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

Will Automation Make All of the Jobs Disappear?

... No.

There is no reason to suggest that automation will dramatically increase unemployment in the short term, or at all in the long term.

Seriously, it will not.

Do read the links in the order in which they appear please. Finding the right comments in the third link might be quite interesting. They are all by a user called BestTrousers and start with "RI" meaning R1.

The main argument used by HealthcareEconomist3 is to give a survey of several works, while BestTrousers goes for comparative advantage.

Why I Am Not a Historical Materialist

Hopefully you good folks can indulge me by forgiving this post. It is an unfinished mess because I wanted it out there as the anchor for a hyperlink from a Reddit thread.
At the momebt everything below is a jumble of notes, but I will be reworking it bit by bit starting today.
Hopefully this post will be sorted out and typed in full before the end of April 2017.


Historical materialism is the idea that history progresses in stages - slavery, then feudalism, then capitalism, then socialism, then communism - driven by changes in the technologies or techniques of production, and that any human civilisation will exemplify this process.

This makes historical materialism an exercise in both historicism and materialism.

Historicism is the idea that studying the past can reveal history's in-built course or narrative, and so show you the future.

Materialism is the idea that ideas ( and institutions) ultimately* don't matter in determining our destinies, and that therefore only material…

Capital & Labor in the Race to Exploit the Other

The idea that labor exploits capital is equally as plausible, sans assumptions*, as the idea that capital exploits labor. This is only intended as a response to the formal concept, descriptive or normative, of exploitation in Marx's schema from Capital Volume I.

* Assumptions include the power relation whereby capital is just assumed to be above labor hierarchically.

~ Capital exploits labor because... ... Capital earns income from production done by labor that capital didn't perform
~ Labor exploits Capital because... ... Labor earns income from capital that labor didn't buy
Basically in good old formal logic fashion both of those cases above, being factual descriptions, are true at once or are false at once.