A Resource Based Economy

[mobodick]

If we didn't change society to prevent air pollution in the 70s then we would all live in smog everywhere. Such changes are not rought about by the market. They are real changes in society and expressed in laws and governance.
Government is not all bad. Not all institutions are useless.
In fact, i'd say most institutions are important for society.

On the contrary, The use catalytic converter and the phaseout of Tetraethyl lead was already in progress when those regulations came in. Advances in fuel technology would soon have made TEL completely unnecessary. Laws have always lagged behind societal changes.

Sure, laws and government are institutionalized forms of these changes. They serve as the compass.
The point was that the changes are not caused by a market correction but by humans.

[1714319607]

1714319607

[1714319607]

1714319607

[1714319607]

1714319607

[myrkul]

If we didn't change society to prevent air pollution in the 70s then we would all live in smog everywhere. Such changes are not rought about by the market. They are real changes in society and expressed in laws and governance.
Government is not all bad. Not all institutions are useless.
In fact, i'd say most institutions are important for society.

On the contrary, The use catalytic converter and the phaseout of Tetraethyl lead was already in progress when those regulations came in. Advances in fuel technology would soon have made TEL completely unnecessary. Laws have always lagged behind societal changes.

Sure, laws and government are institutionalized forms of these changes. They serve as the compass.
The point was that the changes are not caused by a market correction but by humans.

What do you think the market is? It is humans.

[mobodick]

Efficiency can in some cases be enough to achieve sustainability but not always.
No matter how efficiently you use the oil, it WILL run out.
So the actual solution is to use the natural resources efficiently and with care while we look for an alternative way that is sustainable.

And a rising price is the signal to do both.

No, because our knee-jerk reaction is to just move on to consume other stuff in the same way we did with the old stuff.
The whole market works this way.
It is why we have fished too much, simply because there was a way too big demand.
It was only after we created international agreements to limit fishing that it became more sustainable.
The market would have hunted for every single fish in the oceans simply because there is a large enough demand for food.
As i said, the only way to change the market is to change the participants.

[myrkul]

Efficiency can in some cases be enough to achieve sustainability but not always.
No matter how efficiently you use the oil, it WILL run out.
So the actual solution is to use the natural resources efficiently and with care while we look for an alternative way that is sustainable.

And a rising price is the signal to do both.

No, because our knee-jerk reaction is to just move on to consume other stuff in the same way we did with the old stuff.
The whole market works this way.
It is why we have fished too much, simply because there was a way too big demand.
It was only after we created international agreements to limit fishing that it became more sustainable.
The market would have hunted for every single fish in the oceans simply because there is a large enough demand for food.
As i said, the only way to change the market is to change the participants.

The reason we overfished is because nobody owned the oceans. They weren't anybody's fish, so nobody felt responsible to make sure there were always fish to catch.

You know where the largest breeding heard of Scimitar-horned Oryx are? Not in Africa. On the plains held in "common," they've all been killed. The largest extant breeding herd is in Texas. On a private hunting reserve.

[mobodick]

If we didn't change society to prevent air pollution in the 70s then we would all live in smog everywhere. Such changes are not rought about by the market. They are real changes in society and expressed in laws and governance.
Government is not all bad. Not all institutions are useless.
In fact, i'd say most institutions are important for society.

On the contrary, The use catalytic converter and the phaseout of Tetraethyl lead was already in progress when those regulations came in. Advances in fuel technology would soon have made TEL completely unnecessary. Laws have always lagged behind societal changes.

Sure, laws and government are institutionalized forms of these changes. They serve as the compass.
The point was that the changes are not caused by a market correction but by humans.

What do you think the market is? It is humans.

The market is a system created and used by humans as a way of exchange.
It has no morality of its own. By itself it doesn't care about rich or poor or sick or old.
So if this system moves in a way we don't like and we want it to act more morally then we need to make the changes ourselfs and cannot simply wait untill the need is so big that the market must follow.
We need to be proactive if we want to fix it without taking heavy damage.

