[allanxwheeler]

But literally speaking, do we see a lot of incomplete buildings during an artificial boom? How do we actually see what you’re describing play out?

Dr. Herbener can correct me if I am wrong, but many projects are finished during the boom. It is the bust that reveals the errors. The experience of unfinished housing projects were especially evident in my hometown. During the housing boom, it was a race between a few cities for the title of “fastest growing city in the U.S.” The post-crash impact of the crash left housing developments with foundation-only and partially built homes. Gated communities were left with blocks of undeveloped land. It was and is an especially odd site to see.

[allanxwheeler]

Dr. Gordon’s answer was exactly what I was looking for. As for the cumulative premise, he articulated exactly what I was attempting to convey by using that phrase.

Thank you for taking the time to get my question answered, Dr. Herbener.

[allanxwheeler]

Thank you for the response, Dr. Herbener. Forgive me for harping on a formal presentation of deduction from the axiom, I have just grown accustomed to presentations in philosophy of religion where clear premises are stated. Seeing that I constantly see the terms “premises” and “deduction” in various texts, I find myself looking for explicitly stated arguments, but such arguments are not given. From what I can tell from your preliminary lectures, Economic Reasoning, and Economic Science and the Austrian Method this does not seem to be an appropriate method.

I will attempt to clarify how I am reasoning. In thinking about Rothbard’s presentation of economic analysis, I am imaging a sort of modus ponens form as a chain of argumentation in such a way that the first principles would begin from rearranging 1) and 2) to arrive at:

1) If A, then B
2) A
3) Therefore, B
—————–
4) If B, then C
5) B
6) Therefore, C (and so on)

But it appears, as far as I can tell, from Gordon’s readings and other sources that A takes on the form of a cumulative premise, including the implications from the axiom. After this cumulative premise has been established, it is then that the derivation can take place. However, if this is the case, I am still unsure how that would be stated formally.

Hopefully, the above shows how I am reasoning clear enough to allow you to see if I have made any obvious errors in thinking (which I am sure I have!) which would have led me down the wrong path.

[Author]

Posts