WEBVTT

NOTE Scarcity, Choice, and Value

1
00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:05.000
I want to start by way of introduction

2
00:00:05.000 --> 00:00:11.500
to say a few words about why the title. Why Introduction to Austrian Economic Analysis?

3
00:00:11.500 --> 00:00:13.360
Well,

4
00:00:13.360 --> 00:00:15.360
first of all, let's focus on the word Austrian.

5
00:00:15.360 --> 00:00:21.060
The title could have simply been Introduction to Economic Analysis, okay, if economics had not really

6
00:00:21.060 --> 00:00:22.440
jumped the tracks

7
00:00:22.440 --> 00:00:25.920
in the interwar period, that is in the 1920s and 1930s.

8
00:00:25.920 --> 00:00:28.080
It really veered off the track.

9
00:00:28.080 --> 00:00:48.080
From 1870, the so-called Marginal Revolution, until 1914, economics was flourishing, not just Austrian economists, but also American, British, Dutch, Italian, French economists, all were contributing to this growing body of doctrine and theory.

10
00:00:48.080 --> 00:00:54.760
names such as Federer, Wickstede, Clark, Davenport. These were all economists who

11
00:00:54.760 --> 00:01:00.360
contributed substantial treatises to the science right before World War I. But in

12
00:01:00.360 --> 00:01:06.880
1930s as I mentioned, in the 20s but especially the 30s, we started to get a

13
00:01:06.880 --> 00:01:12.500
moving away from what we might call sound economics. Marshall and Knight

14
00:01:12.500 --> 00:01:18.580
developed the theory of perfect competition in the 1930s we began to

15
00:01:18.580 --> 00:01:23.420
get a reaction against that which was a wrong-headed reaction in the marginal

16
00:01:23.420 --> 00:01:29.380
monopolistic competition revolution then shortly thereafter we got the Keynesian

17
00:01:29.380 --> 00:01:36.260
Revolution mathematical economics which had been a sort of a cultish fringe

18
00:01:36.260 --> 00:01:43.260
The exchange movement up until the 1930s came into its own during that decade.

19
00:01:43.260 --> 00:01:50.260
So to make a long story short, by the 1950s, economics was on the wrong track.

20
00:01:50.260 --> 00:02:02.260
So had it not been for this tragic interlude between the wars, today universities would be teaching this course.

21
00:02:02.260 --> 00:02:07.860
So this course really should be introduction to economic analysis.

22
00:02:07.860 --> 00:02:17.220
The adjective Austrian is used to differentiate it from what developed after the 1920s and

23
00:02:17.220 --> 00:02:18.220
30s.

24
00:02:18.220 --> 00:02:24.700
Hopefully in the future as more and more economists embrace this long tradition, this tradition

25
00:02:24.700 --> 00:02:30.540
that extends back to 1870, we can drop the adjective Austrian.

26
00:02:30.540 --> 00:02:34.460
and just talk about economic analysis.

27
00:02:34.460 --> 00:02:39.080
The second point I want to make by way of introduction has to do with the term economic

28
00:02:39.080 --> 00:02:40.080
analysis.

29
00:02:40.080 --> 00:02:47.740
Now many of you have had economics courses in college and there's a certain way that

30
00:02:47.740 --> 00:02:51.380
economics is characterized.

31
00:02:51.380 --> 00:02:55.380
Sometimes this became fashionable in the 1930s but it's even used today.

32
00:02:55.380 --> 00:03:11.380
This has been called the box of tools or toolbox. It provides us the means to answer questions or solve problems. These tools are supply and demand theory, theory of the firm, so on and so forth.

33
00:03:11.380 --> 00:03:23.380
And the way this is looked at, the mindset that you get from calling economics a tool set is that well, some tools eventually outlive their usefulness, they become obsolete and they're discarded.

34
00:03:23.380 --> 00:03:38.380
But at the same time, new tools are always being developed, and there's really no obvious relationship between these tools, except that they all give, quote, satisfying, unquote, answers to certain problems.

35
00:03:38.380 --> 00:03:51.380
More recently, the characterization of economics has taken a turn towards calling it a way of thinking, a way of thinking about the world.

36
00:03:51.380 --> 00:03:58.380
And in the textbook I know I use at my university, the second chapter is on how economists think.

37
00:03:58.380 --> 00:04:07.380
They think in terms of benefits and costs, or supply and demand, or the structure of incentives that people face.

38
00:04:07.380 --> 00:04:20.380
To put it more generally, they think in terms of simple models that are based on sometimes very simplistic

39
00:04:20.380 --> 00:04:31.740
or even false assumptions. But once again this economic way of thinking as it's

40
00:04:31.740 --> 00:04:38.380
often called gives satisfying answers. Finally, my all-time least favorite

41
00:04:38.380 --> 00:04:43.420
characterization of economics is that it's a set of open questions. Okay, open

42
00:04:43.420 --> 00:04:49.140
questions that economists argue endlessly about and that occasionally and from

43
00:04:49.140 --> 00:05:00.020
Some of which occasionally emerge some insights into the world around us.

44
00:05:00.020 --> 00:05:04.580
Some of these questions include what is the role of knowledge in the economy?

45
00:05:04.580 --> 00:05:11.940
Is entrepreneurial activity, the activity of entrepreneurs, is it always equilibrating

46
00:05:11.940 --> 00:05:16.980
or can it be disequilibrating?

47
00:05:16.980 --> 00:05:30.980
Do people always act rationally in their own interests or, due to certain behavioral quirks and propensities, do they depart in their actions from what are their true interests?

48
00:05:30.980 --> 00:05:32.980
That's a more recent question.

49
00:05:32.980 --> 00:05:44.980
Are expectations exogenous, that is, created outside the economic process or the market process, or is it endogenous, that is, created from within the market process?

50
00:05:44.980 --> 00:05:54.980
These are all questions, open questions that never seem to find a solution, but which supposedly constitute the main body of economics.

51
00:05:54.980 --> 00:06:04.980
Nowhere, nowhere in any of these characterizations is the word truth used, or knowledge.

52
00:06:04.980 --> 00:06:17.980
Do practitioners of physics, chemistry, biology, geology, do they regard their sciences in these ways as a way of thinking or a toolbox?

53
00:06:17.980 --> 00:06:26.980
Of course not, and neither does a lay person when he looks upon the results of the natural sciences.

54
00:06:26.980 --> 00:06:32.980
They regard it as a substantive body of truths about the real world.

55
00:06:32.980 --> 00:06:41.980
Of course, it's always being refined, it's always being improved, but chemistry is a body of truth about certain aspects of the real world.

56
00:06:41.980 --> 00:06:49.980
Well, economics, or the characterization of economics that I prefer, is also science,

57
00:06:49.980 --> 00:07:01.980
and therefore it's a substantive body of universal truths about cause and effect relationships in the real world in which you and I and everyone else acts.

58
00:07:01.980 --> 00:07:30.980
We call these truths laws or principles. What about economic analysis? Economic analysis involves a systematic application of these laws or truths or principles to the explanation of the causes or consequences of certain concrete conditions that we observe in the real world or that we observe in history.

59
00:07:30.980 --> 00:07:35.140
We observe in history, including the recent past.

60
00:07:35.140 --> 00:07:47.020
Let me give you some examples I've collected about on which economics can shed light.

61
00:07:47.020 --> 00:07:58.740
One example is that in 1995, there were 2400 people on a waiting list for heart transplants,

62
00:07:58.740 --> 00:08:02.820
731 of whom died while they were waiting.

63
00:08:02.820 --> 00:08:08.740
In the same year there were 10,000 kidney transplants were performed.

64
00:08:08.740 --> 00:08:11.900
30,000 people were waiting that year.

65
00:08:11.900 --> 00:08:15.940
1,375 died waiting.

66
00:08:15.940 --> 00:08:20.300
Well, this is an issue which we can analyze.

67
00:08:20.300 --> 00:08:25.740
That is, use the truths of economics to explain.

68
00:08:25.740 --> 00:08:29.640
we would apply in this case what we call the theory of price controls

69
00:08:29.640 --> 00:08:33.080
which we'll talk about

70
00:08:33.080 --> 00:08:36.120
another example

71
00:08:36.120 --> 00:08:38.700
a few years back

72
00:08:38.700 --> 00:08:42.240
in uh... nineteen ninety six

73
00:08:42.240 --> 00:08:45.300
a baseball card featuring Honus Wagner, a famous

74
00:08:45.300 --> 00:08:47.020
baseball player

75
00:08:47.020 --> 00:08:48.860
from the turn of the century

76
00:08:48.860 --> 00:08:54.460
sold for six hundred forty thousand dollars

77
00:08:54.460 --> 00:08:57.460
It's one of the two that are in mint condition.

78
00:08:57.460 --> 00:09:06.460
So, what explains that? It certainly didn't cost $640,000 to produce.

79
00:09:06.460 --> 00:09:08.460
Well, economics will explain that.

80
00:09:08.460 --> 00:09:14.460
Economics, using general truths about the implications of acting,

81
00:09:14.460 --> 00:09:19.460
derives something called the theory of supply and demand, which can explain that high price.

82
00:09:19.460 --> 00:09:30.460
Another example along the same lines is that the John Lennon's handwritten lyrics, I Am the Walrus, sold a few years ago for $129,000.

83
00:09:32.460 --> 00:09:48.460
Another quite interesting example is that in 2000, a huge sub was discovered in the Andes Mountains, hundreds of miles from the ocean in Colombia.

84
00:09:49.460 --> 00:09:55.460
Why would someone build a sub in the Andes Mountains?

85
00:09:55.460 --> 00:10:05.460
Why would they enlist the support of Russian criminals and also Russian scientists to build this, illegally?

86
00:10:05.460 --> 00:10:12.460
By the way, it was built 7,500 feet up in the mountains and 210 miles from any port.

87
00:10:12.460 --> 00:10:16.460
Well, of course, this all has to do with the war against drugs.

88
00:10:16.460 --> 00:10:40.460
Because both the U.S. and Colombian government had cracked down on transporting drugs to the U.S. in various other ways, the response of the drug smugglers was to build this huge sub which could carry 200 pounds of cocaine into Miami.

89
00:10:40.460 --> 00:10:50.460
In fact, one of the Colombian admirals, one of the Colombian admirals, said it was one of the most sophisticated subs he had seen.

90
00:10:50.460 --> 00:11:02.460
Now, that can be explained by the theory of consumer sovereignty, or what we might call the theory of long-run supply.

91
00:11:02.460 --> 00:11:21.460
This is what economic analysis can do for us. It can give us true explanations of seemingly insoluble problems or seemingly mysterious problems.

92
00:11:21.460 --> 00:11:29.460
The other day I read an article in the Opel Ica Auburn newspaper written by a pastor.

93
00:11:29.460 --> 00:11:35.460
And it's entitled, God Keeps Record of How We Treat the Poor, okay?

94
00:11:35.460 --> 00:11:44.460
And he goes through, in the beginning of the article, the fact that Americans are in $200 trillion in personal debt

95
00:11:44.460 --> 00:11:54.460
and that they are paying 18.9% on their credit cards, so on and so forth.

96
00:11:54.460 --> 00:12:05.460
and he urges that the churches counsel Americans, counsel their members or people in their congregation how to live responsibly and stay out of debt

97
00:12:05.460 --> 00:12:12.460
but then he goes on and he talks about a relatively recent phenomenon called payday lending

98
00:12:12.460 --> 00:12:22.460
in which someone gets an advance from a payday loan company by going and showing how much they earn

99
00:12:22.460 --> 00:12:46.460
and then giving the company a post-dated check. So, for example, if you want to borrow $150 for two weeks, you would write a check for $150 plus $22 more, okay, and then post-date it for two weeks, at which point you get paid and then they will cash the check, okay, so in effect it's a loan to you.

100
00:12:46.460 --> 00:12:50.460
Now, why does a loan have to be made such a securitist way?

101
00:12:50.460 --> 00:12:58.460
As we'll see the law of price controls will explain why this whole phenomenon exists.

102
00:12:58.460 --> 00:13:14.460
Well, the minister goes on to condemn this because he figures that $22.25, that you must pay for $150 alone for two weeks, comes out to 450% interest.

103
00:13:14.460 --> 00:13:24.460
But as we'll see when we talk about the theory of time preference, it's easily explicable why people are willing to pay this and why in fact the interest rate is really irrelevant.

104
00:13:24.460 --> 00:13:33.460
Why in fact people just simply prefer or compare $150 today to $177 two weeks from now.

105
00:13:33.460 --> 00:13:56.460
So these are the types of, and by the way, before this innovative way of extending loans to people with very, very poor credit, before it began, people would go to mobsters very voluntarily and were willing to pay 200% per week on an annualized basis for their loans.

106
00:13:56.460 --> 00:14:01.460
So payday lending, to some extent, has displaced so-called loan sharks.

107
00:14:01.460 --> 00:14:04.460
We'll explain why that also occurred.

108
00:14:04.460 --> 00:14:13.460
And I could go on and on with the types of problems that economic analysis only allows us to deal with.

109
00:14:13.460 --> 00:14:22.460
But my point is that the explanations that we give are based on true laws, on a body of integrated knowledge

110
00:14:22.460 --> 00:14:29.460
that has been built up over the years, over the centuries, I should say.

111
00:14:29.460 --> 00:14:39.460
And that these are laws of reality, they are not a toolbox, they are not open questions that people debate ad nauseam about.

112
00:14:39.460 --> 00:14:49.460
It's not merely a way of thinking about the world, which may or may not give you satisfying answers or most of the time gives you satisfying answers.

113
00:14:49.460 --> 00:14:55.460
It's a way of arriving at true explanations of concrete conditions that we observe in the real world.

114
00:14:55.460 --> 00:14:59.460
So that's why introduction to Austrian Economic Analysis.

115
00:14:59.460 --> 00:15:04.460
I wore a jacket because I wanted to give you my final example.

116
00:15:04.460 --> 00:15:11.460
Yesterday I went to Belk Department Store in a mall here in Auburn,

117
00:15:11.460 --> 00:15:17.460
and I was looking to get some socks and underwear and things that I didn't bring down here for my stay,

118
00:15:17.460 --> 00:15:40.460
I went in and this jacket happened to catch my eye. It's a summer weight jacket. I looked at the price. I wasn't intending to buy a jacket. It was $195, the list price.

119
00:15:40.460 --> 00:15:50.460
And so I began to walk away, then I saw that it had been marked down to $99.95.

120
00:15:50.460 --> 00:15:55.460
And that was still not what I really wanted to spend.

121
00:15:55.460 --> 00:15:59.460
So there was a saleswoman near me and she said, that's really a good deal.

122
00:15:59.460 --> 00:16:02.460
And I said, yeah, it looks like a good deal.

123
00:16:02.460 --> 00:16:06.460
And she says, let me scan it in because there might actually be more off on it.

124
00:16:06.460 --> 00:16:09.460
So it turns out it scanned in for $69.

125
00:16:09.460 --> 00:16:19.460
So now I was interested, and then I had a 10% coupon in my pocket, and so that made it even less, so I got this jacket for over $60.

126
00:16:19.460 --> 00:16:25.460
There has to be a little bit of work done on it, it's a little bit long on the sleeves and so on, but that's the law of demand, right?

127
00:16:25.460 --> 00:16:30.460
It radically changes people's behavior, and we'll talk about that.

128
00:16:30.460 --> 00:16:35.460
When computers were $3 million for a mainframe computer in the 1970s,

129
00:16:35.460 --> 00:16:40.460
No individual ever thought that they would have a computer in their house.

130
00:16:40.460 --> 00:16:47.460
Well, computers today that are $500 and are faster and have more memory than that mainframe,

131
00:16:47.460 --> 00:16:51.460
people have two, three and four of those. Why? Because of the law of demand.

132
00:16:51.460 --> 00:17:04.460
These are all true laws, laws of reality, existential laws that allow us to explain what Mises sometimes called the concatenation of certain phenomena.

133
00:17:04.460 --> 00:17:14.460
Each historical event is a complex resultant of various causes. Economics allows us to isolate those causes.

134
00:17:14.460 --> 00:17:26.460
So now I can take this jacket off. It's hot up here. If anybody wants it for $80 or $90, I'm willing to sell it.

135
00:17:26.460 --> 00:17:42.460
Okay, economics, now let's talk about what economics is. I want to get into scarcity, choice and value. Three very, very primordial concepts of economic analysis.

136
00:17:42.460 --> 00:17:48.460
Okay, economics starts from a fact that no one would dispute.

137
00:17:48.460 --> 00:17:52.460
And that is that people are continually striving to achieve goals.

138
00:17:52.460 --> 00:18:00.460
As long as they're conscious, they're always in the midst of using certain means to achieve certain ends or goals that they value.

139
00:18:00.460 --> 00:18:03.460
Another way of putting this is that people are constantly seeking to improve their conditions.

140
00:18:03.460 --> 00:18:08.460
Something else that really can't be argued.

141
00:18:08.460 --> 00:18:12.460
Or another way of putting it is that they're struggling to satisfy their wants.

142
00:18:12.460 --> 00:18:16.460
Von Mises used the word felt uneasiness.

143
00:18:16.460 --> 00:18:20.460
Everyone is always attempting to remove their felt uneasiness.

144
00:18:20.460 --> 00:18:24.460
I don't use that. I think it's a little bit awkward.

145
00:18:24.460 --> 00:18:28.460
But it shows that human beings are imperfect.

146
00:18:28.460 --> 00:18:32.460
That all action stems from the imperfection of human beings.

147
00:18:32.460 --> 00:18:36.460
The fact that they're dissatisfied with their present conditions or with conditions as they believe

148
00:18:36.460 --> 00:18:50.460
A perfect being wants nothing because want implies lack and lack implies imperfection.

149
00:18:50.460 --> 00:19:04.460
So when we say that people act to improve their conditions, we mean simply that they use concrete means and technical ideas that they have about how to combine those means to achieve ends.

150
00:19:04.460 --> 00:19:07.460
Goals that they value more or less highly.

151
00:19:07.460 --> 00:19:09.460
Now there's three prerequisites of action.

152
00:19:09.460 --> 00:19:16.460
First, someone has to be dissatisfied with their present condition, which all human beings are.

153
00:19:16.460 --> 00:19:26.460
Secondly, the individual involved has to have the ability to conceive of a better state of affairs, a more satisfactory state of affairs.

154
00:19:26.460 --> 00:19:33.460
And thirdly, they must have ideas about how to achieve the more desired state.

155
00:19:33.460 --> 00:19:43.460
Let's say I have tickets for an Atlanta Braves New York Mets game and I hear it's going to rain that day.

156
00:19:43.460 --> 00:19:46.460
Well, I can conceive a better situation.

157
00:19:46.460 --> 00:19:49.460
The better situation is that we have a sunny day.

158
00:19:49.460 --> 00:19:57.460
It's not too humid, but yet I have no idea about how to achieve that goal.

159
00:19:57.460 --> 00:20:03.460
I don't have any technical recipe that allows me to turn a rainy day into a sunny day, so I don't act.

160
00:20:03.460 --> 00:20:16.460
The third ingredient is missing. Also, I'm a very big Beatles fan, and there's a group now, including one individual who plays on the David Letterman show,

161
00:20:16.460 --> 00:20:20.460
in the band of the David Letterman show, another individual who plays in the band on the Conan O'Brien show.

162
00:20:20.460 --> 00:20:30.460
They're extremely good. They reproduce Beatles music perfectly on stage, even songs that the Beatles never performed because they stopped touring after 1966.

163
00:20:30.460 --> 00:20:41.460
In any case, having seen them, I think, six times in the last two years, they don't tour very much because of their jobs that they have in New York. They all have regular jobs.

164
00:20:41.460 --> 00:20:46.460
In any case, that's really whetted my appetite for a Beatles reunion concert.

165
00:20:46.460 --> 00:20:52.460
I would love to see the Beatles in concert. However, I don't have any technology for resurrecting John and George.

166
00:20:52.460 --> 00:20:57.460
They both died and there's no way to... so I don't act in that situation.

167
00:20:57.460 --> 00:21:00.460
Well, you get the idea.

168
00:21:00.460 --> 00:21:10.460
So let's move from action now to scarcity. What action implies, in fact, is that all human wants are not satisfied.

169
00:21:10.460 --> 00:21:16.460
which in turn means that there are not enough means to satisfy all human wants.

170
00:21:16.460 --> 00:21:26.460
Most of the things that we desire, that we feel will improve our conditions, are scarce.

171
00:21:26.460 --> 00:21:38.460
So hamburgers, compact discs, concert tickets, houses, candy bars, automobiles and so on, all are scarce.

