Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * * * 1 votes

Is Nirvana person usefull to society?


  • Please log in to reply
121 replies to this topic

#16    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 13,791 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 30 July 2013 - 11:40 AM

View Postthe L, on 30 July 2013 - 10:31 AM, said:

Question I want to ask you is...lets say we have perfect market without ecocide, corruption and monopoly...and that is Buddhist society...will they made progress? Will they would be able ever to reach production possibilities frontier? I think not. They will always be inside curve. Never on curve and not to mentioned moving curve right.

That said if goverment wanted to interfier with problem they would must touch religion question and that way human rights. So we have situation where we have religion vs goverment.
Meaning goverment dont have power to fight with this phenomenan. Its like boycot in a sense. You would have to change ideology. On another hand we can fight ecocide, monopoly and corruption.

Its Buddhism vs Science. Monks and Buddhists participate but in what extend? Couldnt they participate more if they were ambitious.

Being unsatisfied is good. Anxiety is good. If anxiety dont exist we will never made changes in our lives. Being abmitious is good for society. Yet we have people who are not ambitious.
Being to ambitions is the main reason why we have an unsustainable growth economy which is causing ecoside as you put it. It is not a universally positive quality to constantly seek novalty and "progress" (whatever that means). Most of the greatest attrocities in history have been carrie3d outr in the name of progress at the hands of sociopaths.

More pointless speculation. If I spent a little time I am certain I could find many Buddhists who have actively contributed to societal progress. One of the most dynamic societies in history (the Japanese) has a substantial Buddhist community (probably approaching half) - have they held back the technological development of Japan.

As I said it a frankly ridiculous proposition that a Buddhist is socially useless.

Br Cornelius

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson

#17    White Crane Feather

White Crane Feather

    Seeker79

  • Member
  • 12,999 posts
  • Joined:12 Jul 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Potter: " is this real or is this in my mind?"

    Dumbledore: " Of course it's in your mind....., but that dosn't mean it's not real."

Posted 30 July 2013 - 11:58 AM

View Postthe L, on 30 July 2013 - 10:31 AM, said:

Question I want to ask you is...lets say we have perfect market without ecocide, corruption and monopoly...and that is Buddhist society...will they made progress? Will they would be able ever to reach production possibilities frontier? I think not. They will always be inside curve. Never on curve and not to mentioned moving curve right.

That said if goverment wanted to interfier with problem they would must touch religion question and that way human rights. So we have situation where we have religion vs goverment.
Meaning goverment dont have power to fight with this phenomenan. Its like boycot in a sense. You would have to change ideology. On another hand we can fight ecocide, monopoly and corruption.

Its Buddhism vs Science. Monks and Buddhists participate but in what extend? Couldnt they participate more if they were ambitious.

Being unsatisfied is good. Anxiety is good. If anxiety dont exist we will never made changes in our lives. Being abmitious is good for society. Yet we have people who are not ambitious.
L think you are missing the point of economics. The goal of economics is not to further your or anyone else's idea of progress. Its to describe, scientifically, how and why we make our choices then to make policy to maximize human utility. aka Happiness. Being free of dissatisfaction, anxiety, and other motivators creates positive utility for many many people. I would say just about everyone. Government sponsored stress has nothing to do with creating happy people but furthering some sort of dreamt up goal and utility for humanity and maximizing the utility for the people who value such things at the expense of those who don't. One thing that history has taught us is that imposing ideas on others does not work, creates a black market of sorts and ultimately is not maximizing human happiness.

Why do you want people to work so? Do you want better technologies? More fiscal growth? What? This is a loaded question because no matter how you answer it, you are suggesting maximizing your own happiness/utility by virtue of you own values and the expense of someone else's who does not gain utility from the same things that you do.

Im not talking about pure markets. Pure markets are impossible by virtue of the very thing that makes them good. The rules against monopolies, externalities, collusions are there to move markets to more purity by keeping out the potential negative influences of self interests. These things are determined mathematically, experimentally, and confirmed in practice.