[Crypt_Current]

If we didn't change society to prevent air pollution in the 70s then we would all live in smog everywhere. Such changes are not rought about by the market. They are real changes in society and expressed in laws and governance.
Government is not all bad. Not all institutions are useless.
In fact, i'd say most institutions are important for society.

On the contrary, The use catalytic converter and the phaseout of Tetraethyl lead was already in progress when those regulations came in. Advances in fuel technology would soon have made TEL completely unnecessary. Laws have always lagged behind societal changes.

Sure, laws and government are institutionalized forms of these changes. They serve as the compass.
The point was that the changes are not caused by a market correction but by humans.

What do you think the market is? It is humans.

The market is a system created and used by humans as a way of exchange.
It has no morality of its own. By itself it doesn't care about rich or poor or sick or old.
So if this system moves in a way we don't like and we want it to act more morally then we need to make the changes ourselfs and cannot simply wait untill the need is so big that the market must follow.
We need to be proactive if we want to fix it without taking heavy damage.

Maybe the markets have become such complex systems as to evoke emergent properties (like intelligence) such that these properties are not directly observable by its constituents.
Do you think a muscle cell knows how intelligent or what the actions/intentions are of the body it is a part of?

[myrkul]

The market is a system created and used by humans as a way of exchange.

That's where you're wrong.

The market is the sum total of the voluntary interactions of the people. Nothing more, nothing less. The market is humans, and humans are the market.

[mobodick]

Efficiency can in some cases be enough to achieve sustainability but not always.
No matter how efficiently you use the oil, it WILL run out.
So the actual solution is to use the natural resources efficiently and with care while we look for an alternative way that is sustainable.

And a rising price is the signal to do both.

No, because our knee-jerk reaction is to just move on to consume other stuff in the same way we did with the old stuff.
The whole market works this way.
It is why we have fished too much, simply because there was a way too big demand.
It was only after we created international agreements to limit fishing that it became more sustainable.
The market would have hunted for every single fish in the oceans simply because there is a large enough demand for food.
As i said, the only way to change the market is to change the participants.

The reason we overfished is because nobody owned the oceans. They weren't anybody's fish, so nobody felt responsible to make sure there were always fish to catch.

You know where the largest breeding heard of Scimitar-horned Oryx are? Not in Africa. On the plains held in "common," they've all been killed. The largest extant breeding herd is in Texas. On a private hunting reserve.

But the market acting in this way is not a guarantee.
For one, these animals are renewable.
Try that trick with oil and you'll notice it's a lot harder.
For now we are getting the hang of balancing biological systems in relation to sustainability but again not thanks to the market but to the researchers who gathered the information about how we interact with our environment.
Energy is still a problem and the market itself cannot provide a solution. It can, however, make efficient use of what we have.

[mobodick]

The market is a system created and used by humans as a way of exchange.

That's where you're wrong.

The market is the sum total of the voluntary interactions of the people. Nothing more, nothing less. The market is humans, and humans are the market.

So kissing my girlfriend is part of the economic market?
And saying hello to the neighbour too?

The humans are participants in the market, but saying that they ARE the market is a redefinition of the word human.

[myrkul]

The market is a system created and used by humans as a way of exchange.

That's where you're wrong.

The market is the sum total of the voluntary interactions of the people. Nothing more, nothing less. The market is humans, and humans are the market.

So kissing my girlfriend is part of the economic market?
And saying hello to the neighbour too?

The humans are participants in the market, but saying that they ARE the market is a redefinition of the word human.

You are an unqualified master at missing the point, aren't you?
Yes, they are part of the economic market. You kiss your girlfriend why? To show her affection. In return, she shows you affection. Likewise saying hello to the neighbor. This one might even be a little more mercenary than kissing your girlfriend. You are polite to your neighbor so that he will be polite to you. If you are forward thinking enough, you might even be doing it so that he is positively predisposed toward lending you his hedge trimmers next weekend.

Now, I hear your hamster wheel squeaking, so I know what your next question will be. "But where's the money?" You have to realize that not all exchanges are monetary, and that every decision you make is an economic one. You do everything you do because it is more profitable to you than the alternatives. Again, not all profit is money.

