tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2098432983500045934.post978020202723303394..comments2024-03-12T22:19:32.339-04:00Comments on The New Arthurian Economics: Think of it this wayThe Arthurianhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16501331051089400601noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2098432983500045934.post-90018764212350299342013-10-18T06:24:09.369-04:002013-10-18T06:24:09.369-04:00Geerussell, hi. Well I read that SRW link twice no...Geerussell, hi. Well I read that SRW link twice now...<br /><br />Adam smith defined three cost categories <br />1. what a man makes on his labor<br />2. what he makes on his accumulated "stock" (or inventory) and<br />3. what he makes on the land (or by the use of natural resources).<br /><br />Number 2 he called profit, and number 3 he called rent.<br /><br />SRW (or economics in general, apparently) calls it profit, economic profit, if a laborer has a job where he makes a good wage. So wages and profits are confused, for starters.<br /><br />Then he breaks "excess" income down into good and bad, and calls the bad "rent". So now wages and profits and rents are confused.<br /><br />It's not SRW's fault. But no wonder economists fail to understand the economy. They confuse all the costs!<br />The Arthurianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16501331051089400601noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2098432983500045934.post-1941313987736688842013-10-07T10:56:03.960-04:002013-10-07T10:56:03.960-04:00Your post made me think about this.Your post made me <a href="http://www.interfluidity.com/v2/4043.html" rel="nofollow">think about this.</a>geerussellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10631984593634015839noreply@blogger.com