The most basic, and probably most well understood of the two, is supply and demand.

The price of a product (Px) is determined at the point where supply (S) and demand (Dx) meet. Q represents quantity sold. The point where it all meets is equilibrium.
Yeah, I know. I just lost some of the non-nerds. Let me translate.
Something that has little supply and very high demand sells for a high price in the market (a new gaming console on eBay, for example). Something with very high supply and low demand sells for a low price in the market (SUVs during an oil boom). An example of a product where this is easily seen would be laser pointers -- in the mid 90s, they were hundreds of dollars in Sharper Image magazines. Now, you can buy them at a gas station for $4.95. Supply has been greatly increased through mass production.
This concept also applies to labor. Skilled positions make more than unskilled positions. For example, doctors make more than tile setters. If there were somehow only one person in the world who knew how to set tile, they'd likely be highly paid.
The next concept that's important to understand is the relationship between Risk and Reward.
For the purposes of most discussions, you can assume this relationship is linear. Truthfully, it's not perfectly linear. There is a slight bend on the left before approaching the 'expected' linear path. The goal of investing, for instance, is to find the point where reward is maximized without taking on any additional risk. In the stock market, this is most often defined as the 80% stocks, 20% bond portfolio. You can theoretically achieve a higher return by being 100% into stocks, but it comes with a disproportionate amount of risk. If I can find a graphic, I'll add one.
At its most basic level though, the higher the risk the larger the reward. A penny stock is not likely to go anywhere, but if it does, you can quickly double your investment. Loaning money to an "at risk borrower" allows the bank to charge a higher interest rate than they would otherwise, increasing the potential reward to make up for the added risk associated with potential loan default.
This concept also applies to labor. A fisherman going after Alaskan king crab makes more per hour than the fisherman going after salmon. A doctor spends years undergoing expensive and elaborate training with no guarantee of making the grade while a tile setter picks it up after a little bit of on-the-job experience. A founder of a company likely quits his day job and takes no pay in order to focus on building the company, while the contractor has the safety of other work and a steady pay check.
I guess you could say an example of disproportionate risk might be professional wrestling vs. soap opera acting. I'd suspect your chances of making Hulk Hogan money are pretty similar in both fields, but Hulk Hogan had to get his ass beat every day for the majority of his life ;)
The point of all this is...
In labor markets, risk dictates reward relative to the supply and demand of that position.
Let's put it all together in an easy to understand example.
A musician makes little because the supply outweighs the demand. The risk is that they'll spend a good portion of their lives as a 'starving artist' because of it. If they make it mainstream though, the reward is very large (both financially and personally, I'm sure). If there were only one musician in the world, there would still be a demand for music. And that one musician would be around to reap the rewards of that demand.
We'll discuss the political implications of these things later, but for now, that should help build at least a basic foundation for understanding our economy's underpinnings.
* for the sake of accuracy and completeness, there are occasional outliers and a direct comparison to the laws of motion may upset my physics-minded friends. For example, someone who plays the lotto only once and wins -- the risk was $1, the reward was much more. Or, in the case of supply and demand, a bubble is created when supply out weighs demand but prices still remain high. The thing is, in both examples folks usually end up going broke, sooo ;)


Comments...
(Page 1)1. Dr. Rudloff,
Gee, thanks for the lesson teacher. I hope the point is coming soon ...
;)
9:43AM on Nov 10th 2008 by Cory Collier
2. Cory,
You're too kind ;) This was intended to be really, really basic for people who haven't been exposed to this sort of thing.
A
9:56AM on Nov 10th 2008 by Alex Rudloff
3. Presumably one must start with basics to make comment to an uncertain audience. Neterati of course know these primary assumptions. (Neterati is a made up word with borrowed alternate meanings depending on the language root, here related to literati and not erratum.) God knows, Neterati question assumptions, too.
For example, the 'law' of dismal science of price as a function of supply and demand is assumed to be in a closed system. Often, as in the nineties, the closed system part is not understood by all voters as they ignore the tacit requirement that the same 'law' has no labor supply border/language/cultural/property restrictions. If that assumption is understood, it may be that few understand that wages, gold parachutes, and either law enforcement or social structure is impacted by open borders in ways that may not be first realized or later acceptable, as in security and quality control of lead based paint for children's toys, for example, let alone easily delivered brain damaging pleasure drugs. The word for this is "externality," another basic principle. It applies to all national systems, although, not the world as a whole unless there are national "sanctuaries." It turns out there are some, some of which are keptoeconomies, and some which aspire to narco and necropower. If you can think of better words, please use them. While you are at it, check for de facto restrictions on alien property ownership abroad. China has none, it seems, unless you try to do it. South Korea makes it easy if you use the right deal structure built just for you, and the Saudis evidently want to sell you a condo.
The assumptions of the nineties continue to shape our politics according to the holes in each thinking head. " Wait," you say. " What holes? There are no holes in MY head." Ah, the denial hole. Functional MRI may show those holes related to nature or nurture, as a subject is asked to address stimulus or problems. Decided differences are noted in many in different political organizations, for example.
If so, unfortunately, the only way to express anything in our diverse society (diverse is a code word for different), let alone discuss it to try to gather consensus is to start with our most cherished assumptions at a basic level, examining each with civility, a minimum of fanaticism, and hopefully dispassionate reasoning for holes, none ever associated with suffixes like ass.
11:01AM on Nov 11th 2008 by D
4. That's just it.. How to have the conversation with civility.
If someone finds this information to be too basic, I'm accused of writing with a condescending tone or being a moron. If they find it too advanced, I'm accused of being much worse things with far worse language.
To me, we need to outline on a very basic level what the foundational aspects to all this are. Risk/reward, the relationship of taxes and revenue, the effects of money turning over and changing hands, the pros/cons of depending on government for services, the dangers of an unchecked system or a system to large -- all sorts of basic concepts that serve as a jumping off point. If you can take in all these foundational elements and make an informed decision on political philosophy, the rest sort of falls into place. Whatever that political philosophy might be.
11:53AM on Nov 11th 2008 by Alex Rudloff
5. Al,
Don't get discouraged. I know you're building to something killer. As a matter of fact, I'm kinda waiting on it. So, if you wouldn't mind ...
;)
10:26PM on Nov 12th 2008 by Cory Collier