/biz/ - Business & Finance

vidya time, dont heem yourselves this afternoon goys

>>28908660
why yes good sir, i too am rather comfy

>>20744561
Paperpaper silver Chad's for the win. Paperlets permanently btfo

>>18068080
Anyone with half a brain realizes this, thanks for the heads up though.

>>15744421
Indeed we are

hey biz, i'm thinking of trying to consolidate my wallet addresses. what's the best multi-currency wallet?

>yet another economics book which doesn't define how 'needs' are determined.

Are we just to assume every individual is the same? Are we to assume there is a level that even the most rapacious, avaricious individual finds placation in their accumulation of economic goods so that the good is, in the Mengerian sense, non-economic? My problem is across the board. The only economist I've seen come even close to an appropriate theory of the development and origin of needs is probably Ludwig Von Mises. It is just ridiculous though, how he says non-economic goods are communistic in nature, but then turns around and stipulates some other tendency for them not to be if they won't satisfy everyone's needs.

Where is the line crossed? I would argue that the nature of good's relation to us physically and emotionally (spiritually), they are either capable of corrupted increase (almost increased indefinitely for consumption) or not (they satisfy some need which will not increase after satisfied). Something like an indefinite increase in output to satisfy the needs of individuals can be observed in food, where because of characteristic increases in personal consumption, you see the level of production every stage in the production period increase more and more, exponentially so, because the population increases WITH the need to consume. This is tied together with wealth increases being given to give individuals a certain life or livelihood, as in the Smithian days income was thought to be determined by the money necessary to help sustain himself and his wife and kids if necessary.