I have a question related to producers' goods versus general conditions.
How is it possible to be sure if we consider a factor to be a means rather than a general condition?
I understand that to be a means, scarcity is necessary, but where is the limit? For example if we want to produce energy, can we consider the sun to be a general condition or to be a means?. If all means are scarce, what about the sun?
We have to take into account the fact that we cannot control the sun as a producers' good, no action could be done to manipulate it. If we want to use the sun as a resource to produce other goods, could we be considerer it to be a first order producers' good? Is it just a factor like any other? Can the sun be considered to be unlimited? It is always there. It is not, however, always available to us. It can be used in production, only when harnessed correctly.
I hope you can help. I want to advance in my studies and right now I am clarifying the fundimentals.
Thanks
B
I will first give as a caveat that my knowledge on this matter is all from Menger's principles of economics. As such it might not necessarily fit neatly into Mises & Rothbards conceptual system.
To be a 'means' a thing must be a good. That is it is fully capable of satisfying a human need. If anything gets in the way of its ability to satisfy a need, (lack of appropriate knowledge, lack of power to exploit, or it loses its satisfying properties) it is no longer a good & no longer a means to any satisfaction, becoming merely a 'useful thing'.
''I understand that to be a means, scarcity is necessary''
I am not sure that is the case. A good can non-economic. That is a good can exist in such abundance in a given time period people find no need to economise on it. Someone living by a river(to use Menger's example) will use the river water as a means for satisfying all kinds of needs from washing to cooking to gardening, yet he does not have to worry about its scarcity at all.
''If we want to use the sun as a resource to produce other goods, could we be considerer it to be a first order producers' good?''
A first order good is one that directly satisfies a need. A consumers good in otherwords. Producers goods are from 2 up. As to what order the sun is in that depends on what role it plays in production. The light &/or heat of the suns rays may be enjoyed for its own sake and be a first order good. It may be a second order good if the desired thing is a sun tan. A fourth order good if you want to consume a sandwich, or a third order good if you just want to consume bread.
''Can the sun be considered to be unlimited? It is always there. It is not, however, always available to us. It can be used in production, only when harnessed correctly''
The 'sun' in economic terms is not a unified thing. Economics does not care about how things are defined in natural science or in common sense terms. What matters is a things role in satisfying human needs. So what you have to ask yourself is not whether the sun is unlimited in a total sense. But rather what its characteristics are with regard to a given need. If for example the human need is sight then the good is properly light rather then 'the sun' & how abundant it is depends on time(night or day), & on weather conditions. The heat for baking mud bricks may be great sourced from the sun in Egypt but not so great in Denmark. In the same way the sunset as part of a romantic evening is a different good from the role it plays as part of the spectacle of an eclipse & conditions of scarcity depend very much on circumstances.
[Edit]
I searched for 'general condition' in MES and all he is talking about is a good so free that the acting person does not have to make any choices in regards to it. Rothbard talked about Air. If a fish were able to act the water would be a general condition of welfare. The sun is a general condition in a very basic sense of the fact that we would all freeze & fly off into space if it weren't there. But otherwise what I said in my last paragraph is still true.