Friday, June 5, 2009

"So what exactly is this economy business anyhow?" Pt. I

So we've been hearing an awful lot about the economy in the last year or so. Like a child at a family reunion it goes largely unnoticed until it starts doing bad things. We hear about it everyday now, usually accompanied by tales of gloom and woe. It's our modern Ragnarok, the giants of poverty will rise up and strike the good people of the world down. But despite hearing about the economy, there's still a lot of head-scratching by the general public as to what all the noise is about. So before I go on long-winded diatribes about the fun stuff, let's get the basics down first so we're clear from the get-go.

Economics is the study of choices in the environment of scarcity. Notice there is absolutely nothing about money in that definition. Economics isn't the study of money, so get that out of your mind right here and now. No, seriously, just shoo it right out of the cerebral door along with last week's grocery list and what you heard Rush Limbaugh wheezing about yesterday.

Yes, money is involved in the economy and in the study of economics but that's only one facet of the greater whole; economies existed long before money ever existed. Ever since Ub-Ub the Caveman figured out how to turn a pile of dry tinder into something more useful, we've had economies.

But the key words are "choices" and "scarcity" in what we're talking about. Let's start with the last one first. Scarcity is the idea that resources--those things we use to produce goods and services--are limited, while human wants are unlimited. Yes, even you, who lives in a spartan apartment decrying the evils of materialism and consumerism has unlimited wants, even if your want is to simply distribute all the resources of the world evenly to mankind.

The second key word in the definition is "choices". The economy exists because of scarcity; when we want lots of things (like food, shelter, or patchouli oil) but don't have enough things to go around. Economics is the study of the choices we make in this scenario of trade-offs.

So let's consider a few examples:

--You have a limited amount of time. If you work a job at the salt mines, for every hour you are toiling away to make salt barons rich, that's an hour you lose that you could be spending playing euchre or reading a Noam Chomsky book.

--There is a limited amount of land. For every acre of land you make into a nature reserve, that's one acre of land we can't build a widget factory on. And take it from me, people like widgets.

--You have a limited amount of income. Conversely, every hour you spend reading World Orders Old and New is an hour you aren't in the salt mine generating income for yourself. And if you spend $20 this year buying that sweet new Coldplay album, that's $20 less you have to spend on sushi or put into a savings account.

So with limited resources we have to decide how we're going to use them. This brings us to the Holy Trinity of Economics Questions: What, How and Who?

-What products do we produce? Here are the trade-offs: if Bono is in the studio making the next brilliant life-altering sonic masterpiece that will change the world, that's less time he's spending helping to put together the next Live Aid or raising money for Amnesty International.

-How do we produce the products? There is often more than one way to skin a cat (I won't go into the gruesome details) but to use another example, we can create energy from coal, natural gas, wind, smashing atoms or a million hamster wheels. How do we decide which way to produce the goods?

-Who gets to consume the product? Now we have to decide how those goods are distributed. If someone makes more money than someone else, should that person be allowed to consume more? Or should the government take that money from him and give it someone else? Or (even more likely) should the government take the goods from everyone and keep most of them for themselves (governing is hard work, folks!) and give the leftovers back to who hasn't starved yet?

These three questions will essentially be the large bulk of what I'll address throughout this blog, but consider those questions for yourselves. They're important!


10 comments:

  1. You define economics as being driven by scarcity in its relevancy to wants. That is true in capitalist economics, but not economics as a whole. Unless in your manifesto it is assumed that all instances of "economics" is referring to capitalist economics, then I would rephrase your definition. Is there not validity within a need based economy?

    ReplyDelete
  2. The "scarcity" definition is straight from the textbooks. I will always preface the "captalist" side of definitions when I present them. But in plain ol' economic, scarcity is the defining force for all branches.

    Economists don't generally differentiate between "wants" and "needs" because those definitions are subjective or arbitrary. Economics is an amoral (as opposed to immoral) study, so in positive analysis "wants" makes for a better neutral definition (because we can assume that if someone needs something they still also want it) than "needs" does.

    ReplyDelete
  3. That definition put into economics seems like an inherent flaw that encompasses economics today. Scarcity is controlled especially when it is based on competition. Rather than various sides working together, scarcity is then manufactured by forced competition which is the bases of the free market. I like this definition much better:

    "a social science concerned chiefly with description and analysis of the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services"

    ReplyDelete
  4. That's a viable definition too, but the production, distribution, and consumption is still a behavioral outcome of scarcity, whether that scarcity is manufactured or natural. If everyone had an unlimited amount of anything, the behavior on all parts of that equation would be vastly different.

