Re: standard of living

[GBRansom@xxxxxxx by emout10.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) Mon, 6 Oct 1997 18:25:23 -0400 (EDT)]

In a message dated 97-10-06 15:44:03 EDT, Alan writes:

<< (If I cannot afford my old bundle, they
 say, I *must* be worse off!) Why? I suggest that it is
 because they have not learned to use utility maximization
 modeling as an aid to understanding. >>

I just want to know what makes you think a pure logic allows us to
say that we are 'just as well off' across real time when we are
talking about real people ... I reject the idea that the logic of means
ends relations (of which utility theory is merely a formalization)
can allow us to say either of these across real time for
real folks.  It is an abuse of the logic to think that this logic
allows us to do either.  It is just such assumed abilities
which is at the heart of much of the _misunderstanding_ which
the unsuccessful explanatory strategies of 'mainstream'
economists have led the profession into.  It's a simple insight
that the relational logic of means-ends planning it a one-
point-in time logic for an agent organizing activities in his head.
An _illogical_ use is to attempt to take this logic and use
it as an empirical 'science' of action, this simply violates the
coherent bounds of the logic itself.  It is this confused scientism
which is were 'mainstreamers' have gone off course, giving us
misunderstanding, confusion, and language on holiday, and not
logical soundness, univeral laws, and understanding, etc.


There are uses for the utility maximization construction .. getting
a better sense of what these are requires getting a better sense of were
we are attempting to use the construct contrary to its logic.  Many
of those who played a role in originating and developing the modern ordinal
utility construction in no way developed the construct for the scientistic
purposes for which it is so widely used today .. and they and their students
were some of the first to point out that in no way can a 'science of action'
on the 'empiricist'/'positivist' model be constructed out of the construction
--
see for example the work of Hayek's students Shackle and Lachmann.
Wong, Sen, Rosenberg, Hausman and others develop and discuss other
logical and explanatory problems of the attempt to 'scientize' a pure logic
for
'explanatory' purposes on the 'science' or 'physics' model.  The confusion
is on the part of the 'mainstreamers' and the illogical uses to which they
attempt to put a pure logic -- the confusion in not in the logic itself.



Greg Ransom
Dept. of Philosophy
UC-Riverside
gbransom@xxxxxxx
http://members.aol.com/gregransom/ransom.htm