Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2011/03/12
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]It took me a while to grok that money is created mainly from "economic activities," which is akin to what you said, I think, that economics is not the shuffling of resources from one person to another. Whether they have intrinsic values, beyond the economic impact, is another debate :-) Thanks for the link to the theory. On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 11:23 AM, Rei Shinozuka <shino at panix.com> wrote: > The cobb-douglas functional form is one of the neater things i learned in > economics. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobb-Douglas > > labor and capital are the two inputs in all of the models, sometimes land > is added as the third factor. > > the two or three input factors have exponents less than one, which means > that increases will yield marginally smaller improvements to total > production. > > the get out of jail card is the total factor productivity term (TFP) which > is associated with innovation, technology and so on. there are no > limitations to the growth of TFP unlike the other inputs. > > the formulation of TFP within cobb-douglas is an illustration that > economics is not the shuffling of resources from one person to > another--value really does get created along the way. > > -rei > > > > On 03/12/2011 10:27 AM, George Lottermoser wrote: > >> On Mar 12, 2011, at 4:59 AM, FRANK DERNIE wrote: >> >> What I do mean is that however much we want the service they >>> provide we can not have it if our economy does not have a significant >>> number of >>> people in genuine wealth creating employment who are net tax >>> contributors. >>> >> Frank, I do understand your underlying point re: net taxpayer. >> Though I believe we must consider some fundamental systemic underpinnings. >> Money = a medium of exchange as a measure of perceived value; nothing more >> and nothing less. >> Can't eat it. Can't build a house with it. It won't keep you warm >> (unless you have very large quantities of small bills to burn). >> >> Who are net contributors, from this perspective? >>> >> One could postulate that only the planet itself offers a NET contribution >> to our existence: >> Top soil, flora, fauna, minerals, water, oxygen, various forms of fuels, >> etc. >> >> Let's assume that you, me and eight other naked human beings exist in this >> eco-system. >> Further let's assume that we agree to work together for our mutual >> survival and propagation. >> (yes - we have women among our tribe of 10). We begin to discuss our >> "needs" >> and agree on who will perform which tasks to accomplish our various goals >> of: >> building shelter, creating clothing for the coming winter, >> gathering food, water and fuels, handle sanitation issues, etc. >> everyone has role to play for our mutual benefit. >> >> "Who are net contributors, from this perspective? >> Anyone who performs their assigned and accepted duties within the system. >> >> Now - what do we do when one of us wants to store and control "more" >> food, water, and fuel than everyone else in the tribe? (s)he says it's a >> good plan. >> We won't have to run around looking for berries and hunting game each day. >> So we come up with these beads (money). We bring our game, our buckets of >> water, >> our bushels of grain and receive beads. When we need a chicken we just >> hand over some beads. >> >> The net contributors still remain: The planet; Those who hunt, gather, >> build; >> And now the one who stores and distributes resources. >> The beads themselves do not contribute; >> they function only as an agreed upon means of exchange and measure of >> value. >> >> I think you know where this is going. The storage guy ends up with lots of >> real and necessary >> commodities; as well as a whole lot of beads; pretty soon he needs guards >> to keep his stores safe; and several millennia later here we are. >> >> The "net" contributors still remain the planet, birds, bees, top soil, and >> those who nurture it. >> >> We seem to have arrived at a point where we pretend the "net contributors" >> are those who exploit, excessively profit from, and over value their own >> worth in the system. >> Some even imagine that the bead exchangers deserve 5,000,000 times the >> quality of life >> than the human beings who pick the food for the bead exchangers' table. >> When the bead exchangers start gaming the ecosystem - we have serious >> problems. >> >> Artists, such as yourself, who create from almost nothing valuable art >>> which >>> people pay for. Anybody who takes a lump of clay and makes a brick, >>> anybody who takes a sheet of >>> steel and makes a washing machine, anybody who takes a pile of bricks and >>> builds >>> a house. >>> >> We certainly agree on what is of true "net" value in our society. >> Though I will add to your list - Those who pickup my garbage, plow the >> road in front of my home, >> stand ready to put out a fire in the community, teach my children and >> grandchildren, etc. >> >> The payment received for all these efforts is taxed and is "new" money >>> going into the tax pot. It is this "new" money that allows us to pay for >>> other >>> things, not the money which circulates into and out of the tax pot. This >>> circulation keeps people in work but is unsustainable without the "new" >>> money >>> since the money will dry up otherwise. >>> If nobody is making "new" money nobody can spend it. However much we >>> thing we >>> "need" something. >>> >> Here's where we may need a lot more, research, paper and time; >> as it becomes conceptual and philosophical. >> The term "new" money does not ring true for me; >> though I can certainly accept "real added value." >> We seem to lack a basic agreement on: >> 1) levels of equity between all the tribe members >> 2) who contributes to the common good of one another >> 3) ownership of the ecosystem which supports us all >> 4) the systems of storage and distribution of the fruits of our labor. >> >> At this point in time I observe a tiny minority of tribe members hoarding >> the vast wealth of nations. >> The vast majority of tribe members who played very important roles in >> creating that stored wealth ask for fair distribution and circulation. >> This discussion has been going on since the first granary was built and >> the first coin minted. >> An open discussion must include the concepts of greed, subservience, usury >> practices, false pretenses, and many more. >> >> Bottom line - who is actually interested in building a "just society?" >> >> Regards, >> George Lottermoser >> george at imagist.com >> http://www.imagist.com >> http://www.imagist.com/blog >> http://www.linkedin.com/in/imagist >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Leica Users Group. >> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > -- // richard <http://www.imagecraft.com/> // icc blog: <http://imagecraft.com/blog/> // photo blog: <http://www.5pmlight.com> [ For technical support on ImageCraft products, please include all previous replies in your msgs. ]