2 ms·

Also, why do we give credence to this statement from Friedman? Are human needs really infinite? From what evidence is this conclusion drawn?

• opendais 12y ago
  Human needs are finite. A person only truly needs so much food, so much housing, so much medical care, so much socialization, so much entertainment. Human wants are likely infinite for many people.
  • dragonwriter 12y ago
    In economics, the term "needs" generally means very close to want "wants" means in general conversation, and probably not at all what you mean by "needs". (Its not as odd as it sounds, since "needs" actually is meaningless without reference to a purpose, and in economics the relevant purpose is approximately "to acheive a state in which no greater satisfaction is possible" -- often, in general conversation, the purpose for which "needs" are identified is unspecified and not all clear, making the meaning of any claim about needs highly ambiguous.)
• ArkyBeagle 12y ago
  It doesn't have to be strictly infinite in a mathematical sense for the use of the Lump of Labor Fallacy to be appropriate. See also Schumpeter, creative destruction, all that. The evidence is that 40 acres and a mule was replaced by, say, textile mill work, then steel mill work, and then steel mill work was replaced by say, tech work. In each case, productivity rose and poverty declined for the participants. I call this The Church of Our Lady of Perpetual Dissatisfaction.