Cutting the Gordian Knot of GE Theory

[Onion Eater]

Cutting the Gordian Knot of GE Theory

Steve Reglar (2005) writes:

As a tool of capitalist hegemony the doctrine of general equilibrium is very useful. It assumes that the normal condition of society is for the state to play as little a role in economic life as possible, because the market is part of human nature and the most efficient form of economic organization. The theory, therefore, has a role in legitimizing capitalist hegemony.

A tool of capitalist hegemony? My, what harsh language! One can almost visualize GE theorists visiting smoke-filled rooms to accept bribes from their cigar-puffing benefactors. Indeed, Post-Autistic economists, after observing the word “axiomatic” in the title of my book (Aguilar, 1999), dismissed it out-of-hand, denouncing me as a bought-and-paid-for stooge of Big Business. Apparently, just that one word was enough to convince them of this about me.

But before we dismiss this talk of an epistemological approach being a “tool” of Big Business to “legitimize” their obviously anti-social behavior, let us at least see if the socialists are consistent. James Yunker (2007) writes:

This article evaluates the performance of contemporary capitalism relative to that of a hypothetical alternative designated “profit-oriented market socialism.” In most respects, profit-oriented market socialism would closely mimic contemporary market capitalism. The major difference would be that most profits and interest generated by the operations of publicly-owned business enterprises would be distributed to the general public as a social dividend proportional to household wage and salary income rather than in proportion to household financial assets. The basis of the comparison is a small-scale but comprehensive computable general equilibrium model.

Here we read that GE Theory is not a tool of capitalist hegemony, but a tool of profit-oriented market socialism, that is, publicly-owned business enterprises (e.g. Fannie, Freddie, AIG, etc.) that mimic contemporary market capitalism. And it is not a “tool” in the sense of legitimizing the socialists (presumably, their legitimacy is derived from emotional appeals of the “Gosh, there sure are a lot of poor people – darn capitalists!” variety), but a tool in the literal sense of defining a software model.

Well, which is it? Reglar thinks that GE Theory "assumes that the normal condition of society is for the state to play as little a role in economic life as possible." Yunker sees GE Theory as the basis for a central planner to "mimic contemporary market capitalism" while retaining for himself the authority to distribute the social dividend – hardly a "little role in economic life."

The primary (actually, the only) criticism that socialists have of my writing is that it lacks “substantial references.” Apparently, he whose writing is filled with the most quotations from the most august of academic journals wins. Thus, having observed that Reglar and Yunker have opposite views of GE Theory, we clearly need a tie-breaker. Cristobal Young (2005) writes:

General equilibrium theory – the mathematical analysis of a market economy as a whole – has its roots in the late 19th century works of Leon Walras and Vilfredo Pareto… However, the project failed to attract much following and soon faded into dormancy.

It was the end of the Great Depression, ironically, that saw a tremendous revival of the General Equilibrium (GE)/Welfare economics project. In the US, a loose grouping of devout socialists were busy detailing the elegance of the market equilibrium. The leaders of the GE revival – Oskar Lange, Abba Lerner and Abram Bergson – were cutting-edge mathematical economists and true believers in Soviet-style central planning…

The GE framework, given sufficient mathematical complexity, is actually a grand narrative on the fragility and implausibility of perfect market equilibrium. Successive mathematical torturing has outlined an extensive list of unlikely conditions required to demonstrate general market efficiency. Mark Blaug has nicely summarized a partial inventory: “perfectly rational, omniscient, identical consumers; zero transaction costs; complete markets for all time-stated claims for all conceivable contingent events, no trading at disequilibrium prices; no radical, incalculable uncertainty…; only linearly homogenous production functions; no technical progress requiring capital investment, etc” (1997, p. 5)…

For an economic system that failed to satisfy such assumptions, there seemed a need for government intervention. General equilibrium theory provided a sort of checklist for market critics.

Young supports Yunker’s position though, while they agree that central planning is the inevitable result of economists' acceptance of GE Theory, Young see this as a bad thing and Yunker sees it as a good thing. Nevertheless, the Review of Political Economy and the SSRN trumps an obscure conference of socialists idling on the taxpayer’s dime, drinking tea and refining their plans for world conquest. Two out of three quotes wins!

Steve Keen (2007, p. 173) has also observed that satisfying the ever-growing list of assumptions made by Debreu and his followers is “unrealistic”:

It is almost superfluous to describe the core assumptions of Debreu’s model as unrealistic: a single point in time at which all production and exchange for all time is determined; a set of commodities – including those which will be produced in the distant future – which is known to all consumers; producers who know all the inputs that will ever be needed to produce their commodities; even a vision of “uncertainty” in which the possible states of the future are already known, so that certainty and uncertainty are formally identical. Yet even with these breathtaking dismissals of essential elements of the real world, Debreu’s model was rapidly shown to need additional restrictive assumptions.

In the context of GE Theory, the conditions required for capitalism to be efficient are implausible in practice, though conceivable in theory. The former implies that the free market is always inefficient. The latter implies that a central planner can mimic how capitalism would work if it were efficient while the "profits and interest generated by the operations of publicly-owned business enterprises would be distributed to the general public as a social dividend."

In the context of GE Theory, there is no way for libertarians to get around this dilemma without being impaled on one or the other horn. Either we live with a system that can never be efficient in practice or we have an efficient system but renounce private property rights and put distribution of the "social dividend" in the hands of a central planner.

Far from being a “tool of capitalist hegemony," acceptance of GE Theory is the death of capitalism. Our only compensation is that, like a condemned prisoner who gets to choose the firing squad or the hangman, we get to choose inefficiency or tyranny. How did free-market economists respond to this dreadful choice? Milton Friedman invoked his famous “assumptions don’t matter” dictum (1953) to avoid having to admit that he could not untie the Gordian knot of GE Theory – but that is cowardice. Surely there must be a better way!

Instead of attempting to untie it, I cut the Gordian knot of GE Theory by throwing all of Walras’ and Pareto’s assumptions overboard and starting from scratch with my own set of axioms. When faced with a dilemma "in the context of GE Theory," I invented Axiomatic Economics. As Hannibal Barca said, "we will either find a way, or make one." The same goes for libertarians; we will never accept socialism.

My assumptions are three:

1) One's value scale is totally (linearly) ordered:

i) Transitive; p ≤ q and q ≤ r imply p ≤ r

ii) Reflexive; p ≤ p

iii) Anti-Symmetric; p ≤ q and q ≤ p imply p = q

iv) Total; p ≤ q or q ≤ p

2) Marginal (diminishing) utility, u(s), is such that:

i) It is independent of first-unit demand.

ii) It is negative monotonic; that is, u'(s) < 0.

iii) The integral of u(s) from zero to infinity is finite.

3) First-unit demand conforms to proportionate effect:

i) Value changes each day by a proportion (called 1+εj, with j denoting
the day), of the previous day's value.

ii) In the long run, the εj's may be considered random as they are not
directly related to each other nor are they uniquely a function of
value.

iii) The εj's are taken from an unspecified distribution with a finite
mean and a non-zero, finite variance.


REFERENCES

Aguilar, Victor. 1999. Axiomatic Theory of Economics. Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

Blaug, Mark. 1997. “Ugly Currents in Modern Economics.” Policy Options. 18: 3-8

Friedman, Milton. 1953. “The Methodology of Positive Economics.” in Essays in Positive Economics. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Keen, Steve. 2001. Debunking Economics. Annandale, NSW Australia: Pluto Press

Reglar, Steve. 2005. "The Descent of Political Economic Theory: Keynes, Keynesian economics, from bastardised Keynesianism to Neo Liberal Hegemony.” http://www.elequity.com/contego/pdfbooks/IncorporatingAmericanMinds.pdf

Young, Cristobal. 2005. “The Politics, Mathematics and Morality of Economics: A Review Essay on Robert Nelson’s Economics as Religion.” SSRN-The Politics, Mathematics and Morality of Economics: A Review Essay on Robert Nelson`s Economics as Religion by Cristobal Young

Yunker, James. 2007. “A Comprehensive Incentives Analysis of the Potential Performance of Market Socialism.” Review of Political Economy. 19 ( 1): 81-113 EconPapers: A Comprehensive Incentives Analysis of the Potential Performance of Market Socialism

 

[Onion Eater]

Incidentally, this exact same post was deleted from Political Hotwire and Political Forum and I was banned from Political Hotwire. I guess they feel that General Equilibrium Theory is sacrosanct and cannot be criticized.

If they are going to be like that, I think that we should boycott them.

 

[Wessexman]

I have a few criticisms from what I can see.

