Abundance Theory Economics

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Yes. This assumes that everyone has the ability to move freely from Alabama to Vietnam at the drop of a hat.

Fixed it for you.

John

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by ebacon

What keeps them from moving?

The cost of a move, family ties, a house that won't sell, elderly parents in need of care, among other things.

This reminds me of at tip that one of my early career mentors gave me. When you're young and single (or at least without kids), move each and every time that it comes with a promotion, regardless of location (within limits). Once you reach an income (or organizational) level that you seek, focus on finding a location where you want to live and park it.

[ebacon]

Originally Posted by finnbow

OK, but things that are seemingly abundant at one moment can become scarce (e.g., corn in the current drought). Does a sense of abundance drive policy? Sure (i.e.,the corn ethanol program). However, I'm still not sure that this makes "abundance" a coherent economic theory (if there even is such a thing).

Drought and natural disasters are not part of macroeconomic theories.

Abundance theory is much simpler. Suppose an economy needs four things, food, clothing, housing, and defense. A trivialized implementation of abundance theory would say that it doesn't matter if we remove all well paying jobs from the clothing and food sectors. After all the workers will invent work elsewhere.

What might happen in that scenario?

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by ebacon

Care to expand?

See Post #11

When Obama signed the FTA with South Korea he did it on the contingency that it included retraining money for UAW workers that would lose their jobs.

Retraining for........? Located in........?

If abundance theory economics is good when Democrats do it then why is it bad when Republicans do it?

Who said that?

Is it possible that both parties have put their faith in a false theory?

Probable.

John

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by ebacon

Drought and natural disasters are not part of macroeconomic theories.

Abundance theory is much simpler. Suppose an economy needs four things, food, clothing, housing, and defense. A trivialized implementation of abundance theory would say that it doesn't matter if we remove all well paying jobs from the clothing and food sectors. After all the workers will invent work elsewhere.

What might happen in that scenario?

... and therein lies the problem with a lot of economic theory - detachment from reality and an inability to deal effectively with all the relevant input variables.

[ebacon]

Originally Posted by finnbow

The cost of a move, family ties, a house that won't sell, elderly parents in need of care, among other things.

This reminds me of at tip that one of my early career mentors gave me. When you're young and single (or at least without kids), move each and every time that it comes with a promotion, regardless of location (within limits). Once you reach an income (or organizational) level that you seek, focus on finding a location where you want to live and park it.

An abundance theorist might say that you can hire people to take care of your parents. That alone would create jobs. Furthermore air travel is much cheaper since deregulation you could therefore afford to travel and see your family. As for your house that won't sell, that was your choice to buy a house. You could have rented.

Where is the hole in abundance theory? It creates adult care jobs and airline jobs while you have an opportunity to see more of America as you work in different areas.

For the record I lean toward scarcity economics. My point with the questions is to show how ingrained abundance theory economics is in the American psyche. It is more than a theory. It is what we have been molded into since the 1960s.

[ebacon]

Originally Posted by Boreas

See Post #11



Retraining for........? Located in........?



Who said that?



Probable.

John

I can't read that trainwreck of sentences.

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by ebacon

I can't read that trainwreck of sentences.

Home schooled?

[ebacon]

Well Boreas has obviously expended his thoughts on the subject.

Any right wingers care to explain possible cons to abundance theory? We've all heard your pros.

[merrylander]

Does this theory cover the aabundance of greedy bastards, the abundance of gullible fools?