I’ve read those parts of human action, but I’m not understanding mises’s point.
according to Mises, a non-scarce good seems to be infinite (like in the law of returns, the degree to which b is present is incidental as long as b exists and c is present in quantities sufficient to offset any declines in b. So it seems that even if b exists in some infinitely small amount, then as long as c cooperates, one has sufficient inputs to create the same amount of outputs). But mises says that air is a non-scarce good and yet it is not infinite? Also in that law of returns example, Mises states that the good b, doesn’t receive any payments for its help in producing the output. But why should it not receive pay when one needs to choose at least some of good b to make an output. It’s not like one can just not choose b at all and still get the end product?
Also, Mises seems to say that a non-scarce good is not an object of acting but is rather taken for granted in all human life and existence. He lists technological recipes as a type of non-scarce good. But these recipes are objects of action; one needs to use mental effort to create ideas and to focus on them so how can recipes be non-scarce?
one has to use mental effort to do anything (except when it’s reflex). Scarce and non-scarce can only be physical things, not mentality, efforts, actions etc. My quarter of dollar.
I think the least confusing way of considering scarcity is a strict interpretation using physicality as the determinant.
Things that are physical are scarce because it’s a fundamental property of physical “stuff”. I put stuff in quotes because it includes things like a specific location, even if there’s more or less no matter there such as an empty point in deep space. There are specific atoms and specific locations which are not reproducible. Even in an infinite universe physical things are scarce due to the scarcity at one locality.
Everything else is non-scarce. They are infinitely reproducible with no real requirements by their very nature. These are invariably non-physical abstractions, such as ideas.
When Mises and Rothbard say things like “air is non-scarce” we can immediately think of situations where this is not true. If you’re on Mars air is scarce. If you live in LA clean, unpolluted air is scarce. Air has all of the properties of a scarce, physical thing (because it is one) and none of the properties of a non-scarce, abstract thing. What they are really saying is that air is treated as non-scarce at the time of the writing to the people they are talking about. In other words, it’s not economically scarce; ie, people don’t treat it as an owned property because it is relatively abundant.
^ I think that is a good post but I also think by simply resorting to that argument it isn’t the most convincing argument ^
Why is a technological recipe not considered scarce?
Let’s set aside for a moment the main argument is defining scarce in a physical context and arguing if it does not meet the physical requirement it is not scarce. I can envision in the OP’s mind he is thinking this just doesn’t make sense. I can envision the OP arguing it takes a lot of work, time, and energy to do research. That time, work, and energy ought to have value and it ought to be wrong for people to use that time, work, and energy for free.
This is the main appeal to common sense and it is a PRETTY strong one. A LOT of people likely naturally feel this way. I am going to tie this into the contract thread about non-compete because I think it’s a very relevant tie in.
Let’s take the issue of research and invention. Clearly the inventor has a distinct advantage in the market. Capital further enhances this advantage in that capital enhances production. The main economic advantage of invention is being first to market.
The primary issue here is secrecy, specifically;
Is it possible to transfer title to a secret so that keeping a secret is “enforceable?”
In addition to the defining scarce in a physical context, I think a good response should also include how contracts could be structured for invention in order to protect secrets.
If I could think of any works that address the enforcability of secrecy and who ought to bear the burden of secrecy cost I would surely link it. Maybe someone behind me can follow up with some good links.
I would argue responsibility lies with an inventor and if an inventor wants to enforce a secret an inventor ought to bear the responsibility and utilize conditional contracts soliciting capital or workers that pay potential investors or workers to keep a secret possibly utilizing a performance bond (i hesitate to mention that concept because it requires further explanation in the context i mean it). I would argue responsibility lies with an inventor to do business with potential investors or workers that have a good reputation of keeping secrets. I would argue inventors do not have a fundamental right to transfer this responsibility to taxpayers or forcefully use other people’s money to protect their secrets. I would argue a free market might come up with insurance solutions for inventors to address the risk of secrets and compensate potential losses of a revealed secret.
I agree. I started thinking of scarcity this way not as a rebuttal to common arguments, but as a response to my own reading of Mises’ and Rothbard’s “air is non-scarce” statements. They never sat right with me.
That said, I don’t think you can develop the correct answers to the more common arguments without a solid foundation on which to start. If you open up with something like air as an example, even if it is mostly treated as economically non-scarce, you end up with justifications for all sorts of IP because of a faulty starting point.
Doesn’t have to be infinite, just so much that there is no need to economize [=not use some now because you will need it later]. I got this from HA, page 93 in the print edition.
He means a given Recipe A is not scarce after it is discovered. See 1.