You are proposing a control on people in an attempt to motivate them to participate in more innovation. In essence you are attempting to artificially increase the supply of labor. What this mean. Well its been a while since I worked with supply and demand curves. Automatically artificially and on a very basic level this puts a market out of equilibrium. The equilibrium demand will fall short of the supply. This is unemployment and creates downward pressure on wages until enough people drop out of the market. ( the remaining true Buddhists?).

The mistake is to think that more people working for more things will create economic exchanges. While its tempting to think that more people with more money will raise demand to equal out with supply, it dosnt work because you approached it from the wrong direction creating a surplus labour without the demand to support it.

You also might be considering this as an entire supply shifter. Its been so long since I went over supply shifters, but forced centralized controls are always associated with surpluses and shortages.

The whole concept doesn't work because you are imposing what you consider good upon other people that do not consider it good. Our economies should not be growing any more than they should be growing. When you mess with markets all humans do is screw it up.....Every time....without fail.

Edited by White Crane Feather, 30 July 2013 - 12:26 PM.

"I wish neither to possess, Nor to be possessed. I no longer covet paradise, more important, I no longer fear hell. The medicine for my suffering I had within me from the very beginning, but I did not take it. My ailment came from within myself, But I did not observe it until this moment. Now I see that I will never find the light.  Unless, like the candle, I am my own fuel, Consuming myself. "
Bruce Lee-

#18    Big Bad Voodoo

Big Bad Voodoo

    High priest of Darwinism

  • Member
  • 9,582 posts
  • Joined:15 Nov 2010
  • Gender:Male

Posted 30 July 2013 - 12:13 PM

View PostWhite Crane Feather, on 30 July 2013 - 11:58 AM, said:

L think you are missing the point of economics. The goal of economics is not to further your or anyone else's idea of progress. Its to describe, scientifically, how and why we make our choices then to ma
I wouldnt agree. Why dont you rather answer my questions instead making it personal. Lets say I dont understand why dont you explain it to me? lol
Its not all about choices even it is called Science of choices. Goal of economy is study by part of economy called Nominal economy. It trys to answer goals of economy. Using ethic views. Moral stance. I understand it very well. :w00t:

Nevertheless you missed terms. Goals of economy isnt same as economic progress.

Goal of economy  by defenition (if we ignore nominal one) is to reach point where we cant made better economic situation without that we reduce others people economic situation.
Goal of economy is to find easiest way to use resources and divide it among population. Because resources are not unlimited.

If resourcers were unlimited then Economy wouldnt exist at all. :tu:

Edited by the L, 30 July 2013 - 12:20 PM.

JFK: "And we are as a people, inherently and historically, opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths, and to secret proceedings.
For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy..."

#19    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 13,791 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 30 July 2013 - 12:16 PM

View Postthe L, on 30 July 2013 - 12:13 PM, said:

I wouldnt agree. Why dont you rather answer my questions instead making it personal. Lets say I dont understand why dont you explain it to me? lol
Its not all about choices even it is called Science of choices. Goal of economy is study by part of economy called Nominal economy. It trys to answer goals of economy. Using ethic views. Moral stance. I understand it very well. :w00t:

Nevertheless you missed terms. Goals of economy isnt same as economic progress.

Goal of economy  by defenition (if we ignore nominal one) is to reach point where we cant made better economic situation without that we reduce others people economic situation.
Goal of economy is to find easiest way to use resources and divide it among population. Because resources are not unlimited.

If resourcers were limited then Economy wouldnt exist at all. :tu:
Bizarre.

Br Cornelius

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson

#20    Big Bad Voodoo

Big Bad Voodoo

    High priest of Darwinism

  • Member
  • 9,582 posts
  • Joined:15 Nov 2010
  • Gender:Male

Posted 30 July 2013 - 12:16 PM

View PostBr Cornelius, on 30 July 2013 - 12:16 PM, said:

Bizarre.

Br Cornelius

May I ask why?

L

Edited by the L, 30 July 2013 - 12:17 PM.

JFK: "And we are as a people, inherently and historically, opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths, and to secret proceedings.
For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy..."

