Economics as a science, first of all, appeared to rationalize the use of a limited supply of resources. Its goal was to improve the quality of human life. Gradually it became more complicated and began to take new forms. However, the main goal of the economy remains the same – to achieve maximum benefits with minimal effort. Unfortunately, this has led to a peculiar paradox, as a result of which, instead of improving the standard of living, it is decreasing.
Cold calculation and logic are the main tools of a good businessman. Unfortunately, it turned out that the most rational behavior contradicts generally human values. For example, why create something yourself when you can take it away by force?? This method was followed by the very first rulers in the pre-state period. Then the states began to introduce wars with each other to extract all kinds of resources. Of course, the morals of antiquity gradually subsided and began to be restrained by legislation; nevertheless, the remnants of those times, brute force, still remain in our time. A good example of the “dashing nineties” with the gangster method of introducing business, murders, raider takeovers, fraudulent schemes. After all, this is the easiest way to accumulate primary capital.
It’s been 20 years since then. Former bandits have turned into respected businessmen, the rules of the game have changed. But their principle remains the same. Why invest in long-term projects if you can get instant profit?? And what? The principle of minimum investment – maximum profit is fulfilled. Businessman is satisfied. So why not do it that way?? We just need to look at this situation over the long term. Such a strategy leads to loss, not only for the businessman, but also for other people, the state.
For example, a businessman had a plant https://dublinwinscasino.co.uk/ that did not have treatment facilities. It was easier for him to pay fines than to build it. As a result, the environment was polluted, but the businessman made a lot of money from his business. He moved somewhere to the south and began to live there for his own pleasure. Quite a lucky fate. But let’s consider the consequences. After all, significant damage was caused to nature; people who lived in the vicinity of the river where the businessman dumped waste can no longer swim or fish in this river. It’s sad, but the businessman doesn’t care. Now let’s imagine that all businessmen do this. What do we end up with?? This businessman, having moved to the south, wanted to swim in the sea, but suddenly it turned out that the sea had turned into a dump of toxic waste. His colleague, another businessman, also did not build treatment facilities for his factory. It turned out ironic. Of course, the example is exaggerated, but there is some truth in it.
Rational behavior is not always good. Blind obedience to theory will never lead to anything good. A theory, no matter how good it is, always describes reality with a certain error. That is why, when calculations are made for various industrial equipment, the value of the calculated numbers is increased, for the reserve. Pray for what will go wrong.
I think in economic theory we need to resort to something similar. Why did consumer goods, such as appliances, used to be of better quality than modern ones?? Even if it was difficult to get it, nevertheless, many Soviet equipment still works, and works perfectly. The fact is that businessmen realized that there was no need to do something good. It is enough to make cheap and a lot in order to sell more and make a profit. Against this background, high-quality equipment, which can also be made in large quantities, but smaller than bad ones, becomes uncompetitive at the same price. I have to overprice her. As a result, we have cheap consumer goods and expensive high-quality goods. Although both products are overpriced. As a result, the consumer loses. How could this situation be resolved?? Ban the production of low-quality goods, but this is a utopian idea that the modern world will not agree to.
Another trend in the modern world is that people who move science forward, create new ideas, solutions, as a rule, receive little income from this. Compared to those who put it on stream. Fundamental science suffers from this, progress slows down. It grows extensively, but not intensively.
Western scientists conducted a social experiment. They offered a group of people to go through a computer simulation of survival on a desert island. The goal was to find the best way to survive on the island. The prize was a large sum of money. According to the rules, it was possible to use the ideas and developments of other research participants. In the end, the winner was not the one who came up with the most effective method of survival, but the one who borrowed it. Moreover, the author of the idea did not receive any award. Scientists explained this result by the fact that those who use other people’s ideas do not waste energy or effort on them. They put everything to use, getting amazing results. Everything seems fair. But this man of ideas, will he be able to continue to introduce effective policies without the man of ideas?? A picture emerges in my eyes of two people on a desert island trying to survive. One comes up with options, the other uses them, but only for himself. As a result, the idea generator dies, and the user lives on, using the work of the dead man. But he can’t think of anything else. The rainy season comes (the situation changes) and that’s it, he can’t get his bearings, rebuilds without a comrade, and also dies. So how did they have to enter in order to survive?? Act as a team. Adequately pay the thinker for the use of his ideas, support him. Then the islanders will not be afraid of any trouble.
One of the postulates of economics also says that resources are limited. This is true, but for the Earth. Space is a potentially limitless source of resources. In view of this, it is most advisable to begin the expansion of the solar system as soon as possible to develop space resources. Under this program it would be possible to create a large number of jobs, common labor, as they say, unites, and of course this project in the future would allow us to overcome many economic difficulties. But for modern economists, this is all not rational. A project of this scale will pay off for a long time, over many human lives. So now there is no point for them to do this. Another similar project is a fusion power plant. Essentially unlimited source of energy.
In this way, we can notice that rational behavior, the principle of least cost, greatest profit in the economy is destructive. Some element is not taken into account in the theory, it would be nice to know which one? Perhaps this is just the irrational side of man, he does not always obey the laws of logic. Perhaps this element of chance can change the existing status quo.