Michael Nuwer wrote:  
> Ok, I'll take the bait and enter your parlor.  
>  
> My goal as an economist is to find a theory (or set of theories) that (a) explain the
economy I live in and/or (b) provides guidance for actions I (and perhaps others) might
take in this economy. You seem to suggest that Mises has a different goal, is that
correct? If yes, than what is the value of his economic theory? (I don't mean this to be
rhetorical, but I don't know how else to phrase the question.)
>     
  
  
You are absolutely on target, Michael. But I resent the implication that   
I am playing some kind of debating game. I assure you that I am quite   
serious about Mises. I hope that you are also.  
  
What you describe as your goal is not the same as Mises's goal. Mises's   
goal -- the goal that he claims makes a value-free economic science   
possible -- is to evaluate arguments that favor socialism or some kind   
of market intervention. Since one cannot expect to seriously evaluate   
these arguments without an image of a market economy based on the   
assumptions I described, he regards building an image of it as his top   
priority in economics. Surely, you would agree that such constructs are   
essential to achieve Mises's goal.  
  
> Whatever Mises' goal actually is, you seem to be saying that he wants me to assume a
private market economy characterized by only a few select essentials, and further to
assume that this economy, in its theoretical construction, must function independently of
collective interventions.
>     
He and I am saying that if one wants to achieve the goals described   
above, an image of such a market economy must be built. Surely, if you   
are an economics teacher, you would agree. I am not certain what you   
mean by requiring such an image to "function independently of collective   
interventions."  
  
> ns I am asked to conclude that "reasonable people would expect distinctly human actions
to exhibit certain patterns that would not be reasonable to expect under different
circumstances." These patterns are not empirical patterns. I gather that according to
Mises they can only be deduced rationally from the essence of human actions.
Mises does not say that the patterns can ONLY be deduced on the basis of   
assumptions about human action. He says that they can be deduced on the   
basis of assumptions about human action UNDER PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES.   
Surely, I do not need to elaborate on this to someone who teaches   
economics in the classroom.  
> I realize that Mises wrote many volumes and this short summary leaves much out. But what
is the key element in Mesian thought that I do not understand?
>     
The key element is that Mises proposed an economics that could be used   
to evaluate arguments for socialism or for some kind of intervention   
from the standpoint of the goals that the proponent of such an argument   
believed should be aimed at. [For the Misesian Human Action scholars who   
might doubt this, he points this out in his Notes and Recollections.]  
  
I remember learning in my Keynesian macroeconomics course many years ago   
that its goal was to develop models of the economy that would help a   
democratic government achieve the goals that "society" deemed   
appropriate (relating to inflation, unemployment and economic growth).   
In a sense, Mises's economics consists of the development of models (or,   
more accurately, images) that he regarded as appropriate for evaluating   
what he believed to be the major arguments of socialism and of   
interventionists. Both Keynesian economics and Mises's economics have   
been touted as being value free. I believe that touts relating to Mises   
are accurate. And I believe that most of the Keynesians were sincere,   
albeit misguided about the kinds of models that were needed. So, in my   
"Keynesian-trained view," there is nothing strange about Mises's   
economics. The reason it is so maligned, I believe, is that Mises also   
tried to provide epistemological underpinnings for economics that are   
only distantly related to the epistemological underpinnings of the   
sciences of material objects. This attracted all sorts of people to   
criticize him who have little idea about what he was trying to achieve   
and in many cases about the sciences of material objects..  
  
> Money, prices, and markets do not exist in an abstract form outside our thoughts. I
guess I don't see why such a statement cannot be a valid criticism of Misian economics.
>     
I don't get it. Images containing money, prices and markets are   
necessary to achieve the goals that Mises aimed to achieve. I do not   
know what your criticism is.  
  
  
Pat Gunning