#21    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 13,791 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 30 July 2013 - 12:20 PM

Quote

If resourcers were limited then Economy wouldnt exist at all. :tu:

This is just drival, resources are finite and the action of society is generally about resolving conflicts regarding resource access and utilization. It is a fiction of capitalism that resources are infinite and why capitalist theory frequently fails to describe reality.

The rest is largely unintelligible.

Br Cornelius

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson

#22    Big Bad Voodoo

Big Bad Voodoo

    High priest of Darwinism

  • Member
  • 9,582 posts
  • Joined:15 Nov 2010
  • Gender:Male

Posted 30 July 2013 - 12:22 PM

View PostBr Cornelius, on 30 July 2013 - 12:20 PM, said:

This is just drival, resources are finite and the action of society is generally about resolving conflicts regarding resource access and utilization. It is a fiction of capitalism that resources are infinite and why capitalist theory frequently fails to describe reality.

The rest is largely unintelligible.

Br Cornelius

I edited my post in same minute you wrote this. It was lapsus linguae. You can see what I meant by sentence before that.

Just add : "un"

Edited by the L, 30 July 2013 - 12:24 PM.

JFK: "And we are as a people, inherently and historically, opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths, and to secret proceedings.
For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy..."

#23    Big Bad Voodoo

Big Bad Voodoo

    High priest of Darwinism

  • Member
  • 9,582 posts
  • Joined:15 Nov 2010
  • Gender:Male

Posted 30 July 2013 - 12:23 PM

Cornelius what do you mean by this: The rest is largely unintelligible.

JFK: "And we are as a people, inherently and historically, opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths, and to secret proceedings.
For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy..."

#24    Big Bad Voodoo

Big Bad Voodoo

    High priest of Darwinism

  • Member
  • 9,582 posts
  • Joined:15 Nov 2010
  • Gender:Male

Posted 30 July 2013 - 01:13 PM

View PostWhite Crane Feather, on 30 July 2013 - 11:58 AM, said:

Being free of dissatisfaction, anxiety, and other motivators creates positive utility for many many people. I would say just about everyone. Government sponsored stress has nothing to do with creating happy people but furthering some sort of dreamt up goal and utility for humanity and maximizing the utility for the people who value such things at the expense of those who don't. One thing that history has taught us is that imposing ideas on others does not work, creates a black market of sorts and ultimately is not maximizing human happiness.

Why do you want people to work so? Do you want better technologies? More fiscal growth? What? This is a loaded question because no matter how you answer it, you are suggesting maximizing your own happiness/utility by virtue of you own values and the expense of someone else's who does not gain utility from the same things that you do.

Im not talking about pure markets. Pure markets are impossible by virtue of the very thing that makes them good. The rules against monopolies, externalities, collusions are there to move markets to more purity by keeping out the potential negative influences of self interests. These things are determined mathematically, experimentally, and confirmed in practice.

You are proposing a control on people in an attempt to motivate them to participate in more innovation. In essence you are attempting to artificially increase the supply of labor. What this mean. Well its been a while since I worked with supply and demand curves. Automatically artificially and on a very basic level this puts a market out of equilibrium. The equilibrium demand will fall short of the supply. This is unemployment and creates downward pressure on wages until enough people drop out of the market. ( the remaining true Buddhists?).

The mistake is to think that more people working for more things will create economic exchanges. While its tempting to think that more people with more money will raise demand to equal out with supply, it dosnt work because you approached it from the wrong direction creating a surplus labour without the demand to support it.

You also might be considering this as an entire supply shifter. Its been so long since I went over supply shifters, but forced centralized controls are always associated with surpluses and shortages.

The whole concept doesn't work because you are imposing what you consider good upon other people that do not consider it good. Our economies should not be growing any more than they should be growing. When you mess with markets all humans do is screw it up.....Every time....without fail.

I just see you edited your post.

