Need some help with Human Action

Miscellaneous Newbies
1
  1. On page 124 [160 in pdf numbering] Mises writes:

There are only two alternatives. Either there are or there are not
intermediate stages between the felt uneasiness which impels a man
to act and the state in which there can no longer be any action (be it
because the state of perfect satisfaction is reached or because man
is incapable of any further improvement in his conditions). In the
second case there 'could be only one action; as soon as this action is
consummated, a state would be reached in which no further action is
possible. This is manifestly incompatible with our assumption that
there is action; this case no longer implies the general conditions pre-
supposed in the category of action. Only the first case remains.

I don’t grasp why it is manifestly incompatible with the assumption that there is action to assume as well that there could be only one action. Can someone explain this, please?

  1. On page 125 [161 in pdf numbering] Mises writes:

If we were to beIieve that marginal utility is about things and
their objective use-value, we would be forced to assume that margina
utility can as well increase as decrease with an increase in the quan-
tity of units available. It can happen that the employment of a certain
minimum quantity units of a good a can provide a satisfaction
which is deemed more valuable than the services expected from one
unit of a good b. But if the supply of a available is smaller than n, a
can only be employed for another service which is considered less
valuable than that of b. Then an increase in the quantity of a from
n - I units to n units results in an increase of the value attached to
one unit of n. The owner of loo logs may build a cabin which pro-
tects him against rain better than a raincoat. But if fewer than 30 logs
are available, he can only use them for a berth that protects him against
the dampness of the soil. As the owner of 95 logs he would be prepared
to forsake the raincoat in order to get 5 logs more. As the owner of
10 logs he would not abandon the raincoat even for 10 logs…

…All this is in perfect agreement with the rightly
formulated law of marginal utility according to which value depends
on the utility of the services expected. There is no question of any
such thing as a law of increasing utility.

His two examples [I only copied one] are cases where there does seem to be increasing marginal utility. I imagine he is saying that this is not really the case if we formulate the law “rightly”. I am also guessing, based on the beginning of the paragraph, that the key is working with subjective as opposed to objective use value.

But I don’t see how subjective use value solves the riddle. Enlightenment, please?

One last fumble in the dark. I am guessing that the key is in defining the units. But I still don’t have any clarity here. Help!

2

I don’t grasp why it is manifestly incompatible with the assumption that there is action to assume as well that there could be only one action. Can someone explain this, please?

If all intermediate stages of production between satisfaction and raw materials have ceased, then the only thing left to the human is to act and consummate the final joy of permanent satisfaction; after which there will be no action whatsoever but simply an unceasing abundance (or, at least, no possible ‘better’ outcome due to human aciton).

His two examples [I only copied one] are cases where there does seem to be increasing marginal utility. I imagine he is saying that this is not really the case if we formulate the law “rightly”. I am also guessing, based on the beginning of the paragraph, that the key is working with subjective as opposed to objective use value.

The point is that while physical efficacy or service of some special purpose can be achieved by larger quantities of the good, this does not repudiate subjective marginal utility. If 15 units of butter are capable of serving a highly valued purpose which no 1 butter is useful for, then 15 butter may have a higher marginal utility than butter #14, but only when taken as a group - which is to say, a different good altogheter. Each 15 butter constitute one sort of good, while each 1 butter is another; it is the mistake of objective use value to confuse what are, in fact, two different subjective goods.

3

Thanks

4

You have the Study Guide, right? (Mises Daily about it too.)

5

Yes. 'Twas silent on that page.