I'm reading through Austrian Economics: an Anthology compiled and edited by Bettina Bien Greaves (I figure it's a good start before jumping back into Menger's Principles and getting a copy of Mises Human Action). One of the articles in it is James Bonar's The Austrian Economists and Their View of Value. On the 5th page of the article, Mr. (Dr.?) Bonar seems to assert that in Austrian economics, there is a posibility for satiation of wants. I think I'm misunderstanding that, though. Is it more that a single given want - such as for shelter or clothing - can be satiated either permanently or for a very long time, and then another want takes its place or becomes more important? Or is this a misstatement/misinterpretation of the Austrian view in general?
Well, obviously not I nor anyone can speak for the entire Austrian School of Economics, but as I see it, it is possible for certain single wants to be satiated indefinitely, though I do not see how there can be complete satiation of all wants. Some things will always be scarce, and that is unavoidable. Because of this scarcity, at least some wants must go unsatisfied, and thus people must economize.
"Time" is an example of a scarce resource, the desire for which can never be completely satiated.
"Anticapitalist theories share in common an inability to take human nature as it is. Rather than analyzing man as a complex creature, anticapitalist theories tend to focus on what the theorist wishes man to be." - Isaac Morehouse
An individual's wants are satisfied through the consumption of goods.
Collective or group wants are ultimately nonexistant and unmeasurable since groups are just a concept and only individuals can act. Since each individual is unique, they have different value scales of wants which cannot be put into a cookie cutter.
Austrian economics focuses on that which can be verbally deduced. No statistical or mathamatical hocus pocus allowed.
We are the soldiers for righteousnessAnd we are not sent here by the politicians you drink with - L. Dube, rip