economic systems

[afterzir]

I'm trying to exhaustively classify economic systems and

I thought a good starting point would be the trivial one.

 

- economics comes the the greek word for household,

so based on that, the trivial system would be one where

everyone is isolated living alone (there would be no money / interaction / communication)

 

- however austrians (I think) define economics as the study of purposeful action,

so based on that, the trivial system would be one of inaction,

i.e. slavery (where individuals can't pursue their own goals).

 

Are both right?

Is one more accurate?

Are the two really isomorphic and I just don't see it?

[shirgall]

Economics is the study of value, specifically why and how humans place a value on some thing or idea, and why and how they trade/interact/negotiate to amass value for themselves. It all depends on what you want to emphasize.

[Mister Mister]

I don't know quite what you mean "a good starting point would be the trivial one".  What is the trivial one?  Do you mean you could define a school of economics by a situation in which it is useless?

I would characterize economics as the study of human action, human choices individually and in aggregate.  It is not the study of the cause or motivations of those choices, which is the realm of psychology.

Slavery is not a case of "inaction", it is a case of extreme coercion and limited choice.  However, Austrian economics could still be applied to describe that situation, for example it might predict that slaves would have an incentive to do as little work as possible without being punished, and that slaves would enforce rules horizontally, and on their children, as often they would all get punished if one slave disobeyed.

[Matthew Ed Moran]

"however austrians (I think) define economics as the study of purposeful action, so based on that, the trivial system would be one of inaction,
i.e. slavery (where individuals can't pursue their own goals)."

 

I think Austrian make a distinction between praxeology and economics. Praxeology is the general study of human action, where as economics is the study of exchange. So therefore, we can say something about a man in isolation on an island - why he acts, and how he can accumulate capital at the expense of present consumption, etc. But we would not say there is an economy there. An economy forms when there is exchange (and exchange can only happen I would argue between conscious actors).

 

So the idea that there is such a thing as an economy where no one acts.. If that's not a complete contradiction in terms, then I think that can at most only be a hypothetical model, not an empirical economy which exists objectively. Even slaves act, but they are acting under coercion. Does that make sense?

 

I'm not sure if that 100% answers your question, but if it doesn't, maybe you can tell me more about what you mean by the word "trivial."

[afterzir]

I think mathematicians usually start with the trivial scenario (base case).

I guess by trivial I mean a system so basic it doesn't need to be studied on account of how simplistic it is.

[Mister Mister]

Ah, now i understand.  I think the confusion might be over the word trivial.  It used to refer to the "trivium" of grammar, logic, rhetoric, which was the basis of all other disciplines, therefore trivial meant fundamental or basic.  For some odd reason, it has come to mean the exact opposite, at least in America, where it often means meaningless, excessive, and so on.  That's why I was confused.  Are you perhaps from another country?

Yes, sometimes economic principles are demonstrated by looking at how a man on a desert island would behave.

[GRosado]

Austrians call economics Cattalactics