What about Utility ? Can follow you. You mean Marginal utility?
Goverment shoudnt sponsored stress. I used analogy of stress and anxiety to describe how ambitious by all definition impact economy. My posing ideas do work. We are in global viilage. Not one country is island. Well except North Korea and similar. History doesnt show that. History is only labratory where we can test ideas. Yet this isnt idea. This is science. Please dont tell me that all Buddhists are happy? What about health care, social insurence, education, apartments…
Why do I want that? I dont. I discuss. Even if I did want it would be because of science. What will I get? Better country for those people. And now you will say they are happy. Even I dont agree that all Buddhist are happy per se. But lets say I did. Maybe they are happy because they are under dogma and doctrines?
I wont maximize my happiness by own values. Its value of knowledge. Value of science. Science isnt mine.
As I already said that perfect markets dont exists. I used hypothethical situtation which you didnt grasp or kindly avoid.
Where did you read control of people? About increase of supply of labor…How do you know how will their economy developed? Lol. You are not taking all variables into account in your prime school example. That will happened IF all other variables stayed unchanged. Which will not stay.
Ofcourse that I dont think that if more people is working that more postive things would happend. And in economy it wanst explained by supply and demand but with theory that if we increase one input into production and others inputs leave the same we would have negative results. In my country there is saying: „Puno baba-kilavo dijete“ (More nanies-more akward baby) . Because of you terminology I see you have knowledge in it (my termionlogy is bad due language barrier). So if you are educated in it you know that economy progress goes on four wheels.
Our economies should be growing if they have space to grow. Why not? You like miserable people? You like people without social and health? You like homeless? You like poverty?
And I do not agree that when we mess with market we mess everytime. Its pesimistic view. Not well informed.
On this statement I can partly agree:
The whole concept doesn't work because you are imposing what you consider good upon other people that do not consider it good.
But tell me, how will invisible hand work if we dont have ambitious people?

Cheers!

Edited by the L, 30 July 2013 - 01:37 PM.

JFK: "And we are as a people, inherently and historically, opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths, and to secret proceedings.
For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy..."

#25    redhen

redhen

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,825 posts
  • Joined:14 Aug 2005
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Samsara

Posted 30 July 2013 - 02:14 PM

"Puno baba-kilavo dijete“ " Are you Croatian?

"Our economies should be growing if they have space to grow. Why not? You like miserable people? You like people without social and health? You like homeless? You like poverty?"

So there's lots of room for growth in Croatia? Everyone's happy, healthy, rich and well housed there?  Must be because of all the Catholic monks there.

pax


#26    Big Bad Voodoo

Big Bad Voodoo

    High priest of Darwinism

  • Member
  • 9,582 posts
  • Joined:15 Nov 2010
  • Gender:Male

Posted 30 July 2013 - 02:17 PM

View Postredhen, on 30 July 2013 - 02:14 PM, said:

"Puno baba-kilavo dijete“ " Are you Croatian?

"Our economies should be growing if they have space to grow. Why not? You like miserable people? You like people without social and health? You like homeless? You like poverty?"

So there's lots of room for growth in Croatia? Everyone's happy, healthy, rich and well housed there?  Must be because of all the Catholic monks there.

pax
Im.
Yes there is a lot of room for growth. Dont follow you with Chatolic thing.
If you seek reason why we didnt reach our potential it was because we were in war and we have had rough transition from socalism to capitalism. But be sure we are on way up.

JFK: "And we are as a people, inherently and historically, opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths, and to secret proceedings.
For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy..."

#27    Frank Merton

Frank Merton

    Blue fish

  • Member
  • 17,137 posts
  • Joined:22 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

Posted 30 July 2013 - 03:04 PM

I think the mendicant monastic tradition is obsolete and has been replaced by the Christian model of the monastery that is productive and helpful, providing social centers, hospice care, grief assistance, counseling, artwork and craftsmanship, rituals, and, most important perhaps, a place where individuals finding themselves unable to cope can go temporarily to be sheltered and assisted.  (Ironic as such monastaries disappear from the West)


#28    redhen

redhen

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,825 posts
  • Joined:14 Aug 2005
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Samsara

Posted 30 July 2013 - 03:41 PM

View Postthe L, on 30 July 2013 - 02:17 PM, said:

Yes there is a lot of room for growth. Dont follow you with Chatolic thing.

