This question <4|4> overall <3|5> Underground: <324-3|23>.

Question 3: Isn't scarcity a better starting point for a theory of society than wealth? When there is scarcity, this means there is a need to act, whereas wealth is collection of dead things.

[4] Underground: Scarcity vs. Wealth   Most modern economic theories begin with the assumption of scarcity. If scarcity is assumed to be the prevailing economic situation, then competition for scarce resources is also assumed. Certainly, scarcity and competition are facts of economic life, but is scarcity the best starting point for an economic theory of a wealthy society like the United States? Perhaps assuming scarcity denies the fact that we are a wealthy society.

At its core economics is the study of things, material objects, and their relation to people. If we want to understand this relationship, shouldn't we start by studying the “things” themselves rather than some concept like scarcity? Material objects, like commodities, are one form of wealth and this is where Marx begins. Marx brings the focus immediately on wealth itself, and this is perhaps the most logical starting point for a social theory of capitalism.

Hans: This was not badly written, but you simply said a lot of things which seem to merit a little more thought:

that whenever there are scarce resources there must be competition,

that economics as a study of things and their relation to people (I would say it is a study of a subset of social relations, and not the study of things).

that scarcity is only a concept and one should rather study the “things”. I gave the example in class whether the plight of the homeless is less real than the baloons at the car dealership.

The answer to Question 3 which I find correct goes just the other way round: instead of blaming scarcity for not being enough like things, we have to show that the things which Marx is studying are really very dynamic, very much like scarcity: money has the inherent drive to expand itself.

And then there is also some adventurous logic in your little essay: if scarcity is a fact of economic life, why can one then not assume it? I think you could have expanded this thought: since we are such a rich society, scarcity cannot be a basic fact.

	Students enrolled for Econ 5080 in 2009fa are invited to give feedback to the above message Pseudonym:      UofU ID:   Text: