Why, and how, did economic interaction begin to happen? I am honestly, assuming, that I refer also to the barter system.
If there is something material, and three people want it. And, if among the three people, there is no reason, for one to want it more or less than the other. Who should have the material? When I ask the question, I assume, that there is no sensible reason, like inequality of income, etc., like we may give today. Now, it appears to me, that this may have been the case, among a group of people, sometime, and the group did not find the need to fight for the material. So, to have the best reason to address the others, as to why each should have the material, each person found reasons, as to why they should do so. The want was totally material, and the need was seen as such. In such a case, how did they come to any decision? I have no queries, as to whether I may be wrong or right, but the last question cannot be answered.
Today, the question of demand and supply, addresses the question. I mean, if I have something, and it is limited, and there are many people who want that something, the person who can give me more, for my something, gets it. I find this extremely, I don't know exactly. Perhaps, I don't need to express what I find, because the feeling is not important, as I cannot identify it in words, but it leads to further introspection.
In the first example, if among a group of people, one wanted the material more than the others, how would this manifest? Obviously, the others would get to know, somehow, and the person, who wanted it the most, would agree with them. This would make the person obliged, in some way, to the others.
The question is, how did one want it more than the other? I am assuming, that there was no reason, keeping in mind, that there was nothing to give, among the people, for the material. I am sure, that if one person felt strongly that he should have it more than the others, then, the others would have not wanted it at all. Why?
If there is something material, and three people want it. And, if among the three people, there is no reason, for one to want it more or less than the other. Who should have the material? When I ask the question, I assume, that there is no sensible reason, like inequality of income, etc., like we may give today. Now, it appears to me, that this may have been the case, among a group of people, sometime, and the group did not find the need to fight for the material. So, to have the best reason to address the others, as to why each should have the material, each person found reasons, as to why they should do so. The want was totally material, and the need was seen as such. In such a case, how did they come to any decision? I have no queries, as to whether I may be wrong or right, but the last question cannot be answered.
Today, the question of demand and supply, addresses the question. I mean, if I have something, and it is limited, and there are many people who want that something, the person who can give me more, for my something, gets it. I find this extremely, I don't know exactly. Perhaps, I don't need to express what I find, because the feeling is not important, as I cannot identify it in words, but it leads to further introspection.
In the first example, if among a group of people, one wanted the material more than the others, how would this manifest? Obviously, the others would get to know, somehow, and the person, who wanted it the most, would agree with them. This would make the person obliged, in some way, to the others.
The question is, how did one want it more than the other? I am assuming, that there was no reason, keeping in mind, that there was nothing to give, among the people, for the material. I am sure, that if one person felt strongly that he should have it more than the others, then, the others would have not wanted it at all. Why?
Comment