One of the cornerstones of the science of economics in its post-marginalist-revolution period is the realization that the necessity of “economizing” — i.e., maximizing individual desire satisfaction whilst minimizing the exploitation of productive resources — stems from the fact that the said resources are not suffi cient to satisfy all of the desires entertained by the totality of purposive agents. In this essay I suggest that in order to paint an accurate picture of human psychology, the desires in question should be thought of as unsatisfi able rather than unlimited. Furthermore, I propose that this observation provides yet another avenue for making a cogent analytical distinction between Hayek’s “knowledge problem” and Mises’ “calculation problem”, i.e., it allows for further elucidating the nuanced differences between these two authors’ views on the effi ciency (or lack thereof) of centrally planned economies, thus making a contribution to what has become known as the “dehomogenization debate” within the Austrian School
Feb 25, 2019
Feb 25, 2019
|A comment on the concept of desire satisfaction and the Mises-Hayek dehomogenization debate||Feb 25, 2019|
Wiśniewski, Jakub Bożydar
Wojciechowski, Rafał Kiczka, Karol. Red. Kocowski, Tadeusz. Red. Małecki, Witold. Red.
Barkov, Aleksej Vladimirovič Graâčev, Roman Ûr'evič Karkut, Daniel. Red. Mazurkiewicz, Jacek. Red. Gołaczyński, Jacek. Red. Turłukowski, Jarosław. Red.
Wiktorska-Święcka, Aldona Michalewska-Pawlak, Małgorzata Klimowicz, Monika
Skibicki, Rafał Uniwersytet Wrocławski. Katedra Doktryn Politycznych i Prawnych Uniwersytet Wrocławski. Pracownia Badań Praw Orientalnych Sadowski, Mirosław (1964- ). Red.
Kondracka-Szala, Marta Malinowska, Joanna
Murawiak, Katarzyna Winiarski, Marcin. Red.
Wiśniewski, Jakub Bożydar Dybał, Mariusz. Red. Kwaśnicki, Witold. Red. Machaj, Mateusz. Red.