172
00:21:38.460 --> 00:21:48.460
By scarcity, we simply mean that there is not enough of the thing to satisfy all human wants for that thing.

173
00:21:48.460 --> 00:21:55.460
A good sign of scarcity is that the thing has a price. There is no price for air in a normal situation.

174
00:21:55.460 --> 00:22:01.460
Therefore, air is not scarce and it is not a good. That is, it's not something that we strive after.

175
00:22:01.460 --> 00:22:05.460
It's not a means that we want to obtain in order to achieve our ends.

176
00:22:05.460 --> 00:22:13.460
Despite how beneficial it is to human beings, that is, we can't live more than five minutes or whatever without it, it is not a good.

177
00:22:13.460 --> 00:22:20.460
Goods imply desirability and limitation. Air is certainly desirable, but it's not limited in a normal situation.

178
00:22:20.460 --> 00:22:27.460
People certainly are willing to pay for tanks of air when they go scuba diving.

179
00:22:27.460 --> 00:22:39.460
In that situation, air is a good that is scarce. Also, for people who have respiratory problems, it becomes a good. So tanks of air do have a price.

180
00:22:39.460 --> 00:22:49.460
Something that's very, very, very rare, the tuberculosis bacterium, is not a good because it's not desirable.

181
00:22:49.460 --> 00:23:17.460
So, we might call tuberculosis an ill or a bad, and on the other hand we would call air, sometimes called a free good, but that's sort of an oxymoron, given how I define goods as scarce means, and Mises called it a general condition of human welfare, that is, we don't have to consciously strive to obtain enough air to satisfy our wants, there's enough around in a normal situation.

182
00:23:17.460 --> 00:23:31.460
So it's not really a good. I mean you could call it sort of, you know, in a non-technical way you can call it a free good because it is good for us, but I think technically from an economic point of view it's just a general condition of human welfare.

183
00:23:31.460 --> 00:23:50.460
So how do we define goods? Goods are concrete means, real elements of our real world environment that directly or indirectly satisfy our wants or serve our achievement of human, of our ends.

184
00:23:50.460 --> 00:24:06.460
And we can classify goods into two broad categories. One is consumer goods. Consumer goods are things that very simply directly serve our ends, hamburgers, economic lectures, iPods, and so on.

185
00:24:06.460 --> 00:24:28.460
The other category of goods is producers goods. They indirectly serve means. No one gets any satisfaction out of a ton of steel or out of a barrel of oil or out of a can of paint or out of gasoline that is at the pump.

186
00:24:28.460 --> 00:24:38.160
All of these things require further development before they can be transformed into consumer goods, which then directly satisfy our wants.

187
00:24:38.160 --> 00:24:43.160
However, all of these things are valuable because they indirectly serve our wants.

188
00:24:43.160 --> 00:24:50.360
That is, when you combine them with other producer goods, they can be transformed into final consumer goods.

189
00:24:50.360 --> 00:24:55.060
So what are some of the subcategories of producer goods?

190
00:24:55.060 --> 00:25:25.060
First, we have the original factors of production, which are nature-given means, that is, labor, we use the term labor, that came into economics in the 19th century, and actually before then, but to mean simply human energy, any energy expended in the process of production, it could be the energy of someone digging a ditch, or it could be the energy of a brain surgeon, mental energy that's expended by a brain surgeon.

191
00:25:25.060 --> 00:25:54.060
So, all of that is classified as labor. Land, again, came into use in agricultural society centuries ago when economics was developing, but land now refers to all natural resources, forests, fisheries, wild game, mineral deposits, anything that has not yet been transformed by human energy, that is nature-given.

192
00:25:54.060 --> 00:25:56.960
All natural resources are considered as land.

193
00:25:56.960 --> 00:26:00.380
Then we have the intermediate factors of production,

194
00:26:00.380 --> 00:26:01.820
all capital goods.

195
00:26:01.820 --> 00:26:05.540
Okay, in fact that's another term for intermediate factors of production, capital goods.

196
00:26:05.540 --> 00:26:07.820
That includes machines, tools,

197
00:26:07.820 --> 00:26:11.700
means of transportation of various types, raw materials, half-finished

198
00:26:11.700 --> 00:26:13.700
products, even farmland

199
00:26:13.700 --> 00:26:17.820
that has been fertilized and made ready for

200
00:26:17.820 --> 00:26:18.680
cultivation.

201
00:26:18.680 --> 00:26:22.420
Okay, that's a capital good because it's not nature-given.

202
00:26:22.420 --> 00:26:23.700
Finally we have

203
00:26:23.700 --> 00:26:33.260
The recipes, the recipes for combining producers' goods and getting the consumer goods, those recipes are called technology.

204
00:26:33.260 --> 00:26:40.300
And basically, technology is simply ideas about combining and transforming means to satisfy our ends.

205
00:26:40.300 --> 00:26:45.260
Now, something that's very interesting about technology, technology, once it has been discovered,

206
00:26:45.260 --> 00:26:48.780
once it has been discovered how to bake an apple pie or how to start a fire,

207
00:26:48.780 --> 00:27:01.780
Once the first, once a primitive individual discovered how to rub two sticks together and start a fire, that technology no longer became scarce, was no longer scarce, okay?

208
00:27:01.780 --> 00:27:10.780
It could be used simultaneously to serve all the human wants for the recipe for fire, the same thing for apple pies and so on.

209
00:27:10.780 --> 00:27:15.780
So technology once discovered is a free good, if you want to call it that, or a general condition of human welfare.

210
00:27:15.780 --> 00:27:29.780
But before it's discovered, it requires a tremendous amount of resources, research and development, so new technology is a good in the technical economic sense.

211
00:27:29.780 --> 00:27:43.780
Now, one other point I want to make. To undertake any action, time is required. All action begins in the present and is always aimed at improving conditions at some point in the future.

212
00:27:43.780 --> 00:27:48.780
If you're making yourself a glass of lemonade, that point in the future could be three minutes from now.

213
00:27:48.780 --> 00:27:56.780
If you're planning to bring a new car model to market, if you're an American firm that used to take five to seven years,

214
00:27:56.780 --> 00:28:05.780
a Japanese firm did it in three or four years, but yet again, time is required.

215
00:28:05.780 --> 00:28:17.780
So time is scarce. Time itself is a scarce means, both as consumers and producers.

216
00:28:17.780 --> 00:28:27.780
Well, as a result, people have a desire to achieve their ends as soon as possible because time is scarce.

217
00:28:27.780 --> 00:28:34.780
They'd rather, they prefer to have a goal, all other things equal, achieved sooner than later.

218
00:28:34.780 --> 00:28:38.780
We call this in economics time preference.

219
00:28:38.780 --> 00:28:42.780
Just some examples of this. In a world where there's no time preference,

220
00:28:42.780 --> 00:28:46.780
where people didn't prefer a satisfaction in the present to the same satisfaction

221
00:28:46.780 --> 00:28:50.780
at some point in the future, you would have certain

222
00:28:50.780 --> 00:28:54.780
things occurring which would be absurd. For example,

223
00:28:54.780 --> 00:28:58.780
if you have a frozen dinner tonight that can be stored for years,

224
00:28:58.780 --> 00:29:02.780
let's say, and you went home and you were hungry,

225
00:29:02.780 --> 00:29:11.780
You wouldn't eat that frozen dinner. You would postpone the satisfaction to some point in the future because satisfaction in the future is valued more.

226
00:29:11.780 --> 00:29:17.780
That is, if there's no time preference, you would never consume any durable good. You keep saving it for the future.

227
00:29:17.780 --> 00:29:27.780
But then when tomorrow came, you would never use it to assuage your hunger because, well, it has an even higher value later or in the remote future.

228
00:29:27.780 --> 00:29:42.780
The example I give my undergraduates is something that they understand. Let's say a guy wants to ask a girl for a date. So he approaches her and he says,

229
00:29:42.780 --> 00:29:50.780
What are you doing next week? I'd like to take you out. And she says, Well, I'm busy next week. And he says, What about two weeks from now? We can go out to dinner.

230
00:29:50.780 --> 00:29:57.380
and she gives him the same response, so I'm pretty sure I'm going to be visiting my mother that week, I won't be around

231
00:29:57.380 --> 00:30:03.460
and you know, so she puts him off and he says, well when can I see you? And she says, well call me in five years

232
00:30:03.460 --> 00:30:05.940
now in a world where there's time preference

233
00:30:05.940 --> 00:30:09.500
where sooner is better, we would take that as a brush off

234
00:30:09.500 --> 00:30:15.820
and rightly so, but in a world where there's no time preference, a guy would take out his book, write it down, say yeah I prefer it in five years to now

235
00:30:15.820 --> 00:30:17.300
okay, all other things equal

236
00:30:17.300 --> 00:30:25.700
Okay, well you get the idea. We're going to talk more about time preference when we talk about capital and structure production.

237
00:30:25.700 --> 00:30:34.660
One other point to be made, and that is, any time you do anything, you are approaching your goal. You're pulling your goal closer in time.

238
00:30:34.660 --> 00:30:40.900
Even if it's a goal to become a surgeon and you're just starting out in pre-med,

239
00:30:40.900 --> 00:30:52.900
As you go through and take the steps necessary to become a qualified surgeon, certified surgeon, a licensed surgeon, you are pulling the goals closer in time.

240
00:30:52.900 --> 00:31:01.900
So that's why, for example, von Mises says that all action implies time preference. Absolutely.

241
00:31:01.900 --> 00:31:09.900
because not acting means that you're allowing the goal to recede into a further future

242
00:31:09.900 --> 00:31:12.900
at which point it would be more valuable

243
00:31:12.900 --> 00:31:15.900
but because no one acts that way because everyone uses means now

244
00:31:15.900 --> 00:31:19.900
it means that they're pulling some goal closer to them

245
00:31:19.900 --> 00:31:21.900
and that expresses time preference

246
00:31:21.900 --> 00:31:23.900
okay let's talk about production

247
00:31:23.900 --> 00:31:30.900
very few goods, very few things that we call consumer goods are given by nature

248
00:31:30.900 --> 00:31:47.900
So people must produce, that is use producer goods, use elements of their environment to get consumer goods which then satisfy their goals or satisfy their wants.

249
00:31:47.900 --> 00:31:51.900
People can attain very few goals without production.

