Austrian economics claims that everyone values more of a good than less. However, I don't see how this can be universally true.
For example, let's say that I have the choice between having my dog fetch me 2 dead cats to eat, and 5 dead cats to eat. I like to eat dead cats (for whatever reason), so it's a good to me.
According to Austrian econ I should prefer having 5 dead cats, but IRL I have a different view: I'm trying to lose weight, therefore I don't want to be tempted with too many dead cats - therefore, Austrianism's axiom is incorrect.
so its not that you dont want 5 cats its that you want to lose weight more than 5 dead cats.
ya that proves not everyone wants more of a good
No. I was implying that you still want it just not at the cost of gaining weight.
Austrian economics claims that everyone values more of a good than less.
@Malachi: Democracy: The God That Failed says that it is an inalienable law of economics that you prefer more of a good than less of a good.
BK,
No matter who is postulating that viewpoint they are wrong. Every good is based upon the usefulness of its marginal increment. 1 gallon of water is valuable to me, 100,000,000 gallons is a nuisance to say the least.
Two dead cats might be good, but then anything more than that might be bad exactly because the service rendered from those extra three cats will probably be a disservice if I cave and eat them... Cat goes straight to your thighs. Therefore three of the five cats will be seen as bads, not goods. I recommend Mises' remarks on marginalism in Human Action
(correct me if im wrong)
you are still going to want the dead cats and unlimited amount of them until the cost of collecting/storing the dead cats is more than there value or the cost it takes to throw a rotting cat away (time and labor).
why would you turn a dead cat away? pop it in the freezer. SELL IT. The only reason to not want a dead cat is because you are valuing your future time and labor more on the probability of having to throw a dead cat away and or the value of other goods you can store in its place.
This business only cost your dog time. you will want as many cats as possible.
Ah I get it now, I probably misread it, the conclusions are ridiculous (e.g. a drug addict, according to it I should prefer an infinite amount of drugs but that would cause me to OD).
not that im a drug addict
Law of diminishing marginal utility.
“Since people are concerned that ‘X’ will not be provided, ‘X’ will naturally be provided by those who are concerned by its absence.""The sweetest of minds can harbor the harshest of men.”
http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.org
No one accused you of being a drug addict, just that you eat cats. NBD.