Indeed, Post-Autistic economists, after observing the word “axiomatic” in the title of my book (Aguilar, 1999), dismissed it out-of-hand, denouncing me as a bought-and-paid-for stooge of Big Business. Apparently, just that one word was enough to convince them of this about me.

They are a diverse bunch the PA lot. Are you saying they all make this assumption or are you extrapolating from what one said?

I can see why one would be wary of axiomatic economics although dismissing it is silly.

But before we dismiss this talk of an epistemological approach being a “tool” of Big Business to “legitimize” their obviously anti-social behavior, let us at least see if the socialists are consistent. James Yunker (2007) writes:

This article evaluates the performance of contemporary capitalism relative to that of a hypothetical alternative designated “profit-oriented market socialism.” In most respects, profit-oriented market socialism would closely mimic contemporary market capitalism. The major difference would be that most profits and interest generated by the operations of publicly-owned business enterprises would be distributed to the general public as a social dividend proportional to household wage and salary income rather than in proportion to household financial assets. The basis of the comparison is a small-scale but comprehensive computable general equilibrium model.

Here we read that GE Theory is not a tool of capitalist hegemony, but a tool of profit-oriented market socialism, that is, publicly-owned business enterprises (e.g. Fannie, Freddie, AIG, etc.) that mimic contemporary market capitalism. And it is not a “tool” in the sense of legitimizing the socialists (presumably, their legitimacy is derived from emotional appeals of the “Gosh, there sure are a lot of poor people – darn capitalists!” variety), but a tool in the literal sense of defining a software model.

Well, which is it? Reglar thinks that GE Theory "assumes that the normal condition of society is for the state to play as little a role in economic life as possible." Yunker sees GE Theory as the basis for a central planner to "mimic contemporary market capitalism" while retaining for himself the authority to distribute the social dividend – hardly a "little role in economic life."

These are different people or "socialists" you are talking about and socialism is a wide range of viewpoints. I'm not sure why they have to be consistent on this point or what it means.

The primary (actually, the only) criticism that socialists have of my writing is that it lacks “substantial references.” Apparently, he whose writing is filled with the most quotations from the most august of academic journals wins. Thus, having observed that Reglar and Yunker have opposite views of GE Theory, we clearly need a tie-breaker. Cristobal Young (2005) writes:

Are these people actually socialists or have are describing all PA economists and assorted liberals and social democrats as "socialist". Socialism also does not necessarily mean central planning or anything like that, there are libertarian and anarchist socialists. The very word libertarian was the invention of French anarchist communists.

In the context of GE Theory, the conditions required for capitalism to be efficient are implausible in practice, though conceivable in theory. The former implies that the free market is always inefficient. The latter implies that a central planner can mimic how capitalism would work if it were efficient while the "profits and interest generated by the operations of publicly-owned business enterprises would be distributed to the general public as a social dividend."

In the context of GE Theory, there is no way for libertarians to get around this dilemma without being impaled on one or the other horn. Either we live with a system that can never be efficient in practice or we have an efficient system but renounce private property rights and put distribution of the "social dividend" in the hands of a central planner.

Far from being a “tool of capitalist hegemony," acceptance of GE Theory is the death of capitalism. Our only compensation is that, like a condemned prisoner who gets to choose the firing squad or the hangman, we get to choose inefficiency or tyranny. How did free-market economists respond to this dreadful choice? Milton Friedman invoked his famous “assumptions don’t matter” dictum (1953) to avoid having to admit that he could not untie the Gordian knot of GE Theory – but that is cowardice. Surely there must be a better way!

Instead of attempting to untie it, I cut the Gordian knot of GE Theory by throwing all of Walras’ and Pareto’s assumptions overboard and starting from scratch with my own set of axioms. When faced with a dilemma "in the context of GE Theory," I invented Axiomatic Economics. As Hannibal Barca said, "we will either find a way, or make one."

I can agree with you here.

The same goes for libertarians; we will never accept socialism.

Unless you are a disciple of Kropotkin, Proudhon, Spooner, Bookchin, Chomsky or someone like that of course.

I'm rather in the middle of libertarians personally, a distributist like Chesterbelloc.

My assumptions are three:

1) One's value scale is totally (linearly) ordered:

i) Transitive; p ≤ q and q ≤ r imply p ≤ r

ii) Reflexive; p ≤ p

iii) Anti-Symmetric; p ≤ q and q ≤ p imply p = q

iv) Total; p ≤ q or q ≤ p

2) Marginal (diminishing) utility, u(s), is such that:

i) It is independent of first-unit demand.

ii) It is negative monotonic; that is, u'(s) < 0.

iii) The integral of u(s) from zero to infinity is finite.

