Thread replies: 9
Thread images: 2
Thread images: 2
File: e14.jpg (65KB, 601x601px)
65KB, 601x601px
>yet another economics book which doesn't define how 'needs' are determined.
Are we just to assume every individual is the same? Are we to assume there is a level that even the most rapacious, avaricious individual finds placation in their accumulation of economic goods so that the good is, in the Mengerian sense, non-economic? My problem is across the board. The only economist I've seen come even close to an appropriate theory of the development and origin of needs is probably Ludwig Von Mises. It is just ridiculous though, how he says non-economic goods are communistic in nature, but then turns around and stipulates some other tendency for them not to be if they won't satisfy everyone's needs.
Where is the line crossed? I would argue that the nature of good's relation to us physically and emotionally (spiritually), they are either capable of corrupted increase (almost increased indefinitely for consumption) or not (they satisfy some need which will not increase after satisfied). Something like an indefinite increase in output to satisfy the needs of individuals can be observed in food, where because of characteristic increases in personal consumption, you see the level of production every stage in the production period increase more and more, exponentially so, because the population increases WITH the need to consume. This is tied together with wealth increases being given to give individuals a certain life or livelihood, as in the Smithian days income was thought to be determined by the money necessary to help sustain himself and his wife and kids if necessary.
>>
Keynes, for example, in his general theory, introduced the concept that if you decrease money-wages, you will increase investment due to the decreasing of the interest rate, and the simultaneous raising of the marginal efficiency of capital. This will cause an economic boom, which will be followed by increasing prices, and therefore increasing output AND money-wages. You are literally increasing consumption by LOWERING the amount that you pay people in the end.
It seems there is a moral problem with economics, in the long run, then. And it is one of greed and rapacious individuals seeking to enlarge their store of goods and individuals because of invidious, or prideful circumstances.
What say you?
>>
uhhh buy bitcoin
>>
>>1800812
needs are things you cannot live without.
greed deals with wants, not needs.
individuals' needs are pretty much all the same, though dependent somewhat on weight.
you need a certain amount of food and water. you need sunlight and vitamins/minerals. you need society.
That's about it.
if you won't die without it, it's not a need.
>>
File: 9781479210213_p0_v1_s192x300.jpg (12KB, 192x248px) Image search:
[Google]
12KB, 192x248px
>>1800833
>greed deals with wants, not needs.
I beg to differ. The accumulation of food over and above what was necessary was what distinguished the barons from the peasants in feudal England.
I mean, the accumulation of things that satisfy needs but are yet scarce was where the definition of wealth comes in for Carl Menger. And this definition is terrifying if viewed under the light of sustainability in non-economic goods being transformed into economic goods because of a decreasing abundance.
>>
>>1800855
>I beg to differ.
differ all you like.
in real life a need is something you need. Excess is not a need.
accumulating un-needed resources doesn't magically make them a need, even if other people need them. A thing is a need only until that need is sated.
>>
>>1800881
Yes but that's what I'm saying. Menger seems to assume that if you have a lot of economic goods that are needed or can be used or transformed to create a 'first order' good that is needed, that is wealth.
>>
we're apes that have domesticated ourselves, don't forget that
explaims pseudokeynessians pretty well
>>
>>1801749
>evolution
Get outta here retard
Thread posts: 9
Thread images: 2
Thread images: 2