250
00:31:51.900 --> 00:32:21.900
Now, production used to be defined, and by the way, a managerial textbook I use in my MBA class, also defined this way, that is, as the creation of goods and services, but of course, human beings can't create anything, we can't create something from nothing, create implies bring something about or producing something ex nihilo, that is, from nothing, and this is pointed out in 1802 by a great economist, Jean-Baptiste

251
00:32:21.900 --> 00:32:34.900
Jean-Baptiste Say, he said, human beings cannot create, only God can create. All that human beings can do is to transform resources into goods that are more satisfactory to them, okay?

252
00:32:34.900 --> 00:32:43.900
So, what is production? Production is a combination and transformation of factors of production.

253
00:32:43.900 --> 00:32:49.900
Factors of production will be the term that we use to denote all producers' goods, okay?

254
00:32:49.900 --> 00:33:00.900
Synonymous terms that we'll use are inputs, resource or resources, so all production takes time and proceeds in stages.

255
00:33:19.900 --> 00:33:25.900
Okay, it begins with the original factors of production, which we call land and labor.

256
00:33:25.900 --> 00:33:30.900
There's a combination of land and labor. Human beings work on the elements of their environment.

257
00:33:30.900 --> 00:33:33.900
They produce intermediate goods or capital goods.

258
00:33:33.900 --> 00:33:40.900
And then eventually, after a longer or shorter period of time, those are transformed into consumer goods.

259
00:33:40.900 --> 00:33:43.900
Now, what people are interested in is not the consumer good itself,

260
00:33:43.900 --> 00:33:51.900
But the services provided by consumer goods in satisfying their wants or in achieving their goals.

261
00:33:51.900 --> 00:33:54.900
So consumer goods are also known by the way as final goods.

262
00:33:54.900 --> 00:34:01.900
So this is the way production proceeds. Production proceeds from original resources, from land and labor,

263
00:34:01.900 --> 00:34:08.900
to the actual consumption of the services of the consumer goods that yield the satisfaction.

264
00:34:08.900 --> 00:34:14.900
Now, as we'll see later on, value proceeds in the opposite direction.

265
00:34:14.900 --> 00:34:30.900
A diamond mine, which is a nature given factor, which is land, only has value because diamonds themselves yield services that satisfy human wants.

266
00:34:30.900 --> 00:34:33.900
It's those services that are directly valued.

267
00:34:33.900 --> 00:34:41.900
Because those services are embodied in the actual physical consumer goods, the consumer goods, the values imputed back to the consumer goods.

268
00:34:41.900 --> 00:34:56.900
And because those consumer goods are created by capital goods, the value then that consumer goods have is imputed backwards to capital goods and then backwards to the diamond mine.

269
00:34:56.900 --> 00:35:02.740
if suddenly people no longer desire diamonds, if they thought they were ostentatious,

270
00:35:02.740 --> 00:35:04.660
sort of against their religion and so on

271
00:35:04.660 --> 00:35:10.020
a good example of this is in southeast pennsylvania, the Amish

272
00:35:10.020 --> 00:35:15.100
avoid all sorts of ostentatious apparel

273
00:35:15.100 --> 00:35:16.740
they don't even have buttons

274
00:35:16.740 --> 00:35:18.660
they use sort of hooks and so on

275
00:35:18.660 --> 00:35:22.340
in any case if everyone adopted that code of values

276
00:35:22.340 --> 00:35:23.780
then the price of diamond

277
00:35:23.780 --> 00:35:26.120
mine would fall to zero

278
00:35:26.120 --> 00:35:33.600
The wages earned by highly skilled jewelers would drop to zero.

279
00:35:33.600 --> 00:35:39.240
So it is not the cost that determine the price, but really the other way around.

280
00:35:39.240 --> 00:35:48.600
It's the high price people are willing to give for diamonds that determine the value of the diamond mines ultimately.

281
00:35:48.600 --> 00:35:50.640
Let's talk about choice and value now.

282
00:35:50.640 --> 00:35:56.360
We're actually, before we do that, I just want to say a few words about an imaginary construct that we use in economics.

283
00:35:56.360 --> 00:35:58.840
It's called Crusoeconomics.

284
00:35:58.840 --> 00:36:05.800
And basically, everyone knows the story of Robinson Crusoe, a fictional character that's shipwrecked on an island.

285
00:36:05.800 --> 00:36:10.680
He really only has, well, I took it down, he really only has original factors, his labor

286
00:36:10.680 --> 00:36:15.640
and the land elements that exist on the island.

287
00:36:15.640 --> 00:36:20.360
So, for example, if Robinson Crusoe was hungry and wanted to satisfy his hunger,

288
00:36:20.360 --> 00:36:50.160
He would have to go, he has the choice of doing that with his hands, simply going to a stream where there are fish and trying to grab the fish with his hands, or first constructing a fishing pole or net that is transforming certain resources into capital goods and then using those capital goods and combining them with the land elements and transforming the product into the actual fish that he then has to cook and consume.

289
00:36:50.360 --> 00:36:54.200
so we're going to be going back and forth between sort of our daily lives and

290
00:36:54.200 --> 00:37:00.440
crucial economics in the early part of the course okay now we talked about

291
00:37:00.440 --> 00:37:05.440
scarcity okay goods are scarce and resources are scarce they're not enough

292
00:37:05.440 --> 00:37:12.680
consumer goods and land resources to satisfy all human wants for them so that

293
00:37:12.680 --> 00:37:18.840
scarcity implies choice that is because people cannot do not have enough means

294
00:37:18.840 --> 00:37:23.840
Choice means to achieve all of their goals, they must rank their goals.

295
00:37:23.840 --> 00:37:34.840
Choice implies a value scale, a ranking of goals according to how important they are to the individual actor.

296
00:37:34.840 --> 00:37:48.840
Another way of putting it, a value scale shows subjective valuations of the satisfaction that the actor expects to derive from the achievement of these various ends.

297
00:37:48.840 --> 00:37:56.840
So we call, then, this ranking of ends a value scale. Now, people do not walk around with value scales in their head.

298
00:37:56.840 --> 00:38:02.040
Someone does not say, or they may say this, but it's not a value scale, someone might say,

299
00:38:02.040 --> 00:38:07.240
I like that Porsche better than I like that Cadillac CTS out there.

300
00:38:07.240 --> 00:38:10.640
That's not a value scale, that's just a statement.

301
00:38:10.640 --> 00:38:14.740
The person is not demonstrating that he prefers a Porsche to a Cadillac,

302
00:38:14.740 --> 00:38:18.340
all he's demonstrating is that he prefers to talk about this

303
00:38:18.340 --> 00:38:20.640
to anything else he could be doing at that moment in time.

304
00:38:20.640 --> 00:38:23.240
Okay, we'll come back to that point.

305
00:38:23.240 --> 00:38:27.240
Let me put a diagram up then to show you examples of value scales.

306
00:38:31.240 --> 00:38:33.240
Let's first look at CRUSO.

307
00:38:33.240 --> 00:38:36.240
Can everyone see that?

308
00:38:36.240 --> 00:38:40.240
Should it be zoomed in?

309
00:38:40.240 --> 00:38:54.240
Is that clear enough? Is there a way to make it clear?

310
00:38:54.240 --> 00:39:02.240
Let's say Crusoe can work 12 hours a day, and the other 12 hours he needs to rejuvenate himself.

311
00:39:02.240 --> 00:39:04.240
So the maximum he can work is 12 hours a day.

312
00:39:04.240 --> 00:39:10.240
And he has a number of ends for his labor. And let's assume that each one of these ends consumes four hours of labor.

313
00:39:10.240 --> 00:39:18.240
So he has 12 hours of labor to disperse in increments of four hours among the various ends.

314
00:39:18.240 --> 00:39:23.240
So the ends keep going. I mean, they don't stop at five. The ends are almost unlimited.

315
00:39:23.240 --> 00:39:27.240
He has a lot of one. Scarcity is very great on this island.

316
00:39:27.240 --> 00:39:37.240
He ranks four fish first, eight coconuts second, third, five pounds of wild mushrooms, all of these things he can attain in four hours of work.

317
00:39:37.240 --> 00:39:47.240
So, how will Crusoe choose to allocate his labor? Well, he'll allocate it among the first three ends, because they are the most important to him, subjectively.

318
00:39:47.240 --> 00:39:57.240
were he to choose to build a hammock for the four hours, he would give up a higher ranked end, let's say the third end.

319
00:39:57.240 --> 00:40:04.240
He would never consciously, he would never deliberately choose a lower ranked end over a higher ranked end.

320
00:40:04.240 --> 00:40:12.240
So value scales only come into being when people are confronted with a choice of allocating their scarce resources.

321
00:40:12.240 --> 00:40:22.040
forces. That's when value scales become relevant. Let's assume that someone has just graduated

322
00:40:22.040 --> 00:40:30.840
college and receives a college graduation gift from a rich aunt. That person could spend

323
00:40:30.840 --> 00:40:35.520
three months in Europe on European vacation with friends, that would take $10,000, or

324
00:40:35.520 --> 00:40:41.800
they could buy a new car, well a new pre-owned car for $10,000, or they could save that money

325
00:40:41.800 --> 00:40:48.000
Money for graduate school, or they could just, for the next year, just party, okay?

326
00:40:48.000 --> 00:40:49.000
People have done that.

327
00:40:49.000 --> 00:40:54.420
They just go through that money by spending on wine and entertainment and great restaurant

328
00:40:54.420 --> 00:40:56.160
meals and so on.

329
00:40:56.160 --> 00:40:58.920
Or they could make a loan to their brother who's starting his own small business.

330
00:40:58.920 --> 00:41:00.640
So on and so forth.

331
00:41:00.640 --> 00:41:09.360
Note that value scales do not imply selfishness, as we'll talk about, or involve only self-regarding

332
00:41:09.360 --> 00:41:21.360
activities. But in any case, in this case, if each of these alternatives absorbed the full $10,000, then this person would choose what's highest on his value scale for European vacation.

333
00:41:21.360 --> 00:41:37.360
That's not to say that he might not regret it later on. We'll talk about that. When economists use the term maximizing utility, what they mean is choosing, and we'll get to utility in a little while, choosing that end which has the highest value to themselves.

334
00:41:37.360 --> 00:41:49.360
that's maximizing utility. The final example is relevant to you and then we'll go back and talk about some of the properties of value scale for the moment.