3) First-unit demand conforms to proportionate effect:

i) Value changes each day by a proportion (called 1+εj, with j denoting
the day), of the previous day's value.

ii) In the long run, the εj's may be considered random as they are not
directly related to each other nor are they uniquely a function of
value.

iii) The εj's are taken from an unspecified distribution with a finite
mean and a non-zero, finite variance.

I'm sure some of these can be questioned for instance the transitive assumption. But personally to me the most important problem is you seem to working on a completely methodological individualism and in some ways homo economicus framework although I may be wrong.

What about the constitutive role of institutions in shaping actors within them? Or the fact that in many ways the model of rational economic man and rational choice theory leaves much to be desired?

 

[Onion Eater]

They are a diverse bunch the PA lot. Are you saying they all make this assumption or are you extrapolating from what one said?

I can see why one would be wary of axiomatic economics although dismissing it is silly.

I asked to have my name placed on the list of heterodox economists at Directory of Leading Heterodox Economists and received no reply. So I e-mailed everybody on that list and asked them to contact the administration on my behalf. The few who replied all said, basically, that they despised axiomatic economics, that I was a stooge for Big Business and represented what the PA movement was opposed to. They did not indicate that they understood that I have my own axiomatic system, although that should have been clear from even a superficial reading of my homepage.

These are different people or "socialists" you are talking about and socialism is a wide range of viewpoints. I'm not sure why they have to be consistent on this point or what it means.

Both the Reglar quote and the Yunker quote were posted by the same person, Scucca. I asked him to reconcile these views and he disappeared, then reappeared on another forum under the name Revier. I asked him again but he just kept trying to re-direct my thread to a discussion of Keynes and refused to answer my question.

Revier! Reply!
I know that you are Scucca and I suspect that you are Steve Reglar. You have quoted Reglar and Yunker repeatedly at this and other forums, including Debate Politics. I asked you there to reconcile these two men's positions and you disappeared.

Perhaps you would be so kind as to reply here?

I wait for a reply.

Are these people actually socialists or have are describing all PA economists and assorted liberals and social democrats as "socialist". Socialism also does not necessarily mean central planning or anything like that, there are libertarian and anarchist socialists. The very word libertarian was the invention of French anarchist communists.

PA economists have never criticized my writing, only my presumed status as a stooge of Big Business. The only time a socialist has criticized my writing was here, when Scucca said my references were insubstantial.

Unless you are a disciple of Kropotkin, Proudhon, Spooner, Bookchin, Chomsky or someone like that of course.

I'm rather in the middle of libertarians personally, a distributist like Chesterbelloc.

I don’t know who any of these people are. At that other forum, when I was trying to get Scucca/Revier to justify his repeated and contradictory references to Reglar and Yunker, another socialist tried to rescue him by diverting my thread to a discussion of Kropotkin. I replied:

Wikipedia writes:

"Kropotkin never fully outlined how such a system would be achieved, nor did he answer the questions of how such a system would be structured or make decisions, other than to make broad pronouncements about mutual exchanges. For example he gives the examples of farmers in the countryside producing grain for the city based on the understanding that workers in the city will then provide them with finished goods."

I asked Revier/Scucca to justify his repeated quoatations of Reglar and Yunker, who have contradictory views of GE Theory. I don't care about some Russian spinning dreamy theories forty years before the revival of GE Theory, which is the topic of this thread.

Frankly, I still don't care about Kropotkin. I don't know why his name keeps coming up in threads about GE Theory.

I looked up Distributism and it sounds like the distributists are using the word "capitalism" to refer to what is more commonly called "fascism." Hernando de Soto is working on how to distribute land in South America, which is a somewhat similar problem. I've read de Soto and mostly agree with his approach.

I'm sure some of these can be questioned for instance the transitive assumption. But personally to me the most important problem is you seem to working on a completely methodological individualism and in some ways homo economicus framework although I may be wrong.

What about the constitutive role of institutions in shaping actors within them? Or the fact that in many ways the model of rational economic man and rational choice theory leaves much to be desired?

I have a Non-Mathematical Explanation of the Axioms which may help justify them. My axioms describe basic human nature and are at a deeper level than people’s responses to particular institutions. Grounding one’s theory on human nature is methodological individualism, if I understand the meaning of that term.

