Re: [PEN-L] "human wants unlimited" question

[Eugene Coyle]

I once read about a man with a mind so powerful he could envision a stick with only one end.  I think that proves the neo-classicals are correct. Gene Coyle Sandwichman wrote: This confuses me, Ian, because it seems to me that the "in principle" qualification abstracts from the actual, empirical behavior of human beings. I'm also not sure about conflating unlimited with infinite. Wants would always be finite at any given time but they could be assumed to expand indefinitely over time. This is not to say that I whole-heartedly endorse the unlimited wants (in principle) assumption. I think it's meaningless aside from its ideological function within economics. It's just a smarmy "worldy wise" irrelevancy from hegemony apologists, AFAIC. But I would also contend that with the qualification it has no policy-relevant analytical "force" and can be conceded to those who were dreaming it was their trump. Without the qualification, it's a dingbat perpetual motion machine. The Sandwichman Autoplectic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Not necessarily a response to the actual question but..... In principle arguments are, in principle, suspect regarding the actual, emprirical behavior of human beings. We have no idea of what a positive definition/demonstration of unlimited wants means or signifies any more than we a have a definition/demonstration of the actual infinite. Find your next car at Yahoo! Canada Autos