Frost wrote:Count Lucanor wrote:Why would the psychic profit would be different? All of the elements that were present and made the exchange possible the first time, have remained the same. What element has been added to the equation?
Time..... The kid may get a larger psychic profit from making the same money in half the time.
You say "he may get..." which means that exactly the opposite could be true: the kid may get a larger psychic profit from making the same money in twice the time. And so the lawn owner, he could set different priorities to each variable, each time, so that theoretically it would be possible that he gets an enormous amount of profit from allowing the kid to do the work in one week, even though he does the same job for the neighbor in one hour. Is that how the subjective theory of value works?
Frost wrote:Dude, I'm talking about a single exchange where a kid went to the door of a guy and offered him $20 to mow his lawn. How is what you said supposed to enter the dynamics of the exchange? Can you describe that in detail as I described the valuation process in this situation?
This is what I already described. The kid and the lawn owner make decisions based on their circumstances and expectations obtained from the social context, its history, etc. There are variables at play, some of which the players are conscious of and some others they are not. It sounds more reasonable to think (and that's why it's presumed) that when the kid knocks the door he is aware of how the lawn mowing market is, and he is also aware that the lawn owner knows it, too. So they both work out the deal with similar expectations. Unlike the STV, where they just can't have any expectation.
Frost wrote:
Economics is praxeological, sociology is empirical. Totally different.
Well, it depends on which school of sociology, some give more weight to empirical research and some others less weight. As all sciences, it has an epistemological base which defines not only its methods, but the object of study. So it's not exempt of logical analysis and inductive reasoning. But in any case, it deals with human action, which is what's behind economics. Praxeology is just the ultimate expression of social atomism, which is anyway a sociological theory, with a weak rational base.
Frost wrote:Count Lucanor wrote:
What prevents these people participating in the transactions from doing their own "praxeological reasoning" of the general praxeological reasoning in society, at the time of purchase?
It is irrelevant for typical exchanges.
The question was not whether someone else considered it irrelevant. Why it would
necessarily be irrelevant for the people participating in the transactions? Why it would be out of the scope of the valuation process, that is, when I decide if the transaction fits my desires?