WEBVTT

NOTE 02. The Origin and Decline of the Austrian School: Menger, Böhm-Bawerk, and Wieser (video)

1
00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:05.000
This lecture is slightly mistitled. This will really be the origin.

2
00:00:05.000 --> 00:00:09.000
Tomorrow I'll deal with the decline and then the revival.

3
00:00:09.000 --> 00:00:17.000
So the origin is going to deal with the three greatest personalities of the early Austrian school,

4
00:00:17.000 --> 00:00:29.000
all of whom were knighted, all of whom were royalty, not royalty but part of the aristocracy.

5
00:00:29.000 --> 00:00:51.000
Carl Menger dropped the von when he was a teenager, Eugen von Boehm-Bawerk was a Ritter which is a higher level of nobility is what I was trying to say, they were all nobles, and Friedrich Freiherr von Wieser was in the lower nobility, so they were all nobles.

6
00:00:51.000 --> 00:01:10.000
What's interesting about the Austrian School is that all three individuals that comprise the core of the early Austrian School were working really in some sense towards the same goal, though Wieser veered off.

7
00:01:10.000 --> 00:01:23.000
But when I first came across the Austrian School in college, in a history of economic thought course, my professor was extremely enthusiastic, even though he wasn't an Austrian himself, about the school.

8
00:01:23.000 --> 00:01:47.000
This is one of the first times in the history of intellectual development or the history of ideas that three such prominent thinkers self-consciously attempted to develop the same research project, a research program.

9
00:01:47.000 --> 00:01:56.000
Let me start with one point, and that is that Carl Menger is the founder of the school.

10
00:01:56.000 --> 00:02:01.000
Now, Carl Menger was one of the original marginalist revolutionaries.

11
00:02:01.000 --> 00:02:10.000
That is, he is one of the three individuals that were credited with overthrowing classical economics.

12
00:02:10.000 --> 00:02:14.000
Now that's slightly inaccurate in two ways.

13
00:02:14.000 --> 00:02:27.000
There are two ways. Number one, he did much more than participate in the marginal revolution, and number two, his mission was not to overthrow classical economics, but to complete classical economics.

14
00:02:27.000 --> 00:02:38.000
The classical economists had done a great deal in developing price theory, that is the law of supply and demand, at least in the short run they saw as determining price.

15
00:02:38.000 --> 00:02:44.000
They considered this, to some extent, a universally valid law.

16
00:02:44.000 --> 00:02:54.000
They also used this law to great effect in destroying the schemes of the early utopian socialists.

17
00:02:54.000 --> 00:02:58.000
Mises always stresses that point.

18
00:02:58.000 --> 00:03:05.000
And they developed a theory of calculated action that focused on the business decision maker.

19
00:03:05.000 --> 00:03:10.000
So it wasn't a complete theory of human action, but it was a theory of calculated action.

20
00:03:10.000 --> 00:03:15.000
They pointed out that prices guided production.

21
00:03:15.000 --> 00:03:18.000
And they focused on the businessman.

22
00:03:18.000 --> 00:03:21.000
And what they did was to point out the following.

23
00:03:21.000 --> 00:03:29.000
In the short run, if the demand for a product goes up, for example, if the demand for GM cars go up,

24
00:03:29.000 --> 00:03:32.000
that's probably a fantasy at this point,

25
00:03:32.000 --> 00:03:47.000
What would occur is that there would be a much greater profit, or let's say a demand for large automobiles goes up, a much larger profit suddenly in the automobile industry, in the production of large automobiles.

26
00:03:47.000 --> 00:03:53.000
Prices would increase as demand increased, exceeding costs of production.

27
00:03:53.000 --> 00:04:01.000
So the so-called normal return to production would be exceeded, according to the classical school, when there was an increase in demand.

28
00:04:01.000 --> 00:04:31.000
That would increase production of that particular good, that is other entrepreneurs or other capitalists, the classical school didn't distinguish between the capitalist and the entrepreneur, other capitalists would invest their funds in producing larger automobiles which would increase the supplies of these larger automobiles that would draw resources away from other areas of the economy including let's say the production of smaller automobiles and that would bring about a reallocation of resources.

29
00:04:31.000 --> 00:04:39.080
Resources, so monetary calculation, the comparison of prices and costs, the calculation or computation

30
00:04:39.080 --> 00:04:46.000
of profits and losses, directed production, so the Austrians did see this as an extremely

31
00:04:46.000 --> 00:04:53.300
important accomplishment of classical economics, that and their short run theory of supply.

32
00:04:53.300 --> 00:05:03.180
Where the classical economists went wrong was to talk about goods as if they were abstract

33
00:05:03.180 --> 00:05:06.540
classes and they had a problem then.

34
00:05:06.540 --> 00:05:09.740
Their value theory was the problem.

35
00:05:09.740 --> 00:05:17.500
The value theory is what should underlie any good theory of price.

36
00:05:17.500 --> 00:05:22.380
It should support it and it should logically lead to the theory of price that you're propounding.

37
00:05:22.380 --> 00:05:26.940
That was not the case in the classical school.

38
00:05:26.940 --> 00:05:34.720
What the classical school did was talk about iron or diamonds or automobiles in what Menger

39
00:05:34.720 --> 00:05:39.380
called abstract classes, not in concrete units.

40
00:05:39.380 --> 00:05:46.900
When they did that, they were unable to arrive at an explanation of how human beings valued

41
00:05:46.900 --> 00:05:52.700
of These Goods, and they were caught in a paradox, a so-called paradox of value.

42
00:05:52.700 --> 00:05:58.420
That is to say, the classically economists looked around and they said, bread, the abstract

43
00:05:58.420 --> 00:06:03.300
class, is much more important to sustaining human life than diamonds.

44
00:06:03.300 --> 00:06:09.660
Its use value, as they called it, is therefore much greater than the use value of diamonds.

45
00:06:09.660 --> 00:06:25.660
These really go toward satisfying wants for aesthetic pleasure or for ostentation, but they certainly aren't crucial to human beings in sustaining their lives.

46
00:06:25.660 --> 00:06:35.660
So, why is it then that diamonds have a higher exchange value on the market than bread does per unit of weight, per pound of diamonds?

47
00:06:35.660 --> 00:06:41.660
is much more costly to purchase than a pound of bread.

48
00:06:41.660 --> 00:06:44.660
Well, they never answered that question.

49
00:06:44.660 --> 00:06:46.660
They said, well, we're not going to worry about use value.

50
00:06:46.660 --> 00:06:51.660
Anything that is a good, yes, it is true, has a use value.

51
00:06:51.660 --> 00:06:58.660
Economics is only interested in explaining exchange value,

52
00:06:58.660 --> 00:07:00.660
that is the prices of goods on the market.

53
00:07:00.660 --> 00:07:02.660
So we're just going to forget about use value.

54
00:07:02.660 --> 00:07:05.660
So they didn't attempt to solve the paradox of value.

55
00:07:05.660 --> 00:07:11.660
What Menger saw was that you needed to solve the paradox of value to have a consistent price theory.

56
00:07:11.660 --> 00:07:18.660
Unfortunately, the classical school also did the same thing with distribution theory.

57
00:07:18.660 --> 00:07:31.660
They didn't attempt to explain the wages or how wages were determined for a particular scientist or for a particular worker or for a particular piece of equipment.

58
00:07:31.660 --> 00:07:38.660
They talked about the distribution of shares to capital in general, to labor in general, and to natural resources in general.

59
00:07:38.660 --> 00:07:43.660
This wasn't really even economics. This was just more or less metaphysical speculation.

60
00:07:43.660 --> 00:07:47.660
So that was another problem with the classical school.

61
00:07:47.660 --> 00:07:52.660
And this led to really their final problem.

62
00:07:52.660 --> 00:07:59.660
They pointed out that yes, supply and demand changes in supply and demand determine prices in the short run,

63
00:07:59.660 --> 00:08:15.660
in the short run, but in the long run, there had to be something else, otherwise the theory was hanging in air, it wasn't grounded in human action, these prices were just there, the capitalists were reacting to the changes in prices in the short run.

64
00:08:15.660 --> 00:08:28.660
Now, as capitalists changed, resource allocation, as prices changed, prices tended towards their long run level, which according to the classical school was the level determined by the cost of production,

65
00:08:28.660 --> 00:08:34.660
to some class of economists or to the number of hours of labor embodied in the product.

66
00:08:34.660 --> 00:08:41.660
So in some sense, in the long run, value was inherent in the product.

67
00:08:41.660 --> 00:08:48.660
It wasn't the relationship between a human mind and a thing in the real world or a service in the real world.

68
00:08:48.660 --> 00:08:50.660
It was inherent in the product.

69
00:08:50.660 --> 00:08:57.660
Almost like, as one commentator pointed out, the amount of value in a product was determined by the amount

70
00:08:57.660 --> 00:09:07.660
The harder it was to produce the product, the higher its cost of production and therefore the higher its price.

71
00:09:07.660 --> 00:09:13.660
This is how they got around the paradox of value and they explained that diamonds had a higher price,

72
00:09:13.660 --> 00:09:19.660
which was much more difficult in terms of labor or more expensive in terms of cost of production

73
00:09:19.660 --> 00:09:24.660
to bring diamonds to the surface, cut them, polish them and turn them into jewelry

74
00:09:24.660 --> 00:09:51.660
Menger wanted to heal that division in price theory and he wanted to ground the whole theory of economics itself, and I'll give you some quotes, in the striving of human beings to satisfy their wants.

75
00:09:51.660 --> 00:10:05.660
One last problem with the classical school was that they also were schizophrenic in terms of explaining how certain goods were priced versus other goods.

76
00:10:05.660 --> 00:10:15.660
For example, goods that could not be reproduced, goods like a da Vinci painting or sculpture, antiques and so on,

77
00:10:15.660 --> 00:10:22.460
and so on, since they could not be reproduced, their value never tended towards their cost of production.

78
00:10:22.460 --> 00:10:31.460
Who would ever know the cost of production in terms of the hours of labor or the cost it took Da Vinci to paint something?