Why did you select the food item that you had for lunch today? Because it was the best option you had available to you. Perhaps if you had more money you would have had better options available, but you made an economic decision to purchase the food item that gave you the most utility (taste, nutrition, fullness) for your money. You chose your girlfriend because she gave you the most utility (returned affection, good looks, enjoyable conversation - whatever you value in a woman) for your affection.

Every voluntary interaction is part of the market, because every voluntary interaction is an exchange of one thing for another.

For now we are getting the hang of balancing biological systems in relation to sustainability but again not thanks to the market but to the researchers who gathered the information about how we interact with our environment.
Energy is still a problem and the market itself cannot provide a solution. It can, however, make efficient use of what we have.

The researchers did that as part of the market (well, I suppose they could be government researchers, forced to study at gunpoint, but I doubt it). Again, every voluntary interaction. Saying that the market cannot itself provide a solution to the energy crisis is like saying the sea cannot itself provide any fish. True enough, from a certain perspective, but utterly lacking. The market (to be more specific, a human market actor) can, and will, provide a solution, if you let it.

Edit: If you think about it, this explains why every attempt at calling "profit" evil, whether Marxism, RBE, or any other, is doomed to fail. Because the profit motive is what makes us tick. it's what keeps us alive. To deny profit is to deny life.

[myrkul]

Sure, there is already a price to pay, but it is in no way as dramatic as it could be so it still makes a lot of sense to start changing.

Kevin Carson has some suggestions:

Easing the Transition to an Alternative Economy

If we want to replace the present centralized economy of waste production and planned obsolescence, it’s an inescapable fact that a great deal of excess manufacturing capacity cannot be saved.  In my opinion it’s a  mistake to try to prop it up through expedients like the Detroit bailout.

Corporate capitalism has been plagued from its late-19th century beginnings with chronic crises of over-accumulation and overproduction, which would probably have destroyed it in the Great Depression (despite the New Deal) had WWII not postponed the crisis for a generation by helpfully blowing up most of the plant and equipment in the world outside the U.S. and creating a permanent war economy for absorbing surplus output.  But Europe and Japan rebuilt their industrial capital by 1970, and since then the chronic crises have been back with a vengeance. Before the current downturn, America’s overbuilt industry couldn’t dispose of its full  output running at capacity, even with everybody tapping into home equity and maxing out their credit cards to replace everything they owned every five years. And we’ll never see those levels again. So there’s no  escaping the fact that much of our plant and equipment, in a few years, will be rust.

The goal should be a shift from the present system of over-accumulated, centralized, oligopoly industry, and its business model of planned obsolescence and “push” distribution, to a decentralized economy of small-scale manufacturing for local markets.  This means, among other things, a switch from capital-intensive production methods based on product-specific machinery, to production with small-scale, general purpose machinery.  It means, in place of the old Sloanist production model, something like the present-day economy of Italy’s Emilia-Romagna region:  networked small manufacturers producing for the local market, with a high degree of cooperative ownership.  Such an economy, based on a “pull” distribution model with production geared to demand on a just-in-time basis, will be insulated from the boom-bust cycles of the old national “push” economies. And we need a new model of user-friendly, modular product design aimed at cheap and easy repairability and recycling.

Your main focus, in my opinion, should be to ease the transition by eliminating present policies (market-distorting subsidies, privileges, and cartelizing regulations) that impede it and protect the old economy from the new one.

This means, for one thing, eliminating differential tax exemptions that favor firms engaged in centralized, large-scale, capital-intensive production:  e.g., the depreciation allowance, the R&D credit, the deductability of interest on corporate debt, and the exemption of stock transactions involved in mergers and acquisitions from capital gains tax).  Then lower the corporate income tax enough to be revenue-neutral.

It means, especially, eliminating the biggest subsidy to economic centralization, and to artificially large market area and firm size - i.e., subsidies to long-distance transportation.  The Interstate should be funded entirely by weight-based user fees on trucking, which causes virtually all of the roadbed damage.  All subsidies to new airports or to expanding old ones should be eliminated, including all federal guarantees of local bond issues.