 

[Wessexman]

I asked to have my name placed on the list of heterodox economists at Directory of Leading Heterodox Economists and received no reply. So I e-mailed everybody on that list and asked them to contact the administration on my behalf. The few who replied all said, basically, that they despised axiomatic economics, that I was a stooge for Big Business and represented what the PA movement was opposed to. They did not indicate that they understood that I have my own axiomatic system, although that should have been clear from even a superficial reading of my homepage.

Well they'd be wrong to treat you that way, although I'd be wary of axiomatic economics too.

Both the Reglar quote and the Yunker quote were posted by the same person, Scucca. I asked him to reconcile these views and he disappeared, then reappeared on another forum under the name Revier. I asked him again but he just kept trying to re-direct my thread to a discussion of Keynes and refused to answer my question.

I did not know this. Who is Scucca?

PA economists have never criticized my writing, only my presumed status as a stooge of Big Business. The only time a socialist has criticized my writing was here, when Scucca said my references were insubstantial.

You seem to be automatically calling PA economists socialists. I think that is not accurate or needed personally mate. Steve Keen for instance is not a socialist but a liberal/social democrat.

I don’t know who any of these people are. At that other forum, when I was trying to get Scucca/Revier to justify his repeated and contradictory references to Reglar and Yunker, another socialist tried to rescue him by diverting my thread to a discussion of Kropotkin. I replied:



Frankly, I still don't care about Kropotkin. I don't know why his name keeps coming up in threads about GE Theory.

Actually Kropotkin did make outlines, look up his works like The Conquest of Bread or Fields, Factories and workshops and he made more than broad prouncements on mutual aid he wrote a whole detailed and interesting book on it, he is one of the premier theorists of anarcho-communism and decentralised economics, a insightful and important thinker. He was probably brought up because you seem to be suggesting that socialism always means central planning.

One should not dismiss people who one has only vague familiarity with. His works are available online mostly and he was a very interesting and insightful thinkers particularly for libertarians and decentralists.

I looked up Distributism and it sounds like the distributists are using the word "capitalism" to refer to what is more commonly called "fascism." Hernando de Soto is working on how to distribute land in South America, which is a somewhat similar problem. I've read de Soto and mostly agree with his approach.

Well it is more commonly called capitalism really, ie when most people are productive propertyless and a few own large amounts. This has always marked actually existing capitalism. But I don't think terms like that are particularly important.

What it means for me is locally collected georgist land value tax replacing most other taxes, strict adandonment rules, an end to corporate personhood and privileges and perhaps some local and regional encourgament of guild like systems for certain industries and professions and co-ops although the last bit I'm not certain about.

I have a Non-Mathematical Explanation of the Axioms which may help justify them. My axioms describe basic human nature and are at a deeper level than people’s responses to particular institutions. Grounding one’s theory on human nature is methodological individualism, if I understand the meaning of that term.

Well firstly what are presumptions about human nature? If they are much the same as homo economicus then that would make me wary of them. And even if they are different I don't think one can sum up society by studying the transactions of autonomous individuals alone, institutions and society have a massive impact on men, they help to constitute the actors themselves to some degree.

 

[Onion Eater]

Who is Scucca?

Scucca is a socialist who used to be active here at Debate Politics until I pinned him down on his contradictory views of GE Theory. For those who know and love Scucca (Ha! Ha!), he is now at Political Forum under the name Reiver - but not for long because, as soon as I found him, I gave him another thrashing.

You seem to be automatically calling PA economists socialists. I think that is not accurate or needed personally mate. Steve Keen for instance is not a socialist but a liberal/social democrat.

I am not. In the (rather ungrammatical) sentence quoted below you mentioned both PA economists and socialists and I replied seperately: The PA economists denounced me as a stooge of Big Business and the only self-described socialist that I know, Scucca, denounced my insubstantial references at Is the collapse of the dollar inevitable?

Are these people actually socialists or have are describing all PA economists and assorted liberals and social democrats as "socialist".

FYI: Keen was not among those who replied to my request to be listed at the Directory of Leading Heterodox Economists.

Well it is more commonly called capitalism really, ie when most people are productive propertyless and a few own large amounts. This has always marked actually existing capitalism.

The reason that most people in America are "productive propertyless," e.g. they do not own capital, is because the government taxes the **** out of the workingman, so only a few can afford to buy the capital that they need to start a small business. But, in spite of the government, some still do. I did.

