The commodified-utilities frame became dominant after World War II, defining productive activity as utility that is bought and sold through a market transaction.

The commodified-utilities frame became dominant after World War II, defining productive activity as utility that is bought and sold through a market transaction.

• Utility was already a highly prevalent productivity frame by 1890–1909: around 70% of all sampled textbooks and about 78% of texts discussing the boundary used it; after 1909 the range was 89–100%, and all boundary-discussing texts in 1910–1944 used it.
  Evidence for this premise (3)

  What counts as productive? Redefining ‘producers’ in economic discourse, 1890–1960 — Post-marginal-revolution contestation: utility expands the producer boundary, but competing frames persist

  the marginal revolution made utility even more central to economic discourse

  https://doi.org/10.1080/03085147.2024.2404355#unit-5-p2

  What counts as productive? Redefining ‘producers’ in economic discourse, 1890–1960 — Post-marginal-revolution contestation: utility expands the producer boundary, but competing frames persist

  the marginal revolution made utility even more central to economic discourse

  https://doi.org/10.1080/03085147.2024.2404355#unit-5-p2

  What counts as productive? Redefining ‘producers’ in economic discourse, 1890–1960 — Post-marginal-revolution contestation: utility expands the producer boundary, but competing frames persist

  the marginal revolution made utility even more central to economic discourse

  https://doi.org/10.1080/03085147.2024.2404355#unit-5-p2
• A third frame treated intended utility creation as unproductive when it failed: labour was unproductive when wasted, misdirected, or inefficient, including activities such as competitive advertising that did not ultimately create utility.
  Evidence for this premise (3)

  What counts as productive? Redefining ‘producers’ in economic discourse, 1890–1960 — Post-marginal-revolution contestation: utility expands the producer boundary, but competing frames persist

  only misdirected or inefficient labor is unproductive

  https://doi.org/10.1080/03085147.2024.2404355#unit-5-p5

  What counts as productive? Redefining ‘producers’ in economic discourse, 1890–1960 — Post-marginal-revolution contestation: utility expands the producer boundary, but competing frames persist

  only misdirected or inefficient labor is unproductive

  https://doi.org/10.1080/03085147.2024.2404355#unit-5-p5

  What counts as productive? Redefining ‘producers’ in economic discourse, 1890–1960 — Post-marginal-revolution contestation: utility expands the producer boundary, but competing frames persist

  only misdirected or inefficient labor is unproductive

  https://doi.org/10.1080/03085147.2024.2404355#unit-5-p5
• The failed-or-unrealized-utility frame had more adherents than the moral frame but did not survive into the mid-twentieth century.
  Evidence for this premise (3)

  What counts as productive? Redefining ‘producers’ in economic discourse, 1890–1960 — Post-marginal-revolution contestation: utility expands the producer boundary, but competing frames persist

  it ultimately did not survive into the mid-twentieth century.

  https://doi.org/10.1080/03085147.2024.2404355#unit-5-p6

  What counts as productive? Redefining ‘producers’ in economic discourse, 1890–1960 — Post-marginal-revolution contestation: utility expands the producer boundary, but competing frames persist

  it ultimately did not survive into the mid-twentieth century.

  https://doi.org/10.1080/03085147.2024.2404355#unit-5-p6

  What counts as productive? Redefining ‘producers’ in economic discourse, 1890–1960 — Post-marginal-revolution contestation: utility expands the producer boundary, but competing frames persist

  it ultimately did not survive into the mid-twentieth century.

  https://doi.org/10.1080/03085147.2024.2404355#unit-5-p6
• The marginal revolution shifted economics' object of knowledge from material wealth to utility, understood as the capacity of material objects or immaterial services to satisfy desires, wants, or needs.
  Evidence for this premise (3)

