Hi Steve,

I did understand Jim’s point, which is a logical one, and I agree with
John that the "truth" is somewhere in between and often very complex -
Francois Quesnay would have appreciated the dialogue.  I chose not to
address Jim’s point, however, because it was a response to an earlier
point of mine that I think has not yet been fully understood, or at least
not yet been addressed.  I therefore chose to clarify my earlier point,
but I think I failed again.

My point was that, REGARDLESS of the natural capital required to PRODUCE
the more expensive item, the natural capital required to CONSUME the
expensive item is generally greater.  An alternative way of stating it is
that, REGARDLESS of the natural capital required to produce the more
expensive ITEM, the natural capital required to produce the DOLLARS
required to purchase the expensive item is generally greater.  Despite
all the hocus-pocus surrounding the creation of money, money is only a
meaningful concept if it represents some amount of
production/consumption.  (And, Jim, this point is indeed in Shoveling
Fuel, although it is disjointed a bit; one chapter talks about trophism
and another about comparative expenditure in terms of natural capital
liquidation.  In the book I am working on now, I make the argument more
thoroughly.)

I might be out of touch for the holiday season.  Happy holidays to you
all!

Brian Czech
www.steadystate.org


On Sat, 16 Dec 2000 01:18:07 -0800 Steve <[log in to unmask]> writes:
> Brian,
>
> I think you miss Jim's point.  I think his point, and Jim can
> correct me,
> is that the amount of resources that go into the $50.00 coat aren't
> really
> all that different than the $50,000 coat.  How much of that price
> difference is due simply to the label?  How much of it is due to the
> fact
> that one lacks the current style and the other reflects it?  Do
> these
> really mean more resources are consumed with one than the other?
>
> Also, that view of money is not universal.  For example, many
> microeconomists often view that money really has no value except as
> a
> facilitator of trade and that any good can serve that purpose.
>
> Also, regarding your macroeconomist-microeconomist distinction,
> there was
> a macroeconomist who is noted for saying, "We are all
> microeconomists
> know."
>
> The distinction between micro and macro theory is considerably
> blurred
> these days.  The big diference is agian on money.  Does money have
> an
> impact of economic decisions?  This is why you will probably find
> more
> people referring to macroeconomics as Monetary theory/economics.
>
> Steve
>
>
>
> --- Brian Czech <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > Jim,
> >
> > Your message from which I snipped the following included some good
> > points
> > which I cannot answer.  However, I think the following question is
> > extremely important and that I can answer it.
> >
> > >  Do "personal consumption expenditures" at the very top of the
> > > consumption pyramid correspond to the dramatic costs in "natural
> > capital" that
> > > you seem to *assume* are in that upper one percentile; or do
> personal
> > > consumption expenditures of the rich and famous tend more toward
> the
> > $200 weekly
> > > massage and other services?  I don't see much data to support
> the
> > > assumption that "liquidating class" purchases *necessarily* use
> up
> > > more resources than those of the lower class.  After all, a coat
> is a
> > > coat; and so what's the difference in natural capital costs of a
> coat
> > bought
> > > for 50 dollars at K-Mart versus a coat bought for $50,000 at
> Saks
> > Fifth
> >
> > > Avenue?
> >
> > The purchase of the $50,000 Saks coat liquidates more than the
> purchase
> > of the $50 Walmart coat because of what had to transpire in order
> for
> > the
> > $50K to be generated.  As Adam Smith pointed out, it was
> agricultural
> > surplus that enabled the division of labor that made money a
> meaningful
> > concept.  So, at the base of the financial system lies the
> > agricultural/extractive sector, which is analogous to the producer
> > trophic level in the economy of nature (i.e., plants).  The
> integrated
> > economy doesn’t grow except for the growth of the base.  The
> liquidating
> > freak who spent $50K took orders of magnitude more natural capital
> away
> > from the grandkids than did the Walmart-shopping steady stater.
> >
> > Brian Czech
> > www.steadystate.org
>
>
> =====
> "In a nutshell, he [Steve] is 100% unadulterated evil. I do not
> believe in a 'Satan', but this man is as close to 'the real McCoy'
> as they come."
> --Jamey Lee West
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Shopping - Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products.
> http://shopping.yahoo.com/

Brian Czech
Arlington, VA
USA