Perhaps most important of all, it requires radically scaling back the present strong “intellectual property” regime.  IP (through patent pooling and exchange, monopolies on current production technologies, etc.) is probably the single most powerful cartelizing force, which enables each industry to be concentrated in the hands of a few players.  It impedes the transfer of skills and new technology from the old manufacturing dinosaurs  to the kinds of small, local producers we need.  It also serves as a powerful bulwark to planned obsolescence, imposing legal restrictions on the manufacture of cheap generic replacement parts.

Scaling back IP law (a good start would be repealing the DMCA, the WIPO Copyright Treaty, and the Uruguay Round’s TRIPS accord) would eliminate the barriers to the diffusion of skill and technology that currently prop up the old corporate dinosaurs of the software and entertainment industries, and facilitate their replacement by networked production on an open source model.  Please cut loose the MPAA, RIAA, and Bill Gates, and do so yesterday!

Finally, we need to eliminate all subsidies to large-scale agribusiness.  The result will be a flourishing sector of community-supported agriculture, replacing the old agribusiness dinosaurs as fast as new ground can be cultivated.

[mobodick]

The market is a system created and used by humans as a way of exchange.

That's where you're wrong.

The market is the sum total of the voluntary interactions of the people. Nothing more, nothing less. The market is humans, and humans are the market.

So kissing my girlfriend is part of the economic market?
And saying hello to the neighbour too?

The humans are participants in the market, but saying that they ARE the market is a redefinition of the word human.

You are an unqualified master at missing the point, aren't you?
Yes, they are part of the economic market. You kiss your girlfriend why? To show her affection. In return, she shows you affection. Likewise saying hello to the neighbor. This one might even be a little more mercenary than kissing your girlfriend. You are polite to your neighbor so that he will be polite to you. If you are forward thinking enough, you might even be doing it so that he is positively predisposed toward lending you his hedge trimmers next weekend.

Now, I hear your hamster wheel squeaking, so I know what your next question will be. "But where's the money?" You have to realize that not all exchanges are monetary, and that every decision you make is an economic one. You do everything you do because it is more profitable to you than the alternatives. Again, not all profit is money.

Why did you select the food item that you had for lunch today? Because it was the best option you had available to you. Perhaps if you had more money you would have had better options available, but you made an economic decision to purchase the food item that gave you the most utility (taste, nutrition, fullness) for your money. You chose your girlfriend because she gave you the most utility (returned affection, good looks, enjoyable conversation - whatever you value in a woman) for your affection.

Every voluntary interaction is part of the market, because every voluntary interaction is an exchange of one thing for another.

For now we are getting the hang of balancing biological systems in relation to sustainability but again not thanks to the market but to the researchers who gathered the information about how we interact with our environment.
Energy is still a problem and the market itself cannot provide a solution. It can, however, make efficient use of what we have.

The researchers did that as part of the market (well, I suppose they could be government researchers, forced to study at gunpoint, but I doubt it). Again, every voluntary interaction. Saying that the market cannot itself provide a solution to the energy crisis is like saying the sea cannot itself provide any fish. True enough, from a certain perspective, but utterly lacking. The market (to be more specific, a human market actor) can, and will, provide a solution, if you let it.

Edit: If you think about it, this explains why every attempt at calling "profit" evil, whether Marxism, RBE, or any other, is doomed to fail. Because the profit motive is what makes us tick. it's what keeps us alive. To deny profit is to deny life.

Complete nonsense (like the rest that depends on it being true).
There are many many non-economy driven choices a human makes.
Economy may consider these choices, but the maker of the choice does not need to intend it to be economical.

There are, for instance, many human behaviours driven by instinct and hormones.
Then we have social behaviour, of which economy is only a part.
We have drugs, we have environment.
Then we have emotion and reason and ideology etc.
All these are drives for human behaviour so what you say is nonsense.
Not every decision is an economic one.
Maybe i choose my fruit largely at random, maybe i just don't care.
The market could include the outcome of my choice, but the market does not dictate my choices. Not by a long shot. There is an influence, for sure. But there are many influences. Saying the market is all there is is a gross oversimplification.

I don't know how much you understand about average people but an average human being doesnt choose a life partner on basis of future return.
It's mostly a genetically driven biological process to ensure the existance of a population of genes. Thinking it roots in economics is silly.

