Nobel Laureate calls for steeper tax cuts

[heretic888]

This is an argument against market competition, not supply and Demand.

No, it is a critique of neo-classical "marketism" -- which includes the idea of 'supply and demand'. 'Supply and demand' is one of the core ideas used to justify a lot of the ideas and theories that marketists harp around as "universal" or "natural".

Very well, Supply and Demand are not natural occurances, as you say. If you mean what I think you mean, they involve a social structure. I believe this structure is Trade. And where there is trade, there are the forces of supply and demand. If I'm missunderstanding you in any way, let me know.

No, they are marketplace cultures that engage in trade whom the principle of 'supply and demand' do not seem to apply to. Examples that Davis give include the Tiv of Nigeria and the Zuwaya of Libya.

'Trade' is also a bit of a generic term. Its basically another way of saying 'exchange', which is a social practice that has moral, legal, religious, social, emotional, as well as material consequences.

The key problem with neo-classical ideas like 'supply and demand' is that they assume that exchange or trade is only about what materials or goods or services get transferred, and at what price. They typically ignore the social and cultural implications that take place in exchange, or the importance it can have on people's daily lives. Those sociocultural implications prevent the "perfect conditions" that economists always hypothesize about from ever happening.

We aren't debating the high level stuff here. I'm talking about the simplest of economic principles. Supply and Demand, Shortage and Surplus. Even in a government controled economy, they are still there. If there is any sort of price fixing, they are there. Where there is trade, there is supply and demand.

"Trade", "supply and demand", and "shortage and surplus" are all social constructions. They are not universal realities.

Whether there is a "demand" or "surplus" of a particular good, for example, is by and large dependent on what the people think about that good, the social implications that good can have on class and status, the religious connotations of that good, the emotional impact that good may or may not have on individuals, the legal issues underlying the purchase or selling of that good, and so on. The material supply (or lack thereof) of that particular good is only one issue among many, and is no more important in determining its "value" than any of the others underlying exchange.

The Trobriand Islanders are the perfect example. Their overwhelmingly primary means of sustenance and currency are their yam crops. Yet, they have some strikingly odd ways of trading and exchaning different yams, with many different rituals, customs, and cultural implications with the exchanges. I seem to recall there being about 86 different means of yam exchange. It isn't a simple "well, the people need this, so it costs less or more". The cultural significance of the exchanges is what takes precedence here. The material being exchanged is secondary.

Really, its not that difficult of a concept to wrap one's head around.