Re: What is economics?

[Bruce McFarling <brmcf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, 28 Feb 1995 chu@xxxxxxxx wrote:

> >Date: Mon, 27 Feb 1995 21:47:47 -0800 (PST)
> >From: GREG RANSOM <GRANSOM@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Greg:
>
> Based on your other postings, I had some interest to read Hayek.
> But if this is the best that he can do, I think I'll pass.
>...
> >And so on .. in the evolution of the
> >structure of human activities profitability works as a signal that guides
> >selection towards wat makes man more fruitful; only what is more profitable
> >will, as a rule, nourish more people, for it sacrifices less than it adds ..

>
> Sounds like an axiom.  Can it be proved or supported?
>
... [ and of course much more ] ...

>
> Regards,
>
> A. Chu
>
	Notice that on the same line of argument,
profitability serves as a signal guiding selection
to activities that appropriate as much of the
benefit as possible, and burden others with as many
of the bads as possible, since here, too, the cost
(of the decision maker) is less than the benefit.
But this is an impoverishing behavior. So
profitability is either enriching, impoverishing,
or both, or neither.
	Read a little current archeology on
early civilizations as an antidote to the rhetorical
history that Hayek has created.  It's easy to get
taken away by the $5 words and miss the $3 facts he's
trying to pass into circulation.
(Note to non-U.S. correspondents: there is no
$3 Federal Reserve Note; the saying used to be
'phoney as a $2 bill,' until a $2 bill was issued in
1976!)

Virtually,

Bruce McFarling, Knoxville
brmcf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx