Or is it Seth Lipsky on fiat money and the kilometer standard in Paris. Wittgenstein in his private language argument and in his discussion of our shared language and practices of measuring with an inch-ruler brings to the foreground the necessary regularities in our common linguistic social background and in our goings on in the world which make such practices as measurement — and the language used in those practices — both possible and actual. Mises and Hayek in their socialist calculation argument and in their discussion of the plan coordination role of money prices bring to the foreground the necessary regularities in our common background of property trading practices and in our experience of changing relative prices which make such practices as re-orienting our economics plans according to money measures of profit and loss both possible and actual.

And both Wittgenstein and Mises/Hayek show that we can’t get a sound understand of the true nature of this phenomena in any other way that by foregrounding the shared social practices which stand behind, make possible, and constitute that phenomena — and any “God’s Eye View” (Hayek) or “Bird’s Eye View” (Wittgenstein) or “Synoptic View” (Hayek & Wittgenstein) formal construct or “model”, e.g. Frege/Russel/Kripke/Etc. or Debreu/Samuelson/Woordford/Etc., made up of God’s eye view “givens” which are stipulated as known “gives” by the mind of the model maker — models which cannot capture the social background and social process of learning as a matter of logic — necessarily produces a pathological understanding of the phenomena, leaving out both the processes of learning in a social environment and the universal shared human structures of thought which lie behind those achieved common social practices.

This entry was posted in Mises, Money, property rights, socialist calculation. Bookmark the permalink.