    ReplyDelete
  5. It is nearly always manufactured which skews the whole meaning of scarcity. We have enough food and plenty of technological advancement to feed and house everyone on the planet yet we still act as if a trivial idea of scarcity should be running things.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Things like ore, oil and its polymer-based products, water, and time are all finite resources that we just can't create more of. The production of things like food and technology hinge on this. Machines don't run without fuel and you can't make machines out of dirt (which, ultimately, is finite too) and of course, the time required to make these products is finite as well.

    So while there arguably may be the ability to feed every person the planet (and honestly, while this is a normative idea, it's not a terribly good one as feeding everyone begets more people to feed until you *can't* feed everyone and you have since run out of lots of other resources in the meantime but that's a different subject altogether), the means to grow and distribute that renewable resource is still limited.

    Scarcity is the lack of the ability to create what everyone wants. Everyone wants unlimited things and we have limited ability to produce them. You can posit that there is some grand conspiracy to prevent people from having what they want but that's pretty short-sighted, fallacious and doesn't really address the issue at all. At no point in time has humanity ever had everything it wants.

    ReplyDelete
  7. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  8. It is true that all resources we use on our planet will run out after time if we continue to use them. The problem with the way economics abuses this is that because of the systems we have we are using up our resources far faster than they need to be. For one, technology not being used nearly to its fullest extents now. Perhaps with further research in nanotechnologies we actually could produce machines out of dirt/minerals. What's unfortunate is that time is spent on unending wars, competition in production, and power struggles rather than reevaluating the way resources are used and managed.

    People are conditioned to have the wants that they do. There are plenty of extravagant things that many people don't want. Saying patently that everyone has unlimited wants is a very loaded statement that economists choose to use unjustifiably. There isn't some grand conspiracy preventing people from having what they need, however, the way our society is functioning administers the conditioning of seemingly unlimited wants because of our vast, lamentable system of inequality.

    Saying its "not a terribly good" idea to feed those in hunger because it leads to feeding more people is a horrific notion and completely unethical. Striving for a resolution to such a tragedy is worth our time far more than denouncing it.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Technology not being used to its fullest extent would be problem of disincentives and those are most commonly produced by government regulation. And the government itself shouldering that sort of research is almost always pursued with little regard to practical and efficient research & development practices or cost-saving measures; that is why the free market has always worked out those details more efficiently. Competition in production actually ensures this.

    And it's not a conditioned response, humans from the stone age on all have had an inherent need for more, the only thing that has inhibited this pursuit is simply the lacks of means to get it or the lack of that resource in the first place. Human wants didn't just spring up after the advent of radio or television.

    As for the ethicality of people starving, I'd say far more people suffer as the result of foreign aid than they would if "nature took its course" because malnutrition and disease are rampant and artificially supporting a population system that lacks the ability to sustain itself on its own starts becoming a Malthusian disaster. You can't run on a system of dependency from outside forces, you have to run on a system of dependency on the self. The real unfortunate thing, and a thing I'll be discussing in future installments is how weak property rights in underdeveloped countries has created a system where people starve en masse.

    ReplyDelete
  10. There is government regulation that keeps things sealed which I would disagree with, but businesses still hold back on there own as well. For example, the automotive industry. Automobiles could be made much more efficiently, but they are designed with a certain level of proficiency and a decay that requires more maintenance than they'd need.

    Not all humans have a need for more, that is simply not true. There are many people that have lived by whatever means they did. Many cases they were conquered and pushed into civilizations that pushed this need for more upon them in order to submerge their people/culture. There are many, many people that do not need more, but we live in a society that pushes more down our throats. Advertising blatantly does this. It is designed to do this.

    True that people should be able to sustain themselves. In most cases tho, governments are holding back the ability to do this as well as "foreign aid". Organizations such as NAFTA and the WTO in the guise of foreign aid only seem to disrupt local economies. My point is that we live in a world that resources can be allocated worldwide. And when I say this, I'm not referring to corporate businesses bringing in businesses. Bottom line: there is enough food in the world to feed everyone. Every group should still contribute and I believe that it would happen if they had the means to do it without governments pushing down on them. If people are dying in the streets they're still dependent on the little that they get from their government. When people work together they become dependent on each other in one form or another.

    Property rights will not solve real problems. With the governments in place, people are forced to create trivial property laws. Landlords are slave owners. Its the same as I say with food resources, people should be able to have shelter, and there are enough resources for it. But I guess we'll bring this up more on the property post.

    ReplyDelete