From: Wim Nusselder (wim.nusselder@antenna.nl)
Date: Sun Nov 09 2003 - 13:53:03 GMT
Dear David M. and Andy,
I asked David 3 Nov 2003 21:51:44 +0100:
'How do you define "the economy" if satisfying (some) wants can be outside
it?? Not the way I do, apparently ("the way in which we organize that people
get what they want").'
David M. replied 4 Nov 2003 19:53:59 -0000:
'I mean that some wants are non-material and these are outside of the
economy, and we can devote less time to the economy and material
needs/consumption.'
Economics only dealing with material wants would imply an uncommon
definition of economics.
Andy explains 4 Nov 2003 20:34:00 +0000:
'From an economic standpoint David has the correct interpretation of
satisfying wants in an economy being inside if they can command a price in
the market place. And wants outside as those which would not command a price
in the market place. David wants individuals to put some value on these
wants. In economic terms these would be called non-market goods and would
not be considered part of the economiy in the modern sense. I think Wim
would like to expand the economy to include all wants (market and
non-market) and he is right to do so. But from an economic standpoint there
still needs to be a mechanism for distributing non-market goods.'
Andy interprets David's definition of economics as implying that economics
only deals with wants that are satisfiable with goods (and services) that
can command a price in a 'market'. Being material and being satisfiable with
goods and services commanding a price in a 'market' are two different
things. This 'market-economics' definition is more common (especially in
micro-economic analysis), but for macro-economic purposes government
activity (which normally doesn't command a market-price) IS included (e.g.
in calculating the GNP).
Defining economics with marketability as criterium implies limiting
economics to more or less my tertiary economics. Catchwords are exchange
relations, production/consumption and justice interpreted as equivalent
exchange. The main difference with this neo-classical interpretation of
economics is, that neo-classical economics assumes that homo economics is
rationally and consciously maximizing the utility of the means he has at its
disposal by marketing and/or using them up in producing better marketable
goods/services.
If you write about economics dealing -one way or another- with (market or
non-market) goods, Andy, and seeking for other distribution mechanisms (than
a 'market') for non-market goods, you are still within this neo-classical
paradigm. You are seeking to describe different types of 'wants' and ways to
satisfy them (with 'goods') and comparing the way of satisfying them with
consuming goods' distributed via markets.
Do you agree to try another paradigm?
With friendly greetings,
Wim
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries -
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Nov 09 2003 - 13:54:46 GMT