What if it is very simple but the article still gets it wrong?
The article argues that income is necessary for trade and therefore work which is kind of correct by accident, you need a medium of exchange to trade and work.
No income means no medium of exchange and hence an inability to trade and work.
So what is the solution? Supply and demand, the very thing that economists appear to have forgotten a long time ago, just think about it what it means to have axiomatic scarcity i.e. infinite demand. It means demand and supply will never be in balance. It doesn't take much to recognize that such an axiom is ridiculous and the fact that it is empirically disproven is just one more sad story we have to tell each other to stay grounded in reality.
If economics is a game then games can be finished until there is an update or expansion.
What does the very simple concept of supply and demand being in balance predict? It obviously predicts that all savings are bounded in time as any eternal savings would violate supply and demand. What do we observe in the economy? Eternal savings, quite literally in the form of cash. To make all savings bounded in time, economists have started inflation rate targeting.
Now imagine, you are a rational business owner and you build factories to mill grain and bake bread. You accidentally build one factory too many, it still costs you money to keep it staffed and ready to produce, yet the redundancy is useful if there is a famine, just in case we do need extra bread. However from the business owners perspective it would be better to close the factory and liquidate it into money and then... do absolutely nothing because it costs him nothing and his savings are eternally guaranteed by artificial interventions like the deposit guarantee and the government bailing the banks out at the cost of tax payers.
Okay let's get to the point, the business owner doesn't like an empty factory because it carries business risk and costs him money, but he likes money because the risk is carried by others and it is free at no cost to him. One person has too much money and doesn't invest it, if the money supply doesn't grow endlessly through more debt, then someone else ends up with too little money. The person with too little money has legitimate interests and a desire to work but no ability to do so. At no point is the bottleneck ever in the productive economy and if it was, it would be reflected through higher wages, there would be a scarcity of workers, not a scarcity of the medium of exchange.
The article argues that income is necessary for trade and therefore work which is kind of correct by accident, you need a medium of exchange to trade and work.
No income means no medium of exchange and hence an inability to trade and work.
So what is the solution? Supply and demand, the very thing that economists appear to have forgotten a long time ago, just think about it what it means to have axiomatic scarcity i.e. infinite demand. It means demand and supply will never be in balance. It doesn't take much to recognize that such an axiom is ridiculous and the fact that it is empirically disproven is just one more sad story we have to tell each other to stay grounded in reality.
If economics is a game then games can be finished until there is an update or expansion.
What does the very simple concept of supply and demand being in balance predict? It obviously predicts that all savings are bounded in time as any eternal savings would violate supply and demand. What do we observe in the economy? Eternal savings, quite literally in the form of cash. To make all savings bounded in time, economists have started inflation rate targeting.
Now imagine, you are a rational business owner and you build factories to mill grain and bake bread. You accidentally build one factory too many, it still costs you money to keep it staffed and ready to produce, yet the redundancy is useful if there is a famine, just in case we do need extra bread. However from the business owners perspective it would be better to close the factory and liquidate it into money and then... do absolutely nothing because it costs him nothing and his savings are eternally guaranteed by artificial interventions like the deposit guarantee and the government bailing the banks out at the cost of tax payers.
Okay let's get to the point, the business owner doesn't like an empty factory because it carries business risk and costs him money, but he likes money because the risk is carried by others and it is free at no cost to him. One person has too much money and doesn't invest it, if the money supply doesn't grow endlessly through more debt, then someone else ends up with too little money. The person with too little money has legitimate interests and a desire to work but no ability to do so. At no point is the bottleneck ever in the productive economy and if it was, it would be reflected through higher wages, there would be a scarcity of workers, not a scarcity of the medium of exchange.