The author of this post and I have similar views on Byland’s works and it seemes we found similar things interesting. While reading I too found the candy shope example very helpful and quite easy to understand. The author of this post then goes on to explain what Byland meant by using a candy shope as an example, and I have to agree thinking of our economy as cogs to a bigger organism. The author of this post does a good job of reiterating who this example can be better used to explain how our economy works. They do this by explaining that if you think of what had to have happened just in the candy store to get that final product you have to go down a very long chain of getting ingredients, equipment, and other things that were used by the employees. The author started with the ingredients, because it is not as if the candy factory grew their own sugar cane, no they outsourced that. And how did the sugar cane farmers get their product? Well they first would have to get seed, and the equipment to take care of the land and to harvest the seed. So then our next step is to go to the steel factories that form steel into the machines that both the sugar cane farmers and the candy factory use, but they did not mine the ore and smelt the steel themselves, they had to go to yet another company to get this done, and that company just like all the others probably had a coffee pot or lunch for their employees. So as we can see and just like the author of this post and Byland have stated before an economy is not so simple it takes a lot of individual parts to come together. But the goods by themselves have no power over our economy, that is where the consumer comes in, because it is the people that buy things that really make a change. What thye purchase dictates what will thrive and that in turn will change the way the economy works.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from: