3 ms·

If one looks at this more broadly, the examples you bring up have to do with the fact that not everything can be reduced to monetary or market exchange (a distr

If one looks at this more broadly, the examples you bring up have to do with the fact that not everything can be reduced to monetary or market exchange (a distressing thought to some libertarians). This is more of the underlying problem than GDP itself which is "just" an accounting equation... Which is hard to use when there is nothing to account. The question for society is , does this even really matter? We never used to subject ourselves to economics and markets as the totalizing sphere of human achievement, it was one of several areas of social organization alongside community, politics, family, religion, etc. We only start caring about this stuff when we want to compute dubious universal ultility functions and the like.

netcan 11y ago
This is a little unfair to (intelligent) libertarians. A similar argument could be made for socialists or welfarists. They all rely on "economics" in the sense that they are quantifying and describing the dynamics of economic activity. Thoughtful libertarians know that these measures and models are representations of reality, not reality. In fact, a fairly important figure in "neoliberal" thought is Hayek. Hayek (and Hayekians) argue that not only is the economy difficult to quantify and describe formally, it is impossible. In his frameworks price and choice are conveyors for knowledge. I would even say that the most serious hubris in this vein has been the Stalinist and Maoist "5 year plan" which aimed to quantify economies in accounting terms.
- parasubvert 11y ago
  I agree with some of your points: it was a little unfair, and Stalin and Mao certainly had great hubris. I tend to view libertarianism as the next desired grand social experiment: the Marxism of the Right. This leaks out via dry attempts at humor. Perhaps it won't be a disaster; I also admit I should be more respectful in a debating forum. As for Hayek, I don't think he is unique in the view that price is about knowledge. While Hayek was the more readable and reasonable one between him and Von Mises, I'm aware the Austrians don't really believe one can scientifically study the economy, but I also think there is plenty of evidence that has refuted this: we can quantify and describe a large subset of the economy with predictive power.

netcan 11y ago

This is a little unfair to (intelligent) libertarians. A similar argument could be made for socialists or welfarists. They all rely on "economics" in the sense that they are quantifying and describing the dynamics of economic activity. Thoughtful libertarians know that these measures and models are representations of reality, not reality. In fact, a fairly important figure in "neoliberal" thought is Hayek. Hayek (and Hayekians) argue that not only is the economy difficult to quantify and describe formally, it is impossible. In his frameworks price and choice are conveyors for knowledge. I would even say that the most serious hubris in this vein has been the Stalinist and Maoist "5 year plan" which aimed to quantify economies in accounting terms.

parasubvert 11y ago
I agree with some of your points: it was a little unfair, and Stalin and Mao certainly had great hubris. I tend to view libertarianism as the next desired grand social experiment: the Marxism of the Right. This leaks out via dry attempts at humor. Perhaps it won't be a disaster; I also admit I should be more respectful in a debating forum. As for Hayek, I don't think he is unique in the view that price is about knowledge. While Hayek was the more readable and reasonable one between him and Von Mises, I'm aware the Austrians don't really believe one can scientifically study the economy, but I also think there is plenty of evidence that has refuted this: we can quantify and describe a large subset of the economy with predictive power.