Economics as it Should Be
I gave a talk at Atlas Summit on ‘Economics, Evolution, and Rand’s Meta-Ethics’ and one person asked me how my ideas would alter economics. In my talks and in my book Source of Economic Growth, I suggest that economics needs to be rethought from the ground up based on my findings. Here are some of the ways economics needs to be changed in order to make it a science. Go to the link for the full article
Your discussion of economics especially the definition you give for economics got me to thinking. Your definition states “Economics is the study of how man obtains those things he needs to live.” When I first read this I said to myself this is correct, it is a good definition. After thinking about it for a little bit it occurred to me that this is the basic definition of a “hunter gathering” space economy. Not that the definition is fundamentally incorrect is just not complete. It is the use of the term “needs to live” that is the limiting factor. What a person needs to live is in fact a very limited and restricted concept. I think what we’re talking about is the creation (the idea), manufacturing/generation of that concept, the distribution of the product (a.k.a. goods and services) that are wanted by the consumer.
Implicit in this is the acknowledgment that the goods and services have some words to the producer and to the purchaser. The second implicit assumption is that consumer has something of value(money, goods, or services) that the creator/producer values or has used for. Note I have not use the term “needs” in this short discussion. This brings up the third implicit assumption. That the producer and consumer have their basic needs (food and shelter clothing) met either by creating them directly or by exchange of goods and services to obtain them. This is a slight extension the basic definition because it allows for the active trade of goods and services between consenting people.
This is as far as my current thinking has taken me. As I developed further thoughts on this I will post them as appropriate. Again my thanks and appreciation to D. B Halling for a great post and stimulating ideas. Keep them coming.
+1
I am certainly open to alternative definitions of economics, but they must tie economics to our biological reality.
"those things which he wants, to live," which includes
art and pleasure and savings for the future. . as long as
we keep this in mind, you are exactly right! -- j
. .
“If an organism fails in the basic functions required by its nature … [it] dies.”
Ayn Rand, Virtue of Selfishness
In fact in my talk I show economics is being parallel to how Rand develops ethics except that ethics focuses on goals and economics focuses on knowledge.
Criticism- this could be a personal phobia but I'd like to see the definition of economics without the word 'need'.
(Reminds me of ' .. to each according to .. ')
Maybe-
The study of trade in property, goods and services.
The why, how, and when they are produced and acquired,
who creates and produces, and who buys and uses them.
If one includes this into the meaning of "needs", then an expanded understanding of the definition of Economics Mr. Halling is using can be understood.
“If an organism fails in the basic functions required by its nature … [it] dies.”
VOS
.
“If an organism fails in the basic functions required by its nature … [it] dies.”
VOS
Interestingly however you can protect most property rights and be mostly free, but without patents (in the world - does not have to be any one country) then real per capita incomes do not grow.
.