I stand corrected, there are 7 Serbian Orthodox monasteries and 2 Catholic ones in Croatia. You seem to imply that monks, especially Buddhist monks, contribute nothing to society. If that was the case, they wouldn't have existed for hundreds and thousands of years.

Let me cite just one example;

"Between 1991 and 1993, during the Croatian War of Independence the monastery was broken into several times,[2] and in 1995 it was abandoned, after which the church was devastated and desecrated, making it uninhabitable.[3] Later, Bishop Fotije gave his blessing to Father Đorđe Knežević to begin with the reconstruction of the monastery. In autumn 2004, basic conditions were achieved for the return of monks."

"Monastery Dragović used to have a rich treasury, in which was kept a number of manuscripts from 16th-18th centuries, as well as very old books written in Greek, Latin, Italian, Russian and Church Slavic."

So despite all the attacks against them, monasteries are flourishing in Croatia, and have been keepers of much ancient knowledge. So they seem to be useful and the same can be said for Buddhist monasteries in Asia.


#29    White Crane Feather

White Crane Feather

    Seeker79

  • Member
  • 12,999 posts
  • Joined:12 Jul 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Potter: " is this real or is this in my mind?"

    Dumbledore: " Of course it's in your mind....., but that dosn't mean it's not real."

Posted 30 July 2013 - 05:30 PM

View Postthe L, on 30 July 2013 - 01:13 PM, said:



I just see you edited your post.

What about Utility ? Can follow you. You mean Marginal utility?
Goverment shoudnt sponsored stress. I used analogy of stress and anxiety to describe how ambitious by all definition impact economy. My posing ideas do work. We are in global viilage. Not one country is island. Well except North Korea and similar. History doesnt show that. History is only labratory where we can test ideas. Yet this isnt idea. This is science. Please dont tell me that all Buddhists are happy? What about health care, social insurence, education, apartments…
Why do I want that? I dont. I discuss. Even if I did want it would be because of science. What will I get? Better country for those people. And now you will say they are happy. Even I dont agree that all Buddhist are happy per se. But lets say I did. Maybe they are happy because they are under dogma and doctrines?
I wont maximize my happiness by own values. Its value of knowledge. Value of science. Science isnt mine.
As I already said that perfect markets dont exists. I used hypothethical situtation which you didnt grasp or kindly avoid.
Where did you read control of people? About increase of supply of labor…How do you know how will their economy developed? Lol. You are not taking all variables into account in your prime school example. That will happened IF all other variables stayed unchanged. Which will not stay.
Ofcourse that I dont think that if more people is working that more postive things would happend. And in economy it wanst explained by supply and demand but with theory that if we increase one input into production and others inputs leave the same we would have negative results. In my country there is saying: „Puno baba-kilavo dijete“ (More nanies-more akward baby) . Because of you terminology I see you have knowledge in it (my termionlogy is bad due language barrier). So if you are educated in it you know that economy progress goes on four wheels.
Our economies should be growing if they have space to grow. Why not? You like miserable people? You like people without social and health? You like homeless? You like poverty?
And I do not agree that when we mess with market we mess everytime. Its pesimistic view. Not well informed.
On this statement I can partly agree:
The whole concept doesn't work because you are imposing what you consider good upon other people that do not consider it good.
But tell me, how will invisible hand work if we dont have ambitious people?

Cheers!
Let me try to explain better. ( I don't mean to make anything sound personal... Just keep in mind that value systems are inherently personal)

Economics isn't really about money. You seem to understand this. Money is merely a medium for choice. Utility is the pleasure/happiness/value I get out of an action. If I buy something that I want I'm going receive X utility for it. The maximum I'm willing to pay for X say is $5. Why? Well there is something called opportunity costs. This is what I could do with that $5 if I did make that purchase. It's the utility that I'm missing out on if go with the the purchase ...opportunity cost = O.
Only when X>O will I make that purchase. At $5.01 is O>X I will not make that purchase. This gives me dollar representation of where my Demand for the product sits. But it's still not about money. It's about my willingness to purchase which money reflects.