Thinking in terms of profit is just a stupid bug that made us top predator. But it isn't anything special and it certainly is not the only way to live or think.

If for you profit is all you live for then i can tell you that you cannot generalize that to the world population.

[mobodick]

Sure, there is already a price to pay, but it is in no way as dramatic as it could be so it still makes a lot of sense to start changing.

Kevin Carson has some suggestions:

Easing the Transition to an Alternative Economy

If we want to replace the present centralized economy of waste production and planned obsolescence, it’s an inescapable fact that a great deal of excess manufacturing capacity cannot be saved.  In my opinion it’s a  mistake to try to prop it up through expedients like the Detroit bailout.

Corporate capitalism has been plagued from its late-19th century beginnings with chronic crises of over-accumulation and overproduction, which would probably have destroyed it in the Great Depression (despite the New Deal) had WWII not postponed the crisis for a generation by helpfully blowing up most of the plant and equipment in the world outside the U.S. and creating a permanent war economy for absorbing surplus output.  But Europe and Japan rebuilt their industrial capital by 1970, and since then the chronic crises have been back with a vengeance. Before the current downturn, America’s overbuilt industry couldn’t dispose of its full  output running at capacity, even with everybody tapping into home equity and maxing out their credit cards to replace everything they owned every five years. And we’ll never see those levels again. So there’s no  escaping the fact that much of our plant and equipment, in a few years, will be rust.

The goal should be a shift from the present system of over-accumulated, centralized, oligopoly industry, and its business model of planned obsolescence and “push” distribution, to a decentralized economy of small-scale manufacturing for local markets.  This means, among other things, a switch from capital-intensive production methods based on product-specific machinery, to production with small-scale, general purpose machinery.  It means, in place of the old Sloanist production model, something like the present-day economy of Italy’s Emilia-Romagna region:  networked small manufacturers producing for the local market, with a high degree of cooperative ownership.  Such an economy, based on a “pull” distribution model with production geared to demand on a just-in-time basis, will be insulated from the boom-bust cycles of the old national “push” economies. And we need a new model of user-friendly, modular product design aimed at cheap and easy repairability and recycling.

Your main focus, in my opinion, should be to ease the transition by eliminating present policies (market-distorting subsidies, privileges, and cartelizing regulations) that impede it and protect the old economy from the new one.

This means, for one thing, eliminating differential tax exemptions that favor firms engaged in centralized, large-scale, capital-intensive production:  e.g., the depreciation allowance, the R&D credit, the deductability of interest on corporate debt, and the exemption of stock transactions involved in mergers and acquisitions from capital gains tax).  Then lower the corporate income tax enough to be revenue-neutral.

It means, especially, eliminating the biggest subsidy to economic centralization, and to artificially large market area and firm size - i.e., subsidies to long-distance transportation.  The Interstate should be funded entirely by weight-based user fees on trucking, which causes virtually all of the roadbed damage.  All subsidies to new airports or to expanding old ones should be eliminated, including all federal guarantees of local bond issues.

Perhaps most important of all, it requires radically scaling back the present strong “intellectual property” regime.  IP (through patent pooling and exchange, monopolies on current production technologies, etc.) is probably the single most powerful cartelizing force, which enables each industry to be concentrated in the hands of a few players.  It impedes the transfer of skills and new technology from the old manufacturing dinosaurs  to the kinds of small, local producers we need.  It also serves as a powerful bulwark to planned obsolescence, imposing legal restrictions on the manufacture of cheap generic replacement parts.

Scaling back IP law (a good start would be repealing the DMCA, the WIPO Copyright Treaty, and the Uruguay Round’s TRIPS accord) would eliminate the barriers to the diffusion of skill and technology that currently prop up the old corporate dinosaurs of the software and entertainment industries, and facilitate their replacement by networked production on an open source model.  Please cut loose the MPAA, RIAA, and Bill Gates, and do so yesterday!

Finally, we need to eliminate all subsidies to large-scale agribusiness.  The result will be a flourishing sector of community-supported agriculture, replacing the old agribusiness dinosaurs as fast as new ground can be cultivated.

