Phil C. wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 22:41:16 +0100, "Mike Stevens"
> <michael.stevens@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>> Blue Sow wrote:
>>> There seems to be a change of usage in progress whereby 'goods' is
>>> being replaced by 'good'.
>
>> Does it come from economic theory? I've an idea (subject to
>> correction) that in that context it mens something like "benefit".
>
> Yes - sort of. It contrasts an economic benefit/objective/result with
> other types - a "social good", a human right (or whatever) which
> can't be valued in purely economic terms and is thus beyond the scope
> of mere economists. An economist can tell me if I'm rich but he can't
> tell me if I'm happy or noble in spirit.
>
> It's been used in economic theory for a long time (certainly since I
> were a lad and probably long before) and is different from our usual
> understanding of "goods" as merchandise or possessions. A Google on a
> term such as "an economic good" will show how the concept is used.
Yes, we know that - but the case in point is "a consumer good", which from
the context is definitely being used as the singular of "consumer goods".
They actually meant "a commodity", of course.
--
John Briggs
|
