tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post4769996320826053173..comments2024-03-27T03:00:27.024-04:00Comments on Facts & other stubborn things: A couple marginalism thoughts from reading Agnar SandmoEvanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12259004160963531720noreply@blogger.comBlogger16125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-27812789855269435802013-07-03T12:17:24.313-04:002013-07-03T12:17:24.313-04:00Daniel Kuehn: Fair enough. There aren't that m...Daniel Kuehn: Fair enough. There aren't that many people that have read <i>A Treatise on Probability</i> cover to cover, and properly understand it. I can name three people off the top of my head, and two of the three I have corresponded with. Two of the three, IIRC, read <i>A Treatise on Probability</i> as their very first book by J.M. Keynes.Blue Aurorahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02044362251868221897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-50204542196833562162013-07-03T11:59:56.756-04:002013-07-03T11:59:56.756-04:00It's weird because it is harder to obtain and ...It's weird because it is harder to obtain and more peripheral to what most people think of when they think of Keynes.<br /><br />How many people do you know who have only read the TP?<br /><br />Min is my first. Do you know any others? The relative lack of such people seems as good a reason as any for calling it "weird" :)<br /><br />I'm certainly not arguing that there aren't important ideas in the TP.Daniel Kuehnhttp://www.factsandotherstubbornthings.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-29522247552598403952013-07-03T11:53:53.761-04:002013-07-03T11:53:53.761-04:00Min: I see. Are you a mathematician by training, o...Min: I see. Are you a mathematician by training, or what? Have you seen any of the articles that I linked you to in the previous comment I had before?<br /><br />Daniel Kuehn: How is it weird? <i>A Treatise on Probability</i> was actually supposed to be J.M. Keynes's second publication after <i>Indian Currency and Finance</i>, but that didn't happen thanks to the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand of Austria. It had to be delayed for publication due to censorship issues, and only came out in 1921. Also, as you ought to know, Daniel Kuehn, his 1921 book is actually of immense importance to his later thought...there is a reason he has two footnotes in <i>The General Theory</i> referring to Chapter VI of <i>A Treatise on Probability</i>.Blue Aurorahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02044362251868221897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-61993196534341411042013-07-02T00:45:19.625-04:002013-07-02T00:45:19.625-04:00Great example, kevin! :)
Great example, kevin! :)<br />Minnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-73858906850064005602013-07-01T16:39:59.779-04:002013-07-01T16:39:59.779-04:00Min: I agree re: partial ordering. The best exampl...Min: I agree re: partial ordering. The best example I know is Razian incommensurability. Suppose you don't prefer Darwin to Mozart, nor Darwin to Mozart. Are you then indifferent between the two? If so then a hypothetical Darwin-ALT who was Darwin with a little bit more musical ability than the actual Darwin would be strictly preferred to Mozart. This is not so, obviously. We are not indifferent between the two - they are incommensurable. kevin quinnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04880872194080353414noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-8096563791805804402013-07-01T16:24:30.163-04:002013-07-01T16:24:30.163-04:00I think some Austrians put a lot of weight on the ...I think some Austrians put a lot of weight on the cardinal v. ordinal point because they don't really get why other economists use cardinal measures just for the sake of illustration/modelling. Fortunately, all the effort bloggers have put into correcting this misinterpretation has paid off -- I don't think many Austrians still think this is true (or, maybe the benefit is that young Austrians have paid attention and moved away from the Auburn sect). Menger may not have discussed the use of cardinality for modeling because he didn't do much quantitative modeling. I don't think that he was unfamiliar with it (or he could have been, but I don't think it matters that much); he was approaching economics from a fundamentally different angle than Walras. Menger wasn't interested in exploring general equilibrium. He wanted to develop a causal theory of value and prices -- Walras' GE construction, as far as I know, wasn't interested in the causal process. Some of this, I think, has to do with Menger's preoccupation with the role of time.Jonathan Finegoldhttp://www.economicthought.net/blog/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-76863968198094439382013-07-01T16:01:28.787-04:002013-07-01T16:01:28.787-04:00Seriously?
