| This question <159|159> overall <158|169> PAE: <125|858>. |
| Question 6: Wouldn't scarcity be a better starting point for understanding how a given society is functioning than wealth? When there is scarcity, this means there is a need to act, whereas wealth consists of dead things. Scarcity leads us to discover what drives society, wealth does not. |
| [159] PAE: I agree that scarcity should be the starting point for understanding how a given society works. I feel this way because scarcity measures how much of certain item a given society may have and how they allocate these items. It gives you a better understanding of how an equilibrium market price would be attained, since there is only a given amount of supply to handle demand. Also it lets a person get a better idea of how a bigger part of the population really works and interacts in the market. |
| As far as wealth goes as Marx describes it, it only measures things that enhance human life. Really he is talking about material items, which enhance a person's life. While this may be a good measure of individual wealth I do not believe it is capable of capturing how an entire society is doing because especially in this day and age not everyone enjoys the same level of wealth, whereas all people must adhere to certain levels of scarcity in any society. |
| Hans: The things which a Marxist would find most remarkable about a capitalist economy is that everything is done through markets, and that the means of production are privately owned by someone other than the people working in these facilities. A mainstream economist does not say much about these conditions. Microeconomists talk about scarcity in a quasi technological fashion, while macroeconomists talk about unused resources and insufficient demand. A Marxist would say that these are the points of view of individual agents and policy makers who have to work within this system, but it gives little insight into the overall structure of the system itself. |
|
|
|||||