Correct, and they’re equivocating.
all capital is technology.
Not all technology is capital.
discuss.
Yes, he put his technological ideas to use. So what?
It’s not a chicken/ egg thing. Without the necessary capital, technology is useless.
s.
No, but this proves my point, not your
Now, now, what did Ludwig von Mises, amongst others, teach us about “reality” “refuting” things?
But a recipe is - which is why I made a point of asking why people by recipe books. Obviously, they buy them for the recipes (i.e. the technology). Why do people by math text books or nuclear physics text books? For the technology contained in them, of course. Technology IS a good - since you can easily establish a link between it and the satisfaction of human needs. So if we’re going by Menger’s definition, this can hardly be denied.
Yes, but they’re not scarce, hence they’re not an economic good. Which means they’re most certainly not a capital good. Just like air, air is not a capital good.
Technology and capital go hand in hand. Leonardo DaVinci had made the schematics for the helicopter back in like the 15th centurey, but the steel mills and oil refineries we needed to build them didnt appear until the 20th century.
Technology often is a capital good. I’m not making an absolute equivocation, however. I don’t see why this point would be objected to. You seem to be defining technology as an idea, whereas I’m using the term technology to refer to the actual physical implementation of those ideas into objects. Nigram clarified this matter in his post above: technology in this context refers to actual tools or machinery. So accusing me of making an equivocation is inaccurate.
I’m referring to technological ideas. Which are not capital.
And I’m refering to technological devices, which are often (although not always) capital.
That’s exactly my point.
That’s sort of exactly my point.
What don’t you understand about the fact that “the necessary capital” may very well be technology? That this goes in both directions is so obvious. Even if you’re using the term “capital” to refer to investment and whatnot, that cannot be done without prior technology. On the other hand, the technology cannot be aquired without prior investment. It works both ways. The machinery of a factory, for example, is both a capital good and technology.
In which case any device is technological, so your use of the term is not needed. The technological in “technological devices” is redundant.
Wow, your desire to continually play semantics is astounding.
But technology, in the sense I’m using it, isn’t capital. It’s that simple. My idea to use a stick to push berries out of tree isn’t capital. Not according to any Austrian economist anyway…
Again, you’re playing semantics. I’m not talking about your idea to use a stick to push berries out of a tree. I’m talking about the stick itself - which is a capital good precisely because of its function of pushing berries out of the tree, according to Rothbard himself from the stick example you are drawing from him. Part of Rothbard’s entire point in the example you are drawing from is that the stick is a capital good. And the stick is also being used as “technology”.
Ok, well it seems you’re intent on equating “technology” and “good”. So I’ll let you be. My point remains, in my sense of the term (and as you mentioned, Rothbard’s), technology refers to ideas, and as such are not capital goods.
How is that?
For you, and for Spidey, please review some of the selections in the “Literature” section of this site. It is you who are playing semantic games by stating what your opinions are. “Well from my perspective…” “What I am talking about…”
This is the ECONOMIC QUESTIONS forum. If you can find an author who, without equivocating, states that technology itself is a form of capital or that any capital good is “technology” (because they all, to some extent, incorporate technology), then post it and we can discuss.
As to the question of whether one or the other are required for advancement, both are required, but the supply of capital (GOODS/MONEY, NOT RECIPES) has been the limiting factor through out all of history, i.e. our recipes have always outpaced our supply of capital. We can examine what would happen if we have fully exploited all known recipes, but then we would not be examining reality in relation to the present, or any human past.
This, thank you.