Thread replies: 17
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1
File: 9781479210213_p0_v1_s192x300.jpg (12KB, 192x248px) Image search:
[Google]
12KB, 192x248px
>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 Menger 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?
>>
bump.
I'll be reading this for a couple hours today
>>
>>9113890
>It is just ridiculous though, how Menger says non-economic goods are communistic in nature
What is a non economic good? The young Citizens who inherit the public park their great great great great great grand ancestors 'communally' purchased? Is that the 'conceptual frame idea' of what he is getting at with using those terms in such relational proximity's?
>>
>>
>>9114615
It's simple: if the requirements of the civilization outstrip the quantity available, then the good is an economic good, or capable of privatization.
And if the quantity or requirements are anywhere near each other, then, in light of the possibility of quantity being below the requirements, the good becomes quantified and privatized, or has a tendency to.
I think the idea is somewhat ridiculous, and like I said centers around the idea of a good just suddenly switching from 'communism' to 'capitalism'.
His idea of value is also interesting, and the cornerstone of Austrian thought. So if you want to develop any idea of how the Austrian school operates, this book, and the Theory of Money and Credit by Von Mises is all you need. Basically, tl;dr a good's value used to produce a product is determined from the end product, as opposed to the end product's value determined from the good's used to produce it.
Also pretty much every economist in the 20th century uses the concept of marginality in economics. Including Fisher and Keynes. I am reading Mathematical Investigations into the Theory of Value and Prices. wew, integrals, derivatives.
>>9114638
Yeah. It's easy to finish it, just by reading a chapter a day. I should have this finished in about 8 days. Real simple, easy economics book. Also far too simplistic in some ways, but the concepts introduced are important.
>>
>>9113890
why are you asking these questions from an economics book? Economics is about efficiency and trade-offs, without asking the deeper philosophical questions.
>>
>>9116103
And you're not wrong, because political science and philosophy are interesting topics as well, it is just striking to me that a philosophical dilemma exists in economics, and a relatively simple one at that.
>>
>>9116114
>it is just striking to me that a philosophical dilemma exists in economics, and a relatively simple one at that.
is it that capitalism's main goal is to make a profit "tomorrow" without any regard what happens down the road?
>>
>>9116140
No, the problem is exactly what I mentioned. I'm not sure if it's particular to a specific governmental problem or just a spiritual one.
Basically, humans consume more and more with an increasing population. And because of the absence of Malthusian checks, the absence of an economic system which controls consumption is worrying.
>>
>>9116162
>the absence of an economic system which controls consumption is worrying.
Jefferson made almost this same point
>>
>>9116162
that's where government should come in place. no philosophy or economic system will ever convince people to live within their means. you need an outside force.
alternatively, you just follow the cycles of destruction and prosperity. did you know that behind every single mass improvement in economic equality was a destructive war?
>>
>>9116180
Funny how things haven't really changed. Still, economics is incredibly interesting, as opposed to philosophy, some propose that the way everything turns out in general at all is because of the way the economy functions. Keynesianism, for instance, has real world applications. It's a beautifully complex approach, which covers all inputs, and even identifies which variables are dependent and independent.
>>
am i supposed to understand this conversation if i haven't studied any economics before? or am i just too much of a brainlet?
>>
>>9116180
>Jefferson
Source on this? Legitimately curious, I always understood him as a rigid Adam Smith disciple.
>>
>>9113890
>babby fretting over frivolous micro terminology
Let the adults worry about more important matters like monetary policy.
>>
>>9116425
>Burr by Gore Vidal
it's fiction, but only by a slight margin. The whole of the work is from quotes.
>Understanding Power by Chomsky also uses his quotes to prove this.
Thread posts: 17
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1