79
00:10:31.460 --> 00:10:37.660
On the other hand, reproducible goods like bread and diamonds did have a cost of production.

80
00:10:37.660 --> 00:10:46.660
So they had a non-integrated price theory from two different classes of goods.

81
00:10:46.660 --> 00:10:50.660
So let me then talk a little bit about Menger.

82
00:10:50.660 --> 00:10:54.660
Menger was indeed the founder of the Austrian School of Economics proper.

83
00:10:54.660 --> 00:11:02.660
He really did create the system of value and price theory that constitutes the core of Austrian economic theory.

84
00:11:02.660 --> 00:11:09.660
He also originated and consistently applied what we might call the praxeological method for pursuing research in economics.

85
00:11:09.660 --> 00:11:20.660
So that in its method and in its core price theory, Austrian economics has always been, and will remain in the future, Mangerian economics.

86
00:11:20.660 --> 00:11:26.660
And this was recognized by a number of very prominent historians of thought.

87
00:11:26.660 --> 00:11:31.660
For example, Schumpeter wrote, Menger is nobody's pupil and what he created stands.

88
00:11:31.660 --> 00:11:38.660
Mises wrote what is known as the Austrian School of Economics started in 1871 when Carl Menger published a slender volume under the title Principles of Economics.

89
00:11:38.660 --> 00:11:43.660
Until the end of the 70s, there was no Austrian School, there was only Carl Menger.

90
00:11:43.660 --> 00:11:52.660
Finally, Hayek. Hayek said that the Austrian School's fundamental ideas belong fully and wholly to the Austrian School of Economics.

91
00:11:52.660 --> 00:12:02.660
Finally, Hayek. Hayek said that the Austrian School's fundamental ideas belong fully and wholly to Carl Menger.

92
00:12:02.660 --> 00:12:18.660
What is common to the members of the Austrian School and constitutes their peculiarity,

93
00:12:18.660 --> 00:12:24.660
and provided the foundation for their contributions is the acceptance of the teaching of Carl Menger.

94
00:12:24.660 --> 00:12:36.660
And as I point out, Menger was motivated by a specific aim, and that aim was of establishing a causal link between the subjective values underlying the choices of consumers,

95
00:12:36.660 --> 00:12:44.660
which the classical school ignored, and the objective market prices used in the economic calculations of businessmen,

96
00:12:44.660 --> 00:12:48.660
which the classical school did a good job of explaining.

97
00:12:48.660 --> 00:12:55.660
What I want to do now is to show that because of this project that Menger had in mind,

98
00:12:55.660 --> 00:13:01.660
he was much more than just another marginalist innovator.

99
00:13:01.660 --> 00:13:07.660
Let me just give you the names and the faces of those who were marginalists.

100
00:13:07.660 --> 00:13:24.660
In 1874, Paul Ross, Marie Esprillon, Paul Ross, wrote a mathematical treatise in which he introduced for the first time the idea of marginal utility.

101
00:13:24.660 --> 00:13:32.660
He's 25 in that picture, he's 30 in that picture. He got very old very quickly from everybody calling him a Marie.

102
00:13:32.660 --> 00:14:00.660
So that was Walras. He took marginal utility in the direction of mathematics and in the direction of general equilibrium in which human beings are not the cause of the phenomena, the phenomena of economics are mutually determined as in mechanics.

103
00:14:00.660 --> 00:14:14.660
This is Boehm-Bawerk. As I said, he wasn't noble. He served a number of times as Minister of Finance for the Austrian Government.

104
00:14:14.660 --> 00:14:24.660
In my view, he wasted a significant part of his life, which led ultimately to the decline of the Austrian School in government service from 1889 until 1904.

105
00:14:24.660 --> 00:14:33.660
His tremendous productivity occurred basically between 1881 and 1889, and I'll talk a little bit about that.

106
00:14:33.660 --> 00:14:47.660
After that, he still continued to write, but did not develop his system in much greater depth, though he defended it and he did refine it.

107
00:14:47.660 --> 00:14:57.660
And this is Friedrich von Mises, who was, by the way, Boehm-Bawerk's brother-in-law.

108
00:14:57.660 --> 00:15:16.660
Von Mises, as I said, veered off or departed from Menger's original project and attempted to use marginal utility but to build on it a theory of the economy that was in some sense a verbal general equilibrium theory.

109
00:15:16.660 --> 00:15:26.660
in which he could explain how social welfare could be maximized.

110
00:15:26.660 --> 00:15:35.660
So he had a quantitative view of marginal utility that was more or less absent in Menger and Boehm-Bawerk,

111
00:15:35.660 --> 00:15:39.660
although they sometimes lapsed into a quantitative view of utility, they mainly avoided it,

112
00:15:39.660 --> 00:16:02.660
Wieser embraced it wholeheartedly. Let me just give you some quotes from Wieser just to show you the project that he was embarked on.

113
00:16:09.660 --> 00:16:19.660
This isn't the preface of his seminal work, The Principles of Economics, he writes,

114
00:16:19.660 --> 00:16:30.660
I have devoted special attention to the investigation of the causal connections, note the word causal, between economic phenomena involving products and the corresponding agents of production.

115
00:16:30.660 --> 00:16:36.660
Not only for the purpose of establishing a price theory based upon reality, also note that term,

116
00:16:36.660 --> 00:16:44.660
and placing all price phenomena, including interest, wages, ground rent, etc. together under one unified point,

117
00:16:44.660 --> 00:16:51.660
but also because of the important insights we thereby gain into many other economic processes, heretofore completely misunderstood.

118
00:16:51.660 --> 00:17:00.660
In other words, he basically said that if you have a solid foundation for economics and you have deduced a consistent theory,

119
00:17:00.660 --> 00:17:05.660
then you can apply it to all the issues that economists are interested in.

120
00:17:05.660 --> 00:17:12.660
You didn't need a separate theory of distribution like the classical school did, and a separate theory of pricing.

121
00:17:12.660 --> 00:17:18.660
In his notes that he wrote to himself when he was beginning to work on the book, he wrote,

122
00:17:18.660 --> 00:17:26.660
Man himself is the beginning and the end of every economy, which statements like that appear in Bastiat.

123
00:17:26.660 --> 00:17:34.660
I also point out that our science is the theory of a human being's ability to deal with his wants.

124
00:17:34.660 --> 00:17:39.660
All things are subject, this is a separate quote, that actually is in his notes, the first quote.

125
00:17:39.660 --> 00:17:51.660
Once again, this shows a very strong influence of the French school and the German price theorists that developed Say's theory.

126
00:17:51.660 --> 00:17:56.660
This whole focus on wants, on humans striving for wants.

127
00:17:56.660 --> 00:18:06.660
Now, the very first line of his treatise, or it's actually not a treatise, it's principles, says all things are subject to the law of cause and effect.

128
00:18:06.660 --> 00:18:16.660
So, the very first line, he rejected the mutual determination, the mechanical mutual determination of economic quantities, which leaves out human beings,

129
00:18:16.660 --> 00:18:22.660
and which was the project of one of the other marginalist revolutionaries, Walras.

130
00:18:22.660 --> 00:18:34.660
Paul Roths. Also, Wieser was also someone who more or less followed Paul Roths in this respect rather than Menger.

131
00:18:34.660 --> 00:18:41.660
Finally, let me just give you the last quote here.

132
00:18:41.660 --> 00:18:47.660
Can you explain a little bit more how cause and effect can typically negate quantities?

133
00:19:11.660 --> 00:19:22.660
And all of them, and the results, the prices, equilibrium price and quantities that come out of that, that come out of the data, are mutually determined.

134
00:19:22.660 --> 00:19:25.660
Or they're mutually determined one another.

135
00:19:25.660 --> 00:19:32.660
And in fact, here we show that Menger was not a radical subjectivist, as some Austrians have claimed.

136
00:19:32.660 --> 00:19:40.660
Menger recognized that there was both objective and subjective aspects to the economic process.

137
00:19:40.660 --> 00:19:48.660
And that the chain of causality ran from subjective wants, and this is something he got from Bastiat,

138
00:19:48.660 --> 00:19:57.660
through the real world, that is, man put forth efforts to produce things, to transform resources in the objective world,

139
00:19:57.660 --> 00:20:03.660
according to technological recipes, into goods that will be more useful and that will satisfy his wants.

140
00:20:03.660 --> 00:20:09.660
So in other words, man's motive was subjective, to satisfy his wants.

141
00:20:09.660 --> 00:20:21.660
His actions on the best means to satisfy those wants were also subjective, but the middle link was objective.

142
00:20:21.660 --> 00:20:37.660
He had to produce goods and services. He had to transform elements, existing elements of his environment in such a way that they satisfied his wants.

143
00:20:37.660 --> 00:20:47.660
Causality ran both ways. It ran from human wants to the effort to produce, and it ran back the other way.

144
00:20:47.660 --> 00:20:56.660
Once those things were produced, it satisfied the goods that were produced with the cause of the satisfaction of human wants.

145
00:20:56.660 --> 00:21:00.660
Human wants were the cause of the production of the goods.

146
00:21:00.660 --> 00:21:10.660
So he says, one's own person, moreover, and any of its states, he's talking about subjective states of satisfaction, are links in this great universal structure of relationships.

147
00:21:10.660 --> 00:21:19.660
It is impossible to conceive of a change of one's person from one state to another in any way other than one subject to the law of causality.

148
00:21:19.660 --> 00:21:28.660
If, therefore, one passes from a state of need to a state in which the need is satisfied, sufficient causes for this change must exist.

149
00:21:28.660 --> 00:21:33.660
There must be forces operating within one's organism that remedy the disturbed state,

150
00:21:33.660 --> 00:21:43.660
or there must be external things acting upon it that by their nature are capable of producing the state we call satisfaction of our needs.

151
00:21:43.660 --> 00:21:52.660
So recently my wife got a new car, and that disturbed me a little bit because I didn't have a new car.

152
00:21:52.660 --> 00:22:22.660
and I suddenly felt the want for a new car and I went and looked around I convinced her that I needed it and I like American cars, I like GM cars and I got a Grand Prix, I promised her I'd do extra things and earn extra money and I did so so I put out extra effort and produce the means of purchasing that car and I got a Grand Prix competition series G which is a very fast car, black

153
00:22:22.660 --> 00:22:32.660
That assuaged my disturbed state. That material thing satisfied my want.

154
00:22:32.660 --> 00:22:40.660
I'm being frivolous, I'm joking in some sense, or I'm being frivolous about it.

155
00:22:40.660 --> 00:22:53.660
about it, but that's true, I mean that's the way all of us perceive the striving to satisfy our wants with real things.

156
00:22:53.660 --> 00:23:09.660
Now, Israel Kirzner, who I've discussed this with, claims that Menger was more subjectivist than that.

157
00:23:09.660 --> 00:23:16.660
He would fight with me on this, and he would claim, well, this is more Boehm-Bawerk, but this is a quote from Menger.

158
00:23:16.660 --> 00:23:26.660
Let me talk a little bit more about Menger and how he went about reconstructing economics.

159
00:23:26.660 --> 00:23:32.660
Then I'll talk about Boehm-Bawerk.

160
00:23:32.660 --> 00:23:41.660
One of the first things that Menger did was to develop, actually to improve on, a theory of goods.

161
00:23:41.660 --> 00:23:50.660
One of the great things about the German economists of the 19th century was that they started almost all of their treatises with what was called the theory of goods.

162
00:23:50.660 --> 00:23:56.660
This is another response to those who would claim that the early Austrian school, or at least Menger, was radically subjectivist.

163
00:23:56.660 --> 00:24:01.660
Well, if you're radically subjectivist, you don't start off with all things are subject to the law of cause and effect.

164
00:24:01.660 --> 00:24:04.660
And you don't start your treatise with a theory of goods.

165
00:24:04.660 --> 00:24:21.660
According to Menger, for a thing to be a good, or in his words, for a thing to have goods character, four criteria had to be met.

166
00:24:21.660 --> 00:24:28.660
One, there had to be a human need. Secondly, such properties as random as a thing capable of being brought into causal connections,

167
00:24:51.660 --> 00:25:01.660
with the satisfaction of this need, that is, the car must have certain properties that I perceive as satisfying my need.

168
00:25:01.660 --> 00:25:14.660
Thirdly, there must be human knowledge of this causal connection, and fourth, the command of the thing, you must have command of the item, sufficient to direct it to the satisfaction of the need.

169
00:25:14.660 --> 00:25:27.660
Now let me explain what I mean here. With the fourth criterion, I need a sunny day. I need the sun to be shining, to have a good time at the Mets game.

170
00:25:27.660 --> 00:25:37.660
So to have the good of watching a Mets game, which this year it is a good, you have to have the sun out. You can't have rain.

171
00:25:37.660 --> 00:25:48.660
But I have no control over the sun, so if the sun doesn't come out, then the Metz game loses the quality of being a good.

172
00:25:48.660 --> 00:25:58.660
Even if it's drizzling and they're playing and I don't like the rain, I'm not going to go, it's no longer a good to me, because of the fourth criterion being missing.

173
00:25:58.660 --> 00:26:13.660
Now, Mises pointed out that there was a problem with Menger's four criteria.

174
00:26:13.660 --> 00:26:20.220
He said, look, Menger says that properties must objectively exist that bring the thing

175
00:26:20.220 --> 00:26:24.960
into causal connection with the satisfaction of the need, and that there must be human

176
00:26:24.960 --> 00:26:26.920
knowledge of this causal connection.

177
00:26:26.920 --> 00:26:35.920
Now what Mises pointed out was that there has to be an opinion by the subject that the good will or the thing will satisfy the need.

178
00:26:35.920 --> 00:26:42.920
That is ex ante, people do something because they believe their needs will be satisfied.

179
00:26:42.920 --> 00:26:48.920
They undertake some sort of a production activity or they purchase a good.

180
00:26:48.920 --> 00:26:54.920
However, ex post after the fact they may be wrong, there can be error.

181
00:26:54.920 --> 00:27:08.920
So you can combine those two into simply, or restate them as a human need, the opinion that the thing in question will satisfy that need and control or command over the thing.

182
00:27:08.920 --> 00:27:13.920
In other words, you must have control in the sense that you can use the thing to actually satisfy your needs.

183
00:27:13.920 --> 00:27:33.920
Okay, now Menger asks the following question. Given that we know what goods are, the problem then becomes how do we actually value a good?

184
00:27:33.920 --> 00:27:47.920
Before you can even talk about individuals valuing a good, you must keep in mind that before individuals will strive to obtain a good, there must be an insufficiency of it.

185
00:27:47.920 --> 00:27:51.920
Now Menger used the word economic good versus free good.

186
00:27:51.920 --> 00:28:02.920
Mises said, well, if a thing is freely available like air, we never even spend any effort or time or attention on attempting to obtain air in a normal situation.

187
00:28:02.920 --> 00:28:12.920
Therefore, air isn't even a good at all. It's bad to call it a free good. It's simply a general condition of human welfare. Mises used that terminology.

188
00:28:12.920 --> 00:28:23.920
But let's stick with Menger's terminology. Menger said that for a thing to be an economic good means that there has to be an insufficient quantity to satisfy all human wants for that thing.

189
00:28:23.920 --> 00:28:31.920
At that point, it becomes a subject of what Menger called economizing activity.

190
00:28:31.920 --> 00:28:39.920
Now, Menger was not talking about, as the classical school was, homo economicus, economic man.

191
00:28:39.920 --> 00:28:47.920
The classical school, when they used the word economic man, meant that there was this, we might call him homunculus,

192
00:28:47.920 --> 00:28:55.920
this little man inside of everybody that, when they went into business, would always buy at a low price and sell at a high price.

193
00:28:55.920 --> 00:29:01.920
That was economic man, but what Menger did was to generalize that to the consumer.

194
00:29:01.920 --> 00:29:07.920
He pointed out the consumers didn't calculate like the businessman did.

195
00:29:07.920 --> 00:29:09.920
That wasn't the meaning of economizing.

196
00:29:09.920 --> 00:29:19.920
What economizing meant to Menger was simply that we would always use whatever resources or goods that we possessed to satisfy our most important wants.

197
00:29:19.920 --> 00:29:23.920
So scarcity implies that people rank their wants.

198
00:29:23.920 --> 00:29:29.920
That's a much broader concept of economizing than the classical school had.

199
00:29:32.920 --> 00:29:37.920
Now, this was part of Menger's brilliance. He never used the word marginal utility.

200
00:29:37.920 --> 00:29:45.920
That was coined later by his follower, Wieser, okay, Grenznutzen, which was marginal utility.

201
00:29:45.920 --> 00:29:51.920
But Mises never used the term, though he described the concept in a very, very clear way.

202
00:29:51.920 --> 00:30:02.880
One of the examples that he used was the following. Let's assume we have the fictional Robinson

203
00:30:02.880 --> 00:30:14.300
Crusoe on an island who has been stranded and has very little resources at his disposal.

204
00:30:14.300 --> 00:30:20.440
How will he act to economize these resources? And not only that, how will he determine the

205
00:30:20.440 --> 00:30:39.440
and the value of the resources. Now let me just take A here. Let's say that Robinson Crusoe has a certain finite amount of grain, sacks of grain. You can think of wheat or corn, whatever it is, and he has 20 different wants for each sack of grain.

206
00:30:39.440 --> 00:30:48.440
So notice what Menger is doing here is talking about concrete units. He's not talking about wheat in general. What's the value of wheat in general?

207
00:30:48.440 --> 00:30:58.440
If Robert de Crusoe had more than 20 units or 20 sacks of grain, grain would no longer be an economic good and he wouldn't worry about it.

208
00:30:58.440 --> 00:31:03.440
To be more than enough to satisfy all his wants, assuming there's only 20 wants for grain.

209
00:31:03.440 --> 00:31:09.440
But let's say he has five units, and he ranks them in the following order.

210
00:31:09.440 --> 00:31:15.440
The first sack, the most important use would be to bake bread for sustaining his life.

211
00:31:15.440 --> 00:31:21.440
Second would be, that would just keep him alive for a year, until the next year.

212
00:31:21.440 --> 00:31:28.440
The second use would be to bake bread for maintaining his health and his vitality and allowing him to strive after the satisfaction of other wants.

213
00:31:28.440 --> 00:31:34.440
The third would be used for seed for next year's harvest so he could live another year.

214
00:31:34.440 --> 00:31:42.440
The fourth would vary his diet. He'd ferment it and turn it into whiskey, produce whiskey.

215
00:31:42.440 --> 00:31:50.440
The fifth, he'd use it to domesticate and feed farm animals, which would yield to meat, dairy, and poultry products in addition to the bread.

216
00:31:51.440 --> 00:31:53.440
Now, he has five sacks.

217
00:31:57.440 --> 00:32:02.440
His scale of wants indicates the importance of the uses of each one of those sacks.

218
00:32:02.440 --> 00:32:04.440
Now, he asks this question.

219
00:32:07.440 --> 00:32:11.440
First of all, what is the value of any given sack?

220
00:32:12.440 --> 00:32:25.440
Well, what we do know is that every sack, since it's interchangeable, since every sack is identical with every other sack, they have to have equal value.

221
00:32:25.440 --> 00:32:29.440
But yet they serve very differently valued wants.

222
00:32:29.440 --> 00:32:39.440
How do we determine the value? Is it the value of the most important want? Is it some average value, maybe the third want?

223
00:32:39.440 --> 00:32:43.440
Well, this is where Menger's brilliance comes in.

224
00:32:43.440 --> 00:32:49.440
Now, other writers before Menger in the German tradition that followed Say and even in the French school

225
00:32:49.440 --> 00:32:52.440
had come close to the notion of marginal utility.

226
00:32:52.440 --> 00:32:54.440
But they didn't ask the right question.

227
00:32:54.440 --> 00:32:57.440
And they didn't realize that marginal utility pervades human life.

228
00:32:57.440 --> 00:32:59.440
The question is this.

229
00:32:59.440 --> 00:33:07.440
If a fox or some other animal broke in and, let's say, consumed the second sack,

230
00:33:07.440 --> 00:33:11.440
What want would go unfulfilled?

231
00:33:11.440 --> 00:33:18.440
Well, obviously, because human beings economize, because they want to satisfy their most important wants,

232
00:33:18.440 --> 00:33:27.440
the want that would go unfulfilled is the fifth want, the least important want that can be satisfied by the current supply.

233
00:33:27.440 --> 00:33:37.760
Supply. So the satisfaction from the lowest valued want that's satisfied or capable of

234
00:33:37.760 --> 00:33:44.680
being satisfied by the available supply becomes the marginal utility. Utility meaning satisfaction.

235
00:33:44.680 --> 00:33:51.920
The satisfaction of the last one. So what Menger pointed out then was each SAC was valued

236
00:33:51.920 --> 00:33:59.840
according to its marginal utility. Each one had a value equal to the satisfaction from

237
00:33:59.840 --> 00:34:07.520
eating meat, having milk and eggs and dairy products over the course of the year. Why?

238
00:34:07.520 --> 00:34:12.260
Because that was what Menger called the dependent utility. No matter which sack is lost, he

239
00:34:12.260 --> 00:34:21.800
loses the satisfaction from the lowest valued want. So this is the theory of marginal utility.

240
00:34:21.800 --> 00:34:33.800
Now what he pointed out was that then, therefore, the value of a good depends on its marginal utility, which, as I'll show you in a moment, resolves the paradox of value.

241
00:34:33.800 --> 00:34:45.800
But note something, if indeed he lost one of the sacks, what would happen to the marginal utility and therefore the value of each of the sacks of grain?

242
00:35:15.800 --> 00:35:17.800
Marginal utility and therefore the lower its value.

243
00:35:17.800 --> 00:35:24.800
Or to put it another way, as the supply of good increases, its value decreases because its marginal utility decreases.

244
00:35:24.800 --> 00:35:27.800
And that can be stated conversely.

245
00:35:27.800 --> 00:35:34.800
The fewer the units of a good, the higher the marginal utility, therefore the higher the value of the good.

246
00:35:34.800 --> 00:35:41.800
And now we have the resolution, as Menger went on to show us, of the paradox of value.

247
00:35:41.800 --> 00:36:00.800
The reason why in a normal situation, diamonds have a higher value, which is reflected in its market price than bread per unit, is precisely because diamonds are much more scarce than water in a normal situation.

248
00:36:00.800 --> 00:36:27.800
If you place someone in a desert who has not had water in three days and has a perfect gem, let's say the purple diamond that Kobe Bryant bought for his wife, the eight million dollar purple diamond, in order to make up for his infidelity, you would give that diamond up for a quart of water.

249
00:36:27.800 --> 00:36:37.800
Why? Because water is so scarce in the desert and such that the marginal utility of water in the desert is higher than the marginal utility of a diamond.

250
00:36:37.800 --> 00:36:46.800
Why? Because the want that's being satisfied by water is to keep you alive for another three days.

251
00:36:46.800 --> 00:36:55.800
Let me just make this a little bit more complicated, just slightly.

252
00:36:55.800 --> 00:36:59.800
Let's say that there's a farmer who possesses three horses and two cows.

253
00:36:59.800 --> 00:37:06.300
Now, these are different goods, and the horses are interchangeable among themselves, and the cows are interchangeable.

254
00:37:06.300 --> 00:37:12.100
That is to say, they're identical within the group of horses and within the group of cows.

255
00:37:12.100 --> 00:37:18.300
Notice that the farmer would use the first two horses to plow his field as a team.

256
00:37:18.300 --> 00:37:25.100
The first cow serves the third want, which is to provide milk for the farm family,

257
00:37:25.100 --> 00:37:29.500
and the fourth provides additional milk that could be turned into cheese and butter

258
00:37:29.500 --> 00:37:35.300
and the second cow does, and the third horse provides pleasure riding

259
00:37:35.300 --> 00:37:42.000
and that's how he values these various goods or satisfactions.

260
00:37:42.000 --> 00:37:46.700
The question then becomes, which is the more valuable animal to this farmer?

261
00:37:46.700 --> 00:37:52.500
Well, according to Menger, you don't look at the top, you don't say, well, the horse is the most important.

262
00:37:52.500 --> 00:38:00.500
It's not. You simply ask the question, if the barn is burning and you can only save four animals, which four will you save?

263
00:38:00.500 --> 00:38:08.500
Obviously, two horses and two cows. Why? Because horses have a lower value. The marginal utility of horses are lower.

264
00:38:08.500 --> 00:38:20.500
Now, if that horse perishes, fifth horse, then suddenly notice the marginal utility of horses increases to the second satisfaction and therefore the horse becomes a more important animal.

265
00:38:20.500 --> 00:38:32.500
So you never look at the top, you look at the lowest value of satisfaction that is served by a unit of a good.

266
00:38:32.500 --> 00:38:42.500
So he resolved that paradox and very quickly let me mention something else that he did, or actually two other points that I think are important to stress.

267
00:38:42.500 --> 00:38:46.500
What he also did was to come up with what he called orders of goods.

268
00:38:46.500 --> 00:38:56.500
He pointed out that marginal utility and people's scales of wants determine the value of first order goods. Those are the consumer goods.

269
00:38:56.500 --> 00:39:03.500
What determines the value of the goods that produce those consumer goods? Let's say we're talking about bread.

270
00:39:03.500 --> 00:39:09.500
The value of bread is determined by the marginal utility of bread to the actual consumers.

271
00:39:09.500 --> 00:39:18.500
But what about the flour ovens and baker's labour that go to producing that bread? That's a second order good.

272
00:39:18.500 --> 00:39:27.500
Well, what Menger pointed out was that their value reflects the value of the bread whose production they cause.

273
00:39:27.500 --> 00:39:32.500
So he has this causality. The final good, the consumer good, causes satisfaction.

274
00:39:32.500 --> 00:39:42.500
But the second order good, the bakers, labor, the ovens, and so on, causes the production of the first order good, which in turn causes satisfaction.

275
00:39:42.500 --> 00:39:53.500
So where production goes from the resources that are further and further away from consumers, down towards consumers, value travels upward.

276
00:39:53.500 --> 00:40:01.500
What about the third order good? The mill, the wheat, the miller's labor that goes to producing the flour that is used in the second order industries?

277
00:40:01.500 --> 00:40:08.500
or above that the farm labor, the farm tools, the farm animals that are used to produce the wheat and so on.

278
00:40:08.500 --> 00:40:16.500
What Menger pointed out was that there was a theory of imputation, that value was imputed backwards,

279
00:40:16.500 --> 00:40:24.500
as opposed to the classical school which claimed that the value of a diamond resulted from the fact that it was very expensive to produce a diamond.

280
00:40:24.500 --> 00:40:47.500
Manger said no, that's not true, it's the exact opposite. The only reason why diamond mines have value at all is because people value diamonds so highly. Marginal utility of diamonds are very, very high to individuals.

281
00:40:47.500 --> 00:41:03.500
So that, for example, and I always give this example to my class, if you saw the marvelous movie, Witness, which takes place in the Amish country in southeastern Pennsylvania, the Amish are also called the plain people.

282
00:41:03.500 --> 00:41:15.500
And they don't wear any sort of jewelry, they don't even have buttons on their clothing. They wear black, all black, and they wear hooks because they believe even buttons show vanity.

283
00:41:15.500 --> 00:41:22.500
Well, what if all Americans adopted Amish values? What would happen to the value of diamonds, marginal utility of diamonds?

284
00:41:22.500 --> 00:41:34.500
They would drop to nothing. In which case, what would happen to the wages paid to skilled jewelers and gem cutters?

285
00:41:34.500 --> 00:41:41.500
They would drop to zero. What would happen to the value of diamond mines, leaving aside the industrial uses of diamonds?

286
00:41:41.500 --> 00:41:45.500
Suddenly, the stock of diamond mines would fall to zero.

287
00:41:45.500 --> 00:41:56.500
So Menger turned the classical school on its head and showed that, in fact, it's prices that determine costs and not the other way around.

288
00:41:56.500 --> 00:42:01.500
This, by the way, goes back to Kondiak, whose treatise was written in 1776.

289
00:42:01.500 --> 00:42:22.500
He said, oysters are not expensive, or pearls are not expensive or have a high value because divers must dive deep for them, but divers dive for pearls because they have a high value.

290
00:42:22.500 --> 00:42:30.500
In other words, you are willing to incur high costs or expend great efforts because the thing has such a great value.

291
00:42:30.500 --> 00:42:36.500
If the thing at the bottom of the sea didn't have much value, you wouldn't die for it.

292
00:42:36.500 --> 00:42:50.500
So you can see this subjective value tradition that began with Cantillon coming through and really being perfected in Menger.

293
00:42:50.500 --> 00:42:54.500
Finally, I want to mention one other thing that Menger did regarding goods.

294
00:42:54.500 --> 00:43:07.500
He also explained how an individual factor of production was priced, which the classical school couldn't do.

295
00:43:07.500 --> 00:43:16.500
They talked about labor in general, receiving a certain share of the product, and land in general, acquiring a share of the product, and so on.

296
00:43:16.500 --> 00:43:24.500
They didn't talk about how individual laborers, individual pieces of capital equipment, individual raw materials were priced.

297
00:43:24.500 --> 00:43:31.500
So Menger went beyond just saying that the value of the second order goods reflected the value of the first order goods and so on all the way back.

298
00:43:31.500 --> 00:43:40.500
He also pointed out that there was a simple way of determining what the price of a particular factor would be.

299
00:43:40.500 --> 00:43:48.500
He didn't fully explain this in the context of the market economy, but he did give us the important starting point.

300
00:43:48.500 --> 00:43:57.500
Take the example of wheat once more. Let's say that a farmer can produce a thousand bushels of wheat per year.

301
00:43:57.500 --> 00:44:05.500
And he wants to know what the value is of a hundred pounds of fertilizer.

302
00:44:05.500 --> 00:44:24.500
And let's say to produce a thousand bushels of wheat, you need a certain number of horses, a certain number of plows, a certain amount of labor, a certain amount of supervisory labor, and a certain amount of fertilizer.

303
00:44:24.500 --> 00:44:31.500
And combining all those things, we call that the production function, will give you one thousand bushels of wheat.

304
00:44:31.500 --> 00:44:45.500
So what Menger said was, what's the value, let's say someone uses 10,000 pounds of fertilizer, or let's say 1,000 pounds of fertilizer, what's the value of 100 pounds?

305
00:44:45.500 --> 00:44:55.500
Well Menger pointed out that factors when they're combined, or resources when they're combined, can be combined in different proportions.

306
00:44:55.500 --> 00:45:05.500
That is unlike the production of water which takes two atoms of hydrogen and one atom of oxygen.

307
00:45:05.500 --> 00:45:10.500
If you're missing the one oxygen atom, you can't get water, you can't produce water.

308
00:45:10.500 --> 00:45:14.500
Most production is not like production of a chemical.

309
00:45:14.500 --> 00:45:18.500
Most things can be produced using different combinations of factors.

310
00:45:18.500 --> 00:45:20.500
He saw that back then.

311
00:45:20.500 --> 00:45:22.500
And what he said was the following.

312
00:45:22.500 --> 00:45:35.500
Now, what would happen if out of the thousand pounds of fertilizer, 100 pounds were taken away, all other things equal, with the same amount of horses and plows and labor and so on?

313
00:45:35.500 --> 00:45:43.500
Well, there would be a reduction in the output. It would go, let's say, from a hundred bushels of wheat, or what I say produced per year, a thousand.

314
00:45:43.500 --> 00:45:51.500
A thousand bushels of wheat, let's say, to 950 bushels of wheat, because of the reduction of fertilizer.

315
00:45:51.500 --> 00:46:04.500
So, what Menger said was that the marginal product, the additional product that that last 100 pounds of fertilizer added gave the value to the fertilizer.

316
00:46:04.500 --> 00:46:13.500
So, whatever value he attached to 50 bushels of wheat is the value of the 100 pounds of fertilizer.

317
00:46:13.500 --> 00:46:24.500
So, and if you, he didn't take it as far as the market economy, but let's assume each bushel of wheat was, let's say, $3 a bushel and there was a reduction in output of 50 bushels.

318
00:46:24.500 --> 00:46:33.500
That's $150. He'd be willing to pay up to $150, because that would be the loss of his revenue, to purchase 100 additional pounds of fertilizer.

319
00:46:33.500 --> 00:46:39.500
So that's, so Menger actually gave us the hint on how to solve the problem of pricing the factors of production.

320
00:46:39.500 --> 00:46:59.500
What about Boehm-Bawerk? Well, two important points about Boehm-Bawerk. One is that he came up with a theory of capital and interest that was based on subjective values, that was based on people's time preferences.

321
00:46:59.500 --> 00:47:06.500
Now, it was adulterated with other factors, but basically he came up with the notion of time preference.

322
00:47:06.500 --> 00:47:15.500
That is, if I were to ask you to lend me $10,000 and you completely trusted me, there was no question that I would default,

323
00:47:15.500 --> 00:47:22.500
and that I would pay you back in one year, I would give you an IOU for let's say $10,000 in one year's time,

324
00:47:22.500 --> 00:47:29.500
Well, would you give me that for a firm promise, firm guarantee that I'd pay you back?

325
00:47:29.500 --> 00:47:34.500
Would you give me $10,000 today in exchange for $10,000 a year from now?

326
00:47:34.500 --> 00:47:42.500
No one would. Why? Because in the interim you'd be giving up the satisfaction from that $10,000.

327
00:47:42.500 --> 00:47:45.500
That's the notion of time preference.

328
00:47:45.500 --> 00:47:53.300
Well, what Boehm-Bawerk pointed out was that future satisfactions have lower value than

329
00:47:53.300 --> 00:47:54.940
present satisfaction.

330
00:47:54.940 --> 00:48:00.940
A future sum of money has, dollar for dollar, a lower value than a present sum of money.

331
00:48:00.940 --> 00:48:07.940
So therefore, if I offered you 11,000 future dollars for 10,000 future dollars today, you're

332
00:48:07.940 --> 00:48:12.260
not exploiting me by taking 11,000 a year from now for 10,000 today.

333
00:48:12.260 --> 00:48:20.420
In fact, that reflects the fact that future dollars have a lower value than present dollars.

334
00:48:20.420 --> 00:48:26.140
Because in making the loan to me, you forego all the satisfactions that you could have attained

335
00:48:26.140 --> 00:48:28.180
for that year.

336
00:48:28.180 --> 00:48:33.480
What Boehm-Bawerk pointed out was that this is not only true in the loan market, but it's

337
00:48:33.480 --> 00:48:40.020
true when a capitalist invests in the structure of production and he used the orders of goods

338
00:48:40.020 --> 00:48:44.860
that Menger used, and he called it stages of production.

339
00:48:44.860 --> 00:48:53.060
So if it takes me five years to build a car, then, or let's say I'm in the assembly stage

340
00:48:53.060 --> 00:48:58.820
of an automobile, and I know that I can produce a certain number of automobiles that will

341
00:48:58.820 --> 00:49:05.140
yield me a million dollars one year from now, would I be willing to pay the workers, and

342
00:49:05.140 --> 00:49:08.180
let's forget about the raw materials and so on, let's just assume the workers are, would

343
00:49:08.180 --> 00:49:11.380
Would I be willing to pay the workers the full one million dollars?

344
00:49:11.380 --> 00:49:12.820
Well, of course not.

345
00:49:12.820 --> 00:49:15.020
No one else would.

346
00:49:15.020 --> 00:49:22.500
The worker's value would be bid up to a level which reflected the time preferences in society.

347
00:49:22.500 --> 00:49:30.160
So if there was about a ten percent time preference on average in society, if people preferred

348
00:49:30.160 --> 00:49:36.100
goods today to goods a year from now by about a ten percent, then the total amount of wages

349
00:49:36.100 --> 00:49:43.860
Capital goods paid to workers would be 10% less than $1 million, that is about $900,000.

350
00:49:43.860 --> 00:49:48.220
So capitalists would pay about $900,000 at the beginning of the process, let's assume

351
00:49:48.220 --> 00:49:52.300
they paid them right at the beginning, and in return they would get the capital goods

352
00:49:52.300 --> 00:49:58.260
that the laborers worked on for the year, and at the end of the year the capital goods

353
00:49:58.260 --> 00:50:04.140
would be finished automobiles, which the capitalists would then turn around and sell for $1 million.

354
00:50:04.140 --> 00:50:10.440
He would get about an 11% return on a $900,000 investment.

355
00:50:10.440 --> 00:50:16.780
So far from being exploitative, what the capitalist does, the capitalist function in a market society

356
00:50:16.780 --> 00:50:23.940
is to remove the burden of waiting for income from the workers.

357
00:50:23.940 --> 00:50:27.820
Think about workers that want to engage in a five-year process.

358
00:50:27.820 --> 00:50:29.460
They want to produce bread from scratch.

359
00:50:29.460 --> 00:50:41.460
Well, if you think about it, before you could even produce bread, you must have the wheat, first the flour, then the wheat before that, and before that you must have the farm tools, and before that you must have the iron ore.

360
00:50:41.460 --> 00:50:52.460
So it might take five years to produce bread. Now, let's say the workers could produce bread that would sell for $500,000 as a group, and let's assume there's no capitalists.

361
00:50:52.460 --> 00:50:57.460
They'd have to wait five years for that income. Now, how would they go about doing that?

362
00:50:57.460 --> 00:51:04.460
They would have to save up consumer goods in advance, or they would have to save up money in advance.

363
00:51:04.460 --> 00:51:07.460
That would see them over that five-year period.

364
00:51:07.460 --> 00:51:14.460
However, if there's a capitalist there who's already done the saving, and the capitalist invests the money,

365
00:51:14.460 --> 00:51:18.460
and in fact it would be a series of capitalists, different ones owning different stages,

366
00:51:18.460 --> 00:51:24.460
they pay the workers every two weeks, or every week, or whatever it is.

367
00:51:24.460 --> 00:51:31.460
So the workers don't have to wait for the five years until they get paid. They get paid every week or two.

368
00:51:31.460 --> 00:51:35.460
And they're willing then to take less than their marginal revenue product.

369
00:51:35.460 --> 00:51:38.460
Less than the revenue they add to the final output.

370
00:51:38.460 --> 00:51:43.460
That revenue is discounted, as in the case of the auto workers, by the interest rate.

371
00:51:43.460 --> 00:51:51.460
So every year they get a certain salary that's, let's say, five percent per year less than they could have gotten

372
00:51:51.460 --> 00:51:56.460
If they were willing, among themselves, to produce a good and wait five years for the income.

373
00:51:56.460 --> 00:52:01.460
That's the return of the capitalist. It's not exploitative, as Marx claimed.

374
00:52:01.460 --> 00:52:06.460
Even though the capitalist sat back and did nothing, even hired the manager of the plant,

375
00:52:06.460 --> 00:52:11.460
just sat in his chair and was, in Marx's term errantiae, or Keynes's term errantiae,

376
00:52:11.460 --> 00:52:17.460
someone who just collects, clips coupons from bonds, from investing, and lives on that,

377
00:52:17.460 --> 00:52:45.460
The capitalist has done something. At some point in the past, that person who has become the capitalist was a saver first, was someone who abstained from consumption, and may not have been even particularly rich, but abstained from consumption in the present, and accumulated a certain capital that he then advanced to the workers before the product was ready for sale.

378
00:52:45.460 --> 00:52:56.460
I might mention also, not only do the capitalist investors or capitalist entrepreneurs remove the burden of waiting,

379
00:52:56.460 --> 00:53:05.460
also, as we see in the case every day of firms that lose money, as in the case of GM, for example, or in the case of IBM,

380
00:53:05.460 --> 00:53:10.460
which in 1990-1991 IBM lost $13 billion in those two years.

381
00:53:10.460 --> 00:53:19.460
Did any of the workers not get paid during those two years for the products that they worked on for IBM?

382
00:53:19.460 --> 00:53:24.460
Who lost the 13 billion dollars? Did the workers lose a penny? No.

383
00:53:24.460 --> 00:53:35.460
They were paid, they may have lost their jobs after the fact, but for the product they produced that was not worth the cost of producing, they still got their full pay.

384
00:53:35.460 --> 00:53:50.460
So, even though Boehm-Bawerk didn't quite go that far, Mises and Rothbard did, we see that the capitalist entrepreneur also removes the burden of uncertainty in payment from the workers.

385
00:53:50.460 --> 00:53:56.460
Alright, so that was Boehm-Bawerk's first important contribution. It's much broader than that.

386
00:53:56.460 --> 00:54:03.460
He actually developed, in effect, what Murray Rothbard has called Austrian macroeconomics.

387
00:54:03.460 --> 00:54:13.460
He developed a version of an overall economy much before Keynes discovered macroeconomics in 1936, quote unquote.

388
00:54:13.460 --> 00:54:25.460
One other thing that he did, I want to just point out very quickly, is take Menger's theory of marginal utility much further

389
00:54:25.460 --> 00:54:38.460
and develop a theory of pricing that people really still don't realize, even Austrians, is different from the supply and demand analysis that we learn in our textbooks.

390
00:54:38.460 --> 00:54:42.460
Even though it was in terms of supply and demand, it was much richer.

391
00:54:42.460 --> 00:55:03.460
It's interesting, if you look at Mises' Human Action, there's hardly any discussion of basic price theory.

392
00:55:03.460 --> 00:55:09.620
In his chapter on prices, there's a lot on how factors of production are priced,

393
00:55:09.620 --> 00:55:12.820
and a lot later on on how monopoly prices are formed.

394
00:55:12.820 --> 00:55:16.140
But there's only about a page and a half or something on actual prices.

395
00:55:16.140 --> 00:55:22.700
And he basically says, well, everyone knows by now that the prices are determined by the marginal pairs.

396
00:55:22.700 --> 00:55:30.500
This analysis of marginal pairs that was developed by von Boehm-Bawerk.

397
00:55:30.500 --> 00:55:36.500
I think it's one of his most important underrated contributions.

398
00:55:36.500 --> 00:55:48.500
It's also one of the reasons why people like, for example, Israel Kirzner and others think, though Israel Kirzner isn't as much at fault as Lachmann,

399
00:55:48.500 --> 00:55:53.500
who claimed that Boehm-Bawerk is some sort of an objectivist and isn't a true Austrian.

400
00:55:53.500 --> 00:56:09.180
Let's assume that you have 8 horses in the market and you have 10 buyers.

401
00:56:09.180 --> 00:56:17.420
I've denoted buyers as B1 through B10, sellers in the third column as S1 through S8.

402
00:56:17.420 --> 00:56:21.860
Under maximum buying price, I've shown you the maximum price that a particular seller

403
00:56:21.860 --> 00:56:28.860
The seller will pay for a horse, let's say 260, B3 will pay up to, but no more than 260, and so on.

404
00:56:28.860 --> 00:56:36.860
Boehm-Bawerk called the most capable buyer that buyer that was willing to pay the highest price for a unit of the good.

405
00:56:36.860 --> 00:56:40.860
The least capable is the buyer that's willing to pay the lowest price.

406
00:56:40.860 --> 00:56:43.860
On the other hand, it's reversed with sellers, right?

407
00:56:43.860 --> 00:56:47.860
The most capable seller is the seller that's willing to accept the lowest price.

408
00:56:47.860 --> 00:56:53.380
is he's the first one to make an exchange as prices go up and the least capable is the

409
00:56:53.380 --> 00:57:03.780
seller who will not part with his good until the highest price is reached.

410
00:57:03.780 --> 00:57:09.260
Now how do we determine the equilibrium price and the equilibrium quantity?

411
00:57:09.260 --> 00:57:13.140
Well Boehm-Bawerk said it's done by the marginal pairs.

412
00:57:13.140 --> 00:57:24.900
Let me show you the analysis. Let's say the price starts high at $300. Well, you only

413
00:57:24.900 --> 00:57:29.540
have one seller there, B1, who's willing to buy, but you're going to have eight buyers,

414
00:57:29.540 --> 00:57:35.020
eight suppliers willing to sell because $300 exceeds the minimum selling price even of

415
00:57:35.020 --> 00:57:42.780
the least capable seller. That price cannot exist. In other words, the suppliers are going

416
00:57:42.780 --> 00:57:47.860
to be willing to lower their price, and as they lower price, what's going to happen

417
00:57:47.860 --> 00:57:51.140
is that you're going to get the next most capable buyer coming in, the guy who's willing

418
00:57:51.140 --> 00:57:55.780
to pay $2.80, and on the other hand, price is going to continue to fall until you get

419
00:57:55.780 --> 00:58:01.920
to a point where every buyer that wants to purchase at that price can find the seller,

420
00:58:01.920 --> 00:58:06.860
and every seller that wishes to sell can find the buyer.

421
00:58:06.860 --> 00:58:17.660
Now in this particular case, the equilibrium price is going to fall between $210 and $215.

422
00:58:17.660 --> 00:58:22.620
It's got to be greater than $210 and less than $215.

423
00:58:22.620 --> 00:58:25.620
Let me explain why.

424
00:58:25.620 --> 00:58:31.560
If it's greater than $210, then buyer number 6 will not purchase.

425
00:58:31.560 --> 00:58:36.620
So you'll have a demand for five horses.

426
00:58:36.620 --> 00:58:44.500
If it's lower than $215, buyer or seller number six will not be willing to sell.

427
00:58:44.500 --> 00:58:51.720
So you'll have five buyers and five sellers at an equilibrium price.

428
00:58:51.720 --> 00:58:54.460
What happens if it goes up to $215?

429
00:58:54.460 --> 00:59:02.080
At $215, you have six people wanting the supply and only five willing to buy.

430
00:59:02.080 --> 00:59:05.340
What happens if it falls as low as $210?

431
00:59:05.340 --> 00:59:14.340
Well then, buyer number six comes in and yet supply at 210 is only five.

432
00:59:14.340 --> 00:59:21.500
So somewhere in between, there's a range in there between 210 and 215 in which you have

433
00:59:21.500 --> 00:59:25.960
the price being set.

434
00:59:25.960 --> 00:59:32.540
So the marginal pairs refers to the following.

435
00:59:32.540 --> 00:59:50.540
It refers to the upper limit. The upper limit is always set at any price by the last successful buyer, in this case B5, and the first unsuccessful seller, S6.

436
00:59:50.540 --> 00:59:56.540
In other words, whichever is lower is going to set the upper limit. Whichever of those two is lower.

437
00:59:56.540 --> 01:00:08.540
So, for example, if the B5 had a maximum buying price of $213, then the price would have to be less than $213 because otherwise he would come into the market.

438
01:00:08.540 --> 01:00:16.380
So, that's the upper limit. What about the lower limit? The lower limit has to be set

439
01:00:16.380 --> 01:00:29.880
by either the higher of the first unsuccessful buyer, B6, or the last successful seller.

440
01:00:29.880 --> 01:00:37.260
In this case, B6 has the higher price, and in this case, therefore, the limit is between

441
01:00:37.260 --> 01:00:52.380
2010 and 2015. And let me just give you that in a more formal way. Simply the upper limit

442
01:00:52.380 --> 01:00:56.700
of the equilibrium price range, in this case it's between those two prices, is determined

443
01:00:56.700 --> 01:01:02.300
by the lower of the minimum price of the first unsuccessful seller and the maximum price

444
01:01:02.300 --> 01:01:06.620
of the last unsuccessful buyer, or the last successful buyer, excuse me. The lower limit

445
01:01:06.620 --> 01:01:10.540
One is determined by the higher of the minimum price of the last successful seller and the

446
01:01:10.540 --> 01:01:13.380
maximum price of the first unsuccessful buyer.

447
01:01:13.380 --> 01:01:18.420
In this case, the marginal pair that actually determines it are those two.

448
01:01:18.420 --> 01:01:19.420
But it can be either.

449
01:01:19.420 --> 01:01:24.540
In either case, it could be one or the other, depending on which, and you can look at his

450
01:01:24.540 --> 01:01:27.540
example in the book.

451
01:01:27.540 --> 01:01:32.880
The reason why I bring this up is because this means that it is subjective values and

452
01:01:32.880 --> 01:01:46.880
And subjective values alone, and I'll put up a few quotes by Boehm-Bawerk, that determines prices.

453
01:01:46.880 --> 01:01:50.880
And he says the following, he says, of all the results we have attained in this chapter,

454
01:01:50.880 --> 01:01:59.880
and that's the chapter in which he has his fourth market, the one that is by far of greatest import is the fact that all influences which function in the determination of price

455
01:01:59.880 --> 01:02:05.880
have been resolved into subjective valuations and a rational appraisal of their functioning.

456
01:02:05.880 --> 01:02:12.880
And he goes on and says, and I do really believe we have here hit upon the simplest and most natural

457
01:02:12.880 --> 01:02:16.880
and indeed the most productive manner of conceiving exchange in price.

458
01:02:16.880 --> 01:02:24.880
I refer to the pricing process as a result derived from all the valuations that are present in society.

459
01:02:24.880 --> 01:02:42.880
And then he goes on, he says, I do not advance this as a metaphorical analogy, but as living reality, that in every market, at every moment in time, it is people's subjective valuations of buyers and sellers that determine the prices.

460
01:02:42.880 --> 01:02:57.880
So that, for example, when you go into a supermarket and you walk out with, let's say, two six packs of beer, two pounds of steak, five potatoes, and no more and no less, what does that mean?

