WEBVTT

NOTE Scarcity, Choice, and Value

1
00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:04.000
As many of you know, I'm Dr. Mark Thornton here at the Ludwig von Mises Institute.

2
00:00:04.000 --> 00:00:11.000
On behalf of Lew Rockwell and the entire Institute, I'd like to welcome you all here this week,

3
00:00:11.000 --> 00:00:15.000
and also our viewers on the World Wide Web as well.

4
00:00:15.000 --> 00:00:21.000
Our conference this week is on the fundamentals of economic analysis, a causal, realist approach.

5
00:00:21.000 --> 00:00:25.000
I've heard so many people in my lifetime who say, oh, I just don't get economics.

6
00:00:25.000 --> 00:00:29.000
You may have that same feeling or you may know lots of people who say the same thing.

7
00:00:29.000 --> 00:00:39.000
Well, this week, these 15 hours, you will get all the basics about what economics is all about and be able to do your own economic analysis as well.

8
00:00:39.000 --> 00:00:45.000
We have two speakers this week. Our first speaker is Dr. Joseph Salerno.

9
00:00:45.000 --> 00:00:50.000
Professor Salerno is a senior fellow here at the Ludwig von Mises Institute.

10
00:00:50.000 --> 00:00:55.000
He's the director of the Mises Summer Research Program.

11
00:00:55.000 --> 00:01:00.860
Program. He's a professor of economics at Pace University, and he is the editor of the

12
00:01:00.860 --> 00:01:07.320
quarterly journal of Austrian Economics. Our second speaker this week is Dr. Peter Klein.

13
00:01:07.320 --> 00:01:11.880
Peter is also a senior fellow at the Mises Institute, and he is the director of the Contracting

14
00:01:11.880 --> 00:01:19.880
and Organizations Research Institute, and a professor at the University of Missouri.

15
00:01:19.880 --> 00:01:26.520
Both our speakers this week are known star teachers in graduate business economics.

16
00:01:26.520 --> 00:01:30.520
Professor Salerno will begin the week with a lecture on scarcity, choice and value.

17
00:01:30.520 --> 00:01:34.440
Good morning everyone.

18
00:01:34.440 --> 00:01:42.120
Let me say a few words by way of introduction about the title chosen for the lectures.

19
00:01:42.120 --> 00:01:44.640
In particular, why the subtitle?

20
00:01:44.640 --> 00:01:48.240
What does it mean to say it's a causal realist approach?

21
00:01:48.240 --> 00:01:53.080
Really it refers to a broad movement in economics that began when Carl Menger wrote his great

22
00:01:53.080 --> 00:01:59.520
Principles of Economics in 1871 and it flourished and really dominated economics through World

23
00:01:59.520 --> 00:02:08.520
War I and began to diminish in the 1920s. Included not just Austrian economists, so

24
00:02:08.520 --> 00:02:20.520
We wanted a broader approach. It included others that followed Menger in America, Sweden, Italy, the Netherlands and France.

25
00:02:20.520 --> 00:02:26.520
Some of the famous names were Clark, Federer and Davenport in the United States, Wickstede in Great Britain,

26
00:02:26.520 --> 00:02:32.520
Augusto Graziani in Italy, Leroy Bouillieu in France, and many, many others.

27
00:02:32.520 --> 00:02:46.520
Now Menger emphasized that economics was a unified science involving the search for cause and effect relationships or causal laws that would explain the prices, wages, and interest rates that are actually observed.

28
00:02:46.520 --> 00:02:54.520
Menger was actually a journalist before he became an economist, an economic journalist, and he observed the markets very closely.

29
00:02:54.520 --> 00:03:06.520
and he noted that, in fact, prices changed as a result of factors that were not really included in the classical theory of prices.

30
00:03:06.520 --> 00:03:11.520
Let me just give you a quote that sort of sums up this approach, I think, very well.

31
00:03:11.520 --> 00:03:16.520
It puts price theory at the center of economics where it properly belongs.

32
00:03:16.520 --> 00:03:24.520
This quote comes from the preface to Menger's book, Principles of Economics.

33
00:03:32.520 --> 00:03:45.520
It says, I have devoted special attention to the investigation of the causal connections between economic phenomena involving products and the corresponding agents of production, which we would call factors of production of resources.

34
00:03:45.520 --> 00:04:05.520
Not only for the purpose of establishing a price theory based upon reality and placing all price phenomena, including interest, wages, ground rent, together under one unified point of view, but also because of the insights we thereby gain into many other economic processes heretofore completely misunderstood.

35
00:04:05.520 --> 00:04:13.520
So notice what I've highlighted there, or bolded, causal connections based upon reality from one unified point of view.

36
00:04:13.520 --> 00:04:17.520
That sums up the causal realist approach.

37
00:04:17.520 --> 00:04:28.520
Now, what happened to this approach? This is not a history of thought seminar, but I do want to say just a few words about what happened to the approach.

38
00:04:28.520 --> 00:04:34.520
Because that's certainly not the approach that's reflected in current day textbooks.

39
00:04:34.520 --> 00:04:48.520
As I said, the causal realistic approach to economics became really an international enterprise, and most economists were involved in it.

40
00:04:48.520 --> 00:04:56.520
Unfortunately, it veered off the track, the economics profession veered off the track in the interwar period, in the 1920s and especially in the 1930s.

41
00:04:56.520 --> 00:04:58.520
There were three factors that led to this.

42
00:04:58.520 --> 00:05:04.040
to this. First of all, Alfred Marshall in in the United Kingdom or in Great

43
00:05:04.040 --> 00:05:11.080
Britain introduced through a very famous and much-used textbook written in 1890,

44
00:05:11.080 --> 00:05:15.920
he introduced partial equilibrium analysis that focused on business firms

45
00:05:15.920 --> 00:05:20.400
in particular markets while abstracting from or ignoring the unity of all

46
00:05:20.400 --> 00:05:26.040
economic phenomena. He also tended to downplay the role of the consumer and of

47
00:05:26.040 --> 00:05:39.040
and Consumer Demand, and his work was extremely influential and pretty much swept Great Britain between 1890 and 1910 or World War I,

48
00:05:39.040 --> 00:05:44.040
and then in the United States became the dominant theoretical approach by the 1920s.

49
00:05:44.040 --> 00:05:51.040
A second factor that led to the decline of this causal realist approach was a shift from explaining actual prices,

50
00:05:51.040 --> 00:06:06.040
The prices that we actually observe, prices that, for example, Matt actually paid for that Dr. Pepper today, unless he took it free from the Institute, actually observed prices.

51
00:06:06.040 --> 00:06:17.040
It shifted focus from that, explaining those things, which Menger had insisted on, to explaining equilibrium prices that we find in the model of perfect competition.

52
00:06:17.040 --> 00:06:24.040
Now, that model was formalized and introduced into economics by the American economist Frank Knight in the 1920s.

53
00:06:24.040 --> 00:06:32.040
By the 1930s, the economics profession had not only veered off track, but had actually jumped the tracks.

54
00:06:32.040 --> 00:06:35.040
By then, we had the monopolistic competition revolution.

55
00:06:35.040 --> 00:06:45.040
What that did was to portray almost every single real-world firm, except maybe a tiny farmer in Iowa, as charging monopolistic prices.

56
00:06:45.040 --> 00:07:15.040
Then we had the Keynesian Revolution shortly thereafter, a few years later, and that severed the connection between laws governing the microsphere of consumers, firms, and markets, and it propounded sort of a new and contradictory principle or set of principles to explain macro phenomena like unemployment, depression, inflation, as if these things were not intimately tied to the price system.

57
00:07:15.040 --> 00:07:18.040
and the rise of mathematical economics in the 1930s.

58
00:07:18.040 --> 00:07:21.040
That had previously been, well, I want to use the word cult,

59
00:07:21.040 --> 00:07:24.040
but a small set on continental Europe,

60
00:07:24.040 --> 00:07:28.040
especially in the French-speaking Switzerland and France.

61
00:07:28.040 --> 00:07:33.040
And suddenly, when it made its way to Great Britain and then to the US,

62
00:07:33.040 --> 00:07:35.040
it exploded in popularity.

63
00:07:35.040 --> 00:07:41.040
So by the 1950s, economics was definitely on the wrong track.

64
00:07:41.040 --> 00:07:56.040
And there's a wonderful quote by someone named Townsend introducing a book of readings on modern price theory in 1970 or 71.

65
00:07:56.040 --> 00:08:08.040
And what he does is he goes through the people that were part of the causal realist movement and sort of says that these people have been forgotten or their price theory is no longer relevant.

66
00:08:08.040 --> 00:08:29.040
So he says the shades, meaning the ghosts or specters, of Jevons, Menger, Edgeworth, Wicksteed, Vicksel, Clark and Fischer, almost all of whom were involved in following that approach, the cause of realist approach, may justifiably be offended by the attribution of modern price theory to two sources, Alfred Marshall and Leon Volras.

67
00:08:29.040 --> 00:08:35.040
But these two scholars have had far and away the most influence on 20th century thought, and that is absolutely true.

68
00:08:35.040 --> 00:08:45.040
In contrast with Marshall's down-to-earth struggle with the interpretation of the detailed working of the economy stands Walrass's grand construction of general equilibrium.

69
00:08:45.040 --> 00:08:55.040
In a typical British or American textbook on price theory, nine-tenths of the content stem from Marshall's work, general equilibrium only getting a notice in the last chapter appendix.

70
00:08:55.040 --> 00:08:58.040
That's still pretty much true for undergraduate textbooks.

71
00:09:05.040 --> 00:09:19.040
Now, the course that we will be giving is what you would have gotten in college, or in contemporary universities, had this tragic diversion of economics not occurred.

72
00:09:19.040 --> 00:09:32.040
Now, let me just say a few words about what economics is and what economics is not, before I get into the substantive analysis.

73
00:09:32.040 --> 00:10:02.040
Analysis. Okay, first of all, a very famous or much-used definition of economics is still around, is that it's a box of tools, or a toolbox, because it was very popular in the 1930s, which provides means for answering certain questions and solving problems, okay? Supply and demand is part of the toolbox, theory of the firm is part of the toolbox. Now, in this view, some of the tools eventually outlive their usefulness, they become dull,

74
00:10:02.040 --> 00:10:05.040
and they must be replaced by new tools, okay?

75
00:10:05.040 --> 00:10:07.040
So new tools must be continually developed.

76
00:10:07.040 --> 00:10:11.040
There's no obvious relationship among tools except that they give, quote,

77
00:10:11.040 --> 00:10:13.040
satisfying answers to questions.

78
00:10:13.040 --> 00:10:17.040
Not true answers, but satisfying answers, okay?

