The difference between capital and land is that capital is a produced input. What is, I ask, the economic relevance whatsoever that an input is previously produced or unproduced? Also, what's the economic relevance of distinguishing between labor, input humanly embodied, and not humanly embodied inputs? Is a worker produced or unproduced or a mix of both, and does this have any economic relevance whatsoever?
Inputs classification among land, capital, and labor obeys to an interest in political science corresponding to the England of the Industrial Revolution, but since the viewpoint of modern economic theory, that classification is absolutely irrelevant if not actually damaging to the development of the theory.
If any, a distinction between debt and equity would be less useless.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
What I get from Adam Smith TWON Book 1 Chapter VI "On the Component Parts of the Price of Commodities"
is that his three factors are a way to look at costs.
Cost is the limiting factor that inhibits economic activity, so looking at costs is important.
I base a lot of my thinking on it.
So now you know how we differ, you and I :)
Post a Comment