Re: Goods

Phil C. wrote:
On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 22:41:16 +0100, "Mike Stevens"
<michael.stevens@xxxxxxxxx> 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


.