The age old questions all economists try to answer is how to satisfy unlimited wants with limited means. Apart from the fact that if you lay all the economists in the world end to end they still would not reach a conclusion they did come up with acceptable sub-divisions of those limited resources.

1. Labour
2. Capital
3. Raw materials

As the amount of raw materials is finite and fixed it is the one that was discounted in the equation. Interestingly many studies, including some novels, have been written about what would happen if this aspect became infinite but they are all, of course, theoretical. What the economists do agree on is that by tweaking the other two a difference can be made.

Anyone with a modicum of sense can see that none of the resources can work without the other but here is where the great differences start. One group says that labour is the most important aspect while another states that capital or funding must be given precidence. It was always my understanding, probably wrong, that the former were known as the labour faction while the others were, traditionaly, capitalists.

Therefore the term capitalist is quite acceptable as a supporter of those who believe that the most important people are those who fund the ventures. Those who believe that the workers should receive more, because they produce the product, should be aligned with the party who were originaly described as labour. Fortunately, or otherwise in some peoples eyes, both main parties now see that one cannot exist without the other and both need to be looked after if any venture is to suceed. At least I hope they do.

And what do I think? That spacemen will come and provide us with unlimited resource of course. Do you not?

Cheers

DeG