Mises' political quote

"There is no use in deceiving ourselves. American public opinion rejects the market economy, the capitalistic free enterprise system that provided the nation with the highest standard of living ever attained. Full government control of all activities of the individual is virtually the goal of both national parties."
Economic Freedom and Interventionism, p. 157

I really, really didn't want to ever go here for fear of perhaps sending the earth tilting off its own axis, but when was the greatest period of prosperity in America?

B-Ran wrote:I really, really didn't want to ever go here for fear of perhaps sending the earth tilting off its own axis, but when was the greatest period of prosperity in America?

I do not know how to answer this question. What do you think?

I think that it's utterly absurd for Mises to talk about "the highest standard of living." What an arbitrary thing to even consider.

B-Ran wrote:I think that it's utterly absurd for Mises to talk about "the highest standard of living." What an arbitrary thing to even consider.

You should explain.

"Highest standard of living" according to whom, exactly?

B-Ran wrote:"Highest standard of living" according to whom, exactly?

You asked. Why don't you define what you mean?

I'm not asking what I mean. I'm asking what von Mises means. Because I don't think he even knows what he means.

My first question in the thread was primarily rhetorical, but I'd certainly be up for somebody trying to nail it down, since I'm not going to try.

B-Ran wrote:I'm not asking what I mean. I'm asking what von Mises means. Because I don't think he even knows what he means.

My first question in the thread was primarily rhetorical, but I'd certainly be up for somebody trying to nail it down, since I'm not going to try.

If I had to take my best guess, I would imagine that he meant that people were more able to get more of what they valued than ever before. Since people generally value eating, nicer housing, being able to travel when needed, etc., I imagine he was talking about all that and more being more available to more people than ever before.

What do you think he meant?

My point is if the man's going to condemn broad sweeping generalizations about the greater good, he should avoid employing broad sweeping generalizations of the greater good.

Enron wrote:

B-Ran wrote:I'm not asking what I mean. I'm asking what von Mises means. Because I don't think he even knows what he means.

My first question in the thread was primarily rhetorical, but I'd certainly be up for somebody trying to nail it down, since I'm not going to try.

If I had to take my best guess, I would imagine that he meant that people were more able to get more of what they valued than ever before. Since people generally value eating, nicer housing, being able to travel when needed, etc., I imagine he was talking about all that and more being more available to more people than ever before.

What do you think he meant?

I don't think he thought that one through, because if he did he'd recognize it flying in the face of all he'd ever done to convince everyone that the "best thing" is only ever subjective. According to many major world metering organization, the Scandinavian countries have the highest standard of living anywhere on earth. The opinions of those metering organizations are either meaningful or meaningless. I imagine that LvM would dismiss them out of hand. So he should stay away from making the same claims, because it makes him sound like a buffoon.

B-Ran wrote:My point is if the man's going to condemn broad sweeping generalizations about the greater good, he should avoid employing broad sweeping generalizations of the greater good.

He condemns broad sweeping generalizations of the greater good when he disagrees with them. Making generalizations is not necessarily a bad thing. They could be generally true or generally false.

I'm pretty sure wertfrei means that LvM condemns broad sweeping generalizations of the greater good generally. He believed his work didn't contain value judgments, only judgments of truth versus falsity.

B-Ran wrote:

Enron wrote:

B-Ran wrote:I'm not asking what I mean. I'm asking what von Mises means. Because I don't think he even knows what he means.

My first question in the thread was primarily rhetorical, but I'd certainly be up for somebody trying to nail it down, since I'm not going to try.

If I had to take my best guess, I would imagine that he meant that people were more able to get more of what they valued than ever before. Since people generally value eating, nicer housing, being able to travel when needed, etc., I imagine he was talking about all that and more being more available to more people than ever before.

What do you think he meant?

I don't think he thought that one through, because if he did he'd recognize it flying in the face of all he'd ever done to convince everyone that the "best thing" is only ever subjective.

I have no qualm with him saying these things. I understand what he was saying and I agree. He never said that the "best thing" is only ever subjective. He would argue that socialism is objectively worse at meeting the individual's needs than the free market.

See, this is something I always felt was inconsistent within von Mises' viewpoint: how could he know that without knowing the individual in question? Capitalism is insufficient to meet your needs if you get laid off or hurt to the point where you can't work and have no money, and yet that's no big deal?

B-Ran wrote:See, this is something I always felt was inconsistent within von Mises' viewpoint: how could he know that without knowing the individual in question? Capitalism is insufficient to meet your needs if you get laid off or hurt to the point where you can't work and have no money, and yet that's no big deal?

He isn't claiming to know each individual's particular situation. He definitely is not claiming that being laid off or being hurt real bad is "no big deal". However, one of the key premises in Mises' work is that people act deliberately. Deliberate action represents the person's value. The only way to truly test this, is within yourself. Is it circular in nature? Yes. I find it to be a self-evident truth.

Right, but deliberate action represents a person's value regardless of circumstances. People act. Sure. If you're asking me if I think people act, then the answer is "yes." That doesn't change the fact that it's incoherent to say that a certain class of actions get special preference just because we like them and then another set of actions is forbidden because they are scary and we don't like them.

B-Ran wrote:That doesn't change the fact that it's incoherent to say that a certain class of actions get special preference just because we like them and then another set of actions is forbidden because they are scary and we don't like them.

Do you apply this standard to your preferences of which drug is legalized? Not trying to change the subject... but it is relevant.

Enron wrote:

B-Ran wrote:That doesn't change the fact that it's incoherent to say that a certain class of actions get special preference just because we like them and then another set of actions is forbidden because they are scary and we don't like them.

Do you apply this standard to your preferences of which drug is legalized? Not trying to change the subject... but it is relevant.

Do you mean, do I apply the coherent corollary to the above statement, that a certain class of actions ought to get special preference because they are better and another set of actions should be forbidden because they are worse? Why yes. Yes I do.