Update

Well it has been a long while since I last posted on my blog. Talking last week with a friend of mine reminded me of it, and so now there's some new material. Here's a (hopefully) quick update on my goings-on:

• My uncle is very sick with cancer. We really hope he pulls through. He better at the very least hang in there so I can see him again in two months!!
• I have a little less than 10 weeks left here in Cottbus, Germany
• I'm working on my Master Thesis and I still have one exam left to take
• I now have a desk in another building, so I now longer have to put up with the jackhammering of all the renovations
• I'm now writing the thesis in english - now it'll be done much faster and be of higher quality.
• I still have no job to return to, though I'll find out at the end of August whether Lockheed has a position available for me
• Ever since running out of mises.org podcasts to listen to, I've been listening to the following podcasts, each of which I hope to review in the near future
• School Sucks (Brett Vinnoitte (sp?))
• Gnostic Media (Jan Irvin)
• Complete Liberty
• Peace Revolution
• the Lew Rockwell Show
• I'm excited to be done with school and to return home
• I'm starting to work on my Flash videos again. I want to summarize each chapter of Hazlitt's Economics in One Lesson in ten minute videos (or shorter)
• I've found a buyer for my bass guitar (Richard, my roommate)
• It's been a very rainy summer here in Cottbus
• I plan on visiting Vienna and Instanbul before returning home

The role of recipes in increasing productivity

(originally posted August 14, 2011 @ Facebook)

In Man, Economy, and State, Chapter 1.8 "Factors of Production: Labor versus Leisure," Murray Rothbard claims that improved technical knowledge by itself cannot increase production (that it merely broadens the bounds of what is possible with the given resources). I give the full quote at the bottom of this post. I disagree with him and I illustrate this with the following example:

Let's say Crusoe has a nice sharp rock and a heap of coconuts. At first it takes him an hour to crack each coconut until he stumbles upon a better technique. Perhaps he discovers that striking the coconut in a certain way or in a certain place opens it with one simply whack, bringing his production time down from an hour to five minutes.

So: same rock, same type of coconut, but twelve times the productivity. The only difference is his recipe, or technical knowledge. Now of course I do agree with Rothbard in his own example below that Crusoe can't build a mansion on his island even if he knew how to do it. This is because his resources are limited. But what about the coconut example? What do you guys say?
 
Fins


original quote:
"...It is evident that every man desires to maximize his production of consumers’ goods per unit of time. [...] The nature-given factors are limited by his environment and therefore cannot be increased. This leaves him with the choice of increasing his supply of capital goods or of increasing his expenditure of labor. It might be asserted that another way of increasing his production is to improve his technical knowledge of how to produce the desired goods—to improve his recipes. A recipe, however, can only set outer limits on his increases in production; the actual increases can be accomplished solely by an increase in the supply of productive factors. Thus, suppose that Robinson Crusoe lands, without equipment, on a desert island. He may be a competent engineer and have full knowledge of the necessary processes involved in constructing a mansion for himself. But without the necessary supply of factors available, this knowledge could not suffice to construct the mansion."

- Murray Rothbard (Man, Economy, and State)

Larken Rose, Jan Irvin (Gnostic Media), and roads

re: Gnostic Media Podcast: Jan Irvin interviews Larken Rose (pt. 3)

(Larken is an anarchist and author of "The Most Dangerous Superstition")

Larken speaks about how most people ask the question, "How will we pay for the roads in a free society?" His answer: "You already pay for the roads." As if it's a "well, duh!" kind of answer. But it's a straw man - he's answering a question that doesn't really concern people. The question that people really ask is "how do we prevent the free-rider problem?" or "what's to stop people from extorting those wanting to use their roads?" or similar concerns. These concerns may or may not be valid, but it is without a doubt that in a society of socialized roads, it is indeed difficult at least for most people to imagine a society without socialized roads. Most people don't have very good imaginations and so it is not surprising that people struggle with this issue. They're not stupid.