Now the person selling the good to me goes through a similar process. The Good ( G) has an O as well. The supplier of G Gaines a X for owning it. Weather it be in using G herself or the value it represents by being able to sell/trade it to somone else. If  O>X  for selling the at $ at $4.99 them she will not sell unless someone is willing to pay $5 for it. At this point X<O.  If you Understanding this,  this is how the invisible hand works.

My Utility for consuming G is positive at $5. Lets just say 1U. Her utility for supplying G at $5 is also 1U. When we make the trade we get 2 units of 'happiness' generated in total. Society is now 2U happier.

In a macro sense and a free economy constant trades are happening all the time. If the economy is free and negative factors like buyers remorse... Monopolies, collusion, externalities, and other ills are avoided then positive and ever growing utility is constantly generated. The happiness of society increases. Jobs are created to progress utility, innovations are made, quality of life increases ...on and on.  This is adam smiths "invisible hand".

If you artificially mess with the process ( which happens a lot) it should only be to minimize the impacts of some of the problems mentioned. The introduction of fiat systems throws a whole bunch of wrenches into the system and is a complicated subject. But we don't need to go there.

What you have preposed is that the a Buddhists choice of not makeing certain kinds of trades somehow limits the invisible hand principle, but nothing can be farther from the truth. You are only looking at the utility gained by a trade occurring, but have completely ignored the concept of opportunity cost. When the Buddhist chooses not to participate its because he gains more U from not makeing the trade than in makeing it. If he makes a trade and suffers for it then we now have the introduction of negative utility into the system. The goal of the system is to create an ever rising utility. In fact it completely destroys the invisible hand. This person cannot be motivated to innovate, create jobs, etc etc.

A centralized control of how people value something and policy to manipulate this is exceedingly dangerous from an economic perspective. Why? Economics tells us the self interest is inherent, and  control policies that are directly aimed and well understood ills of econimies ( monopolies, collusion, externalities etc etc) are beneficial because they are trying to keep natural equilibriums intact. What you are proposing is manipulating that equilibrium based on a particular set of values that you gain utility from not necessarily other people. This does not maximize utility in a society it hinders it and hinders the invisible hand in the process.

Sheewwww you are bring me back to my university days. It's been a while since I have had to explain all that. A good exercise, thanks.

Edited by White Crane Feather, 30 July 2013 - 05:44 PM.

"I wish neither to possess, Nor to be possessed. I no longer covet paradise, more important, I no longer fear hell. The medicine for my suffering I had within me from the very beginning, but I did not take it. My ailment came from within myself, But I did not observe it until this moment. Now I see that I will never find the light.  Unless, like the candle, I am my own fuel, Consuming myself. "
Bruce Lee-

#30    Big Bad Voodoo

Big Bad Voodoo

    High priest of Darwinism

  • Member
  • 9,582 posts
  • Joined:15 Nov 2010
  • Gender:Male

Posted 31 July 2013 - 11:10 AM

White Crane Feather

I know what is utility, marginal utility and total utility.
But I still dont see how person who is not ambitous is link with it.
also Adam Smith hand ISNT what you describe. Hand needs ambitious individuals yet we have faith who made society be unambitious.
And we mess the process on daily basis and nothing happens. Example monetary politc.
I didnt proposed anything about Buddhists choice. I proposed they dont have energy, adventerous spirit, animal spirit (economic term), ambitions.
That way no matter did we even have perfect market theory of invisible hand will not work.
Let me simplify to you. Do plants effect invisible hand? Im not comparing plants with Buddhists just want to painted to you that human per se dont effect invisible hand. Ambitious human effect invisible hand. Utility is term among thousands economic term which we use in microeconomy.
We have three factors of production. Natural resources/Earth, Capital and Labour. Labour is most precious. Because you can have all infrastructures, energy,  machine if you dont have educated and motivated people who will run these things and use it for progress?
Economy as science isnt exact science. You cant study economy as in labratory. Theory of supply and demand tells us that if prices go high demand will go low. Which we find that isnt so. As any science, economy is self correcting.

Edited by the L, 31 July 2013 - 11:30 AM.

JFK: "And we are as a people, inherently and historically, opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths, and to secret proceedings.
For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy..."




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users