Skip to main content


I reserve the right to be wrong.

Last time we ploughed our mucky furrow through the meadow of production, so it seems fitting, actually necessary, to touch upon the town square of exchange also. Exchange, or trade, is the sibling of production as the other human action that creates economics.


So to begin with people would trade one product for another product. As long as each of us has something the other wants, that's OK, but that situation is very unlikely to arise. In fact, most times I meet others, even if I'm careful and choose who I trade with so I know they have what I want, I can't be sure they'll want what I have. So let's introduce a medium of exchange that I can hand you in exchange for whatever I want from you!


A medium of exchange is pretty nifty. I'll go into that in more detail later. All that matters now is that, once trade consists of a medium passing from me to you, and a product from you to me, engaging in trade becomes easier and more predictable. And when it comes to trade, humans love predictability!

All consumption, as measured by macroeconomists, is trade / exchange.

We're in chicken and egg territory as to which of the two economic activities -production or trade- predates the other; I have no idea whatsoever. If you do, feel free to share your insights in the comments below.

On the next Ecomony Blogtime;

Matt wanders off into the wilderness to bring insights on the origin of species (of money).

Popular posts from this blog

So I was reading a piece on The Outline about identity politics when the author, Sean McElwee, brought up a survey he had penned and collated to establish how positions on economic and racial issues align;
Could Democrats win over racially conservative whites with economic populism? It’s unlikely, because people who oppose racial justice also tend to oppose liberal economic policies.  To test this, I created scales of economic and racial liberalism, using two questions that have been on the American National Election Studies surveys since 1972. One question asks respondents to place themselves on a one-to-seven point scale on government aid to black Americans, the other on a one-to-seven scale on guaranteeing jobs and income for all Americans. In 1972, only 54 percent of white Americans who took the racially liberal position (supporting aid to black Americans) also took the economically liberal position (guaranteeing jobs and income).  By 2016, 74 percent did. And in 1972, 77 perce…

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.

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.