> John C. Medaille wrote-  
  
> We (you, me, Mises) all seem to agree that   
> meaning derives only from a social context; the   
> question is whether MI can account for that   
> context, and indeed whether it simply begins at   
> the wrong end. But we might even use a better   
> description of meaning. The statement "all   
> meanings are individual meanings" is at best   
> partial and at worst simply wrong. Would it not   
> be more accurate, at a merely descriptive level,   
> to say that "all meanings are individual   
> expressions of socially derived meanings."   
  
  
Socially derived though the interaction of  
individuals? Who else? Of course people learn from  
each other and each individual is part of a social  
context, along with other individuals. I see nothing  
wrong with MI at this point. YOu have not made any  
problem clear, not anything that Mises (1922) and  
Hayek (1937) did not deal with.   
  
  
> And   
> does not such a description pose some   
> insurmountable challenges for MI? Nowhere in HA,   
> and nowhere in this discussion, have a seen a   
> method for bridging the gap that everyone   
> acknowledges, the gap between the individual and the  
> social.  
  
Well, actual Neoclassicals do not seem to acknowledge  
this gap. Where do Walrasian economists acknowledge  
this gap?   
  
  
> And this gets to the heart of why I consider   
> Misianism to be neoclassicism on steroids. NCE   
> models human behavior from a standpoint of pure   
> individualism; society is nothing more than the   
> summation of individual choices made for personal   
> benefit, and this remains true for Mises. But it   
> is not in fact true. The most important aspects   
> of our lives are not choices but gifts, and the   
> choices we do make are socially constrained and   
> at least partially determined.   
  
1. Determined by who, if not other individuals? I have  
yet to hear why anyone should take methodological  
collectivism seriously. I also do not see why thes  
supposed gap cannot be closed by any kind of MI based  
theory. Walrasian GE analysis obviously fails here,  
but Mises did things differently.  
  
2. WHy is the MI thing the only factor that matters to  
defining one as a neeoclassical? I think that it is  
very clear at this point that Mises differs from  
Walrasian type mainstream economics in several  
important ways- true dynamics, verbal logic, radical  
uncertainty, focus on institutions, apriorism... WHy  
should MI overide all these differences to make Mises  
the ultimate Neoclassical. THe fact of the matter is  
that real Neoclassicals ignore or sneer at Mises, and  
Miseseans find the Neoclassical obsession with static  
math models absurd. Why should your disdain for MI  
overide everything else?  
  
> >See above.  Mises would have agreed with   
> >everything in your paragraph above, yet he was a   
> >staunch methodological individualist.  Hence we   
> >are left with at least three possible explanatory  
> hypotheses:  
> >1. Mises wasn't really serious about all that  
> shared meaning stuff.  
> >2. Mises misunderstood what methodological  
> individualism meant.  
>   
> Or more likely, he posed a problem that he could not  
> solve.  
  
And that problem is??? It is still not clear why MI  
fails to explain social phenommena. I think we all  
agree that the standard textbook NC approach fails,  
and you seem to admit that Mises tried to do things  
differently. Please explain exactly how exactly  
Misesean economics fails.  
  
  
Doug Mackenzie