Skip to main content


You know I reserve the right to be wrong.

Prices are the rates charged in transactions, usually understood as the money sum the buyer pays to the seller. Barter is actually subject to prices as well, but let's leave that for now as we all use one form of money or another these days.


Price freedom is the condition of prices moving up and down through the haggling of buyers and sellers; which is to say the preferences of buyers and sellers causing the levels of supply and demand to vary. This is a slightly different way of looking at supply and demand; te two very clearly exist, but

Buyers and sellers get the hint about each other's readiness or ability to exchange through price signals...


Buyers want less of something that's in the shops, then the sellers take a hint in the form of a price signal. That is to say, the market in this good/product tells them "LOWER YOUR PRICE-TAG!"

The same process takes place in reverse; if interest in a good/product increases - more footfalls in the shop, let's say - they are sending a price signal that blares clearly "RAISE THE PRICE!"

Always there is a signal, and the price that it points to, as per the above diagram, is neither too low nor too high.

Another day, we will get around to fixed prices and what happens in the absence of price discovery. Suffice it to say, it ain't very nice. Economic calculation, it is a bastard...

On the next Ecomony Blogtime; MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!

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.