335
00:41:49.360 --> 00:42:01.360
You chose the Mises Fellowship, you chose to spend two months here, time is scarce, so you must, whenever it comes to allocating your time, you also must formulate a value scale.

336
00:42:01.360 --> 00:42:06.360
You could have had a summer job and earned income. You could have spent the summer, let's say, at your family's lake house.

337
00:42:06.360 --> 00:42:10.360
Again, partying with friends is ubiquitous. That's always a good thing to do.

338
00:42:10.360 --> 00:42:13.360
And there were many other things you could have done with the two months.

339
00:42:13.360 --> 00:42:16.360
You could have taken a local college course.

340
00:42:16.360 --> 00:42:23.360
In any case, you chose to come here. Again, that's something you may regret later on.

341
00:42:23.360 --> 00:42:28.360
Especially after you give your oral presentations and we critique them, but don't worry about that.

342
00:42:28.360 --> 00:42:35.160
In any case, any good including time is scarce and must be allocated.

343
00:42:35.160 --> 00:42:38.160
Now, what about the properties value scales?

344
00:42:38.160 --> 00:42:43.960
First of all, they're strictly ordinal, they're strictly ranked.

345
00:42:43.960 --> 00:42:52.760
You cannot say that a European vacation gives me three times the satisfaction as a new car,

346
00:42:52.760 --> 00:42:58.160
and a new car gives me six times the satisfaction of loaning money to my brother.

347
00:42:58.160 --> 00:43:03.960
Value is an intensive magnitude. It's not an extensive magnitude.

348
00:43:03.960 --> 00:43:08.960
You may have learned, if you've taken economics courses, that there are things that economists call utils.

349
00:43:08.960 --> 00:43:14.960
And we can assign utils to this. Well, you know, European vacation gives me

350
00:43:14.960 --> 00:43:19.560
a hundred utils of satisfaction and a new car gives me

351
00:43:19.560 --> 00:43:23.160
thirty-three utils of satisfaction, so it's three times as great,

352
00:43:23.160 --> 00:43:26.460
and so on. But of course,

353
00:43:26.460 --> 00:43:29.460
The question becomes, what the hell is a utile?

354
00:43:29.460 --> 00:43:32.460
We know what a foot is, we know what a pound is.

355
00:43:32.460 --> 00:43:37.460
These are units that have extension in space.

356
00:43:37.460 --> 00:43:41.460
They're fixed and they're objective.

357
00:43:41.460 --> 00:43:45.460
Satisfaction is an intensive magnitude.

358
00:43:45.460 --> 00:43:50.460
There are no units developed to measure satisfaction.

359
00:43:50.460 --> 00:43:52.460
Satisfaction cannot be measured.

360
00:43:52.460 --> 00:44:00.460
Not only can it be measured interpersonally, but it can't be measured intrapersonally, it can only rank.

361
00:44:00.460 --> 00:44:06.460
It makes no sense for you to say that I like this three times as much as I like that.

362
00:44:06.460 --> 00:44:10.460
Nor do you have to to act.

363
00:44:10.460 --> 00:44:21.460
In fact, when this debate was going on about utility being ordinal rather than cardinal,

364
00:44:21.460 --> 00:44:51.460
was in the 1930s and the Austrian influenced economists at least earlier in his career Lionel Robbins later became Lord Robbins and became Lord Robbins after he worked with Keynes to develop the Bretton Woods system so he became sort of an evil baron or a baron as a result of his evil activities in any case he pointed out correctly that value is like love you can say let's say you're dating three different women

365
00:44:51.460 --> 00:45:01.460
And you like them all. You can say, I like woman number one better than woman number two, or I love her more than number two, and I love number two more than number three.

366
00:45:01.460 --> 00:45:05.460
And you can demonstrate that preference by marrying woman number one.

367
00:45:05.460 --> 00:45:14.460
But it's absurd, and we'd laugh if someone said, I love her three times as much as I love the second woman.

368
00:45:14.460 --> 00:45:16.380
makes no sense

369
00:45:16.380 --> 00:45:22.180
well, values like love in that sense

370
00:45:22.180 --> 00:45:23.620
it's absurd to say that

371
00:45:23.620 --> 00:45:25.860
you value something

372
00:45:25.860 --> 00:45:29.460
by a certain number of times more than something else

373
00:45:29.460 --> 00:45:32.220
that gives you a higher

374
00:45:32.220 --> 00:45:34.460
measurable

375
00:45:34.460 --> 00:45:37.420
level of satisfaction than something else does

376
00:45:37.420 --> 00:45:41.500
and as I mentioned before, maximizing utility means choosing what's highest on your value

377
00:45:41.500 --> 00:45:49.500
value scale, at least as Austrians use the term maximizing utility, means getting the highest value with your resources.

378
00:45:49.500 --> 00:45:56.500
Another point I wanted to make is that, and I mentioned this before, all ends are ranked and compared on a value scale,

379
00:45:56.500 --> 00:46:07.500
whether they are material, cultural, spiritual. Remember, in the Bible, Judas Iscariot compared his loyalty to Jesus and 30 pieces of silver,

380
00:46:07.500 --> 00:46:11.500
and he ranked 30 pieces of silver above his loyalty to Jesus.

381
00:46:11.500 --> 00:46:18.500
So he compared spiritual virtue and loyalty in a specific case with money.

382
00:46:18.500 --> 00:46:24.500
That's not to say that he was comparing loyalty to money for all time or for his whole life.

383
00:46:24.500 --> 00:46:33.500
In that specific moment, he preferred the 30 pieces of silver to the maintaining loyalty to his spiritual leader.

384
00:46:33.500 --> 00:46:43.500
Or take, for example, a woman who decides to go take a part-time job on Tuesday and Thursday evenings.

385
00:46:43.500 --> 00:46:54.500
She could be home with her children, or she could volunteer at a church, or she could take this job and increase her kid's college fund.

386
00:46:54.500 --> 00:47:04.500
So those are, you know, we're comparing receiving income with charitable work, with love for your children.

387
00:47:04.500 --> 00:47:08.500
All of these things are compared on a unitary value scale.

388
00:47:08.500 --> 00:47:13.500
So there is no assumption in economics that people are selfish.

389
00:47:13.500 --> 00:47:21.500
Mother Teresa, no less than anyone else, just to take one example, maximized her utility or believed that that's what she was doing.

390
00:47:21.500 --> 00:47:27.500
and I'll talk about that when she helped the poor in India.

391
00:47:27.500 --> 00:47:35.500
Also, think about this, if Mother Teresa was given a donation by a philanthropist in the United States,

392
00:47:35.500 --> 00:47:43.500
let's say she was given a tract of a hundred houses that had just been built

393
00:47:43.500 --> 00:47:50.500
and the maximum price you get for those houses are $200,000 a piece, let's say.

394
00:47:50.500 --> 00:47:59.500
Well, she has a choice of selling those houses at below that price, let's say for $100,000, to poor people in the United States.

395
00:47:59.500 --> 00:48:10.500
Let's also assume as the World Health Organization, the last figures I saw, that a person can be fed and nourished for a dollar a day.

396
00:48:10.500 --> 00:48:19.500
Well, for every dollar price cut that she gives to the poor American, that's one day that one person in India goes hungry.

397
00:48:19.500 --> 00:48:39.500
So, Mother Teresa would sell them at the highest price possible if her highest rank goal was to feed as many people as she can with her resources.

398
00:48:39.500 --> 00:48:45.500
Okay, the other point, a couple of other points, value skills are only relevant to and revealed by action not by talk.

399
00:48:45.500 --> 00:49:00.500
Someone can say, I love my wife and my family and they can very carefully plan to allocate their salary to their children's clothing, to their children's college fund, to food for the household.

400
00:49:00.500 --> 00:49:09.500
But then they can be walking down the street after they got paid and they can see their friends in a bar and they can go in and stay in there all night and drink up their salary.

401
00:49:09.500 --> 00:49:26.500
Well, the point is that action doesn't imply that people are calculating or deliberate or responsible or moral.

402
00:49:26.500 --> 00:49:36.500
Simply that in their judgment, that particular end, at that moment, in those concrete conditions, will give them the highest satisfaction.

403
00:49:36.500 --> 00:49:52.500
So, that person, at least in that particular case, did not engage in an act of, or rank drinking with his friends above these acts of love that he could have used these resources for, okay.

404
00:49:54.500 --> 00:50:01.500
So, another way of putting that is people are not prisoners of their value scales. They're not value scales out there that control your actions.

405
00:50:01.500 --> 00:50:11.500
Value scales emerge in a given situation at a given moment, and in fact, action reveals your values.

406
00:50:11.500 --> 00:50:22.500
Some economists, even good ones, sometimes say that all people have departed from their value scales, they've worked against their value scales.

407
00:50:22.500 --> 00:50:27.500
For example, Philip Wicksteed and Robin, both who were very Austrian influence, talk that way.

408
00:50:27.500 --> 00:50:34.500
That is, your actions were inconsistent with their value skills, but Mises came along and pointed out, well, in fact, that's assuming that people's value skills are constant.

409
00:50:34.500 --> 00:50:37.500
They're continually changing from moment to moment.

410
00:50:37.500 --> 00:50:52.500
So when economists say that people choose rationally, at least when Austrian economists say that, they do not mean that their choices are selfish, or hedonistic, or ethical, or responsible, or calculating, or legal, or moral, or non-impulsive, or non-self-destructive.

411
00:50:52.500 --> 00:50:55.500
They simply mean that such choices are purposeful.

412
00:50:55.500 --> 00:51:02.500
That is that they aim at ends that are ranked most highly on their value scales.

413
00:51:02.500 --> 00:51:14.500
So someone injecting heroin knowingly is acting just as rationally or purposefully as someone donating money to a charity.

414
00:51:14.500 --> 00:51:20.500
Someone robbing a bank is also acting purposefully and so on.

415
00:51:20.500 --> 00:51:30.500
A murderer acts purposefully. People often say, well, when you murder, you know, it's irrational and so on. Well, the murderer didn't try to use a banana to kill the person, they used a gun.

416
00:51:30.500 --> 00:51:45.500
And they didn't do it in broad daylight, they did it at night. So, the action was rational. We just didn't like the end. Well, we couldn't conceive of ourselves as ranking the end of killing someone that highly.

417
00:51:45.500 --> 00:51:56.500
Finally, right? But that doesn't mean the action wasn't purposeful or rational from the point of view of the actor's scale of values, okay?

