Skip to main content

Survival, Safety, Comfort, Leisure


It strikes me that an easy shorthand for the form of the satisfactions we make goals of may be to rank them in terms of their position, working from mere survival up to totally frivolous leisure.

In our minds we organise our goals according to what might be thought of as a hierarchy of wants. This means that, put simply, we will come up with goals based on the urgency of the thing we want. If the thing and the use of it assures mere survival, and your survival is imperilled, then that use is the one you will choose.

Neoclassical economics employs the concept of utility functions, and Austrian econ the almost identical concept of value scales. The difference is that Austrian value scales are always reckoned to rank preferences ordinally, whereas utility functions can be ordinal or cardinal. Well, some dispute that, but it has held in econ textbooks and, I'm pretty sure, the working behind Principles of Economics by Marshall!

I am not presuming to have my own alternative to either approach. This is supposed to be a kind of supplement. If some day I or somebody else refines it enough that it becomes to economics what Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs is to psychology, then hooray. For now, no such luck.



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
SURVIVAL
Merely not death. Wants whose satisfaction merely leads to the continuation of organic function.

FOOD
CLOTHING
SHELTER



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
SAFETY
Wants whose satisfaction causes a person to feel physically secure both in the moment and contemplating at least their short-term future.

MARTIAL ARTS TRAINING
WEAPONS AND WEAPONS TRAINING
SECURITY SERVICES
DISPUTE RESOLUTION SERVICES



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
COMFORT
Physical ease in terms of addressing uncomfortable health problems, enjoying appropriately sized, cut and worked goods, and hygiene of one's person and surroundings.

WHITE GOODS
FURNITURE
ENERGY
HEALTHCARE
HYGIENE



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
LEISURE
What it sounds like. Room to breathe! A kinda meta-layer atop the other three taking in flavour, romance and sex, and so on.

SPARE TIME
ENTERTAINMENT

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Private Ownership and the Emergence of Field-based Agriculture

Quick update: There is a nicer, fancier article on this very subject on another blog. If for some reason you read my article below, treat yourself and partake of properal's piece too . ~~~ There is a paper by Samuel Bowles and Jung-Kyoo Choi called 'Coevolution of farming and private property during the early Holocene' and it is wonderful. It leaves a few stones unturned and its thesis needs to be empirically verified or falsified but it really begins to clarify the intimate relationship between the form of agriculture that we refer to as farming on the one hand and private ownership on the other. Their thesis is that technology was not the driver that led to long-term (inter-generational) farming, but also that farming did not follow some moment where the folks in a society all said "hey, let's all have private property now!" Rather, what they posit is that farming and private property actually coalesced, ad-hoc and over a multi-generational time-fram...
Post a Comment
Read more

I AM AN AUSTRIAN

Is it so wrong? Really? Just humour me, dudes and dudettes. I am an Austrian. I am a Libertarian. I am an Austro-Libertarian. I'm evidently also a hypocrite, as I've used most of these words without capitals in past posts. Oops. I've made Austrian economics my home because it accords better with certain concerns of mine; why have a subjective theory of value and then lump desires and capacities into aggregates? Why declare that economic facts can be gleaned from the movements of particular markets at particular times in the past? Rothbard sums up the problem with both phenomena in a way that no mainstream economist ever would, since to do so would be to admit that there are entire fields of modern economics that are, at best, pointless, and at worst, harmful. NOT MAINSTREAM? Why is Austrian economics not mainstream? It rejects the efficacy of aggregates and mathematical formulae to arrive at economic truths. According to the Austrian worldview,...
Post a Comment
Read more

1318 - The Evil Capitalists Own Your Mom!

The New Scientist ran a piece  on the economic relationships between the 43,060 transnational corporations in the world as of 2007. It turns out that 147 of 'em are thick as thieves, which each of those 147 entirely owned by one or more of the others within that clique. Naturally some anti-capitalists have decided that this proliferation of tight interconnections constitutes the proof that not buying what someone's selling will fail to put that seller out of business. Takes all sorts to make a world, brah. Is concentration scary in itself? No; John Driffill of the University of London, a macroeconomics expert, says the value of the analysis is not just to see if a small number of people controls the global economy, but rather its insights into economic stability. Concentration of power is not good or bad in itself, says the Zurich team, but the core’s tight interconnections could be. As the world learned in 2008, such networks are unstable . “If one [compan...
Post a Comment
Read more