Jump to Navigation
Home

Main menu

  • Home
  • Latest Stories
  • Markets Map
  • Trends and Sentiments
  • Leading Topics
  • News Search
  • Comments and Analysis

Secondary menu

  • Latest News
  • Top Rated
  • Most Popular
  • Archive
  • About Us
  • Marines want a man-portable system that fires kamikaze...
  • An attack on an Israeli Arab in Germany wearing a Jewish...
  • Starbucks CEO says that boycotts following the arrests of...
  • Russia To Upgrade Syria's Air Defense System,...
  • Cramer: Domino's Pizza might have the best earnings...
  • Cramer: Big tech is behind today's market rally
  • Wages and inflation data could stir up markets Friday
  • Domino's Pizza (DPZ) Q1 2018 Results - Earnings Call...
  • Antero Midstream Partners' (AM) CEO Paul Rady on Q1...
  • Neste Oyj's (NTOIF) CEO Matti Lievonen on Q1 2018...

    Opportunity Costs, Capital, and Calculation

    Tue, 06/08/2010 - 20:09 EDT - Coordination Problem
    • Comments

    Steven HorwitzI'm in Atlanta at the moment at FEE's "Introduction to Austrian Economics" seminar.  Last night, Paul Cwik gave a talk on "Menger and the Early Austrians" that included a discussion of Wieser's role in originating the idea of opportunity cost.  What struck me was that Paul used examples all from the producer's perspective.  That is, he framed opportunity cost in terms of the expected value of the output sacrificed by putting one unit of an input to its perceived highest valued use.  I don't have my Wieser with me for some strange reason, so I don't know if Wieser made the case from the producer side, but assuming so, it led me to an interesting "musing."  (I'm sure Richard Ebeling will give us the facts on this one!)Most economics textbooks teach opportunity cost in terms of foregone utility from consumption choices (e.g. "beer vs. pretzels"), although Economic Way of Thinking is an exception.  And I think this is consistent with the post-Marshallian vision of most economists wherein subjectivism is about consumption and value but production decisions are based on more objective notions of cost as embodied in the cost curves.  Other than EWOT, how many intro books derive the supply curve using an approach that emphasizes the rising marginal opportunity cost of alternative uses of the inputs?What struck me was how this more Austrian approach that recognizes the subjectivity of opportunity costs on both sides of the market links so nicely to the centrality of capital and economic calculation in the Austrian theory of the market process.  The fact that capital goods HAVE opportunity costs is the equivalent of saying that they have multiple but not infinite uses.  In a world of perfectly specific capital goods, they have no opportunity cost because each input has only one use.  In a world of perfectly homogeneous capital goods, they have no opportunity cost because each input can be used equally well for each output.  Seeing opportunity cost on the supply side implies a conception of capital that matches with how the Austrians see it.And this, of course, is why economic calculation matters:  we need a way of determining whether capital goods are being put to their most highly desired use precisely because they DO have opportunity costs.  Should we use the steel for more bridges or more skyscrapers?  Should we use the potatoes for more french fries or more clam chowder?  Those questions only make sense in a world where capital goods have a limited number of uses, and thus have opportunity costs.  It is the price system, which enables calculation and budgeting, that at least gives us a shot at making some sort of comparison and determining the best decision.  Prices are, as Frederic Sautet said today, a "compass" that gives us a sense of what direction we should head.  The multiple specificity of capital, economic calculation, and producer side opportunity costs are all an interconnected part of the Austrian vision.  One could add into this mix Wieser's work on imputation as well.  It also would seem to connect with Hayek's greater sympathy for Wieser's work, especially the stuff on imputation, than that of his contemporaries and modern Austrians.  Hayek's concerns too were with the intersections among capital and calculation and the issues raised by imputation, as he notes in his end shot at Schumpeter in "The Use of Knowledge in Society."Indeed, more generally, this mix of concepts points to why Austrians reject, or at least strongly stress the limits of, general equilibrium analysis:  all of these problems are absent in such a world.As I said, this is nothing more than a "musing" rather than a tighter argument so I'd be interested in comments, especially on the question of Wieser's explanation of opportunity costs.  It does seem to me that thinking of opportunity cost being first and foremost about the application of inputs to outputs puts the central problem of the market order (the allocation of capital via economic calculation) into its rightful central place in economic theory.

    • Original article
    • Login to post comments
     

    Related

    • Fascinating Vienna and the History of Economics

      |Peter Boettke|For the past few years I have been stressing to my graduate students the difference between Austrian economics and Austrian economics, mainly to highlight the career advantages of focusing their efforts on contributing to economics.  However, I am always quick to point out that both are legitimate and worthy of serious research.

    • We're Living In The Age Of Capital Consumption

      Authored by Ronald-Peter Stöferle via The Mises Institute,

    • Models as Maps, and Economics as a Tool for Social Understanding

      |Peter Boettke|

    • New Spanish Volume of Interviews with Austrians

      Steven Horwitz

    • Austrian Economics: What Business Executives Should Know

      This recession has brought out a great deal of talk about the Austrian approach to economics, a subject I studied intensely in my student years.  This post is a brief primer for the mainstream business owner or manager.

    • The Most Important Economics Debate of the Interwar Period

      Steven Horwitz Normally Austrians talk about the two big debates of the interwar period - the socialist calculation debate and the Hayek-Keynes debate.  And those were big, particularly if "big" here means something like "had major, direct consequences on policy." It's a fun conversation to try to argue which one was more important.

    • What Austrian Economics IS and What Austrian Economics Is NOT

      Steven Horwitz Since the start of the financial crisis and recession, there has been a renewed interest in the ideas of Austrian economics by scholars, public intellectuals, and even the media.  For the first time in a long time, the analytical framework of Austrian economics is being taken note of, if not taken seriously, by a variety of opinion makers.  This is, of course, a good development. 

    • Formal Theories of the Market Process

      |Peter Boettke|

    • George Stigler on Carl Menger

      |Peter Boettke|

    • Peter Klein's PhD Course in Austrian Economics

      |Peter Boettke|

    Latest

    An attack on an Israeli Arab in Germany wearing a Jewish skullcap is a stark reminder of the challenges of rising anti-Semitism
    An attack on an Israeli Arab in Germany wearing a...
    Russia To Upgrade Syria's Air Defense System, Escalating Tensions With Israel
    Russia To Upgrade Syria's Air Defense System...

    Markets Map

    Markets Map

    Follow Us

    Follow Us on Facebook, Twitter, Google Plus and RSS LinkedIn Facebook Twitter Google Plus RSS
    S&P 500: 2579.37 0.16% FTSE: 7487.96 -0.07% Nikk.: 22420.08 1.82% DAX: 13465.51 1.75% HSI: 28594.06 1.22% FX: EUR/GBP: 1.1401 USD/EUR: 1.1618 JPY/USD: 114.1510 Commodities: Gold: 1276.1000

    Bullfax.com - Market News & Analysis 2008-2011
    Contact Us | About Us | Terms & Conditions

    Follow Us on Facebook, Twitter, Google Plus and RSS LinkedIn Facebook Twitter Google Plus RSS .

    Secondary menu

    • Latest News
    • Top Rated
    • Most Popular
    • Archive
    • About Us