  What counts as productive? Redefining ‘producers’ in economic discourse, 1890–1960 — Post-marginal-revolution contestation: utility expands the producer boundary, but competing frames persist

  the object of knowledge for economists shifted from the production and distribution of wealth , where wealth is conceived of as material goods, to the satisfaction of utility

  https://doi.org/10.1080/03085147.2024.2404355#unit-5-p1

  What counts as productive? Redefining ‘producers’ in economic discourse, 1890–1960 — Post-marginal-revolution contestation: utility expands the producer boundary, but competing frames persist

  the object of knowledge for economists shifted from the production and distribution of wealth , where wealth is conceived of as material goods, to the satisfaction of utility

  https://doi.org/10.1080/03085147.2024.2404355#unit-5-p1

  What counts as productive? Redefining ‘producers’ in economic discourse, 1890–1960 — Post-marginal-revolution contestation: utility expands the producer boundary, but competing frames persist

  the object of knowledge for economists shifted from the production and distribution of wealth , where wealth is conceived of as material goods, to the satisfaction of utility

  https://doi.org/10.1080/03085147.2024.2404355#unit-5-p1
• A generic utilities frame defined production simply as the creation of utility, without specifying what counts as utility or how to measure it.
  Evidence for this premise (3)

  What counts as productive? Redefining ‘producers’ in economic discourse, 1890–1960 — Post-marginal-revolution contestation: utility expands the producer boundary, but competing frames persist

  Any activity which contributes to the creation of utilities in either of these ways is production

  https://doi.org/10.1080/03085147.2024.2404355#unit-5-p3

  What counts as productive? Redefining ‘producers’ in economic discourse, 1890–1960 — Post-marginal-revolution contestation: utility expands the producer boundary, but competing frames persist

  Any activity which contributes to the creation of utilities in either of these ways is production

  https://doi.org/10.1080/03085147.2024.2404355#unit-5-p3

  What counts as productive? Redefining ‘producers’ in economic discourse, 1890–1960 — Post-marginal-revolution contestation: utility expands the producer boundary, but competing frames persist

  Any activity which contributes to the creation of utilities in either of these ways is production

  https://doi.org/10.1080/03085147.2024.2404355#unit-5-p3
• A small minority used a moral utilities framework, excluding activities that created or satisfied immoral utilities and evaluating utility against social goals such as national prosperity; this approach was never dominant and Carver was the last sampled economist to use it.
  Evidence for this premise (3)

  What counts as productive? Redefining ‘producers’ in economic discourse, 1890–1960 — Post-marginal-revolution contestation: utility expands the producer boundary, but competing frames persist

  the framing of utility around a moral calculus was never dominant

  https://doi.org/10.1080/03085147.2024.2404355#unit-5-p4

  What counts as productive? Redefining ‘producers’ in economic discourse, 1890–1960 — Post-marginal-revolution contestation: utility expands the producer boundary, but competing frames persist

  the framing of utility around a moral calculus was never dominant

  https://doi.org/10.1080/03085147.2024.2404355#unit-5-p4

  What counts as productive? Redefining ‘producers’ in economic discourse, 1890–1960 — Post-marginal-revolution contestation: utility expands the producer boundary, but competing frames persist

  the framing of utility around a moral calculus was never dominant

  https://doi.org/10.1080/03085147.2024.2404355#unit-5-p4
• Utility did not initially settle the boundary, because generic, moral, failed-or-unrealized-utility, and commodified-utilities frames competed.

These are challenges this argument’s reasoning pattern must still withstand. Answering them on Isonomia strengthens the argument.

• Does the operational measure of F in the sample actually capture F as it is meant in the population-level claim?Open
• Is the sample actually representative of the target population on the dimensions that matter for F (demographics, behavior, time period, platform mix)?Open
• Is the sample large enough to support the precision (margin m) being claimed?Open
• Does the conclusion stay within the population P from which S was drawn, or does it overreach (different country, different time period, different platform)?Open
• Was the sample drawn or recruited in a way that systematically biases the proportion of F (e.g., volunteer bias, opt-in panels, attrition)?Open

Cited by 1 · 0 contests