A propósito de uma discussao passada no Insurgente e sobre como o agora (será mesmo?) aceite conceito de utilidade ordinal tentou ser negado a todo o custo pelo "mainstream" até (como de costume) que depois aparentemente sem declarar derrota, passam a adoptar o conceito de origem "austriaca" como se até o tivessem sempre feito desde sempre ao ponto dos actuais neo-clássicos ou outros, acharem estranho que se aponte o facto, dando ideia que no fundo, isso já é desde sempre aceite pelos economistas (o que é uma tentativa de querer passar a ideia mais uma vez da suposta irrelevancia dos "austriacos"), encontrei nestas notas de um cursos sobre o Human Action de Mises (LvMI):
http://blog.mises.org/archives/002102.asp
"Choice and Preference
Choice is choosing between two alternatives.
Preference is just our ranking of the alternatives in the ordinal sense (e.g., 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc).
Praxeologically, preference is part of action. There is no such thing as preference separate from action, and thus no such thing as a ?preference map? existing separately from action.
Preference can only be demonstrated through action; there can only be demonstrated preference. Thus, we often times cannot know very much about an individuals value-scale, except what can be deduced.
Value
Value is subjective: that is, it is in the human mind and lacks extensive objective property; value does not exist outside of the human mind.
Because value is subjective and wholly in the human mind, it can not be measured.
Value is the state of mind we have; thus, there are no cardinal units of value (e.g., 1.5utils), as such is non-sensical; thus, we cannot add or subtract value, nor do any other mathematical manipulations of it.
Values are not constant, but are constantly changing.
There are no constants that relate our actions to objective conditions.
Value is not a cipher through which, influenced by external factors, preference determines action.
Mainstream economists have tried to use cardinal rank to represent ordinal rank; thus, they arbitrarily assign numbers to ordinal rankings:
e.g.,A -- 95B -- 85C -- 75
However, as Austrians note, A, B, and C are not like grades, but are states of mind.
Cardinal numbers are not a representation of ordinal rank: they are a ?representation? plus a quantitative difference between the rankings.
The mainstream response was to do linear transformations, which don?t change the function, but only the gap-size.
The Austrians responded that linear transformations don?t change the ratios. The only way to ?represent? ordinal ranks would be through all cardinal functions.
The mainstreamers then tried to use the concept of indifference -- the possibility of being indifferent between two options -- to equate utility:
Leap of FaithThis is wrong: to say that someone is indifferent is to say that they can?t make a choice; if they can make a choice, then they were not indifferent; however, to say that someone can?t make a choice is not to say that he or she equates utility.
(...)
Indifference does not explain action, but only inaction.
Indifference is not a useful economic theoretical concept, as indifference cannot be revealed through action, nor can indifference explain action. Indifference is only useful to psychologist, entrepreneurs, and forecasters.
Continuity: assumption that indifference is infinitesimal, smooth. In reality there is no reason to think that economic phenomena are continuous.
Assumption that utility function is constant, so that we can empirically measure a demand curve. This is flatly wrong, as peoples valuations are constantly changing.
Summarily, indifference is simply an equivocation that allows economists to get to cardinal utility. Bah humbug."
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário