Economics Questions

Re: Goods and Austrian bads

Neodoxy — Thu, 01 Nov 2012 04:20:14 GMT

No one accused you of being a drug addict, just that you eat cats. NBD.

Re: Goods and Austrian bads

Kelvin Silva — Thu, 01 Nov 2012 04:19:47 GMT

Law of diminishing marginal utility.

Re: Goods and Austrian bads

Buzz Killington — Thu, 01 Nov 2012 03:25:01 GMT

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

Re: Goods and Austrian bads

grant.w.underwood — Thu, 01 Nov 2012 03:05:00 GMT

(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.

Re: Goods and Austrian bads

Neodoxy — Thu, 01 Nov 2012 02:34:25 GMT

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

Re: Goods and Austrian bads

Malachi — Thu, 01 Nov 2012 02:18:12 GMT

I'm sure theres context to that statement, specifically, though not exclusively, ceteris paribus. If there isnt, then he is wrong, and there should be. For example, no one, austrian or not says that because I like/want one egg, and I like/want a dozen eggs more than I like one egg, I must like/want more eggs than I can possibly eat before they spoiled. Eggs are perishable. Did you search on "marginal utility"? Its on these forums too

Re: Goods and Austrian bads

Buzz Killington — Thu, 01 Nov 2012 02:14:22 GMT

@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.

Re: Goods and Austrian bads

Malachi — Thu, 01 Nov 2012 02:00:59 GMT

Austrian economics claims that everyone values more of a good than less.

no. People actually want goods less and less as they gain more of them, all else being equal.

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.

each cat is less valuable, decreasing marginal utility. So at some point the utility of another dead cat is less than the utility of decreasing your consumption by one dead cat, and so you prefer to dont eat, and there you go. Google "marginal utility"

Re: Goods and Austrian bads

grant.w.underwood — Thu, 01 Nov 2012 01:54:14 GMT

No. I was implying that you still want it just not at the cost of gaining weight.

Re: Goods and Austrian bads

Buzz Killington — Thu, 01 Nov 2012 01:51:07 GMT

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

Re: Goods and Austrian bads

grant.w.underwood — Thu, 01 Nov 2012 01:22:07 GMT

so its not that you dont want 5 cats its that you want to lose weight more than 5 dead cats.

Goods and Austrian bads

Buzz Killington — Thu, 01 Nov 2012 01:02:15 GMT

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.