By Khairi Janbek.
The last time I came up aginst economics academically, was in 1986 when I was doing my forst postgraduate in London. Most of you probably were not even born. Afterwards, I came up against it many times professionally, therefore as a non-informed non-economist, I wish to refer to Adam Smith's perceived wisdom that" It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker,that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest", in the bombardement of us by the high and mighty, that the market beautifully harnesses the energy of selfish individuals thinking only of themselves and their loved ones, to produce social harmony, and anything else would fail, because it would deny then this human instinct, and assume naively that, everyone is altruistic. Therefore, we are told to conclude that, we have to assume the worst about people [thinking of their interests only] so that we can have a viable economic system. But hang on a minute; isn't it very likely, that if we assume the worst about people, we shall get the worst out of them??.
As for education, the term which everyone seems to fancy these days and has infected many countries, they started beleiving that, the expansion of education leads to productivity increase. No, and not in anyway. The relationship between education and productivity is teneous at best and complicated at worst. Far greater attention should be given to the creation of productive institutions and to the support organisations of such institutions. All what education does, is enable the young to develop their full potential and live a more fulfilling and independent lives. It does not increase productivity. Ultimately we really need to understand that, though seemingly economic, the subject of the ideology of the economic system, in actual fact, is all about moral values and political decisions, and not something economists with their tool kits are particularly equipped to rule on.
A more worrying point which really annoys me, is this constant blabbering about the digital divide between the rich and poor nations. Suddenly, wealthy institutions, companies, individuals started donating money to developing countries to buy computers and internet facilities, without even blinking for a second, whether those countries need internet most??. I would say, money given to such less fashionable things, as drilling wells equipment, expanding electricity grids and more affordable washing machines as examples of any other essential utilities, would improve peoples'lives, more than handing every child a laptop, or settign up internet centres in rural villages.
last but not least, I wish to draw on the initial argument by saying, morality is not an optical illusion. When people act in a non-selfish way, be that by not cheating customers, working hard without being supervised, or resisting bribes when they are even low salaried, it is because they know, that's the right thing to do.
The last time I came up aginst economics academically, was in 1986 when I was doing my forst postgraduate in London. Most of you probably were not even born. Afterwards, I came up against it many times professionally, therefore as a non-informed non-economist, I wish to refer to Adam Smith's perceived wisdom that" It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker,that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest", in the bombardement of us by the high and mighty, that the market beautifully harnesses the energy of selfish individuals thinking only of themselves and their loved ones, to produce social harmony, and anything else would fail, because it would deny then this human instinct, and assume naively that, everyone is altruistic. Therefore, we are told to conclude that, we have to assume the worst about people [thinking of their interests only] so that we can have a viable economic system. But hang on a minute; isn't it very likely, that if we assume the worst about people, we shall get the worst out of them??.
As for education, the term which everyone seems to fancy these days and has infected many countries, they started beleiving that, the expansion of education leads to productivity increase. No, and not in anyway. The relationship between education and productivity is teneous at best and complicated at worst. Far greater attention should be given to the creation of productive institutions and to the support organisations of such institutions. All what education does, is enable the young to develop their full potential and live a more fulfilling and independent lives. It does not increase productivity. Ultimately we really need to understand that, though seemingly economic, the subject of the ideology of the economic system, in actual fact, is all about moral values and political decisions, and not something economists with their tool kits are particularly equipped to rule on.
A more worrying point which really annoys me, is this constant blabbering about the digital divide between the rich and poor nations. Suddenly, wealthy institutions, companies, individuals started donating money to developing countries to buy computers and internet facilities, without even blinking for a second, whether those countries need internet most??. I would say, money given to such less fashionable things, as drilling wells equipment, expanding electricity grids and more affordable washing machines as examples of any other essential utilities, would improve peoples'lives, more than handing every child a laptop, or settign up internet centres in rural villages.
last but not least, I wish to draw on the initial argument by saying, morality is not an optical illusion. When people act in a non-selfish way, be that by not cheating customers, working hard without being supervised, or resisting bribes when they are even low salaried, it is because they know, that's the right thing to do.
