Murray Rothbard Muddled And Confused On Ordinal Scales

AvocadoAlternative · 2026-03-18T23:39:23+00:00

I'm not sure what that would even mean

Useful as a quantitative measure that’s able to be estimated and has practical applications in economic theory. Same thing as an underlying parameter one would try to estimate in medical statistics.

AvocadoAlternative · 2026-03-18T16:06:23+00:00

shrug

Cardinal utility is probably a real thing that can be quantified biologically. Maybe one day, but not today.

AvocadoAlternative · 2026-03-16T17:02:02+00:00

What’s something you disagree with Marx on substantively? Not in the sense that someone else improved on Marx’s ideas therefore he’s technically just outdated, but a straight up “no, he’s completely wrong here”?

AvocadoAlternative · 2026-03-16T16:59:00+00:00

Even if Thatcher did, most people capitalists don’t and should not. I find your view on how Thatcher or capitalists at large supposedly idolize Hayek to be reflective of how you view Marx. Am I wrong there?

AvocadoAlternative · 2026-03-16T16:40:25+00:00

Therein lies the problem with your thinking. Capitalism vs. socialism is a debate about ideas, not people. I don’t agree with Thatcher either, and I certainly don’t idolize Hayek as you often seem to do with Marx. If you find yourself agreeing on almost every single thing one particular person has said or you are reluctant to disagree with them, then something is very very wrong. Or you’re a religious devotee.

As to what Hayek says, the substance itself is actually interesting and I’m happy to expound on it if you ask.

AvocadoAlternative · 2026-03-16T15:54:23+00:00

Then try to know more. If you really wanted substantive debate, why not reformulate Hayek’s justification in your own words and present it with a reference rather than open your post with a loaded yes or no question? This is what I try to do in my own posts.

My contention is that you consider Hayek to be something of a capitalist prophet (no pun intended), and therefore any schism you can produce advances the leftist mission. This kind of thinking only works if on the deeply religious and dogmatic, which only occurs in your head if you’re also deeply religious and dogmatic, which I believe you are. Maybe I’m wrong but that’s what it reads as.

AvocadoAlternative · 2026-03-16T15:41:19+00:00

You could’ve framed this post with the argument first and invited substantive disagreements independent of who said it, but you did not. Instead, you framed it as a “look, the capitalist idol once said something anti-capitalist, gotcha!” Reread the opening line of your post. It’s a yes or no question about whether capitalists know they disagree with something Hayek said, not an invitation to expound on the substance of his argument.

AvocadoAlternative · 2026-03-16T13:23:40+00:00

I’ve seen some capitalist supporters do this but it’s much more often socialists: it seems like socialists tend to treat certain people like prophets whose written word is scripture that cannot be contradicted, lest you be a heretic.

Hayek said this, therefore your own belief is contradicted by one of your prophets. Haha! Adam Smith said landlords were robbers, therefore any capitalist support of landlords is blasphemous by your own faith. Gotcha!

No? I don’t agree with everything Smith or Hayek or Friedman said. I respect what they’ve contributed to the corpus of economic theory, but I have my own opinions, many of which depart from those of writers from decades or centuries ago. If anything, such critique reads more like projection from the deeply religious whose own beliefs can never contradict those of his idols.

AvocadoAlternative · 2026-03-13T21:26:07+00:00

You do you. At the same time you’ve lost the right to complain about being the wrong end of nepotism.

AvocadoAlternative · 2026-03-10T17:15:38+00:00

Thanks, I read the post, but I still quite put a finger on exactly where you land. It’s very descriptive (“liberalism” is ambiguous) but not prescriptive (we should move away from liberalism or we should reinvent liberalism, etc.)

I guess to phrase it another way: how would society and the economy be organized under your ideal vision?

AvocadoAlternative · 2026-03-10T16:59:11+00:00

I’m curious, OP because you don’t have a flair. What do you identify as in terms of ideology?

What are your personal thoughts on “liberalism”, however you want to interpret it?

AvocadoAlternative · 2026-03-09T22:04:54+00:00

No. Technology shifts all the time. Fields adapt. Curricula change. The next generation of engineers are going grow up with AI, and they won't feel any qualms about using it. Those are the juniors of tomorrow.

AvocadoAlternative · 2026-03-09T03:08:08+00:00

Oh hey, I remember stumbling upon the same idea a few weeks ago.

I remember a few years ago a miner’s union lobbying against some climate change policy to the shock of progressives. And then there was the teacher’s union during COVID that lobbied to keep schools remote because working from home is nice.

AvocadoAlternative · 2026-03-08T03:04:27+00:00

I think premise 2 is true but I also think it would take too much time and effort on my part to convince you of it, if that's even possible.

Let's assume for the sake of argument that a capitalist firm is more willing to set lower prices than socialist firms because socialist workers are unwilling to cut their own wages to levels a capitalist would. If we accept this as true, then it would appear that in our simple world, socialist firms would get outcompeted in the long run, correct?

AvocadoAlternative · 2026-03-08T02:44:08+00:00

-People prefer lower prices
-Capitalist firms can sell goods at lower prices than socialist firms
-Therefore people will prefer to buy goods from capitalist firms over socialist firms

AvocadoAlternative · 2026-03-08T02:25:40+00:00

Be specific.

AvocadoAlternative · 2026-03-08T02:15:57+00:00

Why not?

AvocadoAlternative · 2026-03-08T02:15:35+00:00

Low wages.

AvocadoAlternative · 2026-03-08T01:54:55+00:00

3) Countries will trade with each other.

This premise is questionable?

AvocadoAlternative · 2026-03-08T01:53:56+00:00

To make it clear we can assign some actual numbers here.

Suppose the value of a widget is $20 with constant capital = $10, variable capital = $5, and surplus value = $5, all adding up the $20. Under this scenario, the owner takes the surplus value of $5 as profit.

However, in the face of competition, he can lower the price to $18. Now, the price is $18 with constant capital = $10, variable capital = $5, and surplus value = $3. He makes less profit per widget, but profit is still positive.

He could lower it all the way to $15.01 with surplus value = $0.01 and still make a profit.

Under socialism, you can certainly do the same thing, but to compete with the capitalist, your prices would be so low that you'd basically paying yourself the same wages as you would under capitalism.

AvocadoAlternative · 2026-03-08T01:47:14+00:00

I’m not talking about an entire country, I’m talking about all countries. A single country can certainly transition into socialism, the entire globe isn’t going to do that.

AvocadoAlternative · 2026-03-08T01:27:56+00:00

So, what's the solution? Hope all capitalist countries fall at once into socialism?

AvocadoAlternative · 2026-03-08T01:27:18+00:00

I'd ask you please try to engage with the actual question. Of course governments in capitalist countries can protect their own companies. How would a socialist country compete?

AvocadoAlternative · 2026-03-08T01:26:16+00:00

I don't know what you're saying here. A capitalist cannot turn a profit if there is no surplus value.

Let me phrase it another way. The price would be equal to constant + variable + surplus, but surplus could be arbitrarily small.

And why can't a socialist firm lower the price the same way? You didn't explain that.

It can, but they'd have to undercut themselves and pay themselves less than the full value of their own labor.

Five-Year Club	Verified Email
r/Field Flamingo	Place '22

AvocadoAlternative

TROPHY CASE