418
00:51:56.500 --> 00:52:03.500
Now let me just talk a little bit about benefit and cost and profit and loss, okay?

419
00:52:03.500 --> 00:52:11.500
Now, all actions take time and are aimed at improving our conditions in the future. Human beings do not have perfect knowledge of the future.

420
00:52:11.500 --> 00:52:20.500
We must forecast, based on our expectations of how things will develop, and based on our experience, what conditions we will face in the future.

421
00:52:20.500 --> 00:52:38.500
And that leaves us open to error. So, all action involves uncertainty of the future, involves us formulating expectations, and also involves the very real possibility of making a mistake.

422
00:52:38.500 --> 00:52:47.220
okay so what is a psychic benefit psychic benefit is what we expect the

423
00:52:47.220 --> 00:52:52.660
satisfaction we expect from the action okay psychic cost is the greatest

424
00:52:52.660 --> 00:53:00.300
satisfaction we must forgo in order to achieve the end that we're aiming at so

425
00:53:00.300 --> 00:53:18.300
So in the case, if I put this up here again, of these value scales, let's use the $10,000 example, the psychic benefit is the expected satisfaction from the European vacation, okay?

426
00:53:18.300 --> 00:53:22.300
The cost of the vacation is not the $10,000, that's the price.

427
00:53:22.300 --> 00:53:34.300
The cost is the expected satisfaction from the new car that we are forced to sacrifice or renounce because we've used the resources for a higher valued use.

428
00:53:34.300 --> 00:53:42.300
So cost is always the next most valuable alternative on a person's value scale.

429
00:53:42.300 --> 00:53:51.300
Or to put it another way, it's the most valuable alternative that we must sacrifice in our action.

430
00:53:51.300 --> 00:54:01.300
If the person was happy after the fact, with their vacation, then we say benefit is greater than cost, and there's been a psychic profit.

431
00:54:01.300 --> 00:54:11.300
So when benefit is greater than cost, there's a profit.

432
00:54:11.300 --> 00:54:20.300
You can't measure it, but you've gotten something with your resources that was more valuable than what you gave up.

433
00:54:20.300 --> 00:54:25.300
Now, let me introduce the terms ex ante and ex post, Latin terms.

434
00:54:25.300 --> 00:54:33.300
Ex ante means before the action, viewing the action in advance, before undertaking it.

435
00:54:33.300 --> 00:54:41.300
Ex ante, everyone always believes that their action will yield them a psychic profit.

436
00:54:41.300 --> 00:54:44.300
Otherwise, they wouldn't voluntarily undertake that action.

437
00:54:44.300 --> 00:55:13.300
So benefit always is greater than cost, there's always a psychic profit ex ante, but ex post, after the action has taken place and the person is looking back, based on conditions that they have developed, two things may occur, the person may be correct and be happy with their actions and gain a profit or they may suffer a loss because the benefit was less than the cost.

438
00:55:13.300 --> 00:55:27.300
Let's say this person goes on the European vacation and didn't anticipate that the weather wouldn't be good, that he would not like the food, that he confronts a lot of anti-Americanism in Europe.

439
00:55:27.300 --> 00:55:34.300
In that case, the European vacation may stand very low on his value scale, maybe a hundred.

440
00:55:34.300 --> 00:55:41.300
So he's given up a new car for something that he ranks much lower. That is a psychic loss.

441
00:55:41.300 --> 00:55:52.300
That is a waste of resources, a misallocation of resources. Now, he didn't do it deliberately. He wasn't irrational, as some economists would like you to believe.

442
00:55:52.300 --> 00:55:58.300
It was simply that he made an entrepreneurial error because his expectations were incorrect.

443
00:55:58.300 --> 00:56:02.300
We all know people who continually make bad decisions, right?

444
00:56:02.300 --> 00:56:09.300
We all make bad decisions at one time or another, but some people consistently make bad decisions.

445
00:56:09.300 --> 00:56:13.300
They are bad entrepreneurs in their daily lives.

446
00:56:13.300 --> 00:56:23.300
So if you choose a certain college and you wind up disliking it, that's a psychic loss.

447
00:56:23.300 --> 00:56:26.300
You regret that decision.

448
00:56:26.300 --> 00:56:32.300
Or if you choose a certain major in college and when you get out you find that the market for that major has dried up

449
00:56:32.300 --> 00:56:38.300
and that your income is going to be much less if you can even find a job than you had anticipated

450
00:56:38.300 --> 00:56:42.300
If you've paid it, then that's a massive psychic loss, okay?

451
00:56:42.300 --> 00:56:52.300
You've sunk all of these resources, including your time and your tuition money and so on, into something that has a much lower value than you could have obtained.

452
00:56:52.300 --> 00:57:00.300
So, psychic loss is reflected in people's regrets about their decisions.

453
00:57:00.300 --> 00:57:05.300
Some people just run their lives better than other people. They're better entrepreneurs.

454
00:57:05.300 --> 00:57:11.800
Now, those people that tend to be more right than wrong, tend to make good entrepreneurs in the business world.

455
00:57:11.800 --> 00:57:20.800
We're going to bring over this whole analysis of S. Ante and X. Post, profit and loss, benefit and cost, into business, ultimately.

456
00:57:25.100 --> 00:57:32.800
Okay, now let's get to the concept of value and marginal utility.

457
00:57:35.300 --> 00:57:40.300
Now you may or may not have heard, you probably have heard, of the paradox of value.

458
00:57:40.300 --> 00:57:45.300
It's often also called the water-diamond paradox or the bread-diamond paradox.

459
00:57:45.300 --> 00:57:55.300
And it bedeviled British classical economics, which existed from the mid-1700s until 1870,

460
00:57:55.300 --> 00:58:04.300
when we had the Marginalist Revolution in which the Austrian School began or was founded.

461
00:58:04.300 --> 00:58:12.300
This paradox was resolved in 1870 by Carl Menger, but it had been actually resolved by some French and Italian theorists earlier.

462
00:58:12.300 --> 00:58:15.300
Basically, the paradox goes as follows.

463
00:58:15.300 --> 00:58:17.300
Take something like diamonds.

464
00:58:17.300 --> 00:58:24.300
It has a very, very high exchange value or price on the market, but a very low use value,

465
00:58:24.300 --> 00:58:38.300
Meaning that it doesn't add much to human life. It appeals to people's vanity or ostentation and so on. It's a mere frivolity.

466
00:58:38.300 --> 00:58:47.300
On the other hand, bread, pound for pound, has a much lower price than diamonds do. And yet without bread, the human race would be a lot worse off.

467
00:58:47.300 --> 00:58:54.060
okay it's a bread is a real staple okay the paradox lies in the fact that bread

468
00:58:54.060 --> 00:58:57.500
has a low exchange value but high use value while diamonds have a very high

469
00:58:57.500 --> 00:59:02.020
exchange value and low use value okay well the classical economists never

470
00:59:02.020 --> 00:59:06.140
really solved that paradox they pushed aside the question of use value they

471
00:59:06.140 --> 00:59:10.220
said yes for good to be a good it has to have use value but then they just pushed

472
00:59:10.220 --> 00:59:14.900
that aside and they concentrate on explaining exchange value and they

473
00:59:14.900 --> 00:59:22.900
And they explain exchange value by saying the higher the cost of producing a good, the greater the price will be.

474
00:59:22.900 --> 00:59:33.900
So diamonds have a higher price than bread because it costs more to produce diamonds than it does to produce bread.

475
00:59:33.900 --> 00:59:54.900
A philosopher and economist, Condeac, French, in the same year that Adam Smith wrote his treatise in 1776 and couldn't solve the paradox, Condeac wrote a book, the title escapes you right now, it's been translated into English though, in which he said,

476
00:59:54.900 --> 01:00:04.900
Men do not, let me rephrase, pearls are not expensive because men must dive deep beneath the sea to get them.

477
01:00:04.900 --> 01:00:09.900
Rather, men dive deep beneath the sea to get pearls because they are so valuable.

478
01:00:09.900 --> 01:00:20.900
So in other words, it's not the cost that causes something to become valuable, but it's the high value that causes people to undertake the high cost of obtaining that thing.

479
01:00:20.900 --> 01:00:29.900
Now, how did Menger solve the paradox of value? Well, he asked this question, a very important question.

480
01:00:29.900 --> 01:00:39.900
What determines the value of a unit of good, of a good? So what he did was he focused on concrete units of the good.

481
01:00:39.900 --> 01:00:49.900
He didn't, like the classicals, focus on abstract classes of the good. He didn't say, didn't focus on diamonds in general and bread in general.

482
01:00:49.900 --> 01:00:58.900
or water in general. He focused on an individual who was choosing between uses of concrete units of the good.

483
01:00:58.900 --> 01:01:06.900
So let me show you then, going back to Crusoe Economics for a moment,

484
01:01:06.900 --> 01:01:22.900
Crusoe's value scale for sacks of wheat, okay, so this is very similar to Menger's example, and what Menger did was to rank the various uses of sacks of wheat.

485
01:01:22.900 --> 01:01:31.900
Again, Crusoe's alone on the island, he's just harvested, let's say, five sacks of wheat, he has unlimited wants for wheat, how will he allocate the wheat?

486
01:01:31.900 --> 01:01:34.900
Well, to the first five most important ends.

487
01:01:34.900 --> 01:01:40.400
The first sack of wheat he'll bake into bread to sustain his life, okay, it'll just keep him alive for one year.

488
01:01:40.400 --> 01:01:45.400
Second sack he'll use to sustain his health, to keep him healthy so he can achieve other ends.

489
01:01:45.400 --> 01:01:55.900
The third sack he'll put aside for seed for the next harvest or he'll plant a seed so he'll be able to stay alive a year after that.

490
01:01:55.900 --> 01:02:01.800
The fourth sack he'll use for feed for farm animals, okay, chickens and cows and so on.

491
01:02:01.800 --> 01:02:15.800
So we can have eggs, milk and meat, as well as bread. The fourth sack, I think Menger used the example of turning it into brandy, but I like vodka better, so he'll make vodka out of it.

492
01:02:15.800 --> 01:02:24.800
Okay, so he then uses, is about to use these sacks of wheat to achieve those five ends.

493
01:02:24.800 --> 01:02:37.800
Now, let's assume, this is how Menger solved the problem. He said to himself, or he said to his readers, excuse me, he said, what is the value of a sack of wheat?