I don't think one can sum up society by studying the transactions of autonomous individuals alone, institutions and society have a massive impact on men, they help to constitute the actors themselves to some degree.

I disagree. One CAN sum up society by studying the transactions of autonomous individuals. I own a small business and my only interaction with institutions is hiding from them. The government is like the weather; I take cover during storms and just work through drizzles with a wide-brimmed hat on.

 

[Wessexman]

Scucca is a socialist who used to be active here at Debate Politics until I pinned him down on his contradictory views of GE Theory. For those who know and love Scucca (Ha! Ha!), he is now at Political Forum under the name Reiver - but not for long because, as soon as I found him, I gave him another thrashing.

I don't think gloating helps anyone mate.

I disagree. One CAN sum up society by studying the transactions of autonomous individuals. I own a small business and my only interaction with institutions is hiding from them. The government is like the weather; I take cover during storms and just work through drizzles with a wide-brimmed hat on.

So you started a small business? Where did you think of that idea from? Where did you get the communication skills to communicate this idea to others such as staff and clients? Where did the system through which you trade come from with all its parts from currency to demand?

One certainly can no more sum up society by studying the transactions of autonomous individuals(there is no such thing btw!) than one can sum up individuals by studying society alone.

 

[Onion Eater]

So you started a small business? Where did you think of that idea from?

I got that idea from looking at my 1040 form and realizing that I would never get ahead by pulling the socialist wagon. Since I wasn't invited to ride in the socialist wagon, the only option was to break free from that harness and make a go of it on my own.

Incidentally, I have page on my website titled, Thinking of quitting your job to start a business?

 

[Agnapostate]

I don’t know who any of these people are. At that other forum, when I was trying to get Scucca/Revier to justify his repeated and contradictory references to Reglar and Yunker, another socialist tried to rescue him by diverting my thread to a discussion of Kropotkin. I replied:

Frankly, I still don't care about Kropotkin. I don't know why his name keeps coming up in threads about GE Theory.

You have quite the selective memory, don't you? An affirmation of Kropotkin's work by the evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould was posted, and you then disappeared, which makes this ultimate observation of Scucca/Reiver especially credible. "Whilst Agnapostate and I are both open about the nature of our socialism, you've simply ignored the debate."

 

[Onion Eater]

At that other forum, when I was trying to get Scucca/Revier to justify his repeated and contradictory references to Reglar and Yunker, another socialist tried to rescue him by diverting my thread to a discussion of Kropotkin.

You have quite the selective memory, don't you? An affirmation of Kropotkin's work by the evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould was posted, and you then disappeared

A cockroach walked across my kitchen floor and I neglected to step on it?

You're right! I'd forgotten that incident entirely!

 

[Agnapostate]

A cockroach walked across my kitchen floor and I neglected to step on it?

You're right! I'd forgotten that incident entirely!

If "axiomatic economics" is even worthy of such a label as that.

:2wave:

 

[Wessexman]

I got that idea from looking at my 1040 .

So from society. My point is proved.

 

[Wessexman]

A cockroach walked across my kitchen floor and I neglected to step on it?

You're right! I'd forgotten that incident entirely!

Are you calling Kropotkin a cockroach?

He is an extremely interesting and insightful thinker and anyone calling himself a libertarian can learn a lot from this great past master.

 

[Agnapostate]

Are you calling Kropotkin a cockroach?

He is an extremely interesting and insightful thinker and anyone calling himself a libertarian can learn a lot from this great past master.

He's calling me a cockroach, presumably. I'm the "other socialist" he's referring to. Then again, he's rather ignorant of political economy (instead choosing to fiddle around with his "axiomatic" abstractions), so he may be referring to Kropotkin.

 

[Wessexman]

He's calling me a cockroach, presumably. I'm the "other socialist" he's referring to. Then again, he's rather ignorant of political economy (instead choosing to fiddle around with his "axiomatic" abstractions), so he may be referring to Kropotkin.

I must say I like Kropotkin a lot. As a decentralist, even a somewhat Consefvative one, he is a very important thinker to me. Like Robert Nisbet I can see that through all the differences there are some great similarities between such conservative thinkers as Burke, De Maistre, Lamennais and De Tocqueville and anarchists like Proudhon, Kropotkin and Landauer.