79
00:10:17.040 --> 00:10:24.040
A second characterization of economics that I hate is a way of thinking, okay?

80
00:10:24.040 --> 00:10:27.040
A way of thinking about the world and its problems.

81
00:10:27.040 --> 00:10:31.040
This sounds very fuzzy and nice and, okay, but it's not scientific.

82
00:10:31.040 --> 00:10:37.040
Contemporary textbooks often have introductory chapters on how economists think.

83
00:10:37.040 --> 00:10:44.040
Not what economists think, not what the true laws of economics are, but how they think.

84
00:10:44.040 --> 00:10:55.040
So they think in terms of benefits and costs and supply and demand, the structure of incentives and strategic situations now more and more, etc.

85
00:10:55.040 --> 00:11:05.040
And they think about social problems and policies in terms of simple models with unrealistic or oversimplified or even false assumptions.

86
00:11:05.040 --> 00:11:11.040
And they really never address, in this way of thinking, the full reality of economic phenomena.

87
00:11:11.040 --> 00:11:19.040
Now, I'm not against false assumptions. They do play an auxiliary role in economics.

88
00:11:19.040 --> 00:11:25.040
But in this characterization of economics, we really never get beyond the false assumption.

89
00:11:25.040 --> 00:11:33.040
My all-time least favorite characterization is that economics is a set of open questions,

90
00:11:33.040 --> 00:11:39.040
that economists debate endlessly about and that have no right, quote-unquote, answers.

91
00:11:39.040 --> 00:11:47.040
For example, what is the role of knowledge in the economy? You can debate endlessly about that.

92
00:11:47.040 --> 00:11:51.040
Is entrepreneurial activity equilibrating or disequilibrating?

93
00:11:51.040 --> 00:11:56.040
This has been debated since the 1970s and there still doesn't seem to be a resolution.

94
00:11:56.040 --> 00:12:04.040
Do people always act rationally in their own interest or are there behavioral quirks and propensities that prevent them from doing so?

95
00:12:04.040 --> 00:12:07.040
Are expectations exogenous or endogenous to the market process?

96
00:12:07.040 --> 00:12:13.040
These are all questions that economists like to debate.

97
00:12:13.040 --> 00:12:23.040
But now think about physics, chemistry, geology, these sciences, they're practitioners, now I'm not talking about the philosophers of natural sciences,

98
00:12:23.040 --> 00:12:27.040
but I'm talking about the actual practicing physicists, chemists and geologists.

99
00:12:27.040 --> 00:12:33.040
Do they look on their sciences as a set of open questions to be debated endlessly?

100
00:12:33.040 --> 00:12:41.040
Or are they eager to give solutions to problems and answer questions and move on to the next question?

101
00:12:41.040 --> 00:12:51.040
Not to say that they don't make mistakes, they certainly do, or that some of the truths aren't complete and must be further refined. That's certainly true.

102
00:12:51.040 --> 00:13:03.040
But as sciences, these bodies of knowledge are regarded as systematic bodies of knowledge, or science, about an aspect of the real world.

103
00:13:03.040 --> 00:13:07.040
They don't consider themselves debating societies.

104
00:13:07.040 --> 00:13:20.040
So, economics as a substantive body of universal truths, or that's how I would define it, as a substantive body of universal truths about cause and effect relationships in the real world of human economic activity.

105
00:13:20.040 --> 00:13:27.040
These truths we call the laws of economics and Menger called them exact laws.

106
00:13:27.040 --> 00:13:33.040
So, what does economic analysis, the other part of our title, what does that mean?

107
00:13:33.040 --> 00:13:38.040
Economic analysis involves a systematic application of these laws.

108
00:13:38.040 --> 00:13:40.040
There are still new laws to be discovered in economics.

109
00:13:40.040 --> 00:13:42.040
The world is continually changing.

110
00:13:42.040 --> 00:13:45.040
We have different data to reason upon.

111
00:13:45.040 --> 00:13:56.040
New laws, new refinements of already existing theories and laws are always possible and certainly are to be welcomed.

112
00:13:56.040 --> 00:14:00.040
At any given moment, we do have a systematic body of truth.

113
00:14:00.040 --> 00:14:11.040
And so analysis involves the systematic application of these laws or theories to the explanation of the causes or consequences of concrete conditions that we observe in history.

114
00:14:11.040 --> 00:14:16.040
Why is there an apartment shortage in New York City? How can we explain that?

115
00:14:16.040 --> 00:14:27.040
Well, there's a law, a law of price controls that we have and that we apply to explaining these phenomena or this type of phenomena.

116
00:14:27.040 --> 00:14:37.040
So that's sort of a very short introduction to what we will be doing in this course and how we view economics and how we view the development of economics.

117
00:14:42.040 --> 00:14:54.040
Now, we start with a very mundane insight, but nonetheless very, very true, and that is that it's a fact that people are continually striving to achieve goals.

118
00:14:54.040 --> 00:14:59.040
They ceaselessly seek to improve their conditions, as they see those conditions.

119
00:14:59.040 --> 00:15:07.040
They struggle to satisfy their wants, or in Mises' words, they want to remove what's called felt uneasiness.

120
00:15:07.040 --> 00:15:10.040
This is a little bit awkward, so I'll avoid that term.

121
00:15:10.040 --> 00:15:16.040
What does that mean? That means that humans are imperfect and unfulfilled beings.

122
00:15:16.040 --> 00:15:22.040
A perfect being wants nothing, because want literally means defect or lack.

123
00:15:22.040 --> 00:15:30.040
So because we're imperfect beings, we have wants that we're continually striving to satisfy in order to improve conditions.

124
00:15:30.040 --> 00:15:37.040
But as soon as we say act, we mean that people consciously use means to achieve their ends.

125
00:15:37.040 --> 00:15:47.040
You attended this seminar. You had to use your time to get here. You had to use other resources, money, your energy.

126
00:15:47.040 --> 00:15:54.040
In attending the seminar you have to stay awake, you have implements to write with and so on.

127
00:15:54.040 --> 00:16:01.040
So there's a complex of means that you bring together to use to achieve the end of this seminar.

128
00:16:01.040 --> 00:16:08.040
Which may not be the ultimate end, the ultimate end is to improve your economic understanding.

129
00:16:08.040 --> 00:16:13.040
So what are the prerequisites of action?

130
00:16:13.040 --> 00:16:19.040
What does it take for someone to want to act, to engage in action?

131
00:16:19.040 --> 00:16:23.040
That person must be dissatisfied with the existing situation.

132
00:16:23.040 --> 00:16:27.040
That is, you feel there is a defect in your knowledge of economics.

133
00:16:27.040 --> 00:16:30.040
And you want to improve that.

134
00:16:30.040 --> 00:16:34.040
And you must have an ability to conceive a more satisfactory state of affairs.

135
00:16:34.040 --> 00:16:39.040
That is, you believe that, in fact, you are capable of learning more about economics by attending the seminar.

136
00:16:39.040 --> 00:16:44.040
And finally, you must have ideas about how to achieve the more desired state.

137
00:16:44.040 --> 00:16:49.040
In other words, you must know that the seminar exists, you must know how to get here, you must know a lot of things.

138
00:16:49.040 --> 00:16:53.040
And then bring those means together to get here.

139
00:16:53.040 --> 00:17:02.040
The absence of any of these conditions, any of those three conditions, dissatisfaction, conception of a better state,

140
00:17:02.040 --> 00:17:08.040
and ideas about how to bring about that better state, all three must be present, otherwise you will not act.

141
00:17:08.040 --> 00:17:23.040
So, for example, if someone wants to, let's say, a man asks a woman out on a date and wants to maybe talk to her under a moonlit sky and so on,

142
00:17:23.040 --> 00:17:35.040
so he can conceive of, there's a lack, that is, he wants an intimate conversation with her, he has ideas about how to, or rather he conceives of the better state,

143
00:17:35.040 --> 00:17:41.040
There is no technology that exists. He has no ideas about how to bring about a moonlit sky at that moment.

144
00:17:41.040 --> 00:17:44.040
So that action does not take place.

145
00:17:44.040 --> 00:17:49.040
Or someone might want to go to a baseball game, see the Braves and Mets play, let's say.

146
00:17:49.040 --> 00:17:59.040
And yet, you have the lack, you have the conception of the better state, but the forecast is for rain.

147
00:17:59.040 --> 00:18:08.040
State, but the forecast is for rain. At this point, there's no technology for you to avoid that rain, so the action doesn't take place.

148
00:18:08.040 --> 00:18:23.040
And likewise, one last quick example, people who are Beatles fans, fanatics such as myself, might long for a Beatles reunion, but there's no technology, there's no ideas about how to resurrect John and George.

149
00:18:23.040 --> 00:18:45.040
So you get the idea. Again, it goes back to the point that individuals or human beings are imperfect beings and that the stimulating factor in acting is the lack of something, that you have ideas about how to overcome.

150
00:18:45.040 --> 00:18:47.680
Okay, so let's get to scarcity.

151
00:18:47.680 --> 00:18:54.880
Action implies that all human wants are not instantaneously fulfilled, and that means they're therefore scarce.

152
00:18:54.880 --> 00:19:01.440
We say that a thing is scarce when there is not enough of it to fulfill every human want for it.

153
00:19:01.440 --> 00:19:10.000
So, things like hamburgers, CDs, BMWs, anything that in a market economy has a price is indeed scarce.

154
00:19:10.000 --> 00:19:15.000
No matter how abundant they get, we never live in a post-scarcity world.

155
00:19:15.000 --> 00:19:17.000
We always have scarcity with us.

156
00:19:17.000 --> 00:19:21.000
That's the veil of tears that was referred to in the Bible.

157
00:19:21.000 --> 00:19:25.000
That is that we must make our living by the sweat of our brow.

158
00:19:25.000 --> 00:19:33.000
That is we must expend means to achieve ends, the ends being the production of these scarce goods.

159
00:19:33.000 --> 00:19:37.000
Let's think about what a post-scarcity world would look like for a moment.

160
00:19:37.000 --> 00:19:42.000
Because it's a good way of really grasping what scarcity means.

161
00:19:42.000 --> 00:19:45.000
There used to be an old commercial that said,

162
00:19:45.000 --> 00:19:49.000
let Hertz put you in the driver's seat, and it was on television.

163
00:19:49.000 --> 00:19:52.000
And as soon as the person wanted to be in the driver's seat,

164
00:19:52.000 --> 00:19:55.000
he would just drop down into this convertible.

165
00:19:55.000 --> 00:19:58.000
So immediately upon wishing for something,

166
00:19:58.000 --> 00:20:01.000
there was no scarcity, you'd have it.

167
00:20:01.000 --> 00:20:06.000
The crazed socialist writer, Charles Fourier,

168
00:20:06.000 --> 00:20:15.500
Fourier once said that, or claimed that, once we have socialism, the oceans will be filled with lemonade and roasted chickens will fly into our mouths.

169
00:20:15.500 --> 00:20:18.800
That's a post-scarcity world, okay?

170
00:20:18.800 --> 00:20:21.200
Of course, you don't get there via socialism.

171
00:20:21.200 --> 00:20:25.400
You get to a super scarce world via socialism.

172
00:20:25.400 --> 00:20:35.400
So in other words, all wants, in a post-scarcity world, all wants are satisfied as effortlessly and instantaneously as your want for air.

173
00:20:35.400 --> 00:20:41.400
No one thinks about getting air. There is no want of air, actually. There is no lack of air in a normal situation.

174
00:20:44.400 --> 00:20:50.400
So we do not employ means to achieve the end of getting sufficient air.

175
00:20:51.400 --> 00:20:59.400
Now, in other situations, in outer space or at great depths in the ocean, there must be means employed to get air.

176
00:20:59.400 --> 00:21:03.400
And those means then are costly, the air tanks and so on.

177
00:21:05.400 --> 00:21:10.200
So, scarcity is a condition where unlimited human wants or goals confront limited means, okay?

178
00:21:10.200 --> 00:21:14.200
We call these scarce means goods, okay?

179
00:21:14.200 --> 00:21:20.500
So, goods unqualified are scarce means, okay, to ends.

180
00:21:20.500 --> 00:21:22.400
Now, scarcity implies two things.

181
00:21:22.400 --> 00:21:27.500
One, limitation and two, desirability.

182
00:21:27.500 --> 00:21:34.000
The tuberculosis bacterium or the malaria parasite, they're very, very rare,

183
00:21:34.000 --> 00:21:37.200
But they're not scarce, because they're not desirable, okay?

184
00:21:37.200 --> 00:21:45.200
On the other hand, air is very, very desirable, but again, in a normal situation, it is not scarce, okay?

185
00:21:45.200 --> 00:21:52.800
It's a free good. It is more than enough for all human wants for air, okay?

186
00:21:52.800 --> 00:21:54.800
So let me just characterize goods a little bit more.

187
00:21:54.800 --> 00:22:01.400
Goods are concrete means that directly or indirectly satisfy wants or serve the achievement of human ends, okay?

188
00:22:01.400 --> 00:22:10.040
We can classify goods in two ways. We have consumer goods, now they directly serve human ends, or at least the services of the goods serve human ends.

189
00:22:10.040 --> 00:22:19.040
So if you have an automobile, the automobile, we in popular language refer to it as a consumer's good, but actually it's not the automobile itself,

190
00:22:19.040 --> 00:22:27.280
but it's the services of the automobile in getting you around and allowing you to perform various errands, that is the end.

191
00:22:27.280 --> 00:22:36.280
It's really the service of the good that is always the end. The hamburger itself really provides one service. Once it's eaten, it's gone.

192
00:22:36.280 --> 00:22:46.280
So the consumer goods refers to the final good, the good that directly satisfies your desire.

193
00:22:46.280 --> 00:22:52.280
And it tends to be, technically speaking, the services that are that final consumer good.

194
00:22:52.280 --> 00:23:08.280
Now they can be exchangeable, the everyday goods that we purchase on the market, or they can be non-exchangeable goods. Love, friendship, fame, reputation, all of those things are desirable, they're all scarce, and we must employ means to get all of them.

195
00:23:08.280 --> 00:23:17.280
But once we have them, let's say you have true love with your spouse, there's no way to sell it, and there's no way to buy it, to buy true love.

196
00:23:17.280 --> 00:23:23.280
Now, that doesn't mean that you don't expend scarce means, which you may buy on the market to get true love.

197
00:23:23.280 --> 00:23:28.280
You buy flowers, you buy jewelry, you spend money on dinners, and so on.

198
00:23:28.280 --> 00:23:37.280
And that plus other means may bring about a state of true love.

199
00:23:37.280 --> 00:23:40.280
But again, it cannot be directly bought on the market.

200
00:23:40.280 --> 00:23:43.280
Several of the means that go into it certainly can be.

201
00:23:43.280 --> 00:23:46.280
And once had, it cannot be sold, obviously.

202
00:23:46.280 --> 00:23:59.280
The second category of goods is producer goods. They indirectly serve human ends. They're what we call the original factors of production. That's one category. They tend to be nature-given. They're there.

203
00:23:59.280 --> 00:24:11.280
Everyone is born with a certain amount of human energy, which we call labor, the capacity for labor. And there are resources, which we call natural resources, that surround us in the environment.

204
00:24:11.280 --> 00:24:17.280
Elements of the environment that are not man-made is what we call land.

205
00:24:17.280 --> 00:24:23.280
So that includes forests, fisheries, mineral deposits, the actual ground land.

206
00:24:23.280 --> 00:24:30.280
Farmland is not land in the economic sense, or not completely land in the economic sense.

207
00:24:30.280 --> 00:24:37.280
Because farmland, in order to be fertile and arable, must be produced.

208
00:24:37.280 --> 00:24:47.280
So farmland is really a capital good. It's a mixture of the original land and other resources that bring it to the state where you can use it in farming.

209
00:24:47.280 --> 00:24:54.280
So farmland is actually a capital good. So land means something that is given by nature, that is not human.

210
00:24:54.280 --> 00:25:01.280
And finally technology, or rather the second category is intermediate factors of production, which we call capital goods.

211
00:25:01.280 --> 00:25:08.280
tools, machines, means of transportation, raw materials, and half-finished products, such as farmland.

212
00:25:08.280 --> 00:25:13.280
In other words, farmland is a half-finished product in the sense that the final product,

213
00:25:13.280 --> 00:25:18.280
that it gives forth the corn or the wheat or the tomatoes, are the final consumer's good.

214
00:25:18.280 --> 00:25:21.280
So farmland is a capital good.

215
00:25:21.280 --> 00:25:25.280
Technology, that's the third category of producers' goods.

216
00:25:25.280 --> 00:25:34.280
Technology is really ideas or recipes about how to combine and transform means into ends.

217
00:25:34.280 --> 00:25:45.280
Now, one interesting quirk about technology is that once it's discovered, technology, unless it's proprietary or it can be kept secret, is no longer scarce.

218
00:25:45.280 --> 00:25:53.280
So when the first primitive man discovered how to build a fire and others observed him,

219
00:25:53.280 --> 00:26:11.280
He may have employed means to bring about this new technology, but once he discovered how to build a fire by rubbing, let's say, two sticks together, others could also use that technology without decreasing the use for anyone else.

220
00:26:11.280 --> 00:26:15.280
So in that case, technology is no longer scarce.

221
00:26:15.280 --> 00:26:26.280
Certainly, discovery of new technology does require means, and in fact, you have huge departments of firms today that are R&D departments, research and development departments.

222
00:26:26.280 --> 00:26:30.280
Which brings us to time. Time, all actions take time.

223
00:26:30.280 --> 00:26:43.280
They begin in the present and they end in the future, or they end at some point in the future, and therefore, time is a scarce means.

224
00:26:43.280 --> 00:26:57.280
This implies immediately that human actors prefer to achieve their goals as quickly as possible, all other things given or all other things equal.

225
00:26:57.280 --> 00:27:04.280
The universal preference for attaining the one's end sooner rather than later is called time preference.

226
00:27:04.280 --> 00:27:12.280
Now let me give you an implication of what it would be like to have a negative time preference, give you a better idea of what time preference is.

227
00:27:12.280 --> 00:27:15.280
I'll give a few implications.

228
00:27:15.280 --> 00:27:19.280
Well, let's say that you have a frozen dinner that will last for a long period of time.

229
00:27:19.280 --> 00:27:23.280
And when you go home this evening, you're hungry and you want to consume that frozen dinner.

230
00:27:23.280 --> 00:27:33.280
But if you had negative time preference, that is, if you preferred to have your ends achieved in the future rather than the present,

231
00:27:33.280 --> 00:27:38.280
at the point of eating that dinner, you would say, you know what, I value this dinner more tomorrow than I do today.

232
00:27:38.280 --> 00:27:44.280
that I do today. So you wouldn't eat it. But then when tomorrow came, you would make the same judgment.

233
00:27:44.280 --> 00:27:51.280
So you would never eat that frozen dinner. You would never use any durable good, any good that could be used in the future.

234
00:27:51.280 --> 00:27:57.280
You would never use it now. Why? Because you have all of the things equal, you have a preference for it in the future.

235
00:27:57.280 --> 00:28:05.280
Let me give you another example, which I give my undergraduates. Let's say a man wants to ask a woman for a date.

236
00:28:05.280 --> 00:28:11.280
and he goes up to her and says, what are you doing next week?

237
00:28:11.280 --> 00:28:13.280
How can we get together?

238
00:28:13.280 --> 00:28:15.280
And she says, I'm busy next week.

239
00:28:15.280 --> 00:28:17.280
And he says, what about in two weeks?

240
00:28:17.280 --> 00:28:19.280
And she says, no, no, I'm busy.

241
00:28:19.280 --> 00:28:22.280
He says, I'll be visiting friends.

242
00:28:22.280 --> 00:28:25.280
And he says, well, what about next month?

243
00:28:25.280 --> 00:28:29.280
Can we make plans in advance so that you're not locked into any other social engagement?

244
00:28:29.280 --> 00:28:32.280
She says, you know what, I'm busy next month.

245
00:28:32.280 --> 00:28:35.180
So let's say he then says, well, when can I see you?

246
00:28:35.180 --> 00:28:37.880
And she says, well, maybe five years from now.

247
00:28:37.880 --> 00:28:41.380
OK, now, in a world where there's real time preference, that's a brush off.

248
00:28:41.380 --> 00:28:43.480
We interpret that as a brush off, OK?

249
00:28:43.480 --> 00:28:46.580
In a world of negative time preference, he prefers that date five years from now.

250
00:28:46.580 --> 00:28:47.280
She says, that's great.

251
00:28:47.280 --> 00:28:49.780
In fact, that's better than going out tonight.

252
00:28:49.780 --> 00:28:53.380
So, you know, he writes it in his date book.

253
00:28:53.380 --> 00:28:59.280
OK, so anytime one acts, it demonstrates time preference

254
00:28:59.280 --> 00:29:05.280
Because it pulls one's goals closer in time, even if those goals are far off.

255
00:29:05.280 --> 00:29:06.280
Let me give you an example.

256
00:29:06.280 --> 00:29:09.280
Or even if those goals take a long period of time to achieve.

257
00:29:09.280 --> 00:29:15.280
Let's say you want to produce a very fine wine.

258
00:29:15.280 --> 00:29:18.280
It takes 10 years to do that.

259
00:29:18.280 --> 00:29:22.280
The point is time preference comes into play because you begin to produce it now.

260
00:29:22.280 --> 00:29:26.280
As soon as you begin to produce it now, you pull into the present,

261
00:29:26.280 --> 00:29:31.280
or you pull towards the present, towards you, the production of the wine.

262
00:29:31.280 --> 00:29:33.280
You could always postpone it.

263
00:29:33.280 --> 00:29:36.280
It would always be 10 years away from any given moment.

264
00:29:36.280 --> 00:29:40.280
So you could postpone it into the future for years and years and years if you had negative time preference.

265
00:29:40.280 --> 00:29:46.280
But if you have positive time preference and this is high on your value scale, as we'll talk about in a moment,

266
00:29:46.280 --> 00:29:48.280
you will embark on the production process.

267
00:29:48.280 --> 00:29:50.280
That shows time preference.

268
00:29:50.280 --> 00:30:05.280
If someone wants to become a surgeon and knows that they face four years of pre-med, three years of medical school, and then two or three years of training and a specialty, and a year of an internship, that's eight or nine years in the future.

269
00:30:05.280 --> 00:30:14.280
Once again, because that person enters college as a pre-med student, that person is showing that time is scarce, that he'd rather become a surgeon sooner rather than later.

270
00:30:14.280 --> 00:30:29.280
Technically, or technologically, he can't become a surgeon for eight years, but he's embarked on the project and shown that time he'd rather achieve that goal, let's say, sooner rather than later.

271
00:30:29.280 --> 00:30:40.280
Now let's talk a little bit about production. When human beings are simply confronting nature, nature is very niggardly, meaning very stingy.

272
00:30:40.280 --> 00:30:53.280
It doesn't yield its fruits easily to human beings, which means that human beings have to rearrange the elements of the environment to make the environment more productive and to increase their standard of living.

273
00:30:53.280 --> 00:31:00.280
So very few goals can be realized without production.

274
00:31:00.280 --> 00:31:08.280
So production, remember, is driven by the need or the want to satisfy or by the drive to satisfy wants.

275
00:31:08.280 --> 00:31:18.280
Now, one thing that production is not, and this was pointed out in 1802 by Jean-Baptiste Say, who was a subjective value theorist, it is not the creation of goods and services.

276
00:31:18.280 --> 00:31:25.280
Say said, look, only God can create. Men can only rearrange, transform.

277
00:31:25.280 --> 00:31:35.280
And so up to that point, it was up to 1802, and sometimes, in fact, in my managerial textbook that I used a few years ago, they talked about production as the creation of goods and services.

278
00:31:35.280 --> 00:31:42.040
Services. So 200 years out of date these books. In any case it's really the

279
00:31:42.040 --> 00:31:46.560
combination and transformation of elements of the environment to a more

280
00:31:46.560 --> 00:31:51.360
valuable, into a more valuable good. So you're transferring, you're

281
00:31:51.360 --> 00:31:58.640
transforming, let's say, labor and the mineral deposit or the oil deposit and

282
00:31:58.640 --> 00:32:03.680
the machinery that's used, the drilling equipment, transforming all of those

283
00:32:03.680 --> 00:32:15.680
You're not creating gasoline, you're transforming other elements, so that gasoline will then be yielded by the production process.

284
00:32:15.680 --> 00:32:23.680
And just to give you a quick, simple overview of it.

285
00:32:23.680 --> 00:32:53.680
Simple overview of it. In the causal realist approach, production is looked on, in which time is important, production is looked on as the transformation of original factors, land and labor, into capital goods, which are then combined with more elements of the environment, more labor, more land, and transformed into consumer goods, which then serve to achieve one satisfaction for the

286
00:32:53.680 --> 00:33:06.680
Or another way of putting it is that the original resources, land and labor, are combined and intermediate goods are produced and they are themselves then transformed into the final goods and the final goods are what is consumed.

287
00:33:06.680 --> 00:33:16.680
Now we use an imaginary construct in economics and this is a false assumption.

288
00:33:16.680 --> 00:33:26.680
It's not unrealizable, but it's unrealistic, and that is, we imagine a human being alone on an island, and there are real problems with that.

289
00:33:26.680 --> 00:33:32.680
I mean, it can happen, but it's unrealistic, so we call it an imaginary construct.

290
00:33:32.680 --> 00:33:40.680
The key with using false assumptions is that you can drop them later on and they're not essential to the conclusions.

291
00:33:40.680 --> 00:33:50.680
Their only function is to enlighten the researcher and to point him in the right direction.

292
00:33:50.680 --> 00:33:55.680
They're meant to isolate the essential cause and effect relationships.

293
00:33:55.680 --> 00:34:04.680
If you drop them, like if you drop the assumption of perfect competition and you find that everything changes,

294
00:34:04.680 --> 00:34:11.680
If you suddenly assume rivalries competition, then that model has no function.

295
00:34:11.680 --> 00:34:19.680
The perfectly competitive model is not wrong for economics because it's untrue or false.

296
00:34:19.680 --> 00:34:21.680
It's wrong because it absolutely has no function.

297
00:34:21.680 --> 00:34:25.680
It doesn't shed light on the essential cause and effect relationships in the real world

298
00:34:25.680 --> 00:34:29.680
because of many of the assumptions that it makes.

299
00:34:29.680 --> 00:34:34.680
Crucial economics does allow us to get at the causal laws.

300
00:34:34.680 --> 00:34:44.680
So, Crusoe is there and alone with his own labor energy confronting the natural resources on the island.

301
00:34:44.680 --> 00:34:46.680
We're going to use that for a little while.

302
00:34:46.680 --> 00:34:50.680
As I said, it's not logically impossible, but it is very, very unrealistic.

303
00:34:50.680 --> 00:34:56.680
For example, a single human being could never develop language, let's say.

304
00:34:56.680 --> 00:35:17.680
Without language, let's say, and without language, thought cannot be refined, so it's a matter of question whether a human being could actually be a human being, if somehow they were alone from the beginning, or at least whether they could think like a human being.

305
00:35:17.680 --> 00:35:23.180
Alright, so as we'll see when we get to production,

306
00:35:23.180 --> 00:35:28.180
Crusoe can become more productive by, instead of fishing with his hands,

307
00:35:28.180 --> 00:35:32.180
if that's the only food available, standing there for hours and trying to grab fish,

308
00:35:32.180 --> 00:35:37.180
which he may be successful in doing, if he could construct the net, that would improve his productivity.

309
00:35:37.180 --> 00:35:45.680
And so saving, as we'll see, is extremely important, saving and investment in capital goods,

310
00:35:45.680 --> 00:35:53.680
The production of capital goods is very, very important to pushing back the bounds of scarcity that constrain him on that island.

311
00:35:53.680 --> 00:36:03.680
One point we want to make now, and again this is a topic for a later class that we're going to have here.

312
00:36:03.680 --> 00:36:13.680
The technology without capital really does nothing for Cousteau. Let's say Cousteau is an engineer, but he has no materials on the island.

313
00:36:13.680 --> 00:36:17.680
He wouldn't be able to produce the net. He wouldn't be able to produce any shelter.

314
00:36:17.680 --> 00:36:21.680
As much knowledge as he has about how to produce these things.

315
00:36:21.680 --> 00:36:31.680
You need saving, you need means that we call capital goods and so on in order to make yourself more productive.

316
00:36:31.680 --> 00:36:37.680
What about choice and value? Here's where we're getting into the essence of action.

317
00:36:37.680 --> 00:36:42.680
Because their goods are scarce, the means to ends are scarce,

318
00:36:42.680 --> 00:36:49.680
This implies that one cannot achieve all his ends and therefore must choose which goals to pursue and which ones to renounce.

319
00:36:49.680 --> 00:36:55.680
Remember, we're defective beings. We lack many, many things. We have limitless wants, effectively.

320
00:37:01.680 --> 00:37:07.680
But the means for achieving these wants are strictly limited at any given moment in time. They're finite.

321
00:37:07.680 --> 00:37:14.680
So, we must choose which wants to satisfy with our means and which wants to renounce or to forego.

322
00:37:14.680 --> 00:37:25.680
So, this choice presupposes a ranking of ends, according to their importance to the individual chooser or actor.

323
00:37:25.680 --> 00:37:33.680
And this involves a subjective valuation of which end will yield more satisfaction, which end will yield less satisfaction.

324
00:37:33.680 --> 00:37:40.680
This subjective ranking event, we call a value scale.

325
00:37:40.680 --> 00:37:45.680
Now, one thing to keep in mind, people do not walk around with value scales fixed in their heads.

326
00:37:45.680 --> 00:37:49.680
They don't walk around and say, I like that Porsche better than that Cadillac.

327
00:37:49.680 --> 00:37:52.680
Or, I like Coke better than Pepsi.

328
00:37:52.680 --> 00:37:56.680
Or, I like Britney Spears. No one would say that.

329
00:37:56.680 --> 00:38:06.680
So the value scale comes into being only when the individual is confronted with the necessity of choosing how to allocate some set of resources.

330
00:38:06.680 --> 00:38:15.680
And let me just give you an example of what value scales might look like.

331
00:38:15.680 --> 00:38:18.680
I want to cover part of it up here.

332
00:38:18.680 --> 00:38:21.680
Okay, let's take the Crusoe example first.

333
00:38:21.680 --> 00:38:32.680
For example, first, Crusoe was on his island. He has 12 hours of labor, after which, you know, he's exhausted and can't labor anymore, so he's got a fixed stock of 12 hours of labor each day.

334
00:38:32.680 --> 00:38:38.680
And let's assume all of these ends that I've listed absorb four hours, okay?

335
00:38:38.680 --> 00:38:48.680
So if they absorb four hours, that means that he can only achieve three of these ends, and they go on, they're more than the sixth one to keep going.

336
00:38:48.680 --> 00:38:58.180
What he will do is to rank those ends according to which ends he believes will yield him the greatest satisfaction.

337
00:38:58.180 --> 00:39:09.680
So as he's done it here, he prefers four fish, to eight coconuts, to five pounds of wild mushrooms, to four hours of swimming and sunbathing, to a hammock and so on.

338
00:39:09.680 --> 00:39:17.680
So he will try to then allocate his resources or he will allocate his resources so as to achieve the production of fish, coconuts and wild mushrooms.

339
00:39:17.680 --> 00:39:25.680
He will renounce, even though they're valuable to him, swimming and sunbathing and building a hammock.

340
00:39:25.680 --> 00:39:30.680
At least on this day, at that moment in time, he makes that choice.

341
00:39:30.680 --> 00:39:35.680
Now let's take someone who receives a gift from a rich aunt.

342
00:39:35.680 --> 00:39:38.680
I wish I had one of those when I graduated.

343
00:39:38.680 --> 00:39:41.680
A $10,000 college graduation gift.

344
00:39:41.680 --> 00:39:45.680
And each of those ends, let's assume, absorbs a whole $10,000.

345
00:39:45.680 --> 00:39:56.680
Now, he would love a new car, okay, or he would love to just spend his money with his friends and party for a whole year, take a year off and live on that $10,000.

346
00:39:56.680 --> 00:40:03.680
But he has an even more important end, and that is to see Europe. So he chooses to go on the European vacation.

347
00:40:03.680 --> 00:40:13.680
Now, this is not relevant if he doesn't have the $10,000. He can walk around and say, you know if I had $10,000 I'd choose this and not that. That's not relevant to economics, okay?

348
00:40:13.680 --> 00:40:21.680
It may be true, people may psychologize and think about these things, but it's not relevant to price formation.

349
00:40:21.680 --> 00:40:26.680
The actual choice is relevant to how prices are determined and what those prices are.

350
00:40:26.680 --> 00:40:30.680
In any case, in this example, he then chooses the European vacation.

351
00:40:30.680 --> 00:40:40.680
And finally, you yourselves certainly had to make a choice on coming here, the fellows here, to accept this Mises Fellowship.

352
00:40:40.680 --> 00:40:46.680
You could have had a summer job, so you had to forgo income from a summer job. Let's say that was ranked second.

353
00:40:46.680 --> 00:40:54.680
Or you could have spent the summer at your family's lake house, or you could again party with your friend. That's always a popular thing.

354
00:40:54.680 --> 00:41:04.680
So you have demonstrated by being here as summer fellows that you've chosen this end, that this is most important to you.

355
00:41:04.680 --> 00:41:12.680
Now, there's a few things, properties of value scales that we want to talk about.

356
00:41:12.680 --> 00:41:19.680
First of all, value scales are strictly ordinal. They cannot measure the value between, or the value difference between different ends.

357
00:41:19.680 --> 00:41:27.680
This person cannot say that the European vacation, he values the European vacation twice as much as the new car.

358
00:41:27.680 --> 00:41:31.680
And the new car is six times as much as, let's say, partying all summer.

359
00:41:31.680 --> 00:41:39.680
There is no unit of measurement for subjective satisfaction or utility.

360
00:41:39.680 --> 00:41:46.680
Not even money can exist or operate as a measuring device for value.

361
00:41:46.680 --> 00:41:51.680
A few years ago, I saw a Paul McCartney concert in Madison Square Garden.

362
00:41:51.680 --> 00:41:55.680
I believe I paid $125 for the ticket.

363
00:41:55.680 --> 00:41:59.680
I would have paid up to $150. I don't think I would have gone above that.

364
00:41:59.680 --> 00:42:08.680
And then a little bit later that summer I saw Rod Stewart in concert, and I think I paid $75 for that, which was sort of on the march, I wouldn't have gone if it was any higher than that.

365
00:42:08.680 --> 00:42:22.680
But now can I say, let's assume that I would have paid $150 for the Paul McCartney concert, or I did, let's say, let's say I did pay $150, I only paid $125, and just to make the arithmetic easy here,

366
00:42:22.680 --> 00:42:29.680
Does that mean that I value the Paul McCartney concert twice as much as the Rod Stewart concert?

367
00:42:29.680 --> 00:42:38.680
Of course not. All that means is that I value the Paul McCartney concert above the $150,

368
00:42:38.680 --> 00:42:44.680
which I value above the Rod Stewart concert, which I value above the $75.

369
00:42:44.680 --> 00:42:53.680
It's a strict ranking, because money itself is a good, it's not some sort of ethereal, abstract measuring device.

370
00:42:53.680 --> 00:42:57.680
It's a property that's transferred in exchange.

371
00:42:57.680 --> 00:43:05.680
Every exchange in a market economy, in a developed market economy, always involves money as one half of it.

372
00:43:05.680 --> 00:43:12.680
All money is property, and it's valued in relation to all the other things on people's value scales.

373
00:43:12.680 --> 00:43:14.680
That's a very important point.

374
00:43:14.680 --> 00:43:16.680
But what about utils?

375
00:43:16.680 --> 00:43:18.680
We see that name sometimes in textbooks.

376
00:43:18.680 --> 00:43:22.680
But then we can ask, what in God's name is a util?

377
00:43:22.680 --> 00:43:28.680
It has no fixed extension in space, like a yard or a pound or a column of mercury to measure temperature.

378
00:43:28.680 --> 00:43:34.680
In fact, value is an intensive and not an extensive magnitude.

379
00:43:34.680 --> 00:44:02.680
and there was a debate in the 1930s and when economists really first recognized this fully and on one side of the debate was Lionel Robbins who followed Menger and the other Austrians and he was one of the first to really state the case for ordinal utility very strongly in the early 1930s and he pointed out that value was like love.

380
00:44:02.680 --> 00:44:12.680
In fact, love is one aspect of value. He said, you may be dating three different women and you may ask one of the three to marry you.

381
00:44:12.680 --> 00:44:20.680
All you can say is that you prefer this woman as a spouse, the second woman, the third woman.

382
00:44:20.680 --> 00:44:26.680
That's what you've demonstrated. Can you say that you love this woman three times as much or ten times as much as the second woman?

383
00:44:26.680 --> 00:44:41.680
Are you choosing a woman? No, but in this case you're choosing a spouse and that choice is made as a result of an ordinal ranking of these women as potential spouses.

384
00:44:41.680 --> 00:44:52.680
And value in any aspect of life is no different than this. There's no way to measure the differences in value between the things that you desire.

385
00:44:52.680 --> 00:44:59.680
Sometimes you hear economists say, use the term maximizing utility.

386
00:44:59.680 --> 00:45:07.680
Okay, now that means nothing more than to choose to allocate scarce means to the highest ranked ends on your value scale.

387
00:45:07.680 --> 00:45:14.680
So, the new college graduate maximizes utility by spending the $10,000 on European vacation.

388
00:45:14.680 --> 00:45:24.680
U.S. Fellows maximize utility by coming to the Mises Fellowship for the two months rather than spending those two months in a summer job, let's say.

389
00:45:24.680 --> 00:45:30.680
The other thing to keep in mind is that value scales do not just apply to quote economic ends.

390
00:45:30.680 --> 00:45:34.680
In fact, strictly speaking, there are never economic ends.

391
00:45:34.680 --> 00:45:38.680
There's no such thing as economic ends.

392
00:45:38.680 --> 00:45:46.680
Economics is a relationship between a means and ends, between scarce means and unlimited ends.

393
00:45:46.680 --> 00:45:54.680
What we must point out is that all ends are ranked and compared on a value scale, whether they are material, cultural, spiritual.

394
00:45:54.680 --> 00:46:01.680
To give you an example, a biblical example, Judas Iscariot chose 30 pieces of silver over his loyalty to Jesus.

395
00:46:01.680 --> 00:46:07.680
So we compared loyalty to Jesus to a certain sum of money. He may not have done it for a lower sum of money.

396
00:46:07.680 --> 00:46:15.680
But he sold him out, as we say. When you sell someone out, that's being done as a result of your value scale.

397
00:46:15.680 --> 00:46:22.680
Of valuing the material end more than what you might want to call the spiritual end.

398
00:46:22.680 --> 00:46:31.680
But that doesn't matter. As human choosers, all ends are in there and are compared ordinarily, whether we like it or not.

399
00:46:31.680 --> 00:46:47.680
You might take the case of a woman who must choose to spend her evening either caring for her children, volunteering at her church, or in part-time employment to supplement funds for her kids' college education.

400
00:46:47.680 --> 00:46:55.680
So there are material ends mixed with spiritual ends, mixed with ends that are related to the family and love and so on.

401
00:46:55.680 --> 00:47:03.680
And she might very well choose to spend her evening working on a given evening.

402
00:47:08.680 --> 00:47:13.680
Another property of value skills is that value skills are only relevant to and revealed by action, not by talk.

403
00:47:14.680 --> 00:47:24.680
Let's say someone says, I love my wife and family and I am committed to putting aside a certain amount of money for my children's education.

404
00:47:25.680 --> 00:47:41.680
for education, for putting good food on the table and so on, but then he passes by a bar, he has his paycheck, or he's cashed his paycheck, he has the money from the paycheck, and he sees his friends in the bar and he impulsively goes in and spends it all on alcohol, okay?

405
00:47:41.680 --> 00:47:50.680
Well, some economists, even today, would say he's departing from his true value scale,

406
00:47:50.680 --> 00:48:00.680
which is that that money is best spent or maximizes utility by being spent on education and good food for his children and so on.

407
00:48:00.680 --> 00:48:10.680
No, he hasn't. He may have done this for months before, but now he's changed his mind. His value scale has changed.

408
00:48:10.680 --> 00:48:13.120
We are not prisoners of our value scales.

409
00:48:13.120 --> 00:48:18.840
Despite what we've done in the past or how we've committed ourselves to acting in a certain way in the future,

410
00:48:18.840 --> 00:48:22.480
what's relevant for economics is how we do act in the future.

411
00:48:22.480 --> 00:48:33.440
He's demonstrating that he prefers drinking that alcohol with his friends to putting aside money for family needs.

412
00:48:33.440 --> 00:48:37.240
Another property of value scales is that only the actor can know his own value scale.

413
00:48:37.240 --> 00:48:40.840
He only reveals a small part of it in action, okay?

414
00:48:40.840 --> 00:48:49.240
So, if Matt purchased that Dr. Pepper today, he's demonstrated that he values that Dr. Pepper to, let's say, the one dollar he paid for it,

415
00:48:49.240 --> 00:48:56.440
and anything else he could get for that dollar, okay, at that point in time, okay?

416
00:48:56.440 --> 00:49:01.440
We must also keep in mind that value skills are liable to continual and rapid changes.

417
00:49:01.440 --> 00:49:07.440
People, as I said before, are not prisoners of their value scales, because value scales don't exist apart from action.

418
00:49:07.440 --> 00:49:13.440
They come into being at the moment that we are forced to decide how to use resources.

419
00:49:13.440 --> 00:49:17.440
That is, at the moment of choice.

420
00:49:17.440 --> 00:49:22.440
One other thing to keep in mind is that when economists say that people choose rationally,

421
00:49:22.440 --> 00:49:28.440
they do not mean that their choices are selfish, hedonistic, ethical, responsible,

422
00:49:28.440 --> 00:49:33.560
People calculating legal, moral, non-impulsive or non-self-destructive.

423
00:49:33.560 --> 00:49:37.560
They simply mean that the action is purposeful.

424
00:49:37.560 --> 00:49:45.820
If it means anything more than that, it has nothing to do with economics.

425
00:49:45.820 --> 00:49:51.320
That is to say that people consciously choose means to achieve highly desired ends or their

426
00:49:51.320 --> 00:49:53.040
most highly desired ends.

427
00:49:53.040 --> 00:49:58.280
The heroin addict, the bank robber, the suicide, all these people are acting rationally in

428
00:49:58.280 --> 00:50:04.280
In the economic sense, the bank robber doesn't use a banana to hold up a bank.

429
00:50:04.280 --> 00:50:08.280
He uses a gun. He uses means that are adapted to achieving the end.

430
00:50:08.280 --> 00:50:13.280
The suicide doesn't jump off a two-foot stool. He jumps off a bridge.

431
00:50:13.280 --> 00:50:17.280
He's acting purposefully.

432
00:50:17.280 --> 00:50:19.280
And similarly with the murder and so on.

433
00:50:19.280 --> 00:50:27.280
To say that these people are acting irrationally is to impose a value judgment on what they're doing.

434
00:50:27.280 --> 00:50:35.280
Okay, now let me get to the concept of psychic revenue and cost, psychic profit and loss.

435
00:50:35.280 --> 00:50:44.280
Now, remember we pointed out that all actions take time and they're aimed at improving conditions, not now, but at some point in the future.

436
00:50:44.280 --> 00:50:50.280
It could be a few minutes in the future, okay, or it could be years in the future.

437
00:50:50.280 --> 00:50:59.280
And it's improving conditions that compare to what would have emerged in the future if you did not act in that way.

438
00:50:59.280 --> 00:51:02.280
So that's the sort of comparison you make.

439
00:51:02.280 --> 00:51:06.280
Now, because all action is future oriented, it involves uncertainty.

440
00:51:06.280 --> 00:51:08.280
We never know completely how the future is going to develop.

441
00:51:08.280 --> 00:51:10.280
We know many things about the future.

442
00:51:10.280 --> 00:51:15.280
It's just plain wrong to say that the future is completely unknowable.

443
00:51:15.280 --> 00:51:17.280
That's incorrect.

444
00:51:17.280 --> 00:51:18.280
We know many, many things.

445
00:51:18.280 --> 00:51:33.280
We also know many things about people close to us through what Mises calls phymology, which is simply interacting with other people. We gain understanding of their characters and so on.

446
00:51:33.280 --> 00:51:45.280
For example, I know that when I come back from Auburn that my wife will not have cleaned out the bank accounts and moved all the furniture out of the house and be gone.

447
00:51:45.280 --> 00:51:58.280
I know that, from knowing her character or from understanding her character.

448
00:51:58.280 --> 00:52:06.280
Let me just define these terms very quickly and then I'll give you an example of what I'm talking about.

449
00:52:06.280 --> 00:52:10.280
Psychic benefit of revenue is the expected satisfaction from an action.

450
00:52:10.280 --> 00:52:17.280
So the psychic benefit is the expected satisfaction from the European vacation.

451
00:52:17.280 --> 00:52:23.280
The psychic cost is the greatest satisfaction that's sacrificed or given up in an action.

452
00:52:23.280 --> 00:52:28.280
So that person, in effect, the cost of the European vacation is not the $10,000.

453
00:52:28.280 --> 00:52:32.280
That's a mistake that people make. That's the price. That's the market price.

454
00:52:32.280 --> 00:52:35.280
That's the amount of property that has to be exchanged.

455
00:52:35.280 --> 00:52:47.280
The cost is the next highest valued end that could have been obtained had that person not chosen the European vacation.

456
00:52:47.280 --> 00:52:53.280
So psychic profit results, and now I can move this slightly.

457
00:52:53.280 --> 00:52:58.280
Psychic profit results when the benefit is greater than the cost.

458
00:52:58.280 --> 00:53:10.280
Ex ante, meaning from the perspective of before the action is undertaken, benefit always is greater than cost because otherwise the person would have not acted in that way.

459
00:53:10.280 --> 00:53:18.280
If he really believed that the new car would give him more satisfaction than the European vacation, then they would have been switched on his value scale and he would have chosen the new car.

460
00:53:18.280 --> 00:53:25.280
The fact that he didn't means that he believes benefit is greater than cost.

461
00:53:25.280 --> 00:53:31.280
is Greater Than Cost. Now, ex post, after the action, he could make a mistake because of the uncertainty.

462
00:53:31.280 --> 00:53:39.280
It could turn out that he was right, benefit was greater than cost, and he's happy with his action.

463
00:53:39.280 --> 00:53:48.280
The term regret crops up here. People have regrets all the time. The reason why they have regrets is because of uncertainty.

464
00:53:48.280 --> 00:53:51.280
They didn't know how things would turn out, and they chose wrongly.

465
00:53:51.280 --> 00:54:07.280
Now, if he regrets going to Europe, if there's a, you know, because of the Iraq War, there's a huge wave of anti-Americanism there, and it's bad weather, and they don't like the food, and so on, and they come back and say, you know what, I should have bought that car, okay?

466
00:54:07.280 --> 00:54:20.280
Well, then in that case, there was a psychic loss, okay? That is, the benefit was less than the cost. They wasted resources. They chose something that had a lower value than they believed it would have.

467
00:54:20.280 --> 00:54:25.280
If they were to do it over again, they would have chosen differently.

468
00:54:25.280 --> 00:54:29.280
Now, we all know people that continually regret their actions.

469
00:54:29.280 --> 00:54:33.280
Some people are better at making choices than other people.

470
00:54:33.280 --> 00:54:42.280
Those people, the people that are consistently better at making choices are good entrepreneurs in their daily lives.

471
00:54:42.280 --> 00:54:45.280
People are consistently mistaken in making their choices.

472
00:54:45.280 --> 00:54:55.280
I knew someone who was at his third college by his junior year when I was there.

473
00:54:55.280 --> 00:55:00.280
That person is a bad entrepreneur in the everyday life sense.

474
00:55:00.280 --> 00:55:10.280
But life is full of regrets because of uncertainty and error that inevitably attends the uncertainty.

475
00:55:10.280 --> 00:55:14.280
We don't have perfect knowledge of the future. If we did, we wouldn't act at all.

476
00:55:14.280 --> 00:55:19.720
we just let things play themselves out because if we knew the future it means we could not change it

477
00:55:19.720 --> 00:55:21.560
because we don't know the future

478
00:55:21.560 --> 00:55:22.940
that we have

479
00:55:22.940 --> 00:55:28.840
on a very basic level

480
00:55:28.840 --> 00:55:30.300
let me get to the

481
00:55:30.300 --> 00:55:33.640
value and the law of marginal utility

482
00:55:33.640 --> 00:55:34.820
okay

483
00:55:34.820 --> 00:55:37.780
you may be familiar with the paradox of value

484
00:55:37.780 --> 00:55:42.780
and it's also sometimes called the water diamond paradox or the bread diamond paradox.

485
00:55:48.780 --> 00:55:56.780
And this paradox bedeviled British classical economics from 1776 when Adam Smith wrote until 1870

486
00:55:57.780 --> 00:56:02.780
when it was finally resolved fully by Carl Menger.

487
00:56:02.780 --> 00:56:10.780
The product goes as follows, bread, let's use bread, bread has a high use value but a low exchange value relative to diamonds,

488
00:56:10.780 --> 00:56:19.780
which has a low use value and high exchange value, meaning that bread sells for a low price on the market,

489
00:56:19.780 --> 00:56:29.780
but bread is a staff of life, I mean bread sustains life, so it has a very, very high use value.

490
00:56:29.780 --> 00:56:39.780
On the other hand, diamonds have a very, very high exchange value that is priced on the market, but a very, very low use value.

491
00:56:39.780 --> 00:56:52.780
They're used to decorate for decorative reasons. They certainly aren't essential to sustaining human life like bread is.

492
00:56:52.780 --> 00:56:59.780
They're used for reasons of vanity and so on, for ostentation.

493
00:56:59.780 --> 00:57:01.780
So how do we explain this?

494
00:57:01.780 --> 00:57:06.780
Well, Menger explained it, and explained it with the law of marginal utility.

495
00:57:06.780 --> 00:57:11.780
And that law says that as the supply of a good possessed by an individual increases,

496
00:57:11.780 --> 00:57:18.780
all other things equal the marginal utility and therefore the value of each unit of the supply decreases.

497
00:57:18.780 --> 00:57:23.780
Now, this law, Menger derived this law from using Cruso-economics.

498
00:57:23.780 --> 00:57:32.780
Okay, so it's an extremely useful assumption in economic reasoning, even though it's unrealistic, the assumption of a personal law on an island.

499
00:57:32.780 --> 00:57:37.780
It does shed light on some direct implications of human action.

500
00:57:37.780 --> 00:57:43.780
Now, let me just, before getting to the example, let me just define the word supply.

501
00:57:43.780 --> 00:57:52.780
Supply refers to the units of a good that are interchangeable or homogeneous in the services they render in achieving an end, okay?

502
00:57:52.780 --> 00:57:59.780
So, in other words, we're assuming that every slice of bread is like every other slice of bread, okay?

503
00:57:59.780 --> 00:58:02.780
They all have the same nutritional content and so on, okay?

504
00:58:02.780 --> 00:58:07.780
Or at least from the point of view of the actor, they have the same nutritional content.

505
00:58:07.780 --> 00:58:17.780
So the example I'll give you is, and it's based on Menger's example, not exactly his example, but it's based on his example, is the following.

506
00:58:17.780 --> 00:58:25.780
Let's say that these are his ends, and there are many more than six, four sacks of wheat.

507
00:58:25.780 --> 00:58:31.780
He's just harvested the wheat on his island, and let's assume that he has five sacks.

508
00:58:31.780 --> 00:58:38.780
Okay, and each one of these ends will absorb a full sack of wheat over the course of the year until the next harvest.

509
00:58:38.780 --> 00:58:44.780
Okay, so the most important end, according to Crusoe, is to sustain his life for the year.

510
00:58:44.780 --> 00:58:50.780
But he needs a second sack of wheat to bake bread to keep him healthy.

511
00:58:50.780 --> 00:58:53.780
Okay, one sack just barely keeps him alive.

512
00:58:53.780 --> 00:58:58.780
Third, he wants to stay alive for another year, so he's going to use one sack for the next harvest.

513
00:58:58.780 --> 00:59:09.780
The fourth sack he'll use directly to feed farm animals, which will allow him to get eggs and milk and meat.

514
00:59:09.780 --> 00:59:15.780
Let's say he's domesticated some chickens and he's found cattle and so on on the island.

515
00:59:15.780 --> 00:59:25.780
And fifth, he's kind of lonely, so he's going to transform the fifth sack into vodka for some entertainment.

516
00:59:25.780 --> 00:59:33.780
And if he had a six-sack, he would keep parrots as pets and feed them, at least they could talk to him in some way.

517
00:59:33.780 --> 00:59:41.780
But in any case, he only has five. Now, the question is, what is the value of a sack of wheat?

518
00:59:41.780 --> 00:59:50.780
Is it the value attached to the highest ranked end, or is it some average of all of the ends?

519
00:59:50.780 --> 00:59:57.780
See, what Menger has done here now is to break away from the classical form of reasoning,

520
00:59:57.780 --> 01:00:05.780
which was to think about bread as an abstract category versus diamonds as an abstract category.

521
01:00:05.780 --> 01:00:12.780
He's looking at it in terms of concrete units that the actor is choosing to allocate.

522
01:00:12.780 --> 01:00:20.780
So, in a sense, he solved the question, he solved the problem by the way he set up, by the question he asked.

523
01:00:20.780 --> 01:00:22.780
Now, the question that he asked is the following.

524
01:00:22.780 --> 01:00:33.780
If a fox broke into where he's storing the wheat and devoured the sack intended for the second end,

525
01:00:33.780 --> 01:00:41.780
would he give up a year's supply of bread and go on with the other four ends?

526
01:00:41.780 --> 01:00:45.780
That is, would he give up eating the bread to sustain his life?

527
01:00:45.780 --> 01:00:50.780
Well, of course not. Since they're the supply of the same good, they're interchangeable.

528
01:00:50.780 --> 01:00:54.780
What would he do? What would any purposeful individual do?

529
01:00:54.780 --> 01:00:58.780
Just reallocate the fifth sack to the second end.

530
01:00:58.780 --> 01:01:07.780
Now, no matter which sack the fox devours, what end does Crusoe renounce?

531
01:01:07.780 --> 01:01:19.780
The lowest. The satisfaction from the lowest ranked end. That is known as the marginal end, the least valued of the ends that could be covered by the supply, that could be satisfied by the supply.

532
01:01:19.780 --> 01:01:36.780
Utility is another word for satisfaction. So what he would give up is the marginal utility. But not only that, the marginal utility, that is the satisfaction from the lowest ranked end, is the value of all of those sacks.

533
01:01:36.780 --> 01:01:39.280
Because every one of those sacks is marginal.

534
01:01:39.280 --> 01:01:45.680
When you have a supply of five units, in this case, no matter which one you lose, what value do you lose?

535
01:01:45.680 --> 01:01:47.180
You lose the marginal utility.

536
01:01:47.180 --> 01:01:56.480
So Menger's answer was, in fact, that the marginal utility determines the value of each unit of the supply.

537
01:01:56.480 --> 01:02:04.080
Now, if that fifth one is gone, and he only has four remaining, what happens to the value of each sack?

538
01:02:04.080 --> 01:02:07.520
It increases. It increases, why? Because the marginal utility has gone up.

539
01:02:08.000 --> 01:02:09.880
Now, he calls it dependent.

540
01:02:10.240 --> 01:02:12.800
The dependent end is the fourth end.

541
01:02:13.400 --> 01:02:15.480
If something happens to one of the remaining four sacks,

542
01:02:15.760 --> 01:02:18.600
he loses a greater satisfaction than if he had five units.

543
01:02:19.680 --> 01:02:24.600
So, as the supply of a good decreases, the marginal utility rises.

544
01:02:24.680 --> 01:02:30.080
As the supply of a good decreases, the marginal supply of a good increases, excuse me,

545
01:02:30.200 --> 01:02:33.040
the supply of the value of the good declines.

546
01:02:34.080 --> 01:02:37.580
or the marginal utility and the value of the good decline.

547
01:02:37.580 --> 01:02:43.080
The value depends on the marginal utility, the marginal utility depends on the supply, okay?

548
01:02:45.080 --> 01:02:53.080
Now, let's change the example a little bit and posit the following scenario.

549
01:02:53.080 --> 01:02:56.580
Let's say there's a farmer who has two different supplies.

550
01:02:56.580 --> 01:02:59.580
He has three horses and two cattle, okay?

551
01:02:59.580 --> 01:03:03.080
They serve different ends. They're not interchangeable.

552
01:03:03.080 --> 01:03:05.480
The question is, and that's his value scale,

553
01:03:05.480 --> 01:03:07.880
he'll use the first horse, that's most important to him,

554
01:03:07.880 --> 01:03:09.840
for plowing, the second horse for plowing,

555
01:03:09.840 --> 01:03:14.280
makes his burden easier if he has two horses pulling the plow.

556
01:03:14.280 --> 01:03:17.960
Third end is milk for the year, which he would get from the cow,

557
01:03:17.960 --> 01:03:21.920
and the fourth end is to slaughter a second cow for beef,

558
01:03:21.920 --> 01:03:26.440
and the fifth end, because he has a third horse, is for pleasure riding.

559
01:03:26.440 --> 01:03:28.520
Now his barn is on fire,

560
01:03:28.520 --> 01:03:32.920
And he can only save one animal, okay?

561
01:03:33.920 --> 01:03:39.720
Well, obviously, he's going to save the less, he's going to save the more valuable animal, okay?

562
01:03:40.120 --> 01:03:42.320
Which animal does he leave behind in the barn?

563
01:03:44.920 --> 01:03:49.720
Well, forget about looking at the top, you look at which animal has the lower margin utility.

564
01:03:51.120 --> 01:03:54.720
And that animal is the least valuable animal, which is what?

565
01:03:56.120 --> 01:03:58.420
Horses have lower values than cows in this situation.

566
01:03:58.520 --> 01:04:01.520
Because their marginal utility is lower.

567
01:04:01.520 --> 01:04:07.520
So he would save two cows and two horses and allow the third horse to perish.

568
01:04:07.520 --> 01:04:10.520
You don't look at the top of the value scale.

569
01:04:10.520 --> 01:04:15.520
You always look at the marginal units in the value scale.

570
01:04:15.520 --> 01:04:20.520
Now, once that's happened and he's left with two horses and two cows,

571
01:04:20.520 --> 01:04:25.520
which animal has a greater value, a horse or a cow?

572
01:04:25.520 --> 01:04:29.520
The horse does. The horse's marginal utility is higher than the cow's marginal utility.

573
01:04:37.520 --> 01:04:47.520
So, the solution of the paradox of value is, again, to focus on people's action in allocating concrete units to specific ends.

574
01:04:48.520 --> 01:04:53.520
It's not to focus on abstract classes of goods and to say, well, of course, water is more important than diamond.

575
01:04:53.520 --> 01:04:56.520
or, of course, bread is more important than diamond.

576
01:04:56.520 --> 01:04:57.520
Well, that's not true.

577
01:04:57.520 --> 01:05:00.520
Why do diamonds have a higher value?

578
01:05:00.520 --> 01:05:08.520
Because in relation to human ends, in a normal situation, they are much scarcer than bread or water.

579
01:05:08.520 --> 01:05:21.520
You can always change the example and come up with a situation in which someone would, in fact, trade, let's say, a pint of water for a diamond.

580
01:05:21.520 --> 01:05:31.520
Let's say someone has been in the desert for three days and hasn't had any water, so he's on the point of dying of thirst.

581
01:05:31.520 --> 01:05:42.520
And let's say that this person is Kobe Bryant and he has that eight million dollar purple diamond that he bought for his wife to make up for his infidelity.

582
01:05:42.520 --> 01:05:50.720
Okay, so would he trade that diamond for one pint of water if he comes upon someone who has a pint of water?

583
01:05:50.720 --> 01:05:54.020
After having not had water, consumed water for three days?

584
01:05:54.020 --> 01:05:56.120
Of course he would. Why?

585
01:05:56.120 --> 01:06:05.020
Because now water is scarcer than diamonds in relation to the ends that they serve.

586
01:06:05.020 --> 01:06:09.420
So the reason why, fortunately, water has a lower price and bread has a lower price than diamonds

587
01:06:09.420 --> 01:06:13.520
It's precisely because it's so abundant in relation to our ends, okay?

588
01:06:15.720 --> 01:06:17.420
Now, what about total utility?

589
01:06:18.020 --> 01:06:28.520
If you've had economics courses, total utility is often defined as the integral of all marginal utility, okay?

590
01:06:29.820 --> 01:06:36.520
Or marginal utility is referred to as a derivative of the total utility, okay?

591
01:06:36.520 --> 01:06:48.520
It's in terms that they try to add up or to integrate utility as if it was some substance or some unit, which it's not.

592
01:06:48.520 --> 01:06:59.520
According to the causal realistic way of looking at things, the marginal utility of the entire supply of a good of an individual is a total utility.

593
01:06:59.520 --> 01:07:19.520
So if someone approached Friday, I'm sorry, Crusoe was approached by Friday, the second person on the island, who had a horse and he was asked if he wanted to trade for the five sacks of wheat, then he would compare the utility of the total supply, we would call that total utility.

594
01:07:19.520 --> 01:07:28.520
Marginal utility. If he made the exchange, it implies that he values a horse more than the five sacks of wheat.

595
01:07:28.520 --> 01:07:38.520
Okay, so you might look at something like this to summarize the laws of marginal utility and total utility.

596
01:07:38.520 --> 01:07:48.520
First, at the top, marginal utility, notice that the first unit that the person has has a higher marginal utility than the second, has a higher marginal utility than the third unit, and so on.

597
01:07:48.520 --> 01:08:00.520
Now, notice I have not put any objective unit on the y-axis there, on the vertical axis, because it can't be measured. Utility cannot be measured.

598
01:08:00.520 --> 01:08:09.520
It's simply the relative heights that indicate that the first unit is ranked higher than the second unit, which is ranked higher than the third unit.

599
01:08:09.520 --> 01:08:15.520
In the case of total utility, referring to the supply of wheat,

600
01:08:15.520 --> 01:08:24.420
And this is, let's say, Crusoe's value scale after he's approached by Friday for the horse.

601
01:08:24.420 --> 01:08:45.420
Crusoe may very well not want to make the exchange six sacks of wheat, okay, because he values the total utility of six sacks, or the marginal utility of the six sacks of wheat, which is, let's say, is total, higher than one horse, but he values the horse higher than the five sacks of wheat, which in turn values higher than the four sacks of wheat, okay.

602
01:08:45.420 --> 01:08:54.420
So, total utility basically tells us this, that people value more units of a good of the same good higher than fewer units of the same good.

603
01:08:54.420 --> 01:09:00.420
So, you would rather have four cars than three cars, and three cars than two cars.

604
01:09:00.420 --> 01:09:06.420
So, basically it's just simply saying that with more units of a good you can satisfy more ends.

605
01:09:06.420 --> 01:09:10.420
That's what total utility is telling, the notion of total utility.

606
01:09:10.420 --> 01:09:12.420
It really has no other function.

607
01:09:12.420 --> 01:09:21.420
Whenever choice is made, you're dealing with the marginal utility of the total supply, if you're exchanging all of your wheat for a horse.

608
01:09:21.420 --> 01:09:26.420
Okay, I will end there and then take questions.

609
01:09:26.420 --> 01:09:29.420
Yes?

610
01:09:29.420 --> 01:09:30.420
Yes.

611
01:09:30.420 --> 01:09:43.420
You say that you cannot assign particular values to a place, and I fully agree with you when it comes to luck.

612
01:09:43.420 --> 01:09:45.420
and the other example.

613
01:09:45.420 --> 01:09:52.420
However, we cannot make a significant difference between that sort of giving of a choice.

614
01:09:52.420 --> 01:09:55.420
And one thing depends on the other.

615
01:09:55.420 --> 01:09:58.420
The other example is mainly the ticket price.

616
01:09:58.420 --> 01:10:05.420
We're willing to pay $150 for the park, only $75 for the other thing.

617
01:10:05.420 --> 01:10:35.420
Okay, let me see if I can summarize this for those who are viewing this. Doesn't the fact that

618
01:10:35.420 --> 01:10:46.420
Goods or exchange for money give us some idea of the objective amount of difference in value between different goods.

619
01:10:50.420 --> 01:10:56.420
Well, my answer to that is that, again, we often forget that money is property.

620
01:10:56.420 --> 01:11:00.420
It's a species of property. It's a kind of property that we own.

621
01:11:00.420 --> 01:11:10.420
And that when we have an exchange in a money economy, a sum of units of this property is being exchanged for a sum of units of other property.

622
01:11:10.420 --> 01:11:28.420
So I don't want to repeat myself and sort of sidestep your question, but what I would say is that once again it's really like exchanging four apples for one plum,

623
01:11:28.420 --> 01:11:33.420
Let's say four plums for one apple or eight plums for one orange.

624
01:11:33.420 --> 01:11:39.420
It doesn't mean we like, just because we're willing to exchange twice as many plums for the orange as we are for the apple,

625
01:11:39.420 --> 01:11:45.420
it doesn't mean we somehow value the orange twice as much as the apple.

626
01:11:45.420 --> 01:11:52.420
Because plums themselves are simply goods that have subjective values.

627
01:11:52.420 --> 01:12:03.420
What we can say is what has actually happened, that we're willing to pay twice as many plums for an orange as we are for an apple.

628
01:12:03.420 --> 01:12:11.420
And the same thing is true with ticket prices, for example, willing to pay $150 for a McCartney ticket, but only $75 for a Rod Stewart ticket.

629
01:12:11.420 --> 01:12:20.420
Let me put it in another way, that money obeys the law of marginal utility like any other form of good.

630
01:12:20.420 --> 01:12:24.420
And in fact, money itself is subjectively valued.

631
01:12:24.420 --> 01:12:31.420
The reason why we value money is because we know that we can exchange it for other things.

632
01:12:31.420 --> 01:12:38.420
So, also we know that there's uncertainty in the future and we may not know exactly when we're going to be getting our money in common.

633
01:12:38.420 --> 01:12:44.420
We might not know exactly when, for example, we're going to make expenditures on various things.

634
01:12:44.420 --> 01:12:56.420
So we will always hold some money in our cash reserves, in our cash balances, as a result of a decision between spending the money on other goods now and holding it for the future.

635
01:12:56.420 --> 01:13:09.420
So what I'm trying to say is that money is also, or our holding of money and our getting of money, is also the result of these ordinal decisions that we make according to marginal utility.

636
01:13:09.420 --> 01:13:13.420
I don't know if I'm completely satisfied. Money is just like anything else.

637
01:13:13.420 --> 01:13:20.420
Because we can count it in units, because it's more finely divisible, let's say, does not mean that it becomes a measuring rod.

638
01:13:20.420 --> 01:13:25.540
because ultimately between you and me let's say there's different we put place

639
01:13:25.540 --> 01:13:30.980
different values on money vis-a-vis other goods okay okay I think we had

640
01:13:30.980 --> 01:13:50.980
How do you look at money? Do you value $150 twice as much as you value $75, which is probably not just like, if you had two loads of bread, you wouldn't value that necessarily twice as much as one load of bread because you don't need the money.

641
01:14:00.980 --> 01:14:06.260
The second end, the end fulfilled by the second unit, has a lower value.

642
01:14:06.260 --> 01:14:09.940
And the point you make about money is absolutely correct.

643
01:14:09.940 --> 01:14:14.620
You value the first $75 more highly than the second $75.

644
01:14:14.620 --> 01:14:22.420
So you cannot add them up and say, well, now $150 is twice as valuable as $75.

645
01:14:22.420 --> 01:14:26.340
There's no way to say that. It's not because of the law of marginal utility.

646
01:14:26.340 --> 01:14:29.460
So that's a very instructive point.

647
01:14:29.460 --> 01:14:30.460
Yes.

648
01:14:30.460 --> 01:14:36.460
You made a point to say that production is not the creation of goods and services, rather

649
01:14:36.460 --> 01:14:41.460
the combination of labor and nature to transform elements of the goods and services?

650
01:14:41.460 --> 01:14:42.460
Correct.

651
01:14:42.460 --> 01:14:47.460
And I was trying to get my head around that and just kind of think, well, what is the

652
01:14:47.460 --> 01:14:51.460
political significance of this distinction?

653
01:14:51.460 --> 01:15:06.960
Do you recognize the idea of political economy as a valuable term, or is the Austrian School doing political economy,

654
01:15:06.960 --> 01:15:14.960
and is there a political implication to this distinction between the creation of goods and services and the transformation of elements into this culture?

655
01:15:21.460 --> 01:15:31.460
Combination and transformation of resources into final goods and services versus the creation of goods and services.

656
01:15:31.460 --> 01:15:36.460
And what are the implications for political economy?

657
01:15:36.460 --> 01:15:44.460
I don't really see any direct implications, though I do see a certain implication, and that is the following.

658
01:15:44.460 --> 01:15:52.960
is the following, that since transformation and combination take time, and creation doesn't give you that feeling of time,

659
01:15:52.960 --> 01:16:00.960
it implies that some people are going to have to save and invest for this transformation to take place.

660
01:16:00.960 --> 01:16:06.460
Those people, as we'll see in a later lecture, are the capitalists.

661
01:16:06.460 --> 01:16:12.460
So, in other words, once you talk about production as combination and transformation,

662
01:16:12.460 --> 01:16:24.460
Then you're bringing in a function for the entrepreneur who's the one who combines these elements of the environment as well as intermediate goods,

663
01:16:24.460 --> 01:16:37.460
and the capitalist or the capitalist aspect of the entrepreneur who is the one who waits for his income during the period in which the transformation of these elements are taking place, that is, during the production process.

664
01:16:37.460 --> 01:16:44.460
So actually, yes, you're right, it's actually a penetrating question. There are implications for political economy.

665
01:16:47.460 --> 01:16:49.460
I think you had your hand up.

666
01:16:49.460 --> 01:17:17.460
back to the first question. I believe you said you would be willing to pay $175 for the first ticket, and maybe if you would have been able to go three years up for much less, then you would have had those $2 amounts, and if you compare those, you'd have an entirely different number.

667
01:17:17.460 --> 01:17:35.460
So, the point being made is that in the example of tickets paying $150 for McCartney and $175 for Rod Stewart, the dollar amounts could be compared in ratios, is that what you're saying?

668
01:17:35.460 --> 01:17:47.460
Yes, but you said you'd be willing to pay more, and the ratio would change. In your mind, you were willing to pay more.

669
01:18:05.460 --> 01:18:07.060
is called consumer surplus.

670
01:18:07.060 --> 01:18:15.860
Now, that has a quantitative connotation in the mainstream economics.

671
01:18:15.860 --> 01:18:19.140
The wrong branch of economics.

672
01:18:19.140 --> 01:18:23.860
But in Austrian economics, it's a useful term, consumer surplus.

673
01:18:23.860 --> 01:18:29.700
But it simply means that you have simply a sum of money.

674
01:18:29.700 --> 01:18:34.580
That is, with no connotation of measuring the value.

675
01:18:34.580 --> 01:18:44.580
It simply allows us to specify a maximum selling price, a maximum buying price that someone has in mind versus a price that's actually paid.

676
01:18:44.580 --> 01:18:52.580
So what competition does, by the way, is to drive down prices, competition among different brands and so on.

677
01:18:52.580 --> 01:19:01.580
It drives down prices so that we don't have to pay our maximum buying prices for any given good.

678
01:19:01.580 --> 01:19:10.580
Any other questions? Comments? Objections? Expletives? Yes.

679
01:19:10.580 --> 01:19:20.580
The concept of marginal value, the value at the margin, that is, in mathematics, it's a concept.

680
01:19:20.580 --> 01:19:31.580
If you also try to get the mathematical terms of the economic section of the book starting, I guess, in theory,

681
01:19:31.580 --> 01:20:00.580
Okay, the question is, why not, since I use the word marginal, and it was introduced by Menger, actually by his follower, Wieser, who actually used the term marginal,

682
01:20:00.580 --> 01:20:20.580
And since it does have, in one of its definitions, one of its uses, a mathematical connotation, or it is a mathematical concept, why not accept that and affirm the legitimacy of using mathematical economics to discover economic laws?

683
01:20:20.580 --> 01:20:35.580
Well, the causal-realist approach uses the term marginal in a very different sense, but still it's a common sense use of the word, and that is relevant, the relevant unit.

684
01:20:35.580 --> 01:20:49.580
There is no implication of arithmetic operations when we talk about the relevant unit, so it's used in that sense, in that non-mathematical sense.

685
01:20:49.580 --> 01:20:54.380
Okay, the mathematical sense is a specialized use of the word marginal.

686
01:20:54.380 --> 01:20:59.180
So I think if you looked it up in the dictionary, and this is a question really of semantics, it really is.

687
01:20:59.180 --> 01:21:03.280
If you looked it up in the dictionary, you would see both senses there.

688
01:21:03.280 --> 01:21:12.780
And we were emphasizing the non-mathematical qualitative sense of the relevant unit, the unit under consideration by the actor.

689
01:21:12.780 --> 01:21:17.680
And because economics is about action, and action itself isn't quantifiable,

690
01:21:17.680 --> 01:21:25.200
Okay, or at least the value that's used in evaluating goods in action, that's not quantifiable, we're using it in the non-mathematical sense.

691
01:21:27.600 --> 01:21:28.600
Any other questions?

692
01:21:30.080 --> 01:21:30.880
Okay, thank you.