Skip to main content

AN ECONOMY ITSELF


There is no such thing as 'the economy' or 'an economy' except as a geographically defined ecosystem. And this is largely arbitrary, a product of political history; diplomacy, warfare, court intrigue & the odd peasant revolt here and there.

Animals have the food chain. Consenting humans have a meta-layer on top of this called the division of labour, which arises through people seeking their comparative advantage, rather than the predation we see by a lion upon a gazelle.

The division of labour is built on top of several exchanges which end with a consumption good or service like a chair, a laptop, a haircut or a showing of a movie at a cinema that some consumer purchases.

It serves the purposes of folks in the halls of power to tot up aggregated figures or the performance of this beast called the economy. Going into an election you want to be able to say "the pie grew faster with me in charge than it would have done, or will, with my opponent running things" because if people believe you they'll vote for you.

Of course promises aren't only about economic growth, but about this inequality shtick that has become fetishised over the last couple of decades. Inequality can also be measured in aggregate form and so makes an easy political football for politicians to kick in each other's faces for our enjoyment.

But what kind of existence does a national economy really exhibit? No offence, but not much. The majority of physical stuff purchased in British stores, for example, was manufactured outside of the borders of the United Kingdom. The division of labour - absent regulations to the contrary - doesn't stick neatly to national boundaries.

Also, economic activity consists of individual acts of gift and trade, with the latter functioning for all intents and purposes like mutual gift-giving. That mutual aspect of trade is probably the reason both parties to a trade say thank you.

The more of these trades are involved in the process of going from highest-order, originary factors of production down to the lowest order consumer goods and services, the more precisely and responsively those goods and services will be priced, and the more they will fall over time. Falling real prices lead to falling real poverty.

Talking about 'the economy' is all well and good but remember it's just an abstraction built by aggregating the distinct, separate economic activities of thousands and thousands of smaller divisions of labour, themselves comprised of thousands of individual trades between actually existing persons!

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Iain McKay, Bryan Caplan & the Case of the "Anarchist" Anarchist

In the past I have written blog posts disputing claims contained in the online document called An Anarchist FAQ principally written by Iain McKay. I spent those posts trying to contend with Iain's claims re  the ancap question  and  the mode of production called capitalism . McKay has a bee in his bonnet re anarcho-capitalists' insistence on referring to themselves as anarchists, that much is obvious. Every reference to ancapism runs something along the lines of "an"cap or "anarcho"-capitalism. I find this very amusing because 'anarchist' or 'anarchism' are words (articulate mouth-sounds) first and specific concepts second.  Ditto 'socialist' and 'socialism' friends. Speaking of socialism... In  the comment section of one of his videos  the Youtuber called StatelessLiberty responded to a criticism by linking to Caplan's work  on the Anarchist adventure in Spain in the 1930's . The critic shot back with a  critic...

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 cla...

Zeitardation

A Youtuber called axe863 made a video in which he used scientific, mathematical and statistical common-sense to deliver the KO that the Venus Project and Zeitgeist Movement so richly deserved. If his approach seems weird and unconventional it's because he's not attacking from a tradition neoclassical or Keynesian perspective. Axe863's poison is complexity economics, something a good deal more dangerous to ideas like TVP and TZM. [ 2 ] Now to a couple of comment threads from below the video that I thought could od with being replicated just in case they get deleted at source! ~~~ AstralLuminary 1 year ago Why can't we generalize the consumption patterns of middle-income people in the western world, set our constraints equal to the amount of localized resources, and the rate of resource recovery, derive a population growth model that would be sustainable to said consumption patterns, and derive the necessary quantifiable amount of work required to expen...