461
01:02:57.880 --> 01:03:07.880
That means that you have purchased up to the point where the last unit of each good just exceeds the price that you're paying for it, so that you're benefiting.

462
01:03:07.880 --> 01:03:15.880
And on the other hand, the seller in return is receiving a price that he prefers to each unit of those goods.

463
01:03:15.880 --> 01:03:20.880
Then Boehm-Bawerk in another passage says,

464
01:03:20.880 --> 01:03:50.880
and the old theory of supply and demand oscillated, as it were, between the sila of evacuous and unsatisfying

465
01:03:50.880 --> 01:04:11.880
The Scylla of Vacuousness and Unsatisfying Vagueness and the Charybda of an Equally Unsatisfying Erroneousness

466
01:04:11.880 --> 01:04:26.880
He's talking about the classical school. He says it is now my opinion that the problem finds complete organization and solution if we introduce into the traditional frame the simple thought that price is completely and entirely the product of man's subjective valuations.

467
01:04:26.880 --> 01:04:38.880
Finally, he says, this is important, he says the prices are the result of the momentary market situation and we are beginning by regarding as a constant quantity the stocks of finished products which constitute the supply.

468
01:04:38.880 --> 01:04:47.880
That is, at any moment, and Murray Rothbard has emphasized this, at any moment there is always a certain amount of goods on the market in inventory.

469
01:04:47.880 --> 01:04:56.880
That's why we don't draw upward sloping cost of production curves, marginal cost curves, as do the mainstream economists.

470
01:04:56.880 --> 01:05:04.880
At any moment in time, the only cost of selling a good that's in stock is speculation on whether you can get a higher price in the future.

471
01:05:04.880 --> 01:05:34.880
and that's the only reason why supply curves might slope upward, okay, he goes on to say however they are only momentarily constant becoming a variable quantity in as time goes on as production continually keeps adding to their stocks, he's answering Marshall there, Marshall and others claim that the Austrian School only explained the value of goods that were readily available, only explained their prices, but that's all there are, at any moment in time

472
01:05:34.880 --> 01:05:37.880
There's simply exchange of goods that already exist.

473
01:05:37.880 --> 01:05:42.880
But beyond that, in the second sentence, what he's saying is that

474
01:05:42.880 --> 01:05:46.880
because we have a structure of production that is integrated

475
01:05:46.880 --> 01:05:50.880
and is continually giving us outputs of new goods and services,

476
01:05:50.880 --> 01:05:53.880
those markets are created and recreated.

477
01:05:53.880 --> 01:05:56.880
So new stocks are continuously falling onto the market.

478
01:05:56.880 --> 01:06:00.880
But just because of that dynamic fact

479
01:06:00.880 --> 01:06:10.880
In fact, it doesn't mean that the analysis of a given moment isn't the correct analysis, it always is the correct analysis.

480
01:06:10.880 --> 01:06:22.880
It's not the long run supply curve, upward sloping supply curve, which is based on long run costs of production, that's relevant to price theory.

481
01:06:22.880 --> 01:06:30.880
It's always the momentary supply and the momentary demand, which depends on people's values.

482
01:06:30.880 --> 01:06:35.880
And something else that's interesting, which I'm working on now, and it's in Boehm-Bawerk,

483
01:06:35.880 --> 01:06:41.880
and I realize now it's in many other economists, including Henry Haslett.

484
01:06:41.880 --> 01:06:46.880
Mainstream economists, when they say that the demand increases, they say, well, the demand increases.

485
01:06:46.880 --> 01:06:51.880
At any given price, people will buy more, they'll spend more on the good, so the demand curve shifts to the right.

486
01:06:51.880 --> 01:06:59.880
That's not the way Boehm-Bawerk or, for example, Haslett, or even if you look closely at Rothbard, talk about it.

487
01:06:59.880 --> 01:07:03.880
This whole idea that an increase in demand means an increase in spending on goods.

488
01:07:03.880 --> 01:07:05.880
People don't just have extra money, go out and spend it on goods.

489
01:07:05.880 --> 01:07:12.880
What actually happens is that if there's an increase in demand, it means that, and Boehm-Bawerk was very, very specific,

490
01:07:12.880 --> 01:07:19.880
that if there's an increase in the demand for a good, it means that people now value the good more in relation to money than they did before.

491
01:07:19.880 --> 01:07:31.880
They're always comparing the marginal utility of the good to the marginal utility of money, which means that when we talk about it, it's much more accurate to say the demand curve shifts upward or the demand curve shifts downward.

492
01:07:31.880 --> 01:07:36.880
And when you talk like that, spending is no longer important. Spending falls out of the whole thing.

493
01:07:36.880 --> 01:07:46.880
Spending is what happens after you've decided that the good is more important than you thought it was before, in which case you'll buy more units if there's a given supply.

494
01:07:46.880 --> 01:07:56.880
You want to buy more units. You value it higher. That's very important, because that actually now bears on monetary theory.

495
01:07:56.880 --> 01:08:03.880
When we say, if the government increases the amount of money in the economy, there will be more spending.

496
01:08:03.880 --> 01:08:08.880
Well, that's telling us that people will have more money and say, hey, I have more money, I'm going to spend more.

497
01:08:08.880 --> 01:08:09.880
No, that's not what happens.

498
01:08:09.880 --> 01:08:20.880
Von Boehm-Bawerk actually says that if people have more money, then the value of money will fall in relation to goods, and the demand curve for goods will go up.

499
01:08:20.880 --> 01:08:33.880
On the other hand, if an individual has less money, then he will value money, the marginal utility of money will rise, and therefore the value of the money on the market will be higher, which means that the demand curve,

500
01:08:33.880 --> 01:08:37.880
If you're giving money away, the demand curve will fall, okay?

501
01:08:37.880 --> 01:08:43.880
So demand curves fall and rise. They don't move to the right or the left.

502
01:08:43.880 --> 01:08:52.880
Saying they move to the right or the left really, as I'm beginning to realize in the last year, causes problems in monetary theory, okay?

503
01:08:52.880 --> 01:08:55.880
It completely blows the monitors out of the water.

504
01:08:55.880 --> 01:09:01.880
I'm writing a paper I'll give later here at the Mises Institute later this summer on that.

505
01:09:01.880 --> 01:09:05.880
Okay, I'd rather take some questions rather than get to Wieser.

506
01:09:05.880 --> 01:09:09.880
Wieser is only a few things that I can say and I'll say more about them tomorrow.

507
01:09:09.880 --> 01:09:18.880
Wieser accepted marginal utility but for the most part departed from Menger and Boehm-Bawerk

508
01:09:18.880 --> 01:09:26.880
and attempted to formulate a general equilibrium system of the economy

509
01:09:26.880 --> 01:09:32.380
economy, which was more realistic than that of Walras.

510
01:09:32.380 --> 01:09:40.080
And there's various points at which he tried to bring in realistic data into the system.

511
01:09:40.080 --> 01:09:45.840
But there's no doubt if you read through his treatise on social economics or his earlier

512
01:09:45.840 --> 01:09:52.740
treatise on natural value that he started from a communist economy in which one mind

513
01:09:52.740 --> 01:09:59.660
controls everything and tried to treat that economy in the same way that an individual

514
01:09:59.660 --> 01:10:04.260
economizes in his household economy and he believed that just as the individual can tell

515
01:10:04.260 --> 01:10:11.100
if he was better off by rearranging resources, so too could that be done for the economy

516
01:10:11.100 --> 01:10:12.280
as a whole.

517
01:10:12.280 --> 01:10:18.060
But when you talk about different individuals, you're talking about adding up utilities.

518
01:10:18.060 --> 01:10:27.820
And he did introduce a very small three equation system in which he tried to solve the problem

519
01:10:27.820 --> 01:10:28.820
of imputation.

520
01:10:28.820 --> 01:10:35.780
In other words, he didn't accept the view of Menger that you can figure out the value

521
01:10:35.780 --> 01:10:42.700
of factors of production by figuring out their marginal product by subtracting.

522
01:10:42.700 --> 01:10:43.700
He didn't like that.

523
01:10:43.700 --> 01:10:50.700
and he wanted to impute it through a mathematical process and he actually comes out and I'll read this tomorrow.

524
01:10:50.700 --> 01:10:54.700
He says something like, these equations are solved every day by the market.

525
01:10:54.700 --> 01:10:57.700
Well, I don't see anybody solving any equations in the market.

526
01:10:57.700 --> 01:10:59.700
I just see buying and selling.

527
01:10:59.700 --> 01:11:02.700
And he did influence Hayek.

528
01:11:02.700 --> 01:11:05.700
So I'll stop there and I'll take any questions.

529
01:11:07.700 --> 01:11:09.700
And I'll turn off this temperamental machine.

530
01:11:13.700 --> 01:11:18.700
We'll talk about these guys tomorrow.

531
01:11:18.700 --> 01:11:20.700
Yes?

532
01:11:20.700 --> 01:11:28.700
You've discussed the last ones in the fiction of Walras.

533
01:11:28.700 --> 01:11:33.700
I'm curious, how does Jevons and that tradition fit in?

534
01:11:33.700 --> 01:11:39.700
Jevons, I think, is better than Walras.

535
01:11:39.700 --> 01:11:44.700
He wrote his treatise earlier than Boehm-Roth, the same year Menger wrote his, 1871.

536
01:11:44.700 --> 01:11:48.700
And he did try to rehabilitate the French school.

537
01:11:48.700 --> 01:11:52.700
He did have a notion of causality.

538
01:11:52.700 --> 01:11:56.700
But he tried to use, he quantified utility.

539
01:11:56.700 --> 01:12:00.700
He drew cardinal utility curves.

540
01:12:00.700 --> 01:12:06.700
Whatever was good in Jevin's system was rescued by Wicksteves.

541
01:12:06.700 --> 01:12:12.300
The best stuff was taken out of it, and let's put it this way, it's all in wixi.

542
01:12:12.300 --> 01:12:19.860
Whatever is good in Jevons is in wixi, and Jevons is good.

