If You Want to Understand Economics

Uncategorized 1 Minute

If you want to understand economics, put money out of your mind. Think, instead, only about goods, such as food, clothing and shelter.

When you are hungry you don’t need money, you need food; when you are cold you don’t need money, you need clothes; when you are exposed to the rain and wind, you don’t need money, you need shelter.

The fundamental puzzle of economics is that goods must be produced before they can be enjoyed. This puzzle is fundamental for the simple reason that people die when the goods they need to stay alive do not exist.

Put out of your mind the idea that wealth consists of having lots of money. It should be obvious that wealth consists of having lots of goods — primarily and especially food, clothing and shelter.

Published by John Todd Roberts

Published

14 thoughts on “If You Want to Understand Economics”

      1. Oh, I don’t know about that. Money is a very early invention. It is existence seems to have been a necessary if not a sufficient condition for the development of a level of civilization that could sustain more than the handful of people.

        But, I understand your point. Very few forms of money are edible. Indeed, that is largely true.

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply

      2. RE: “But, I understand your point.”

        My point, as stated: If you want to understand economics, put money out of your mind. Think, instead, only about goods, such as food, clothing and shelter.

        Like

        Reply

        1. Well, I was striving to be polite, but your point as re-stated is nonsense. IMHO.

          Economics is a quantitative science. Without money as a store and measure of value, a means of exchange and a common denominator economics gets more difficult. Not easier.

          Liked by 1 person

          Reply

        2. RE: “Economics is a quantitative science.”

          I think of economics as a discipline within anthropology.

          Like

          Reply

          1. “I think of economics as a discipline within anthropology.”

            Uh, Okay. I am sure you do.

            But, as appealing as that idea may be for some reason, economics is not a discipline within anthropology.

            Liked by 1 person

          3. Uh, yes it is a fact.

            Your Wikipedia link is about an entirely different discipline – “Economic anthropology.”
            That there is a discipline within anthropology focused on economics does not make your original claim true. Economics is NOT a discipline within Anthropology. “Economic anthropology” is a discipline within anthropology.

            Your cite makes it very clear that “economics” and “economic anthropology” are different disciplines. I quote.

            “It is an amalgamation of economics and anthropology. It is practiced by anthropologists and has a complex relationship with the discipline of economics, of which it is highly critical.”

            If you find the ideas of “Economic anthropology” interesting, that’s great. But it is NOT economics which is, as I said, a quantitative (and predictive) science very different from anthropology.

            Liked by 1 person

          4. RE: “That there is a discipline within anthropology focused on economics does not make your original claim true.”

            My claim was: I think of economics as a discipline within anthropology.

            I can tell you for a fact I was speaking the truth. But you chose to quibble, incompetently.

            Like

          6. I one hundred percent accept that you spoke the truth that YOU think Economics is a discipline within Anthropology.

            And I was 100% correct that Economics is NOT what you say you think it is. Objectively, Economics is a quantitative science that seeks to make predictions. Anthropology is a descriptive science that predicts nothing. They could not be much more different.

            Liked by 1 person

          7. RE: “Objectively, Economics is a quantitative science that seeks to make predictions.”

            I think you’d have a hard time proving that economics is a science. Show us an example of a controlled experiment economists have performed, one with results that were confirmed by replication and peer review. You can’t.

            That said, I do believe economics is capable of becoming a science. But at present, the discipline is highly undeveloped.

            Like

          8. Uh, many sciences do not do controlled experiments. But they can make predictions based on observations and analysis. For example, geology, astronomy, or climate science.

            In the field of economics there are frequently competing predictions based on different theories. While not a controlled experiment, the logic is similar – propose a theory, observe the results. One obvious example of how that works is the now discredited Laffer Curve which failed to produce predicted fiscal results when frequently tried by GOP governments under Reagan, Bush and Trump.

            Liked by 1 person

Leave a comment