Re: Fundamental Flaw of National Accounting

[Hyman Blumenstock <hystock@xxxxxxxxx>]

Per Gunnar Berglund wrote:

> Per:
> Well, this seems to be a valid point, but again, axioms are not liable to
> empirical proof per se. The proof of the pudding is the usefulness of the
> theories built on the axioms, I would say. Generally speaking, I would
> prefer axioms that approach a self-evident character, and -- as I pointed
> out in my latest post in reply to Bruce -- the notion of economic activity
> as a simple transaction, where man's work is exchanged for money, does give
> the "Leontief" axiom I suggested a self-evident character.

This philosophy is tantamount to saying with all earnestness that the
reason one puts gasoline into the tank of an automobile is to keep the
interior of the tank moist with gasoline, a concept that could be said
to be "self-evident."

The reason "man's work is exchanged for money" is so that he can
eventually gain that empirical "living," we all require but not yet
achieved until Food is passed as "in come" into the confines of the
human body, where it can fuel and sustain the body. All economic
problems can be laid to this artificially remote dealing with the actual
purpose of it all -- that purpose literally FEEDING us all.

Hyman
>