I thought you might find this interview interesting.For some reason, I kept my eyes on praxgirl and she looked real bored by a Molyneux monologue and was about to go to sleep by roughly the 17 minute mark, so I didn't get much passed that.
I find Molyneux throws down the lingo and command of the "buzz words" here and there, but it seems like he is all over the place logically. During the interview, Robert Taylor (the brains behind most of the script it appears) tries to correct Stephan, but it doesn't seem like he gets it.
I only watched about 25 minutes and then I had to do something else.
Would love your thoughts.
That said, at the 10:12 mark Moyneux displays his ignorance of economics, again, by stating that praxeology holds that an increase in money supply is called for when there is an increase in productivity. Praxeology, first is wertfrei, so is doesn't hold views as to what "ought to be". Secondly, a parxeologist would point out that anyone looking to go beyond praxeology and into the world of economic policy would point out that there is never, ever, a need for an increase in the supply of money, regardless of how much productivity increases. An increase in productivity with a stable money supply would simply mean that the purchasing power of money would increase. Molyneux's comment indicates he does not understand this very important concept. He is confusing his audience, when he isn't putting them to sleep.
Here's Rothbard blowing Molyneux away in 38 seconds, not via some boring monologue:
Molyneux comes across as an intimitarian. He always has.
ReplyDeleteThe reason you kept your eyes on Prax Girl is the same most others have. She's beautiful.
ReplyDeleteDon't really know why I watched the entire clip...
ReplyDeleteStephan needs to switch to Decaf.
Wenzel states "That said, at the 10:12 mark Moyneux displays his ignorance of economics, again, by stating that praxeology holds that an increase in money supply is called for when there is an increase in productivity."
ReplyDeletewhile Molyneux stated at 10:12 "Okay, what about, you know, the praxeological argument that if you increase the money supply without a concurrent increase in goods and services or other nonmonetary phenomenon, you will NOT add to the general wealth of society, you will only increase prices."
What are you talking about, Mr. Wenzel? Molyneux said nothing of the sort.
There is no praxeological argument as stated by Molyneux. His statement implies that there should be an increase in money supply if there is an increase in goods and services.
DeleteWenzel is correct on both points:
1. Praxeology is not about what "ought to be done".
2. Concurrent increases in money supply when goods and services increase, as Rothbard states, add nothing.
Wenzel didn't create a strawman, he stated more clearly what Molyneus stated sloppily and incorrectly.
What??? Do you speak english?? How does Molyneux say that?
DeleteMolyneux is stating that if you increasing the money supply has no effect on wealth and only increases prices. How does that translate into "MUST HAVE MONEY SUPPLY INCREASE WITH INCREASE IN GOODS AND SERVICES!!"
The only reason Molyneux mentions goods and services increasing is because it's a counterfactual. If goods and services increase while the money supply increases, real wealth may very well increase.
Banacek, I donno what are you smoking, but you are so greatly misquoting what Molyneux said in the video.
DeleteMolyneux said "If you increase the money supply, without concurrent increase in goods and services, [then] you will not add to the general wealth of the society, instead only increase the prices of the society".
Robert Weznel needs to watch the video again, specifically the part where he is quoting.
No, RD, they are in fact right about what Molyneux literally says.
DeleteThe "you" in there changes it all.
"If YOU increase the money supply, without concurrent increase in goods and services, [then] YOU will not add to the general wealth of the society, instead only increase the prices of the society." [emphasis added]
The literal interpretation of this is that Molyneux is saying that if you increase the money supply without concurrent increases in goods and services, then you have not added to the general wealth. However, the logical opposite and what is implied by this is that if YOU increased the money supply and there was a concurrent increase in goods and services, YOU COULD have added to the general wealth.
If Molyneux had instead said "If there is an increase in the money supply without concurrent increases in goods and services, then there will be no addition to the general wealth," this would have been completely fine. There is no specificity about a particular person being the cause and leading to the effect. Therefore there is no implication that had there been an increase in the money supply WITH concurrent increases in goods and services, then the increase in the money supply would be the cause of the addition to the general wealth of society.
This is likely just a mistake on Molyneux's part of incorrect wording. I highly doubt he believes the implication of what he literally said.
Wow, you are really stretching to find something to critique. Here's the verbatim quote from the video:
ReplyDelete"Well ok, what about the praxeological argument that if you increase the money supply without a concurrent increase in goods and services or other non-monetary phenomenon… you will not add to the general wealth of society… you will only increase prices."
Ok, so he's just describing what happens when central banks print money... not the strawman you setup.
As I said above, There is no praxeological argument as stated by Molyneux. His statement implies that there should be an increase in money supply if there is an increase in goods and services.
DeleteWenzel is correct on both points:
1. Praxeology is not about what "ought to be done".
2. Concurrent increases in money supply when goods and services increase, as Rothbard states, add nothing.
Wenzel didn't create a strawman, he stated more clearly what Molyneus stated sloppily and incorrectly.
Wenzel doesn't set up straw men, he simply throws a few sucker punches before he gets to the official fight. Don't get me wrong, Wenzel clearly points out the flaws of Molyneux but not before making statements like this..
Delete"For some reason, I kept my eyes on praxgirl and she looked real bored by a Molyneux monologue and was about to go to sleep by roughly the 17 minute mark, so I didn't get much passed that."
Ok, so now that he has made it perfectly clear he thinks Prax Girl is beautiful and Molyneux is boring.. lets to the real crux of his argument.
......
Ok, looks good. Molyneux needs take a breath every now and then and ask questions instead of pretending he knows what he is talking about on subjects related to more complex economic theories.
And just for good measure..
"He is confusing his audience, when he isn't putting them to sleep."
Yup we get it, he is boring. That was fun.. but wait.. now that Molyneux has taken a few blows to the face lets knock him out cold!
"Here's Rothbard blowing Molyneux away in 38 seconds, not via some boring monologue:"
Oh DAMN! Destroyed by Rothbard. As if Robert Wenzels audience isn't bored by all the Rothbard worshiping Wenzel does on a daily basis.
Did you count that.. 3 times Wenzel had to remind people of how boring Molyneux is. This is what people really need to focus on.
I'm a huge Rothbard fan, I'm a big fan of Molynex when it comes to some of his moral arguments and I love Robert Wenzels economic and political commentary. So it's not as if I don't have a lot of admiration from him. But when he goes out of his way to step on peoples feet and throw dirt in their face before he makes some legitimate shots I can't help but shake my head is disappointment. Dare I say it a second time? Wenzel is starting to bore me with all of his anti-Molyneux rhetoric.
Agree with juslen. Robert, your attacks on far are sub-par relative to the rest of your work, and are counter productive to the libertarian movement.
DeleteOh please, what is wrong with pointing out the consistent errors that Molyneux makes when he talks economics. Is he some kind of saint that we are not allowed to criticize?
DeleteWenzel keep it up. Judging by the comments here many are under the defoo spell.
Ben, I take it you have not seen or listened to the particular quote of Molyneux that Wenzel is talking about. Please do so and then come back.
DeleteI have agreed with Wenzel and Gordon in the past on many of their criticisms of Stefan Molyneux. I am not under any 'defoo spell.' I will call out an unwarranted criticism when I see one.
Yes Bharat,
DeleteI did listen to the clip and I note two things.
1. You have not addressed the fact that Molyneux uses praxeology in a non-value free manner, which is a major error for Molyneux when he passes himself off as a philosopher and moralist.
2. This is what Molyneux said:
"Well ok, what about the praxeological argument that if you increase the money supply without a concurrent increase in goods and services or other non-monetary phenomenon… you will not add to the general wealth of society… you will only increase prices."
Here Molyneux sets up an if-then scenario that "If you increase the money supply WITHOUT A CONCURRENT INCREASE IN GOODS AND SERVICES..You will not increase the general wealth of society..."
The section I capitalize logically implies that an increase in money supply may be called for if there is an increase in goods and services... It would be the only reason to put such a phrase in there to qualify and limit that an increase in money supply is only bad when goods and services don't increase.
This is Logic 101. Molyneux is implying want Wenzel is warning about, that even if goods and services increase, there is no need for an increase in money supply. Molyneux does not state this and implies the opposite.
Ben,
DeleteSeems to me like somebody needs to go back to logic school.
Let:
A = increase in the money supply
B = increase in goods in services
C = increase is overall wealth
Then what Molyneux said was:
A and (NOT B) doesn't imply C
This is a completely value-free statement. There is no "should" or "ought" here. Any value you ascribe to the above statement is a figment of your imagination in a desperate attempt to build a case against Molyneux.
There is nothing wrong with well-founded criticism but this is just grasping at straws and is motivated by petty partisanship that Wenzel for some reason decided to pursue. This is just wrong.
I like reading Wenzel a lot and occasionally listening to FDR podcasts (although, yes, they are laden with hyperbole and inaccuracies), and those wild attacks put readers like me in a state of lose-lose situation.
You see, there is little value here in putting Molyneux on the spot, because the criticism is mostly wrong. There is also a negative value in Wenzel showing that his analytic skills take a hike when it comes to Molyneux. So what's the bottom line of all of this:
Molyneux => suffers from unfair criticism that he has to labor to fix, but he also receives fair criticism that helps him become more informed.
Wenzel => suffers from loss of credibility due to shoddy analysis of Molyneux (he's the biggest loser here).
Readers of both are disabused of the idea that petty factionalism is a trait of Marxists only...
You have misunderstood his comment.
Delete""Well ok, what about the praxeological argument that if you increase the money supply without a concurrent increase in goods and services or other non-monetary phenomenon… you will not add to the general wealth of society… you will only increase prices."
The only reason he states "without a concurrent increase in goods and services or other non-monetary phenomenon" is to set up a ceteris paribus condition. In other words, Molyneux is saying that increases in the money supply, ceteris paribus, will not add to general wealth. Because if there were increases in goods and services, real wealth could very well increase even while the money supply had increased as well. The only reason Molyneux gives examples rather than saying all else equal is to make it easier for his audience to understand possibilities in a situation where all else is not equal.
To YL:
DeleteMolyneux, doesn't say: A and (NOT B) doesn't imply C.
He says If you have A WITHOUT B, you do not have C.
Which implies that possibly with B, you can have C---which is false on two levels, since even if we assume C is not a value judgement. It is false.
But further the conclusion C is a value judgement, which has no role in praxeology. That is, from a praxeological point of view you can not measure or state what is better for the general welfare.
What's going on here is that this entire discussion is way over your head and that of Molyneux.
At Bahrat,
DeleteThe entire point is that even if Molyneux meant this as a ceteris paribus situation, it has problems on two levels:
1. Why do you need to introduce a ceteris paribus with regard to an increase in goods and services,since an increase in money supply wouldn't benefit the "general welfare" even under the conditions of an increase in goods in services? If you state ceteris paribis with regard to goods and services, you are implying that an increase in the money supply, if goods and services increase, may change the conclusion about an increase in goods and services. It doesn't. The ceteris paribus would be at best misleading, would never be entered in a formal arguement by anyone who knows how to argue, but in Molyneux's case it is most likely worse and that he thinks that an increase in money supply is required if goods and services increase. Otherwise, why would he introduce the superfluous ceteris paribus?
2. The problem remains that from a praxeological point of view, you can't argue "general welfare" as Molyneux does.
As Mises writes:
"The postulate of Wertfreiheit can easily be satisfied in the field of aprioristic science--logic, mathematics,praxeology--and in the field of the experimental natural sciences."
Molyneux fails to keep parxeology wertfrei in a particularly dangerous fashion by over emphasizing his conclusion as being praxeological and apriori. Further, and I didn't even comment on this in my post, but Molyneux then goes on to introduce some type of strange justification to use empirical data to support apriori conclusions, which anyone who thinks this out for a minute realizes it leads to disaster when the empirical example breaks down in the real complex world.
Thanks for your response, Mr. Wenzel. I now understand what you are saying. If you take Molyneux's argument literally, it can be inferred that if YOU increased the money supply without a concurrent increase in goods/services, YOU would not increase the general wealth.
DeleteWhy do I have 'you' capitalized? Let's rephrase:
If the money supply was increased without a concurrent increase in goods/services, the general wealth would not increase.
The first statement, Molyneux's, is clearly incorrect as you have pointed out (because of its implications, not because it is literally false). The second is correct and was my interpretation of it before understanding what you meant.