Yeah, i've read through that some time ago but its pretty weak.
It points to some geographically fortunate regions and says "Hey look everyone, that's how you should do it!" ..
I wonder when he'll bring the news to the eskimos that they need to make a local fruit market, just like in Italy.. 

[myrkul]

Remember, not all profit is money.

Complete nonsense (like the rest that depends on it being true).
There are many many non-economy driven choices a human makes.
Economy may consider these choices, but the maker of the choice does not need to intend it to be economical.

Every choice you make is an economic decision. Chicken or beef. The Blonde or the Brunette. Walking or taking the bus. You are choosing the alternative that (you think) will give you the best outcome.

There are, for instance, many human behaviours driven by instinct and hormones.

You mean those decisions which your genes (themselves the product of millions of years of economic decisions) make for you?

Then we have social behaviour, of which economy is only a part.

We covered social behavior. You are nice to your neighbor so he is nice to you.

We have drugs, we have environment.

Drugs? You mean those things you purchase for their mind altering properties?

Then we have emotion and reason and ideology etc.

Remember, not all profit is money. Sometimes it's simply that good feeling you get when you hand someone a sandwich.

All these are drives for human behaviour so what you say is nonsense.
Not every decision is an economic one.
Maybe i choose my fruit largely at random, maybe i just don't care.

But you still chose to have fruit, instead of, say, a beer.

The market could include the outcome of my choice, but the market does not dictate my choices. Not by a long shot. There is an influence, for sure. But there are many influences. Saying the market is all there is is a gross oversimplification.

No, the market is the sum of all voluntary interactions. It cannot dictate choices, because when you make a choice, you are acting as part of the market.

I don't know how much you understand about average people but an average human being doesnt choose a life partner on basis of future return.

No? They don't say, "You make me so happy. I want that to last the rest of my life. Marry me."?

It's mostly a genetically driven biological process to ensure the existance of a population of genes. Thinking it roots in economics is silly.

And the genetics are themselves acting in an economic fashion, selecting the outcome which is most beneficial. (hopefully - if it doesn't, the genes don't get passed on)

Thinking in terms of profit is just a stupid bug that made us top predator. But it isn't anything special and it certainly is not the only way to live or think.

If you do not seek to better your situation, you die of starvation, or dehydration, wallowing in your wastes.

If for you profit is all you live for then i can tell you that you cannot generalize that to the world population.

I do not live for profit. I profit in order that I may continue life. Remember that not all profit is money. Some is a full stomach, or a joyous heart. Some is an empty bladder, or a satiated sex drive.

Yeah, i've read through that some time ago but its pretty weak.
It points to some geographically fortunate regions and says "Hey look everyone, that's how you should do it!" ..
I wonder when he'll bring the news to the eskimos that they need to make a local fruit market, just like in Italy.. 

Oh gods, You're hopeless.

[DoomDumas]

This change in values must begins with education.  With good, proper and sane education, everyone can understand the principles..  This is one planet, we are one speicies, and must change our personal value to be able to acheive changes that will allow humanity to survive the long run !

I'm gonna be a bit provocative here, but here I go:

Why do you care so much about humanity surviving in the long run??  You will probably be dead anyway.

For instance, there is a serious hypothesis that decline of fertility might worsen in coming centuries so that humanity might vanish "peacefully".  Is that really a bad thing?  Nothing is supposed to be eternal.

Yeah, sure I care for those to come after I'll be dead.  Hard to imagine someone could'nt.

As my grandfather care for his childs, and grandchilds..  As I, wishing the best world possible for my kids and theirs...  I'm pretty sure it's the same for the majority of adult, who loves the childs they take care of.

As an Indian, a Russian, a French, a Mexiacan, ...  I think that most peoples who have childs, have the same point of view... That's part of why you, me and others have a life, exist, think, act.. We owe our live to our ancestors..

I'll do my best to give my children the best tool possible for them to have a great life, and teach them that caring for those who will survive them is as important as themselve..

By taking care of other, you take care of yourself, in a much greater way that taking care of yourself alone !  Familly and Community are much more productive that each by themselve..

Scincerly hope you too care for those who may still be alive after your death !