Austrian economics is interesting. There is a lot of rubbish in it but perhaps not as much as neoclassical economics and there are some good ideas, particularly for us decentralist, particularly in the Hayekian strain. Hayek basically showed how large, hierarchical organisations were necessarily inefficient, even if he only applied it to state departments.

 

[Agnapostate]

Ah, of course. Read any Burczak? Post-Hayekian socialism is a fascinating topic, and was one of Scucca's (Reiver's) specialties.

 

[Onion Eater]

Are you calling Kropotkin a cockroach?

He is an extremely interesting and insightful thinker and anyone calling himself a libertarian can learn a lot from this great past master.

If Kropotkin is so interesting and insightful, then start your own damned thread about him. I am sick of you and Agnapostate trying to hi-jack my threads.

When I was trying to get Scucca/Revier to justify his repeated and contradictory references to Reglar and Yunker, another socialist tried to rescue him by diverting my thread to a discussion of Kropotkin.

Like a cockroach who ran across my kitchen floor and didn't get stepped on, Agnapostate is now claiming that, because he managed to drop Kropotkin's name into somebody else's thread, like a turd into a punchbowl, he "won" by diverting the discussion, just as the turd-thrower "won" by preventing the people from drinking any more punch.

This thread is about cutting the Gordian knot of GE Theory. I will answer questions on this topic and this topic only.

 

[Wessexman]

If Kropotkin is so interesting and insightful, then start your own damned thread about him. I am sick of you and Agnapostate trying to hi-jack my threads.

:lol:

Your threads are all the same and make little sense. We are actually making them somewhat interesting. You should thank us.

 

[Wessexman]

Ah, of course. Read any Burczak? Post-Hayekian socialism is a fascinating topic, and was one of Scucca's (Reiver's) specialties.

No afraid not. I shall have to look into him when I have some time. I haven't been reading much economics lately.

 

[donsutherland1]

Moderator's Warning:

Members should try to stay reasonably close to the topic on which the thread was started and issues that arise relevant to the thread's subject matter. Thank you.

 

[Onion Eater]

If Kropotkin is so interesting and insightful, then start your own damned thread about him. I am sick of you and Agnapostate trying to hi-jack my threads.

Like a cockroach who ran across my kitchen floor and didn't get stepped on, Agnapostate is now claiming that, because he managed to drop Kropotkin's name into somebody else's thread, like a turd into a punchbowl, he "won" by diverting the discussion, just as the turd-thrower "won" by preventing the people from drinking any more punch.

This thread is about cutting the Gordian knot of GE Theory. I will answer questions on this topic and this topic only.

Hi-jacking people's threads isn't very cool.

Does anybody have any comments on the actual topic of the OP, General Equillibrium Theory?

 

[Onion Eater]

If Kropotkin is so interesting and insightful, then start your own damned thread about him. I am sick of you and Agnapostate trying to hi-jack my threads.

Like a cockroach who ran across my kitchen floor and didn't get stepped on, Agnapostate is now claiming that, because he managed to drop Kropotkin's name into somebody else's thread, like a turd into a punchbowl, he "won" by diverting the discussion, just as the turd-thrower "won" by preventing the people from drinking any more punch.

This thread is about cutting the Gordian knot of GE Theory. I will answer questions on this topic and this topic only.

The Post-Autistic economists are attempting to hack into my website!

Apparently, hi-jacking my threads was not enough for them, they are now attempting to shut down my website.

They posted a screen print of software intended to hack into people's websites with my server listed as the "target."

"You’ll be lucky if your site’s still up come morning, little b!tch!"

 

[Agnapostate]

The Low Orbit Ion Cannon is intended for the utilization of denial-of-service attacks, not hacks. It was an app primarily used by Anonymous during Project Chanology. That said, perhaps you should reciprocate by using it on say...the Austrian school. :shrug:

 

[donsutherland1]

Moderator's Warning:

DP should not be used as a forum to air personal disputes. Thank you in advance for your cooperation. P.S. If one's website is being attacked, one can report the issue to the company hosting one's site. Typically, the host has the tools to identify the origin of the problem, fixes to better protect one's site, and overall knowledge concerning how to proceed with the issue.

 

[Onion Eater]

The Low Orbit Ion Cannon is intended for the utilization of denial-of-service attacks, not hacks. It was an app primarily used by Anonymous during Project Chanology. That said, perhaps you should reciprocate by using it on say...the Austrian school. :shrug:

The Austrians are not attacking my website. You are.

Political Forum - View Profile: Onion Eater