8.2.05 [ Weak Foundation ] 0 comments 
There is a fundamental flaw in economic theory; the division of microeconomics into producer and consumer theory is not justified. Firstly, all producers are consumers--all consumers are also producers; there is no seperation.
In order to consume, one must firs produce something or purchase consumption using credit (a promise to produce something in the future). The theory of a Marginal Propensity of an economic agent to Consume (MPC) is adequare; as income (recieved through productive activity) increases, consumption increases, regardless of the triviality of a marginal change on either side.
Neglected in the literature, however, is the existence of a Marginal Propensity to Produce (MPP). Though I have personally met a few exceptions (people who seem to live only for their own consumption), the vast majority of people will include productive activity as something which increases their happiness. That is, given an oppertunity to live a lifetime of endless, costless consumption of any article of choice (good, service, travel, scenery, artwork, others), a person will still be driven to engage in productive activities which hold no explicit personal benefit (halping a neighbor build a fence, street-art, volunteering with the local community organization, others).
Largley, economists will discount philanthropy and volunteerism as a component of error, some random and unacountable factor which does not influence economic decision making because we can assume it away. But, as reflected in the Canadian government's guide to systematic exploitation of the philanthropic nature of people, the dismisal of this factor is far too hasty (just google for "volunteer")
Post a Comment