I have no reason to believe Molyneux thinks we need increases in the money supply when goods/services increase; in fact, everything I have heard him say points in the opposite direction (that we don't need an increase in the money supply, not that we need a decrease). What I do think now though is that this is just Molyneux getting lost in his own words and a misstatement that does have the possibility of confusing a listener because of the implications you've stated.
However, with regards to #2, if you increase goods and services, ceteris paribus, why wouldn't general welfare increase?
DeleteRothbard states "It is true that the total utility of a supply increases with the size of the supply. This is deducible from the very nature of a good. Ten units of a good will be ranked higher on an individual’s value scale than four units will." (MES, pg. 260)
I could be confusing total utility with general welfare, but the two seem loosely interchangeable to me. If total utility increases, shouldn't general welfare?
Thank you for your response. I am indeed over my head so thanks for entertaining what I have to say.
ReplyDeleteYou raise three objection to what I said:
1. Molyneux uses different logic terms than the ones I have used. He uses WITHOUT while I said AND NOT. He said YOU DON’T HAVE and I said DOESN’T IMPLY. I accept that, but I request for the sake of discussion that we stick with my terms, and assume that this is what he meant, because that makes the logic analysis easier, and it probably *is* what he meant.
2. You said that possibly he meant to say that “A with B may result in C”. Well, he didn’t say that, so that’s moot. You cannot take what he said and construe it that way. Although, it will be fairly innocuous to say that: if there is increase in the money supply AND increase in goods and services then it’s POSSIBLE that there will be increase in total wealth. That is, notwithstanding your criticism of the term “increase in total wealth” which I will talk about next.
3. Your third criticism is that “increase in total wealth” is only possible as a subjective value judgment. That is true. But I bet I can find references of you as well as other Austrian economics arguing that we’d be “better off” without regulations, the Fed etc., and I’m talking about arguments not purely from a natural rights perspective but from a utilitarian perspective. Yes, it is not judgment-free to say that “everybody would be better off in a Jacuzzi than in hot lava” but we do it all the time because there are some traits of well-being that are so commonly appreciated by everybody that it wouldn’t be such a deviation from Austrian economics to assume that everybody’s subjective value judgment happens to coincide in those cases.
Finally I’ll note that even though you are technically right about #3, it doesn’t imply AT ALL that Molyneux thinks or wants to have an increase in the money supply, or that he wants to have any form of central planning, including the measurement of “total wealth”. He obviously is not for that. So you’re making a big deal out of a somewhat murky language.
To summarize, you said in your post: “[Molyneux is] stating that praxeology holds that an increase in money supply is called for when there is an increase in productivity”
Molyneux didn’t state such a thing, it doesn’t follow from what he said, and he absolutely doesn’t believe that there needs to be such a thing as a centrally managed money supply, regardless of what Praxeology has to or doesn’t have to say about that.
If I were to emulate your criticism of Molyneux, I could write a post saying “Wenzel demonstrates once again his dismal understanding of logical reasoning”. But that would be only something someone quite petty would do.
YL, you are in logical quicksand. I have watched Wenzel and I doubt he will respond to this. He will just watch you sink from afar, as the rest of us sink you.
DeleteYou are in bizarre land from the start with this doozy:
" Molyneux uses different logic terms than the ones I have used. He uses WITHOUT while I said AND NOT. He said YOU DON’T HAVE and I said DOESN’T IMPLY. I accept that, but I request for the sake of discussion that we stick with my terms..."
I have never, ever seen anyone ever before say "I am not using the terms originally under discussion, but let's stick with them anyway."
That's plain and simple goofball.
In your point 2, you clearly miss the point of why Wenzel brings up what Molyneux might have been thinking. Molyneux leaves the door open for this by qualifying money increase under circumstances when goods and services haven't increased. In order to understand Molyneux, one needs to understand why he added this qualifier.
On point 3, you may be able to find references to Wenzel saying something is good for the economy, but I doubt you will ever find Wenzel, or for that matter, Mises or Rothbard ever emphasizing the way Molyneux does that something is good for society based on praxeological and apriopi arguments. They realize that saying something is good for the economy is a short-cut so they aren't going to do what Molyneux did and tie it tightly with "praxeology says" or "apriori reasoning says" like Molyneux did. It shows a lack of understanding by you and Molyneux of the subtleties of language and arguments and at worst it suggests you are both clueless.