amadee on Nostr: Are the 2 statements MECE? It doesn't appear so. In this sense the 2 statements do ...
Are the 2 statements MECE? It doesn't appear so. In this sense the 2 statements do appear contradictory.
However...
Philosophy is often caught in the net of language limitations.
It appears, re economics the definition of the 2 phrases may not be directly related to the common usage definitions, particularly "the misallocation" phrase but also (to some extent) the use of value and quality.
Upon scratching the surface, "the misallocation of capital" is more of a phrase and the definition of it as a whole can be different than the meanings of the individual words used to create it.
The field specific meaning of the phrase, the misallocation of capital, seems to embody an entire theory within economics. Looking briefly and with your question in mind the 'theory' of misallocation... does bring the 2 phrases closer together and succeeds to an degree.
Here, I feel you would find a means to reconcile these 2 so obviously opposing statements.
Wether or not they could ever be considered MECE (mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive) I feel is doubtful. Therefore illogical in everyday parlance-
I suppose this would be the readers fault for not allocating the resources necessary, in the correct manner to gain the knowledge required to understand ;)
I will say that Economics uses philosophy and may, on a level create Economic Philosophy but must adhere to pure philosophy which is necessarily "a priori". It clearly doesn't always and bends philosophy to fit its agenda.
I often feel English needs more and better words
How did I do?
However...
Philosophy is often caught in the net of language limitations.
It appears, re economics the definition of the 2 phrases may not be directly related to the common usage definitions, particularly "the misallocation" phrase but also (to some extent) the use of value and quality.
Upon scratching the surface, "the misallocation of capital" is more of a phrase and the definition of it as a whole can be different than the meanings of the individual words used to create it.
The field specific meaning of the phrase, the misallocation of capital, seems to embody an entire theory within economics. Looking briefly and with your question in mind the 'theory' of misallocation... does bring the 2 phrases closer together and succeeds to an degree.
Here, I feel you would find a means to reconcile these 2 so obviously opposing statements.
Wether or not they could ever be considered MECE (mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive) I feel is doubtful. Therefore illogical in everyday parlance-
I suppose this would be the readers fault for not allocating the resources necessary, in the correct manner to gain the knowledge required to understand ;)
I will say that Economics uses philosophy and may, on a level create Economic Philosophy but must adhere to pure philosophy which is necessarily "a priori". It clearly doesn't always and bends philosophy to fit its agenda.
I often feel English needs more and better words
How did I do?