Skip to main content


I still reserve the right to be wrong.

So, goods. Goody gumdrops. It's a good thing, in a blog about economics, to talk about goods. Hopefully I'll do a good job, because I'm running out of tired turns of phrase.


So, there's some stuff you can get as much of as you like ( I can download the pdf of Jeffrey Tucker's "It's a Jetsons World" ) and there's some stuff you can't. The latter would include computers. But let's use an easier example; that pdf is a digitised version of a book, and books in their hardcopy form are scarce, as opposed to the intangible text inside.

Air is another non-scarce resource.


Non-scarce goods are called goods because they can be consumed by humans. If they have their origin in human action or production they can also be called products (as per ECON 1a).

You can consume air, so air is a good. As regards produced goods, if they are infinitely reproducible, like a pdf file on a we site, then they are non-scarce, and so not subject economic decisions and analysis.

Conversation, religious blessings and prayers, goodwill, digitised books and podcasts; all these things are non-scarce because they are infinitely reproducible. You don't have to cut into anybody's pie to get a helping of any of these things. This naturally puts non-scarce goods outside the remit of economics, since economics is the science that studies how humans interact with each other and the physical world in order to steward scarce resources.

Take away scarcity and you don't need economics. Are doctors, nurses, anaesthetic chemicals, drugs, sterilisers, hospital buildings and ambulances available in infinite superabundance? No. But I'll get onto that later.


Capital goods are the real bits of capital/physical capital that you can use in the production process of making further goods. For example, I can use my laptop to write the html that makes a website and frames its contents. Capital goods are thus fabulous because they can sometimes both be consumed and turned toward production.

How do economists tote up PC sales, though? Are they consumption or investment? Is it based on the quantity ordered? Do bulk PC orders count as investment as they are assumed to be destined for an office or other value-adding setting? Comment below, let me know!

On the next Ecomony Blogtime; Matt gains a reader other than his girlfriend!

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.