A Desire And An Economics

In language of economics a desire does not mean anything until and unless get a monetary backing. The money, a medium of exchange, has only capacity of making desire a reality. This hardcore economic proposition has a limitation indeed. Time and again desire does an immense shock to the nature of social advancement. To turn into an effective demand shall not be binding upon the desire. Desire is such an attitude of life which play beyond length and breadth of economics at ease. It never bothers the market fundamentals. A demand for goods and services so does fair enough. But desire, an invisible quotient of human psychology, on both count of good and bad has enough to do.

Pix by Amit K Sikder

Amazingly a desire for a good always may not be manifested a good. Be at a stake on its way to get a reality if a good desire avail unfair means the society suffers worse. Without a solid surveillance of education and belief derailment of a good deed of desire at the end is obvious.

The Gurukul system of education, a type of spiritual education system, whose origin dates back to around 5000 BC in the Indian subcontinent where students were taught various subjects and mainly how to live cultured and disciplined life. The moral of simple living and high thinking was the key postulate of the system. Today it is mostly commercialised and the desire of education falls prey to profit. Here economics can take a note of the literacy figure, skilled labour, employment growth etc but miserably fails to count the ethic index of the labour force as well as its productivity. Thus a critical labour law and wage policy may not produce enough. The lack of moral concern in education, beyond productivity is subject to a huge social cost. On the other hand the profit motive of organisations sometimes may not go in tandem with labourer’s wish and produce conflict and costs the society. Exchange of better cooperation comes only from a moral gesture not from the mere education of production technique and management. Moreover I would like to say that managing something may not be a sustainable solution to a problem. Here the urge of making education an industry is within the reach of economics but the real desire of education is in distress at the hand of profit motivation (a profit economics).       

A desire for building a better society, nation never sound bad if and only if it is monitored by a fair and generous attitude. To get hold on to best intention is a hard assignment given complex socio-economic protocol. At this fatal injecture stand firm and fight with the evil’s foray deserves a pat.

Most of evils like poverty, economic deprivation, corruption, racial discrimination, climate-influenced migration and hunger etc all prevalent in society today are visible dragon of desire. Economics has less to do with it though it minutely reads the behavioural aspects. Taking the case of poverty we see how governments are putting their best effort and policies in curbing its reckless growth, but the whole has failed to a greater extent. The economic deprivation is an integral part of poverty. The class disparity mainly pivoting to this crisis and a wider spread of a sense of discrimination is provoking numbers of social aspects. Racial discrimination is very costly to the development of society, hampers the core economic fundamentals harshly but Economics here is helpless. In my opinion the consideration of rationality here bypass a lot in arresting the social cost.

The best capability of every fundamentals in society get realised optimally if the foundation of life is based on an ethical spirit. The ethic has a bias in law in a sense but guided exclusively by an internal motivation that’s its only one of its kind.

An economics may fail to arrest the diversified dimension of desire but a moral policing could bring us a better environment curtailing the social cost to an extent.

In the midst of pandemic the domestic violence has grown manifold. Among all reasons the fear of economic insecurity here plays a big. A desire for a minimum livelihood can’t be denied but most painfully here the desire turns violent in want of opportunities. This limited desire of survival is a fundamental right but the economics fails to reach. We want that economics which is ready to console the desire crying for a monetary backing so that the dream of minimum livelihood become a reality.