply under the same token: "He loves here because he loves HER." Gee, what a profound remark! He loves her because he loves her. This, in essence, is the level of your cognition. I'm sure your wife is pleased to hear that you have no standards. I now ask you not to comment here again or you'll be blocked.
"Similar" by which standard? The contradiction here is obvious, but I don't expect you to get it.
No. The similarity is the standard. Things that are similar are similar by a certain standard.
We're taking about standards, not the definition of measurement. It's okay to admit you were wrong.