You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: The Origin and Future of Economics - Time, Attention and the Attention Economy
I'm not sure if you have read Mises, since I have not seen any mention, but in his book Human Action ( https://mises.org/library/human-action-0 ) 'attention economy' is in fact the centre of the entire treatise. Specifically, the process of decision between what one will do, and what one will not do, since the time of our life is the most scarce resource we have.
The central axiom of this book also is all about how we do the decision making process, the Action Axiom, which gives you the primary rules by which we evaluate and economise our use of our time (and attention). It is about minimising pain, and increasing pleasure.
Upvoted for Mises Human Action. I never thought I'd ever interact with anyone else who knows what praxeology is.
If you interested in Mises you're most likely interested in Rothbard. I'm doing a series on Freedom where I am essentially giving my perspective on Rothbard's point of view from Ethics of Liberty. I do disagree with him on the foundation of natural rights. He takes a very objective approach and I tend to disagree with how he reaches his foundation of self-ownership, but I do reach the same conclusion - just through a subjective route. Anyway, check it out. Follow. Let me know what you think.
I take the view that self ownership springs from the exclusive capability control the vessel of the body, the primary piece of property. The fact that any other party must threaten the interests of life of a person to force action is the inverse and confirming complement of the assertion that the individual voluntarily acts. From there, for me, it is about verifiable transfers of property, such as rent of labor or selling something acquired. I don't even think you have to go into homesteading anyway. I don't think that nothing has been unowned in this world for at least 10,000 years, though sometimes they are absentee landlords or lack a concept of private property, such as the absurd concept of public property.
I have yet to read any significant amount of Rothbard, his writing style is too dry and methodical. Mises is methodical but drips with the juice of - I can't put my finger on it exactly but I read Human Action twice, I don't think any other academic text ever written has inspired me to plough through 900 pages, twice. In my view, Rothbard really achieved nothing other than to make explicit the un-drawn conclusions that Mises refuses to make. Like the thing about God and the thing about Government... He says central control is bad, and the 'third way' is even worse, because it distorts the market even more unpredictably than a central bureau like in communist or fascist governments.
Well, yeah, I'll have a look at that :> There is often ideas I stumble on when I look at other people's way of expressing a concept. My hobby is learning things, especially conflicting theories, and then discerning the higher level abstract glue between them and then restating both models modified by this insight. Doesn't matter what the subject is, if there is a controversy, I have an eye for that overlap and eliminating the conflicting premises while retaining the consistent.
I was happily surprised to see that my methodology seemed to satisfy questions about a physics theory of mine, and I think that in any field, many times there is makeshifts people don't realise they have in their model, that is incorrect, and that's how there comes to be a controversy in the first place. Like the idea that gravity is a primary force, causing a rift between Newton, Einstein and Quantum physics, for which many makeshifts like String Theory, Dark Energy and others have sprung up. But they are all makeshifts. The answer, in my view, lies in looking at the data, and finding the way in which it all links together. The controversy is gone and conflicting theories are integrated.
Exactly, free will over the actions you take proves self-ownership. The problem, I find, is convincing someone that using force to exert your will over another person should be abstained from. People have been so thoroughly indoctrinated by state education that they believe it a necessary evil. I guess that's why I enjoy Rothbard, like you said, he does explicitly lay this problem at the feet of government. Rightfully so, I think. I believe what he calls for in many of his writings is not a political shift but a ethical shift. That even the best government we could envision when given a clean slate in 1776 in the United States still uses coercion to enforce its policies and is inherently immoral when examined through the lens of ethics. That government along with all other coercive institutions should be abolished.
No, I have not read anything on attention economies, so I don't know if what I say is what other people say. I'm just saying what is logical related to word meanings. Thanks.
I don't accept basing decisions on pleasure vs. pain alone. The pleasure trap and "feeling-good" is a convenient deception that blinds one to moral understanding.
It is central to the psychology of motivation, and morality is not the only criteria, though it is important. Feeling bad can be also caused by regrets from violating one's moral code.
Yes, I understand the role of pleasure seeking vs. pain avoidance in motivation. These are subconscious unconscious low consciousness bio-nature automated involuntary unaware motivations and drives in life. Morality is about higher consciousness awareness, willful, voluntary decision making that can rise above the lower base "feelings" that drive, motivate and control us in life.
Regret is higher order, but it can feel no less horrible than physical pain, in acute moments, as well as a chronic, low grade persistent feeling, and in fact all high order, negative judgements shape motivation no less. But for much longer. Moral codes tend to refine and improve through experience of high order positive feelings also. Like for me, realising the central importance of property rights, massively altered my attitude, more than any petty base emotion.
And that understanding of property rights, is based in higher order thought, not in emotions. This emphasizes my point about higher vs. lower consciousnesses processes, of conscious awareness processing to direct ourselves, vs. unconscious unaware processing to direct us. I don't deny the use of both positive and negative emotions as positive or negative themselves. I'm talking about not being led by the low limbic brain of emotions alone, the commander needs to be the neocortical higher functionality to further process emotional feedback.