Quantifying the unquantifiable.

[Riddick]

nm

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you agree with this statement or do you require evidence/proof?

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't know that and I haven't thought about it much, but I'll take your workd for it.

[ QUOTE ]
I agree, but I am saying there are certain problems associated with having an economic theory for non-economic goods. Stuff like supply being infinite, demand being unmeasurable, utility values being unknown and not following rules associated with those for economic goods etc. makes it impossible to devise a theory with any practical applications.

I guess you are saying it's still worthwhile to have such a theory, while I'm saying that if it has no practical use, then how could it be?

[/ QUOTE ]

That's exactly what Austrian theory is. It takes the basic premises (supply is limited, people act for personal benefit, a good's value is relative to an individual, trade exists for mutual benefit), and explains why capitalism is better than, say, communism.

Newton's "every action has an equal and opposite reaction" is not always observable and measurable, but it doesn't mean that it's useless.

[Zygote]

happiness can be defined on a scale of the increasing satisfaction of ends. All this is more objective than you present and this concept also has universal consensus since i can't see an objection.

The question is what is the best strategy to achieve the highest possible satisfaction. People often don't strategize properly to meet their ends, like the losing poker player whose goal is soley to make money but achieves the opposite and continues to do so. However, his futile efforts can be objectively demonstrated as being in his worst interest and if he chooses a different strategy (not playing poker or playing winning poker) he will be better off.

Comparing a free market to socialism, for example, might come down to the free marketist attempting to show that free markets allow for all the benefits of socialism and more with less or no extra overweighting costs. Or perhaps they can show that non-traditional-socialistic means do a better job of achieving socialistic ends. The utility and total satisfaction of ends within the free market could, therefore, be higher.

Basically we are trying to achieve overall satisfaction of ends which includes the diverse, subjective and often contradictory range of human preferences. This is why life is a non-self-weighting (see Malmuth's Gambling Theory and Other Topics) game and, therefore, requires a non-self-weighting strategy. A free market advocate may then attempt to objectively demonstrate that central authorites often highly embrace self-weighting strategies and, as a result, will not maximize the potential benefits of a non-self-weighting game.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
happiness can be defined on a scale of the increasing satisfaction of ends. All this is more objective than you present and this concept also has universal consensus since i can't see an objection.

[/ QUOTE ]

How one measure "satisfaction of ends"?

[The Don]

It's not really measureable, but it's observable at least. For instance, if I want to play some video games and my roomate decides to smash my Xbox, then outside force has prevented me from pursuing my own ends and I'm not happy. Similarly, if I want to buy a BMW but I can't because 40% of my income was confinscated by the state, then I have been forcefully prevented from satisfying my own ends and again, I'm not pleased.

[Darryl_P]

[ QUOTE ]
That's exactly what Austrian theory is. It takes the basic premises (supply is limited, people act for personal benefit, a good's value is relative to an individual, trade exists for mutual benefit), and explains why capitalism is better than, say, communism.


[/ QUOTE ]

No problem with capitalism being better than communism, and I'm also into free markets for most economic goods.

But you even mention an assumption above (ie. that supply is limited) that doesn't apply to stuff like trust or love, say, since there is no upper bound on their quantities.

Do you not see that it makes no sense to apply economic theories to these since the basic premises are not satisfied? And to the extent that these non-economic goods impact your life, do you not see the need for a broader approach to life than basing everything on an economic theory?

I'm talking about the thinking process for a single individual (like yourself), not about how society should be organized. Even if the world were 100% AC I'd still ask the same questions.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How so? I don't understand what you mean.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm saying that if you take all the paid invoices in the world from 2005 that fall under the category of litigation services, say, and add up the value of all of them in dollars, then more than 90% of that value comes from invoices issued in the United States or by US owned entities.
Do you agree with this statement or do you require evidence/proof?

[ QUOTE ]
I think a good economic theory should attempt to explain the distribution of all useful things, including the feelings of mutual trust that you describe, in the context of their real, subjective value.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree, but I am saying there are certain problems associated with having an economic theory for non-economic goods. Stuff like supply being infinite, demand being unmeasurable, utility values being unknown and not following rules associated with those for economic goods etc. makes it impossible to devise a theory with any practical applications.

I guess you are saying it's still worthwhile to have such a theory, while I'm saying that if it has no practical use, then how could it be?

[ QUOTE ]
With elections up, banning gay marriage is an issue again. Regardless of the GDP considerations, how do we decide whether a social policy is best?

[/ QUOTE ]

This leaps far beyond what I said. My post concerns what *you* or *I* decide is best. What *we* decide is best involves communicating our preferences and reaching a consensus, something that may require several lifetimes to do, or may even be impossible.

[/ QUOTE ]

Id like to see some links to that data, yes. If it includes lawyers shares of contingency awards then I might believe it. If it is time and expense billings only, Ive got trouble believing it.