Another Pearl: From: ahhaha Read Replies (1) of 18165
I believe the reason you don't agree arises from not understanding what they mean. As is usually the case in the sciences(or pseudo sciences) common language terms acquire specialized meaning within the topical scope. This promotes ambiguity. In economics there's such ambiguity that it boggles the mind. For example, the definition of demand is "the quantity demanded". I am enlightened.
So "demanded' is the word that should be defined. Contemporary econ authors define( see wiki, demand) the verb "demand" := "In economics, demand is the desire to own anything, the ability to pay for it, and the willingness to pay". These properties share one property. They're volitional. Don't exist outside the brain. The long wiki article attempts to give an operational definition of demand which includes an attempt to couch it in terms of supply. In fact, supply is prior, demand is derived, and thus ambiguous since it can only exist as a potential in abstract space.
Check the definition of "supply", in wiki. There's one sentence, "the amount of product made available to customers". Telltale. When you see thousands of words used to explain something, you know the explainers don't have it down.
Notice that in contrast to "demand" which is inside the brain, "supply" is outside. Until 50 years ago the emphasis was on heaping up stuff outside the brain. Then the economic engineers started heaping up the stuff inside the brain.
At the university, places of useless heaping, no one ever talks about, theorizes about ,or thinks important, anything that has to do with supply. Supply is merely some given like time in classical physics. What do Reich, Stiglitz, Keynesians, talk about? Final demand and how to stimulate it. They never talk about supply and how to stimulate it. Verboten. Something to do with the capitalist pigs, that's all. |
