Re: Economics


Chas wrote:
> "Ron Peterson" <ron@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:1131737986.038949.83210@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

> > Chas wrote:

> > > The definition fails to differentiate economics from, say, either
> > > sociology or political science. Both these later subjects, along
> > > with others, also study in a systematic manner the inter-relatioships
> > > between some or most of
> > > the above relationships mentioned.

> > I don't know if clear boundary lines can be drawn between those fields
> > of study.

> > Please give your definition of economics.

> Unfortunately, there are two boundaries involved which either limit the
> definition to a description of the current position of the state-of-the-art
> QUANTITATIVE frontier or bring us to the threshold of the QUALITATIVE realm.
> Which ever road we take we are left short of the other. How about, economics
> is what economists do. It would therefore be concerned with subjects like
> the creation of wealth, the allocation of scarce resources and the
> distribution of the product.

I was hoping to avoid circular definitions.

> > What are the primitive concepts of economics? (e.g. commodities,
> > workers, managers, money, etc.)

> Not sure about how you're using the term "primitive"?

A primitive is something that doesn't need to be broken down or
described any further.

For instance, commodities (items that are exchanged) can be broken down
between services and tangible items. An economist might ignore that
distinction if there is nothing different about their treatment.

--
Ron

.