494
01:02:37.800 --> 01:02:46.800
Is it the highest valued use? Is it some average of all the uses? What is the value? And how do we arrive at the answer to that question?

495
01:02:46.800 --> 01:03:09.800
Well, he went on to say, let's take the following example. Let's say we lost one of these sacks of wheat. That is, that Crusoe found that during the night, before he was going to use these sacks of wheat, a family of foxes broke in and devoured, let's say, the second sack, sack number two.

496
01:03:09.800 --> 01:03:15.800
Would Crusoe go without bread that would sustain his health?

497
01:03:15.800 --> 01:03:30.800
Of course not. All he would do is reallocate that sack, which was just sufficient to serve the lowest end on his values, the fifth end, reallocate that to the second end.

498
01:03:30.800 --> 01:03:36.800
So no matter which of the five sacks he lost, what end would he forego?

499
01:03:36.800 --> 01:03:44.300
So, always the lowest ranked end that the limited supply was capable of serving.

500
01:03:44.300 --> 01:03:50.400
He called this, he didn't call it, actually Wieser came up with the term marginal utility.

501
01:03:50.400 --> 01:03:57.560
He called the satisfaction from the lowest ranked end that the supply of wheat was able

502
01:03:57.560 --> 01:04:04.520
to serve, he called that end the marginal utility, or at least later Austrians called

503
01:04:04.520 --> 01:04:18.520
Let's call that marginal utility. Utility meaning satisfaction, marginal being the relevant end, the end that's given up when one unit of the supply is lost.

504
01:04:18.520 --> 01:04:27.520
So, the utility of the marginal unit is the fifth end. So what he went on to say was that each of those five sacs is valued according to its marginal utility.

505
01:04:27.520 --> 01:04:32.360
Which one is lost, what satisfaction is given up?

506
01:04:32.360 --> 01:04:35.640
The marginal satisfaction or the marginal utility.

507
01:04:35.640 --> 01:04:42.640
Now once that sack is lost however, what happens to the value of the remaining sacks?

508
01:04:42.640 --> 01:04:48.880
They increase because now the fourth end, the fourth most highly ranked end depends

509
01:04:48.880 --> 01:04:51.160
on one of those sacks.

510
01:04:51.160 --> 01:04:56.520
So if that sack is lost, you lose a higher ranked end.

511
01:04:56.520 --> 01:05:02.920
So, thus the law of modern utility, the greater the number of units of a supply of a good,

512
01:05:02.920 --> 01:05:05.760
the lower the value of that good.

513
01:05:05.760 --> 01:05:10.580
So if he found the sixth sack someplace, or he found that he could harvest the sixth sack

514
01:05:10.580 --> 01:05:18.120
that he had neglected, then the value of a sack of wheat would fall, because now he could

515
01:05:18.120 --> 01:05:21.800
serve a lower end, the sixth end, that is he could keep some parrots to keep him company

516
01:05:21.800 --> 01:05:26.100
and talk to him.

517
01:05:26.100 --> 01:05:32.500
So, how does this apply to solving a paradox of value?

518
01:05:32.500 --> 01:05:40.400
Well, in a normal situation, bread is much more abundant in relation to human ends than diamonds are.

519
01:05:40.400 --> 01:05:46.700
So, even though you might need bread to sustain life and so on,

520
01:05:46.700 --> 01:05:53.700
there's so much bread around that the marginal utility of bread is much lower than the marginal utility of diamonds.

521
01:05:53.700 --> 01:05:55.900
Let's change for a moment to water and diamonds.

522
01:05:55.900 --> 01:06:25.900
Now put yourself in a position of being in the desert, and you have not had a drop to drink in, let's say, three days, or however long a human being can last without water, three to five days, whatever it is, and someone comes along to you and offers you a pint of water for, and let's say you happen to have in your pocket, and I love to use this example, the eight million dollar diamond that Kobe Bryant, the basketball player, gave to his wife, the purple diamond, to atone for his infidelity.

523
01:06:25.900 --> 01:06:29.900
Would you trade the eight million dollar diamond for the pint of water?

524
01:06:29.900 --> 01:06:36.900
Well, if you ranked your life, at least until you can get the next amount of water,

525
01:06:36.900 --> 01:06:41.900
if you ranked your life above the satisfaction from the diamond, yes you would.

526
01:06:41.900 --> 01:06:47.900
Because now the marginal utility of water is so high that the value of a pint of water is higher than the value of a diamond.

527
01:06:47.900 --> 01:07:00.900
Thus, there is no inconsistency in the use value in a normal situation of a diamond being low relative to bread or water, yet its exchange value being very high.

528
01:07:00.900 --> 01:07:06.900
So Menger, in a stroke of genius, solved this problem.

529
01:07:06.900 --> 01:07:19.900
Let's focus on the second example here. Let's see if you understand the principle.

530
01:07:19.900 --> 01:07:23.900
Let's say that there's a farmer who has two different supplies.

531
01:07:23.900 --> 01:07:33.900
By the way, we define supply as a number of homogeneous units or a number of units that are interchangeable in serving human ends.

532
01:07:33.900 --> 01:07:41.900
So every one of those sacs, those five sacs that Crusoe possessed, any one of them could have served any one of the five ends.

533
01:07:41.900 --> 01:07:45.900
They were completely interchangeable or homogeneous from the point of view of his ends.

534
01:07:45.900 --> 01:07:48.900
So they all must have the same value.

535
01:07:48.900 --> 01:07:54.900
Now in this case we have horses and cattle. These goods are not homogeneous, they're two different supplies.

536
01:07:54.900 --> 01:08:02.900
So let's say that the farmer now ranks the uses of these two different goods, horses and cattle, in the following way.

537
01:08:02.900 --> 01:08:21.900
The first two horses he would use for plowing, the first cow he would use for milk, the second cow, which is his fourth end to produce beef, and the third horse, which is his fifth end, would be pleasure riding.

538
01:08:21.900 --> 01:08:31.900
The point to be made is that, or the question to be asked of course, is which horse, which animal is more valuable?

539
01:08:31.900 --> 01:08:34.900
Well, the way to answer that is, which animal has the higher marginal utility?

540
01:08:34.900 --> 01:08:38.900
You don't look up here and say, well, horses are more valuable because they serve more valuable ends.

541
01:08:38.900 --> 01:08:46.900
You look at the bottom, and you ask a question like, if the barn was on fire, and I could only save four animals, which animal would I leave in there?

542
01:08:46.900 --> 01:08:55.900
You'd leave a horse, because the marginal utility of horses are lower, the fifth end, than the marginal utility of cattle.

543
01:08:55.900 --> 01:09:00.900
So, in this situation, cows are the more valuable animal.

544
01:09:00.900 --> 01:09:05.900
Once you've lost that horse, however, what happens to the marginal utilities?

545
01:09:05.900 --> 01:09:07.900
They're reversed.

546
01:09:07.900 --> 01:09:11.900
Which is the more important animal now, or the more valuable animal now?

547
01:09:11.900 --> 01:09:14.900
Assuming the fifth one is gone.

548
01:09:14.900 --> 01:09:16.900
The horse.

549
01:09:16.900 --> 01:09:18.900
Because if you lose the horse, you lose your second end.

550
01:09:18.900 --> 01:09:21.900
It makes your plowing easier.

551
01:09:21.900 --> 01:09:23.900
Whereas if you lose a cow, you lose your fourth end.

552
01:09:23.900 --> 01:09:27.900
You lose your supply of beef, which is lower ranked.

553
01:09:27.900 --> 01:09:46.900
In a more modern context, the example I like to give my students, the undergrads, because they always sort of bristle at this example, let's say a family has three automobiles and they're all pretty interchangeable for all the ends that the household has.

554
01:09:46.900 --> 01:10:01.900
One is for the primary breadwinner to get to and from work, second car is used, let's say, by the spouse for second income, and also to do household errands, and the third is used by junior, to go out on dates and drive around and whatever.

555
01:10:01.900 --> 01:10:15.900
So let's say the old man cracks up his car, first then, primary breadwinner in this case. What happens? Do you go without the primary income? No, junior loses the car.

556
01:10:15.900 --> 01:10:31.900
Because the marginal utility of keeping junior from borrowing your car all the time is much lower than the end of having a steady primary income.

557
01:10:31.900 --> 01:10:41.900
So the point being now each of the remaining two cars has greater value because a higher valued end depends on that.

558
01:10:41.900 --> 01:10:46.900
and that is the second income and having household errands done.

559
01:10:46.900 --> 01:10:49.820
What about total utility?

560
01:10:49.820 --> 01:10:53.380
Modern economists talk a lot about, or non-Austrian economists talk a lot about,

561
01:10:53.380 --> 01:10:56.180
total utility.

562
01:10:56.180 --> 01:10:58.800
Well, here to tell you that there's no such thing as total utility.

563
01:10:58.800 --> 01:11:01.340
That is, you can't add up

564
01:11:01.340 --> 01:11:06.500
the utilities of all of these goods, or let's put it this way, you can't multiply

565
01:11:06.500 --> 01:11:11.700
the marginal utility by five, if you have five sacks, you can't multiply it by five and say

566
01:11:11.700 --> 01:11:18.700
total utility is equal to, because there's no unit

567
01:11:18.980 --> 01:11:22.180
now, there is a use of the term total utility

568
01:11:22.180 --> 01:11:25.220
if you mean that total utility

569
01:11:25.220 --> 01:11:29.180
is the utility of the entire stock of a good

570
01:11:29.180 --> 01:11:30.740
if you're ever in a situation where

571
01:11:30.740 --> 01:11:32.500
it's relevant

572
01:11:32.500 --> 01:11:35.700
to talk about trading the entire stock of a good

573
01:11:35.700 --> 01:11:37.740
for a

574
01:11:37.740 --> 01:11:39.540
another good

575
01:11:39.540 --> 01:11:48.820
Total utility simply means what? Taking all of the stock you have as a marginal unit and comparing it to what you're going to get in exchange.

576
01:11:48.820 --> 01:11:53.380
And let me give you a little diagram of that. Actually, two diagrams here.

577
01:12:00.300 --> 01:12:05.460
First of all, on marginal utility, this diagram is a pure ranking.

578
01:12:05.460 --> 01:12:22.460
Let's say you have four units of a supply, okay? Obviously, and this displays the law of marginal utility, the greater the number of units of supply, the lower the marginal utility and value of the good, okay?

579
01:12:22.460 --> 01:12:30.460
So, I put no units on the y-axis or the vertical axis. It's simply a pure ranking.

580
01:12:30.460 --> 01:12:34.460
The first unit serves a more important want, so it's simply higher.

581
01:12:34.460 --> 01:12:37.460
The second unit, a less important want, it's lower.

582
01:12:37.460 --> 01:12:40.460
And the third is even lower and the fourth is even lower than that.

583
01:12:40.460 --> 01:12:44.460
There's no significance to be attached and you shouldn't try to measure these lines.

584
01:12:48.460 --> 01:12:59.460
So as the use of supply increases, you'll see these x is getting lower and lower to indicate that the ends that they're serving have less and less utility.

585
01:12:59.460 --> 01:13:01.460
and therefore lower value.

586
01:13:01.460 --> 01:13:07.460
Okay, let me just now show you something that has to do with, oh, I forgot to, well, okay.

587
01:13:07.460 --> 01:13:11.460
Let me just fix something here. There's a little mistake in this.

588
01:13:11.460 --> 01:13:19.460
This should be four sacks. Okay.

589
01:13:19.460 --> 01:13:28.460
Let's go back to Ramsey Kruse for a moment. Let's say Friday's on the island and offers him a horse for his entire supply of wheat.

590
01:13:28.460 --> 01:13:33.740
What about the entire supply of wheat? Let's say it has five sacks.

591
01:13:33.740 --> 01:13:37.540
Well, given the way I've drawn this, we'll talk about exchange in the next lecture,

592
01:13:37.540 --> 01:13:39.060
given the way this is drawn,

593
01:13:39.060 --> 01:13:41.660
it shows us that the horse stands higher

594
01:13:41.660 --> 01:13:45.940
on Crusoe's value scale than the entire five sacks of wheat.

595
01:13:45.940 --> 01:13:49.260
So the horse adds more to his welfare than the five sacks of wheat.

596
01:13:49.260 --> 01:13:53.700
Will he exchange the entire supply? Yes.

597
01:13:53.700 --> 01:13:56.660
In that case then, you can talk about total utility,

598
01:13:56.660 --> 01:14:01.460
or the marginal utility of the entire, of the entire supply.

599
01:14:01.460 --> 01:14:03.360
Now, what is the law of total utility?

600
01:14:03.360 --> 01:14:07.660
The law of total utility is simply that, and that's why I put these other entries here.

601
01:14:07.660 --> 01:14:15.860
The larger the supply, a larger supply of a good is more valuable than a smaller supply of the good.

602
01:14:15.860 --> 01:14:16.960
Why is that?

603
01:14:16.960 --> 01:14:23.060
Because a larger supply of the good, six sacks are more valuable than five sacks, which are, in turn, more valuable than four sacks.

604
01:14:23.060 --> 01:14:29.060
A larger supply of the good allows you to serve more human ends.

605
01:14:29.060 --> 01:14:36.060
And the more human ends that you satisfy, or the more wants that you satisfy, the better off you are.

606
01:14:36.060 --> 01:14:38.060
Because goods are scarce.

607
01:14:38.060 --> 01:14:45.560
So the law of total utility simply tells us that the greater the supply, the higher the utility of the supply is.

608
01:14:45.560 --> 01:14:50.860
It's not adding up utilities. It's not trying to add up the utilities of six versus utilities of five.

609
01:14:50.860 --> 01:14:56.660
It's simply saying that, look, when we have six sacks, there's another end that I can fill or serve.

610
01:14:56.660 --> 01:14:59.460
That is, in this case, feeding a parry.

611
01:14:59.460 --> 01:15:03.160
Okay, that was the sixth end, which I cannot with my fifth sack.

612
01:15:03.160 --> 01:15:12.560
And if I only have four sacks, there's one less end that I can use my means for, and therefore, I am less well-off.

613
01:15:12.560 --> 01:15:17.860
Okay, these are the fundamentals of scarcity, choice and value.

614
01:15:17.860 --> 01:15:21.600
and when we get we're going to use these fundamentals

615
01:15:21.600 --> 01:15:24.980
as a basis for

616
01:15:24.980 --> 01:15:25.900
the

617
01:15:25.900 --> 01:15:27.560
law of demand

618
01:15:27.560 --> 01:15:30.140
will first explain the exchange in the next lecture

619
01:15:30.140 --> 01:15:32.020
and then deriving from that

620
01:15:32.020 --> 01:15:33.720
a law of demand

621
01:15:33.720 --> 01:15:36.920
showing how prices are determined by

622
01:15:36.920 --> 01:15:39.020
demand and supply

623
01:15:39.020 --> 01:15:41.500
as we'll see

624
01:15:41.500 --> 01:15:44.940
prices are objective but their roots are in

625
01:15:44.940 --> 01:15:48.140
the subjective values of individuals

626
01:15:48.140 --> 01:15:50.320
as Mises once put it

627
01:15:50.320 --> 01:15:56.980
prices reflect the war of scarcity that's continually raging in the human soul

628
01:15:56.980 --> 01:15:59.240
so everything is ranked

629
01:15:59.240 --> 01:16:01.140
anything that's scarce is ranked

630
01:16:01.140 --> 01:16:03.140
and those rankings interact

631
01:16:03.140 --> 01:16:06.180
through exchange to produce objective prices

632
01:16:06.180 --> 01:16:08.300
which entrepreneurs can then use

633
01:16:08.300 --> 01:16:12.440
to allocate production to best-serve consumers

634
01:16:12.440 --> 01:16:14.880
but it all comes back to

635
01:16:14.880 --> 01:16:16.660
the utility rankings

636
01:16:16.660 --> 01:16:19.200
and people's choices

637
01:16:19.200 --> 01:16:23.040
ultimately consumers control the direction of the economy

638
01:16:23.040 --> 01:16:25.080
through their choices

639
01:16:25.080 --> 01:16:27.240
I'll stop here and I'll take some questions

640
01:16:27.240 --> 01:16:28.920
we have about fourteen minutes

641
01:16:28.920 --> 01:16:35.800
I'll usually try to go an hour and fifteen minutes and then leave around fifteen minutes for questions. Yes?

642
01:16:35.800 --> 01:16:39.600
An entrepreneur

643
01:16:39.600 --> 01:16:43.040
in the business sense, in the sense that we know an entrepreneur

644
01:16:43.040 --> 01:16:45.480
An entrepreneur is the individual

645
01:16:45.480 --> 01:16:48.000
who makes the decisions regarding

646
01:16:48.000 --> 01:16:49.480
what to produce,

647
01:16:49.480 --> 01:16:50.560
how to produce,

648
01:16:50.560 --> 01:16:52.320
where to produce. In other words,

649
01:16:52.320 --> 01:16:57.120
makes the decisions of how to allocate the factors of production.

650
01:16:57.120 --> 01:17:01.720
We distinguish that type of entrepreneur, which we sometimes call a promoter entrepreneur,

651
01:17:01.720 --> 01:17:04.080
he's one who promotes new businesses and so on,

652
01:17:04.080 --> 01:17:06.560
from a pure entrepreneur.

653
01:17:06.560 --> 01:17:08.720
A pure entrepreneur is all of us

654
01:17:08.720 --> 01:17:12.320
in the following sense,

655
01:17:12.320 --> 01:17:15.680
And whatever decision we make, we're faced with uncertainty.

656
01:17:15.680 --> 01:17:25.000
And we're always trying to allocate our resources in the face of that uncertainty in a way that will leave us best off.

657
01:17:25.000 --> 01:17:28.720
We're always trying to maximize our utility in the face of uncertainty.

658
01:17:28.720 --> 01:17:33.800
So it doesn't have to be someone who has a lot of capital and invests that capital in a business.

659
01:17:33.800 --> 01:17:41.520
It can be someone who is deciding whether I should be an accountant or nurse, a woman who wants to go into accounting, wants to go into nursing.

660
01:17:41.520 --> 01:17:50.560
That woman has to then forecast what the market for nurses and accountants are going to be four years from now and make her choice on that basis.

661
01:17:50.560 --> 01:17:54.440
So all laborers when they act are entrepreneurs.

662
01:17:54.440 --> 01:18:04.400
Anyone who lends money to anyone else is an entrepreneur because we never know what that other person's conditions will be when time comes to pay back that loan.

663
01:18:04.400 --> 01:18:21.200
So, and also, landowners, entrepreneurs, because when they rent out, maybe lease out a piece of land for five years, they are speculating that they're not going to get a higher price for that land a few months down the road, okay?

664
01:18:21.200 --> 01:18:29.100
Okay, so, there are, every function in production, okay, embodies entrepreneurship.

665
01:18:29.100 --> 01:18:39.100
However, the entrepreneur that drives the economy and that is continually reshuffling resources to better serve consumers is a promoter entrepreneur.

666
01:18:39.100 --> 01:18:53.100
That's someone with typically a lot of capital and access to much more capital who has to continually anticipate the future and make decisions based on those anticipations.

667
01:18:53.100 --> 01:19:15.500
yes okay it's a good question yes it is true capital is frozen labor it's past

668
01:19:15.500 --> 01:19:22.220
labor and land and time so capital good is really frozen labor land and time but

669
01:19:22.220 --> 01:19:26.220
But let's forget about the land for a moment and just talk about labor and time.

670
01:19:26.220 --> 01:19:29.220
Now, I don't think you can replace it with labor.

671
01:19:29.220 --> 01:19:33.220
The reason is, at this moment in time, at any moment in time, you have a structure of capital goods.

672
01:19:33.220 --> 01:19:38.220
If you look around, we have factories and machines and so on that are durable, that will last,

673
01:19:38.220 --> 01:19:41.220
and that have to be continually allocated.

674
01:19:41.220 --> 01:19:45.220
And so there is a difference between that factor and labor.

675
01:19:45.220 --> 01:19:52.220
One of the differences is that capital goods have a natural life cycle. They can be replaced.

676
01:19:52.220 --> 01:20:03.220
That is, you have to continually renew the structure of production. You have to make decisions about whether I should reproduce this capital good or use the proceeds to invest in another capital good.

677
01:20:03.220 --> 01:20:07.220
With labor, labor is an original factor of production. Your energy is always there and ready to be used.

678
01:20:07.220 --> 01:20:13.220
So there is a difference in the concrete means and they can be kept distinct.

679
01:20:13.220 --> 01:20:20.220
Okay, other questions? Comments? Criticisms? Okay, I'll stop here. Thank you.