-
William Barnett Ii, Walter E. Block
The Antimathematicality of Demand Curves
Summary:
Mathematics has proven so helpful in the physical sciences such as physics that it has been improperly applied to economics. The dismal science studies purposeful human action, while purpose in the hard sciences is properly dismissed as anthropomorphic. The present paper takes the demand curve as a case in point. It demonstrates that this tool of analysis is fundamentally flawed in that it violates its own economic assumption of ceteris paribus, and also the mathematical requirement that only the proper number of variables may vary along a given graph in two-dimensional space.
-
Walter E. Block
A Response to Brooks' Support of Demsetz on the Coase Theorem
Summary:
Coase (1960) claimed that in the zero costs world, it would not matter for the allocation of resources which of two disputants were awarded the relevant property rights. Block (1977) disputed this, on the ground that it assumed that both parties would have the wherewithal with which to make the relevant bribe. Demsetz (1977) maintained that Block (1977) failed to reckon with Coase‘s (1960) explicit assumption of no wealth effects. Block (1995) disputed this claim of Demsetz‘s (1977), claiming the Coase (1960) anticipated no such thing. The next round in this debate was Demsetz (1997) who reiterated his position, followed by Block (2000) in a response to Demsetz (1997). Brook (2007) mostly takes Demsetz‘s (1977, 1997) side of this ongoing discussion. The present paper is a rejoinder to Brook (2007), supporting Block (1997, 1995, 2000).
-
Walter E. Block
Rejoinder to Wysocki on Indifference and the Block-Hoppe Debate
Summary:
There has been an ongoing debate in Austrian economic circles on indifference and methodology. It started with Nozick (1977) who criticized this school of thought on that issue. Block (1980) responded to that essay. The main debaters within Austrian circles have been Block (2009A), Block and Barnett (2010), and Hoppe (2005, 2009). Wysocki (2017) is a recent entry into this discussion. The present paper is a response to this latter contribution.
-
Walter E. Block
Indifference in economics: comment on Nozick, Hoppe and Wysocki
Summary:
Nozick (1977) set a challenge for Austrian economics. On the one hand, this school of thought rejects the notion of indifference, and along with it, indifference curves. On the other hand, the praxeological school accepts the concepts of supply and demand curves. But the latter supposition logically implies indifference, in that the persons for whom the supply and demand curves apply look upon all the constituent items as identical; if not, these diagrams could not be drawn. A similar account applies to diminishing marginal utility, another tool of economic analysis accepted by Austrians. But this, too, implies indifference, at least according to Nozick.
Block (1980) responded critically to Nozick (1977). Hoppe (2005, 2009), a leading Austrian economist, agreed with Block that Nozick was in error, but also rejected Block’s specific refutation this eminent philosopher’s critique. Wysocki (2021) sided with Nozick and Hoppe in this debate. The present paper is an attempt to support the Blockian view vis a vis that of these three scholars.
-
William Barnett Ii, Walter E. Block
Involuntary Unemployment
Summary:
Our claim is that in the purely free enterprise system, there can be no such thing as involuntary unemployment, as long as wage demands are in accord with expected productivity, as perceived by the potential employer. Seeming counter examples are shown to violate one or more of these conditions. Nevertheless, there is great resistance on the part of professional economists to this axiomatic claim. The second part of the paper attempts to probe the cause of this resistance, and finds in praxeology, a rejection of Keynesian economics and psychological analysis, the cure for it.