[mobodick]

Remember, not all profit is money.

Complete nonsense (like the rest that depends on it being true).
There are many many non-economy driven choices a human makes.
Economy may consider these choices, but the maker of the choice does not need to intend it to be economical.

Every choice you make is an economic decision. Chicken or beef. The Blonde or the Brunette. Walking or taking the bus. You are choosing the alternative that (you think) will give you the best outcome.

There are, for instance, many human behaviours driven by instinct and hormones.

You mean those decisions which your genes (themselves the product of millions of years of economic decisions) make for you?

In what way do genes have an idea about what is a better choice and how does that affect their development? How does that cover the 'voluntary' part?

Since you now claim absolutely everything is somehow economic i will not even try to sift through the rest of your post.
It's silly.

Voluntary implies a someone that can contemplate the choice.
Not all processes are voluntary, not even all human social interaction-like processes.

[myrkul]

Perhaps it will help you understand if you mentally replace every instance of the word "profit" with "benefit."

Remember, not all profit is money.

Complete nonsense (like the rest that depends on it being true).
There are many many non-economy driven choices a human makes.
Economy may consider these choices, but the maker of the choice does not need to intend it to be economical.

Every choice you make is an economic decision. Chicken or beef. The Blonde or the Brunette. Walking or taking the bus. You are choosing the alternative that (you think) will give you the best outcome.

There are, for instance, many human behaviours driven by instinct and hormones.

You mean those decisions which your genes (themselves the product of millions of years of economic decisions) make for you?

In what way do genes have an idea about what is a better choice and how does that affect their development? How does that cover the 'voluntary' part?

Since you now claim absolutely every is somehow economic i will not even try to sift through the rest of your post.
It's silly.

Voluntary implies a someone that can contemplate the choice.
Not all processes are voluntary, not even all human social interaction-like processes.

I never said all processes are voluntary. I only said that the market is the sum of all voluntary human interactions.

I also said that every decision is an economic one (even "involuntary" ones). These are two different concepts, but it's important that you understand them both.

If you had bothered to read the rest of my post, I explained further the part where you stopped. Perhaps that's why you keep missing the point? You stop reading when you hit something you disagree with?

And the genetics are themselves acting in an economic fashion, selecting the outcome which is most beneficial. (hopefully - if it doesn't, the genes don't get passed on)

Thinking in terms of profit is just a stupid bug that made us top predator. But it isn't anything special and it certainly is not the only way to live or think.

If you do not seek to better your situation, you die of starvation, or dehydration, wallowing in your wastes.

If for you profit is all you live for then i can tell you that you cannot generalize that to the world population.

I do not live for profit. I profit in order that I may continue life. Remember that not all profit is money. Some is a full stomach, or a joyous heart. Some is an empty bladder, or a satiated sex drive.

[myrkul]

In what way do genes have an idea about what is a better choice and how does that affect their development?

They don't. Remember the slime mold?

That is why people try to grow complexity nowadays, instead of designing it. It turns out evolution is pretty efficient at this process despite its seeming inefficiency of exploring a possibility space.

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/01/slime-mold-grows-network-just-like-tokyo-rail-system/

[mobodick]

Perhaps it will help you understand if you mentally replace every instance of the word "profit" with "benefit."

But not every beneficial outcome implies a voluntary choice.
So by your own definition of economy even a lot of human interactions turn out to be non-economic.
By defining humanity in your way you just limit yourself to that part of a human being that is of interest to you or the rest of the economy.
It fails to cover all of human interactions and it fails to cover most of the rest of the universe unless you want to confuse it with energy and information flow.
But then you have to let go of the 'voluntary' part.
The thing is, a lot of the properties that you consider economical are in fact based on general non-voluntary interactions and have nothing to do with economics unless a human takes interest.

[myrkul]

The thing is, a lot of the properties that you consider economical are in fact based on general non-voluntary interactions and have nothing to do with economics unless a human takes interest.

Sigh...
Do try and read it this time?

The market is the sum of all voluntary human interactions.

Every decision is an economic one (even involuntary ones).

These are two different concepts, but it's important that you understand them both.