|
||||
|
a few reasons why i hate economics.
humans? what humans? there's no such thing as a human being in econs. there's only "labour" and "human resource". why is this so? it makes it easier for economists and policymakers to play around with the numbers when it doesn't seem as if the numbers are affecting real people. adjusting tax rates, interest rates, modifying salary structures, CPF rates etc... all this has a direct impact on the lives of human beings, affecting their livelihood, their quality of life, and in a very real way, their happiness. in the even that "unpleasant measures" have to be taken for the sake of "growth" or "the greater good", it's just somehow easier to "reduce labour costs" and implement measures that "affect the labour market" than it is to fire people and cut their wages. the numbers game under the current system of economics, the success of a economy and an individual is measured in very numerical terms, the former in the form of percentage points of GDP growth, and the latter in the form of personal worth (eg. material wealth). i wonder if we've actually lost sight of the entire point of pursuing economics in the first place. it's not about the charts, the calculations or the numbers or whatever. it's not about oneupmanship, "my country is better than yours". it's about allocating resources in the best way to maximise human satisfaction and welfare. which i take to mean making as many people reasonably well-off and happy as possible. somehow that goal is lost amid the rush to achieve greater growth, and to achieve the so-called 4 macroeconomic aims. yes i know those aims, once fulfilled, are supposed to lead towards the proper allocation of resources. but does it, really? it seems to me like societal welfare is becoming more of a by-the-way kind of thing, something to consider afterwards and to implement only when possible. what i see is econs for econ's sake, especially here in singapore. greed is good... not when it's not econs for econ's sake, it's econs for greed. in this respect, i have to admit that most of the fault comes us and not from the system itself. no matter how perfect the system, someone will find some way to manipulate it for personal gain. the 1997 (1998?) Asian financial crisis was a direct result of human greed, not a failing in the system itself. but what about the type of trading commonly practiced now? why does the system allow for things such as short-selling and hedge funds? are they ethical? don't they, more than anything, encourage greed at the expense of the nobler ideals of economics? how does that work, then? sustainability and lastly: the system of economics practised today just does not take into account the long-term viability of the economy. what matters is only today's growth, this year's GDP. it matters not that i'm belligerently industrialising, polluting the environment and destroying resources that could be utilised in the future, abandoning agriculture even though there will be repercussions later on in the form of food shortages and high inflation, so long as today, my GDP growth is good. the measure of success is just too narrow and too shortsighted. Economists themselves acknowledge this, but have never actually bothered to find a better yardstick, let alone to push for economies to work towards one. it's no longer about the people in today's economy: it's about the numbers. they don't care about you, they care only about revenue and profits and growth. so either you fend for yourself, or you drown. depressing. |
|
|||