That's cool but weird :)Seriously?<br /><br />That's cool but weird :)Daniel Kuehnhttp://www.factsandotherstubbornthings.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-85836270472718775072013-07-01T16:00:01.289-04:002013-07-01T16:00:01.289-04:00That's the only thing of Keynes that I have re...That's the only thing of Keynes that I have read. :)Minnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-64529069337663236942013-07-01T13:28:32.216-04:002013-07-01T13:28:32.216-04:00I see. Did you see the names of de Finetti, Ramsey...I see. Did you see the names of de Finetti, Ramsey, and Savage in the bibliography of the book? And would it be fair for me to guess that Ellsberg's name was absent?Blue Aurorahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02044362251868221897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-59709992352668176482013-07-01T13:27:44.306-04:002013-07-01T13:27:44.306-04:00Have you read A Treatise on Probability, Min?
Or ...Have you read <i>A Treatise on Probability</i>, Min?<br /><br />Or any of the following articles?<br /><br />http://bjps.oxfordjournals.org/content/44/2/357.full.pdf+html<br /><br />http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02698599408573487<br /><br />http://www.torrossa.it/resources/an/2569189Blue Aurorahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02044362251868221897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-17468970382791510282013-07-01T13:21:42.066-04:002013-07-01T13:21:42.066-04:00Seniors system is based around utility, it's f...Seniors system is based around utility, it's fairly similar to other later types of marginalism.<br /><br />Rather than me explaining it, it's easy to read what he wrote, his explanation of his marginalist system is only a few pages long:<br />http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=116&chapter=36047&layout=html&Itemid=27Currenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08645195276844244481noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-28547499139469926972013-07-01T09:45:30.583-04:002013-07-01T09:45:30.583-04:00There is empirical evidence that human preferences...There is empirical evidence that human preferences are only partially ordered. Some people think that that means that they are irrational, but that's an antiquated notion of rationality. It is notable, I think, that Keynes regarded probabilities as partially ordered. Minnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-29377879824811518692013-07-01T09:32:16.916-04:002013-07-01T09:32:16.916-04:00Not yet but they would come later - I'm in the...Not yet but they would come later - I'm in the late nineteenth century at this point.<br /><br />There is only a chapter or two on post-Keynes economics and I think that focuses on the macro wars and the rise of econometrics.Daniel Kuehnhttp://www.factsandotherstubbornthings.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-90127750093035995682013-07-01T09:31:09.978-04:002013-07-01T09:31:09.978-04:00Those are the four he mentioned in a chapter dedic...Those are the four he mentioned in a chapter dedicated to the question. Senior came up in passing before. More precedents were discussed than just those four but they were focused on as the cases that really could have been "the marginal revolution" if intellectual history had played out differently. A lot of it was presented as a sociological problem. They were not operating in communities of economists, they were not writing for economists in a lot of cases and they just weren't taken up by others.<br /><br />I'm not deeply familiar with Senior - if you've got the time/interest I'd be interested in hearing about the sense in which he anticipated marginalism.Daniel Kuehnhttp://www.factsandotherstubbornthings.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-13052303407156262332013-07-01T09:17:54.082-04:002013-07-01T09:17:54.082-04:00Does it mention Senior as a pre-marginalist? I th...Does it mention Senior as a pre-marginalist? I thought he was quite important too.Currenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08645195276844244481noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-20425601188650141262013-07-01T07:20:34.453-04:002013-07-01T07:20:34.453-04:00Out of curiosity, does Agnar Sandmo's book cit...Out of curiosity, does Agnar Sandmo's book cite anything by Samuel Hollander?<br /><br />But speaking of ordinal utility and cardinal utility...does Sandmo deal with the founding fathers of S.E.U. theory (Bruno de Finetti, F.P. Ramsey, and L.J. Savage) in at least one footnote and with Daniel Ellsberg's critique of S.E.U. theory, only in passing?Blue Auroranoreply@blogger.com