This is another essay I wrote a few years ago, please let me know what you think about it.
The Flaw of Modern Economics
Have you ever stopped and wondered why "things" become more expensive as time passes? Anyone who has heard their grandfather tell stories of how you could buy everything you need for a week with four dollars is aware of the steady inflation of our economic system. Were the people in the past poorer than we were? Were their needs unfulfilled? Is there such a great scarcity of resources today that warrants a greater price for goods and services? Or is so much more wealth being created "out of thin air" that is distributed to everyone, allowing him or her to spend more money?
We have lived under a relatively unchanged economic system for thousands of years. It operates of a few basic principles that we take for granted and probably think nothing about after we finish our Economics 101 final. A closer examination of these principles reveals some serious flaws in their hidden assumptions that cause one to wonder where the future of our economic system will lead us.
Principle: People of our culture have unlimited wants, but our world can only supply them with limited resources.
Assumption 1: People will always want more than they have.
Assumption 2: Resource production grows arithmetically (a la Thomas Mathus).
Assumption 3: Population grows exponentially (Mathus as well).
1. Will people always want more than they have? If basic needs are being met (by basic needs, I am referring to food, water, shelter, and space), our culture is the only one that is unsatisfied. Animals are happy to go on living with their basic needs being met and not worry about continual acquisition. Other human cultures also consider having their basic need met a blessing, and they use the time in community and lead fulfilling lives with little crime or disfunction instead of trying to attain better "things". Our culture is the only one that becomes restless.
Have people always wanted more than they have? I would say no. The clearest evidence of this is the simple fact that there do exist people, even in our culture that are satisfied with what they have. Some would argue that those are either a misguided few, the priviledged rich, or the spiritually centered. They could be right. But what if the people who are satisfied with their lives, and don't need any more simply have acknowledged both intellectually and practically that other "things" are more important? We all "know" that love, community, and belonging are more important than money, power, and possessions, but do any of us live like that? Some do. Why can't more?
2. Why does per capita resource production grow arithmetically? More importantly, is this growth sustainable? As demand for resources increases because of an increase in wants, our methods of creating (in the case of an organic resource) or extracting or synthesizing (in the case of an inorganic resource) must become more extensive.
Resource production grows because the demand for it grows. The demand for it grows because of (Assumption 1) people want more, and (Assumption 3) there are more people. This point is the "fuel to the fire".
3. Why does population continue to grow? It grows because we have attached a dollar-value to food. Although in one season a farmer raises enough food to feed his family for the rest of their lives, that farmer will need to farm for most of his life to "make ends meet".
Attaching a dollar value to food effectively attaches a dollar value to human matter, since that is what food becomes. If it is cost effective to make more food, more humans will consume that food, leading to more humans, wanting more food (in addition to other resources). So what happens when the biomass of the planet is all converted to human biomass or human food? Do we just start eating each other to take out the middleman and have a truly efficient economy?
Maybe there's another way.
The greatest flaw of this system is that resources are not finite if consumed correctly. Every organic resource is infinite, if it is consumed at a sustainable rate. This means a production of food that only specifically meets the needs of the population, no more, and no less. Every inorganic non-energy resource can be infinite if recycled properly. Why do we need to produce more steel, if our population is stable by the correct production of food? Does the steel produced today have a finite life span? Every energy resource in infinite, as long as our largest energy resource, the sun, continues to operate.
With a stable population, and stable production or resources, inflation is unnecessary. There would be no reason for a product's "price" to change from one year to the next. For that matter, all prices would eventually disappear and more people's needs would be met since production would relate directly to population, achieving a steady-state of sustainable resource production, and a population sustainable for our planet.
Direct Action Journal
The Flaw of Modern Economics
Have you ever stopped and wondered why "things" become more expensive as time passes? Anyone who has heard their grandfather tell stories of how you could buy everything you need for a week with four dollars is aware of the steady inflation of our economic system. Were the people in the past poorer than we were? Were their needs unfulfilled? Is there such a great scarcity of resources today that warrants a greater price for goods and services? Or is so much more wealth being created "out of thin air" that is distributed to everyone, allowing him or her to spend more money?
We have lived under a relatively unchanged economic system for thousands of years. It operates of a few basic principles that we take for granted and probably think nothing about after we finish our Economics 101 final. A closer examination of these principles reveals some serious flaws in their hidden assumptions that cause one to wonder where the future of our economic system will lead us.
Principle: People of our culture have unlimited wants, but our world can only supply them with limited resources.
Assumption 1: People will always want more than they have.
Assumption 2: Resource production grows arithmetically (a la Thomas Mathus).
Assumption 3: Population grows exponentially (Mathus as well).
1. Will people always want more than they have? If basic needs are being met (by basic needs, I am referring to food, water, shelter, and space), our culture is the only one that is unsatisfied. Animals are happy to go on living with their basic needs being met and not worry about continual acquisition. Other human cultures also consider having their basic need met a blessing, and they use the time in community and lead fulfilling lives with little crime or disfunction instead of trying to attain better "things". Our culture is the only one that becomes restless.
Have people always wanted more than they have? I would say no. The clearest evidence of this is the simple fact that there do exist people, even in our culture that are satisfied with what they have. Some would argue that those are either a misguided few, the priviledged rich, or the spiritually centered. They could be right. But what if the people who are satisfied with their lives, and don't need any more simply have acknowledged both intellectually and practically that other "things" are more important? We all "know" that love, community, and belonging are more important than money, power, and possessions, but do any of us live like that? Some do. Why can't more?
2. Why does per capita resource production grow arithmetically? More importantly, is this growth sustainable? As demand for resources increases because of an increase in wants, our methods of creating (in the case of an organic resource) or extracting or synthesizing (in the case of an inorganic resource) must become more extensive.
Resource production grows because the demand for it grows. The demand for it grows because of (Assumption 1) people want more, and (Assumption 3) there are more people. This point is the "fuel to the fire".
3. Why does population continue to grow? It grows because we have attached a dollar-value to food. Although in one season a farmer raises enough food to feed his family for the rest of their lives, that farmer will need to farm for most of his life to "make ends meet".
Attaching a dollar value to food effectively attaches a dollar value to human matter, since that is what food becomes. If it is cost effective to make more food, more humans will consume that food, leading to more humans, wanting more food (in addition to other resources). So what happens when the biomass of the planet is all converted to human biomass or human food? Do we just start eating each other to take out the middleman and have a truly efficient economy?
Maybe there's another way.
The greatest flaw of this system is that resources are not finite if consumed correctly. Every organic resource is infinite, if it is consumed at a sustainable rate. This means a production of food that only specifically meets the needs of the population, no more, and no less. Every inorganic non-energy resource can be infinite if recycled properly. Why do we need to produce more steel, if our population is stable by the correct production of food? Does the steel produced today have a finite life span? Every energy resource in infinite, as long as our largest energy resource, the sun, continues to operate.
With a stable population, and stable production or resources, inflation is unnecessary. There would be no reason for a product's "price" to change from one year to the next. For that matter, all prices would eventually disappear and more people's needs would be met since production would relate directly to population, achieving a steady-state of sustainable resource production, and a population sustainable for our planet.
Direct Action Journal
VIEW 17 of 17 COMMENTS
It is a Japanese word that means an ogre born human to protect humans from ogres.
Sounds like Koe-Ie, or like that or something.
The next story has that as a character and I have searched, googled, and trolled databases. I have not been able to find it.
For the love of all things Holy!, please if you could at least point me in the right direction it would be most appreciated. Thanks.
Interesting essay, I will think on it.
But then, you will always have a different ending.