Austrian Economics Forum: Physiocrat -

I wrote this in the economic freedom and growth thread but I thought I'd put it into a thread to see what you think.

What actually is economic growth? I would define it as the increase in consumers subjective value of the resources, broadly defined, in the economy. It must refer to value since refering to physical output assumes a value judgment about that output and also fails to recognise that the physical amount of stuff in the economy is constant; since energy cannot be created or destroyed the amount of energy that existed today is the same as yesterday: the first law of thermodynamics. The question to ask then is how the subjective valuations of the resourecs of the economy are maximised? Well any form of expropriation has winners and losers and cannot be said to increase value ex ante however free exchange does. Further any attempt to provide goods and services monopolisticly will suffer the problems that all monopolies suffer and thus can be declared irrational ex ante. Due to this it causes inherent error cycles, as elucidated by Hulsmann, and will lead to a fall or slower rise in value than there would have been under free exchange.

Therefore the full economic freedom means the highest possible economic growth.

I've just started an economic history module which deals with the USA, Japan and Russia from the 19th century until the late 20th. Are there any Austrain economic history works on these periods? I'm familiar with Rothbard's History of Banking and Great Depression but no more.

Thought you guys may be interested. See details at the website below. I'll try and get there but I'll see what happens.

Liberty 2007

I have long been perterbed by the income effect due to its absurd effects in some cases- Giffen Goods. It also goes against the obvious, and necessary substitution effect- eg. the price of good A falls and ,a substitute, rises in price the individual will consume more of A ceteris paribus. However in the case of work and leisure this can lead to the strange result that if you keep paying someone more they'll work more ad infinitum because leaisure has become relatively more expensive. To remedy this the income effect was introduced which works in the opposite direction to the sub effect. Apart from potentially yeilding giffen goods there is the problem of identifying objectively what the income is. For a critique of the income effect see Salin's Myth of the Income Effect
So the income effect seems strange due to its implications as does the sub effect in regards work. The only way out I see is to say that income CAN, not does, at some point, influence the amount of disutility percieved in work: so retain the intuitive backward bending labour supply curve (BBLSC) one can say that at a certain point, and above, a further rise of income increases the disutility of work and thus induces more leisure. This not the same as the income effect since this changes the utility scales (or function), not holding it constant like the income effect does. This cannot be known a priori whether this will pertain; it is an empirical matter. I believe though this can retain the BBLSC and not resort to the income effect.

Yesterday Liam Donaldson, England's chief medical officer, suggested that there should be "presumed consent" in regards organ donation; essentially this would create an opt-out, rather than, an opt-in system. This would, he said increase, the number of donors and save lives: currently only 20% of the UK population are organ donors, 13 million, but since a lot of the organs are unsuitable for numerous reasons the number of people awaiting an organ transplant is 8,400.

There is indeed a problem here however the State essentially taking control over our own bodies is surely not the answer. As Hans Hoppe points out: either someone else owns are body-slavery; everyone owns everybody- communism; or we own our selves- liberty. This most definitely comes under slavery and is another attempt to extend the State's control over us.

So how do we solve the problem? Well suppose you ask me to work in your factory for 40 hours a week. I then reply "that sounds a good job; how much does it pay?" You then reply "nothing". Do you think I will take the job or not?

This is an analogous situation in regards organ donations: the government imposes a price control of zero on organs and you wonder why not that many people donate their organs. This is simple economics: if the government introduces a price ceiling below the market price excess demand will exist; which is precisely the case with organ donations. Currently you can only give away YOUR organs for free. Now since we own our own bodies (in a interpersonal sense since God actually owns everything) why can't we sell our organs the same way we sell our labour services? One can save lives by being a fireman or doctor and be paid for it; so why can't one save lives by donating their organs and be paid for it? Either the first activity is legitimate and the second is; or neither are legitimate. It would be inconsistent to argue otherwise.

Thus the answer is, as normal, to allow the free market in organ donations. By allowing the free trade in legitimately owned property, our own organs, this will increase the supply of organs and save lives. This does not mean that all organ donations will yield a price; some people will donate their organs for free in the same way some people do voluntary work. Neither will organs be tremendously expensive as in the current black market since the supply will be far larger due to the removal of the price control and the fact it will no longer be illegal, without demand changing in much; it is similar to a large degree to the drugs market.

Now to the much vexed question of "exploitation": people could buy organs, most likely to be kidneys, cheaply off people from the third world thereby exploiting there poor position. However if one is to argue this then one must also argue that importing cheap goods from the third world is a form of exploitation too. Yet these cheap, normally textiles or electronic goods, are examples of the third world's comparative advantage. To ban these imports or to put a tariff on them would destin the third world to be forever economically backward. Now to ban organ sales would not have as greater impact however would be prohibiting a mutually beneficial exchange. You have two perfectly good kidneys of which you could live comfortably live with one; I will die in the next three months if I don't have a kidney. I then pay you £400 for your kidney. I will now live for another twenty years and you have £400, which is equivalent to around a year's wages in your country allowing you to better feed your family and educate your children. How on earth can this be exploitative? Finally economics tells us how this cannot be exploitative: to this trade to go ahead you most value my £4oo more than your kidney and I must value your kidney more than my £400; there is no other way we would logically trade since if we valued both items equally there would be no point trading; and if you valued your kidney more than my £400 you wouldn't trade. The fact that you live in less than desirabe circumstances is irrelevant.

The government price control is killing people and the only way to stop this senseless slaughter is to allow the free trade in organs.

This was originally posted on my blog: www.the-eclectic-rambler. blogspot.com