-
In the posts below I attach my summaries (in *.pdf) of a large part of the required readings for Mises University. Although the summaries are of course not perfect, I hope they can be of help to people attending Mises U. best wishes,
-
I've been thinking about the action axiom lately: is the idea that everything that we can interpret/describe as purposeful behavior is an action (seems not cuz we can apply the intentional stance to a whole lot of things), or everything that the action-doer himself would describe as purposeful behavior, or only when the agent in question has a certain
-
you pay in terms of opportunities foregone
-
yeah, I guess I understand the logic and also why it is the way it is, but it makes the standard supply and demand stuff somewhat simplistic, and one sort of has to assume that subjective valuations are similar enough when one draws those. Okay, so in terms of the production of scientific ideas there is an intrinsic necessity for them to be novel somehow
-
okay, but then the idea of marginal utility becomes somewhat vague, no? or am I misunderstanding it in the sense that it necessarily is a subjective and hence 'empty' concept so that DVD's, vases, computers etc. could all have the same use (e.g. throwing at the tax collector) so that if first you buy a DVD to throw at the guy, then a vase
-
thanks. on another forum somebody just replied with this quote: "To the extent that they abstain from higher money income to pursue nonmonetary ends (e.g., looking at one's untilled land or enjoying leisure), the producers' own valuations will be determining. From the general praxeological point of view, these producers are to that extent
-
okay thanks, so you would say that the concept of 'consumer good' simply does not apply here? some more thoughts: leisure always involves using time. if you analyze it in terms of opportunity costs then you could say that you forego $100,000 in order to spend your time on leisure. (engaging in a hobby for example is leisure, no?) mmmh, partial
-
another question: suppose a consumer buys a Van Gogh painting and then he has some money left and buys another painting, this time by some lesser known artist. Do the two paintings count as the same type of good or as different goods? Does marginal utility apply here? it seems to me that the question whether something is the same type of good depends
-
quick question: if somebody can make $200,000 a year working for a firm doing work that he finds boring, or $100,000 a year doing work that he finds challenging and interesting, and he chooses the latter, does that mean that the latter type of work is also in a way a consumer good? Could one for example say that to the extent that he doen't choose
-
thanks for your reply and apologies for the delay [quote user="Sage"] I think the confusion stems from confusing praxeology and thymology. Praxeology = economic theory; thymology = application of theory to reality. As you point out: "But this too is a problem of applying the economic theory to reality, not of the economic theory itself