Skip to main content


I reserve the right to be wrong.

So, economics is concerned with people's material production and exchange with each other. 'What the floop does that mean, Matt?' I hear you ask!

You create in the course of your life. Creation, which economists call production, takes in manufacture, harvesting crops, writing novels, and so on...

You sell (exchange for money) these things you have produced. As they were produced, they are called products. Products can be physical, tangible, hold-in-your-hand goods, or non-physical, intangible services. Both are produced. Both are products.

Phones, cars and clothes are goods. Haircuts, massages and investment advice are services. A book is a tangible good, but the novel inside is an intangible service. Same with a CD/DVD/Blu-Ray. Overall, they are all still products.

'But Matt, how do economists explain the making of products?'


Products are produced. We arrive at them through production. But that production needs inputs in order to output the products. These inputs are called the factors of production, and they are the land we live and work on, the labour of people, and the tools and other artificial goods we use, such as a lathe in a machine shop.

You can also see all of these factors as forms of capital;


Instead of Land, just see everything provided by nature in one neat category. thus including animals, plants, ores, clean air, drinking water, biodiversity, et cetera.


The bodies and minds of people; so their mechanical abilities plus their learned skills , such as advanced mathematics, or carpentry, or smithing, et cetera.


As Capital in the Land, Labour, Capital troika. Stuff that has been made for use in the production process, such as computers, industrial machinery, vehicles, hard hats, et cetera.

Production, taking in these three factors, churns out almost everything we exchange with each other. You are always free to find some gap in the economy; some demand for a product that doesn't yet exist, and stick your oar in to produce and provide that product. Production has existed since time immemorial, but has become an ever more capital-intensive process. What do I mean by that? I mean that the importance of capital/physical capital in every unit of production is increasing relative to the other two factors.

This happens because employers always seek to make their enterprises less labour-intensive. The downside of this is that many workers become less necessary and lose their jobs. On the other hand, those who don't, or who learn the new skills to fit with the increase in capital intensity win big, because their job security, absent a glut of people with the same qualifications, actually increases, and working hours can go down even as net wages go up, as happened in the late 19th century.

Economic growth is partly a by-product of increased productivity resulting from this increasing capital intensity. In fact another word for a society that puts ever more capital into the production process could be Capitalism. But that's for another day.

Money is notably absent from here, but that's because money doesn't produce anything. It is only exchanged for a product after the production process, or paid to a person as wages in exchange for their effort in the production process, thus invalidating money as a factor of production.

On the next Ecomony Blogtime;

Matt describes Exchange, or Trade, without which there is no economy!


Popular posts from this blog

What Lingos Are Most Similar to English, Though?

Commentaryism - The Death Toll of Capitalism

How many people have died because capitalism exists? How many would still be alive if it had never existed? Let's dig in!

We will take two approaches over the course of this blog post by looking at the the death tolls attributed to the word in its broad popular definition - everything socialists don't like - versus the toll that fits the definition offered previously on this blog.

By the same token I will not lay any outsized figures at any other mode of production's door except where that mode of production demonstrably caused the problem that killed people. It's political ideologies that really matter here, and this is where the first big problem with even trying to lay a specific body count before capitalism runs into problems - there is no political ideology called capitalism.

Now then, Alfonso Gutierrez says in a comment thread that "capitalism and free-markets have murdered billions of people" which is a risky claim at the …

Trickle-down Economics as Economic Theory in Reality

I watched an interview with Deirdre McCloskey on the Youtube channel of the Institute for New Economic Thinking. [1]

After doing so I contributed to a comment thread, recreated in full below, wherein a chappy who claimed to be an economist tried to convince me that trickle-down economics actually is a serious thing after all. This was in response to my posting a link to Thomas Sowell's article The Trickle-Down Lie, and I am so far unconvinced by the tale the economist in question spun for me.

He cited a paper from the 90's as his example, and I entreat you to have a gander at its abstract and compare that to trickle-down as described by David Stockman in his interview with William Greider on supply-side economics. [2][3][4]

Steve Horwitz isn't in love with the phrase, but offers a decent definition;
It’s hard to pin down exactly what that term means, but it seems to be something like the following: “those free market folks believe that if you give tax cuts or subsidies to …