Reisman on Economics

[turboimpala]

George Reisman's "Capitalism: A Treatise On Economics". Available for free pdf viewing here.

I think it's around the same length as Atlas, so tread lightly and get ready for one hell of a read.

Do you agree with what this guy writes?

Just reading the first page of Chapter 1, I'm not sure I like it.

His definition of economics: The science that studies the production of wealth under a system of division of labor, that is, under a system in which the individual lives by producing, or helping to produce, just one thing or at most a very few things, and is supplied by the labor of others for the far great part of his needs.

He also says: The production of wealth vitally depends on the division of labor.

He also says: There is no limit to the amount of wealth that practically all civilized men and women desire.

I don't agree with his definition or these other 2 statements.

Wealth production is made more efficient by division of labor but certainly doesn't "vitally depend" on it.

And I've already exceeded the amount of wealth I desire and I'm getting rid of half of my crap.

It seems to me that he's supporting capitalism because it results in the most material wealth per person, assuming everyone supports division of labor, and that maximum material wealth is the ultimate goal for mankind.

He briefly connects freedom and capitalism on page 21, mostly paraphrasing Ayn Rand, but doesn't seem to focus on it in the rest of the book.

[Erik Christensen]

IMO George Reisman is the greatest economist currently alive.

[agrippa1]

Do you agree with what this guy writes?

Just reading the first page of Chapter 1, I'm not sure I like it.

His definition of economics: The science that studies the production of wealth under a system of division of labor, that is, under a system in which the individual lives by producing, or helping to produce, just one thing or at most a very few things, and is supplied by the labor of others for the far great part of his needs.

He also says: The production of wealth vitally depends on the division of labor.

He also says: There is no limit to the amount of wealth that practically all civilized men and women desire.

I don't agree with his definition or these other 2 statements.

Wealth production is made more efficient by division of labor but certainly doesn't "vitally depend" on it.

And I've already exceeded the amount of wealth I desire and I'm getting rid of half of my crap.

It seems to me that he's supporting capitalism because it results in the most material wealth per person, assuming everyone supports division of labor, and that maximum material wealth is the ultimate goal for mankind.

He briefly connects freedom and capitalism on page 21, mostly paraphrasing Ayn Rand, but doesn't seem to focus on it in the rest of the book.

Do you understand what "division of labor" means and implies? There is no trade without division of labor, there is no economics without trade.

What does your hypothetical world, without division of labor look like? How much time to you think you would have to create a surplus wealth of goods, if you are required to grow your own food, cut your own trees, build your own shelter, build your own bucket to fetch your own water, grind your own grain, bake your own bread, tend your own livestock, cure your own meat, weave your own fabrics, sew your own clothes, gather your own medicines (and teach yourself where medicines come from), mine your own ore, smelt your own iron, smith your own tools, nails, screws, nuts, bolts, beams, forks, spoons and knives, etc., etc., etc....

And, are you really throwing out half of your "crap," or are you just converting it to monetary wealth?