[pacopasa]

Thank you, I am taking my time getting through Man,Economy and State, hopefully after that I will move on to other books by Rothbard and Mises.
Regarding diminishing utility, what would be the Austrian position on saving for a purchase? If I earned and saved $100 per week toward a $1000 vacation, I would consider each consecutive $100 equal in utility, actually I might even perceive each successive $100 as increasing in utility.

[pacopasa]

Thank you for your response.
But this is what I feel: If I have 1 million dollars saved for retirement I feel secure. If I have 2 million dollars saved I would feel much more secure, approximately twice as secure. If I had 3 million I’d feel approximately 2.5 times more secure. So I see the point of diminishing marginal utility .
I wonder about units of states of mind, could funniness, a joke, be measured by the number of laughs? Could sadness be measured by the number of tears or sobs?

[pacopasa]

Thank you for the article by Rothbard. I teach a high school course on World Religions and it seems that the distinction between the Romantic Movement and its opposite (?ism) is similar to the difference in emphasis between Confucianism (pro human institutions) and Taoism (anti). I have listened to the US History lectures, almost done with History of Political Thought and almost done with your lectures. Due to all of this I will spend my summer working through Man, Economy and State. Tried Human Action, got through about a third, will try it again next year. This article from 1970 seems timeless, like it could have been written yesterday.

[pacopasa]

Thank you, that’s clear to me now. Read the article, sounds like the situation is significantly worse than it appears.

[pacopasa]

Is trading one’s labor, or anything else for that matter, for US fiat dollars simply buying a piece of stock of the US economy; is the dollar the equivalent of a US stock certificate?

[pacopasa]

Thank you Professor Herbener,
Regarding your first paragragh, it seems true that people would have “less” money to lend but would not the fact that the money has more purchasing power reduce the demand to borrow “more” money? Would it not end up a wash?

[pacopasa]

In this fixed currency system, if price deflation was 5% per year during a period of growth, then people would have more money in hand, more money to lend. Borrowers would also have more money, so there would be less need to borrow. I can see how this would lower the interest rate but I don’t understand how it could go negative. Would not the pure rate of interest be dependent upon the amount of money available to lend and the desire of borrowers to borrow? Would not a negative interest rate mean that everyone has enough money to invest in all future projects and therefore no desire to borrow?
(Just finished your first boom and bust lecture, I am finding all of this very informative)

[pacopasa]

In this fixed currency system, if price deflation was 5% per year during a period of growth, then people would have more money in hand, more money to lend. Borrowers would also have more money, so there would be less need to borrow. I can see how this would lower the interest rate but I don’t understand how it could go negative. Would not the pure rate of interest be dependent upon the amount of money available to lend and the desire of borrowers to borrow? Would not a negative interest rate mean that everyone has enough money to invest in all future projects and therefore no desire to borrow?
(Just finished your first boom and bust lecture, I am finding all of this very informative)

When the US was on the gold standard, what effect did the gold rush era have upon it? If the US was on the gold standard now and gold was discovered in Antartica, a huge amount equal to the worlds known reserves, would that have an adverse effect upon the US economy?

[pacopasa]

If there came a point that gold was fully mined and there was no more to be found would it cease to be a practical commodity as money?

[pacopasa]

If the game had a four sided die instead of a two sided coin and three sides were winners, one a loser, then at a $2 game

a $2 fee has a 75% chance of breaking even
a $4 fee has a 56% chance of breaking even
an $8 fee has a 42% chance of breaking even
a $16 fee has a 32% chance of breaking even.

A reasonable person would pay $4,
If I had one drink I would pay $8
If I had two drinks I would pay $16
If I had three drinks I would pay $32
If I had four drinks I would pass out and not play.

The lesson: don’t drink or have 4 drinks.

[pacopasa]

I have to agree,for me these lectures are eye opening. Just finished the recommended reading, Rothbard on Turgot.

[pacopasa]

Thanks

[pacopasa]

Professor Herbener, thank you very much. I am currently in the middle of your Austrian Economics course, I am finding it most informative. Also doing my best to get through Human Action.

[pacopasa]

Thank you

[Author]

Posts