543
01:12:19.860 --> 01:12:27.940
But he did take things in a mathematical direction, not as thoroughly as Walras.

544
01:12:27.940 --> 01:12:34.580
He also, since his book was really only an introduction to economics, just like Menger's

545
01:12:34.580 --> 01:12:44.260
was, rather than a full principles book, he didn't develop his view of the entire economy.

546
01:12:44.260 --> 01:12:49.240
He began to write a book, he died young, he died before it was completed, he did writing

547
01:12:49.240 --> 01:12:55.300
a principles, whereas the other one I think was just a theory of political economy. There

548
01:12:55.300 --> 01:13:02.580
are fragments collected in Jevons Principles. That may be another reason why he did not

549
01:13:02.580 --> 01:13:25.580
What do the marginalist insights look like in Moharram in that mathematical framework?

550
01:13:25.580 --> 01:13:28.580
Like he was one of the founders of marginalist revolution?

551
01:13:32.580 --> 01:13:39.580
The Relative Scarcity or Rareness of a Good

552
01:13:39.580 --> 01:13:47.580
Basically, he had that, and he just had a system of equations.

553
01:13:47.580 --> 01:13:49.580
I'm not a Walras scholar.

554
01:13:49.580 --> 01:13:53.580
People claim Walras was much better than his later follower Pareto.

555
01:13:53.580 --> 01:13:56.580
Pareto's system is what we have really today.

556
01:13:56.580 --> 01:14:00.580
They call it the Walrasian system, but it's Pareto's.

557
01:14:00.580 --> 01:14:13.580
Paul Ross may have been much richer. He had actually a good theory of the demand to hold money, a good theory of cash holding.

558
01:14:13.580 --> 01:14:22.580
There's a lot of literature on Paul Ross. Paul Ross has been reinterpreted in the last 20 or 30 years.

559
01:14:22.580 --> 01:14:29.580
He probably is a better economist than I would give him credit for. I just don't know enough about him.

560
01:14:29.580 --> 01:14:49.580
I know Arthur Marget, who wrote a great book on money, probably the second greatest treatise after Mises on money, in 1938-1942, was a Walras scholar, and the best things on Walras, the best things in Walras, are in this treatise called The Theory of Prices, two volumes that came out in 1938-1942.

561
01:14:49.580 --> 01:14:54.580
It's a running critique of Keynes, a devastating critique of Keynes.

562
01:14:54.580 --> 01:14:57.580
It's just too long. It's got footnotes to footnotes.

563
01:14:57.580 --> 01:15:01.580
It's very difficult to read, but there are parts that are just marvelous.

564
01:15:01.580 --> 01:15:09.580
He was also a Boehm-Bawerkian. He believed that the prices that we're trying to explain are prices that exist at any given moment in monetary theory.

565
01:15:09.580 --> 01:15:11.580
Yes?

566
01:15:11.580 --> 01:15:23.580
I was wondering if you could offer commentary using the marginal pairing analysis on a more modern neoclassical conception of rational identifications and winner-of-the-art things.

567
01:15:26.580 --> 01:15:32.580
I mean, they seem to be doing different things or aimed at different things.

568
01:15:32.580 --> 01:15:53.580
The theory of the marginal pairs could be used in auction theory, I guess, because really, Boehm-Bawerk, if you work through his book there, or the part of the book on pricing, starts with bilateral monopoly, meaning two people bargaining.

569
01:15:53.580 --> 01:15:58.580
So he sort of is the author of bargaining theory in some sense.

570
01:15:58.580 --> 01:16:07.580
And I think in Man Economy and State Rothbard says that nothing worthwhile has been done on bargaining since Boehm-Bawerk.

571
01:16:07.580 --> 01:16:10.580
That's in 1962 in Man Economy and State.

572
01:16:10.580 --> 01:16:16.580
Now I haven't thought about developing these marginal pairs any deeper.

573
01:16:16.580 --> 01:16:31.580
Now, there's an article that John Egger, an Austrian who was also at South Royalton, sent me, on marginal pairs, which got me thinking about this, which he got into the Journal of Economic Education back in 99.

574
01:16:31.580 --> 01:16:35.580
I have a copy of that article if you want to look at it. It was into a little bit more detail.

575
01:16:35.580 --> 01:16:44.580
He claims that Boehm-Bawerk makes a mistake, which I don't see in this, but anyway, that he didn't quite get the marginal pairs right, which I don't think is quite right.

576
01:16:44.580 --> 01:16:50.580
Right, but anyway, there hasn't been anything written on the marginal pairs in a long time,

577
01:16:50.580 --> 01:16:53.580
and then Egger's article is great, just to have someone talking about that.

578
01:16:53.580 --> 01:16:56.580
I always taught it that way when I was teaching undergraduates.

579
01:16:56.580 --> 01:16:58.580
Now the MBA students, you know, they want to hear about marginal pairs.

580
01:16:58.580 --> 01:17:01.580
I mean, that's, you know, why do we have to go through all of this?

581
01:17:01.580 --> 01:17:08.580
But Egger tells me that he does teach MBA students this stuff, and that they are interested in it.

582
01:17:08.580 --> 01:17:12.580
So now I may introduce this and say, look, this is a better way.

583
01:17:12.580 --> 01:17:21.580
One thing I did want to point out is that von Bawerk doesn't reject regular supply and demand theory.

584
01:17:21.580 --> 01:17:31.580
What he says is that when buyers and sellers make continuously changing valuations upward or downward,

585
01:17:31.580 --> 01:17:40.580
notice he's talking about upward and downward, as the case may be, and these valuations represent offers to buy or sell partial quantities of a market good,

586
01:17:40.580 --> 01:17:55.580
There is a special predilection for depicting them by means of continuously ascending or descending curves and for indicating by their points of intersection the price situation which the competitive offers based on those valuations are in the process of developing.

587
01:17:55.580 --> 01:18:20.580
This is unobjectionable. He goes on to say, however he says, I still find it questionable whether with its resulting unavoidable suppression of any personal point of view, this method of presentation is really capable of completely supplanting and making superfluous a description by running commentary of the determination price.

588
01:18:20.580 --> 01:18:32.580
By running commentary of the determination, he means looking at the buyers, looking at the sellers, showing their maximum buying prices, minimum selling prices, and focusing on the marginal pairs.

589
01:18:33.580 --> 01:18:40.580
He's saying there's nothing wrong with drawing these curves, and he does at one point, but that it's too mechanical.

590
01:18:41.580 --> 01:18:46.580
It doesn't show you the subjective valuations interacting to determine the price.

591
01:18:50.580 --> 01:19:01.580
He admits that it's easier to do it that way and in some cases heuristically it's better to have supply-demand curves so students can follow along and so on, and that this becomes cumbersome.

592
01:19:01.580 --> 01:19:04.580
It does become cumbersome when you're talking about a lot of people.

593
01:19:04.580 --> 01:19:14.580
But he thinks that this should be the first introduction to price, or to price theory.

594
01:19:14.580 --> 01:19:18.580
Any other questions, comments?

595
01:19:18.580 --> 01:19:31.580
Boehm-Bawerk says something similar to that. How about the loose use of terminology to refer to markets in government and property rights in nebulous sorts of things.

596
01:19:31.580 --> 01:19:39.580
It's not going to object to that. You have to remember the real reality behind the scene.

597
01:19:39.580 --> 01:19:45.580
So he says it's okay to use it loosely. You have to remember that there's some hardcore reality behind it.

598
01:19:48.580 --> 01:20:18.580
I often say that von Boehm-Bawerk was verbose or prolix, saying in too many words what he could have said in a few words, but I think he's very, very careful, and I like the way he writes, he's clear, he takes a long time to make a point, but when he makes the point, you know it, and if you go through that chapter with the marginal pairs, he changes everything around to show you how, one criticism of this was by certain economists, Edgeworth,

599
01:20:18.580 --> 01:20:30.580
Well, you know, you're saying that only the marginal pairs affect the market, but that's actually, it actually is not true, okay, that only the marginal pairs determine price.

600
01:20:30.580 --> 01:20:39.580
Everybody's valuations in the market determine price. It's simply, everybody's valuations determine where the marginal pair is.

601
01:20:39.580 --> 01:20:44.580
The marginal pair is determined by, if you change the number of sellers and buyers, you're going to change the marginal pair.

602
01:20:44.580 --> 01:20:50.580
Boehm-Bawerk admits it in the second edition or third edition and says, okay, I wasn't as clear on that.

603
01:20:50.580 --> 01:20:58.580
So, be careful with the way you state it. Marginal pairs alone don't determine price.

604
01:20:58.580 --> 01:21:05.580
It's the marginal pairs that are determined by all the subjective valuations of the buyers and the sellers.

605
01:21:05.580 --> 01:21:11.580
If you have fewer sellers or sellers with different valuations, the marginal pairs themselves are going to change.

606
01:21:11.580 --> 01:21:20.180
But it is ultimately, they do establish the limits in the existing system or situation, they establish the limits of the price.

607
01:21:20.180 --> 01:21:30.780
And of course, where you have numerous people in the market, the marginal pairs come down just a marginal pair, okay?

608
01:21:30.780 --> 01:21:35.780
That is, the person who just values, the buyer who just values the good more than the quantity of money,

609
01:21:35.780 --> 01:21:40.940
and the seller who just values the quantity of money less or more, the quantity of money

610
01:21:40.940 --> 01:21:44.380
he's receiving more than the good he's giving up, okay?

611
01:21:44.380 --> 01:21:47.380
So you get one point, okay?

612
01:21:47.380 --> 01:21:48.780
You don't get a range.

613
01:21:48.780 --> 01:21:51.300
And I think von Boehm-Bawerk actually shows that too, that you can get a point and not

614
01:21:51.300 --> 01:21:52.300
a range.

615
01:21:52.300 --> 01:21:53.300
Okay.

616
01:21:53.300 --> 01:21:54.300
Okay.

617
01:21:55.300 --> 01:21:56.300
Thank you, Joe.

618
01:21:57.300 --> 01:21:59.300
Thank you very much.