Section one early economic thought ancient Economic Thought
Скачать 467.4 Kb.
|
| COMPUTER APPLICATION IN ECONOMICS (Econ-337)  Rift Valley University College Center for Distance Education Adama 2010 SECTION ONEEARLY ECONOMIC THOUGHT1. Ancient Economic Thought1.1 IntroductionMain articles: Ancient economic thought, Chanakya, Qin Shihuang, Wang Anshi, Muqaddimah, and Arthashastra The earliest discussions of economics date back to ancient times (e.g. Chanakya's Arthashastra or Xenophon's Oeconomicus). Back then, and until the industrial revolution, economics was not a separate discipline but part of philosophy. In Ancient Athens, a slave based society but also one developing an embryonic model of democracy,[4] Plato's book The Republic contained references to specialisation of labour and production. But it was his pupil Aristotle that made some of the most familiar arguments, still in economic discourse today. 1.2 Thought History of EconomicThe history of economic thought deals with different thinkers and theories in the subject that became political economy and economics from the ancient world to the present day. It encompasses many disparate schools of economic thought. Greek writers such as the philosopher Aristotle examined ideas about the "art" of wealth acquisition and questioned whether property is best left in private or public hands. In medieval times, scholars such as Thomas Aquinas argued that it was a moral obligation of businesses to sell goods at a just price. British philosopher Adam Smith is often cited as the father of modern economics for his treatise The Wealth of Nations (1776). His ideas built upon a considerable body of work from predecessors in the eighteenth century particularly the Physiocrats. His book appeared on the eve of the Industrial Revolution with associated major changes in the economy.[3] Smith's successors included such classical economists as the Rev. Thomas Malthus, Jean-Baptiste Say, David Ricardo, and John Stuart Mill. They examined ways the landed, capitalist and labouring classes produced and distributed national output and modeled the effects of population and international trade. In London, Karl Marx castigated the capitalist system, which he described as exploitative and alienating. From about 1870, neoclassical economics attempted to erect a positive, mathematical and scientifically grounded field above normative politics. After the wars of the early twentieth century, John Maynard Keynes led a reaction against what has been described as governmental abstention from economic affairs, advocating interventionist fiscal policy to stimulate economic demand and growth. With a world divided between the capitalist first world, the communist second world, and the poor of the third world, the post-war consensus broke down. Others like Milton Friedman and Friedrich von Hayek warned of The Road to Serfdom and socialism, focusing their theories on what could be achieved through better monetary policy and deregulation. As Keynesian policies seemed to falter in the 1970s there emerged the so called New Classical school, with prominent theorists such as Robert Lucas and Edward Prescott. Governmental economic policies from the 1980s were challenged, and development economists like Amartya Sen and information economists like Joseph Stiglitz introduced new ideas to economic thought in the twenty first century. 1.3 AristotleMain articles: Aristotle, Politics (Aristotle), and Nicomachean Ethics Plato and his pupil, Aristotle, have had an enduring effect on Western philosophy.Aristotle's Politics (c.a. 350 BC) was mainly concerned to analyse different forms of a state (monarchy, aristocracy, constitutional government, tyranny, oligarchy, democracy) as a critique of Plato's advocacy of a ruling class of "philosopher-kings". In particular for economists, Plato had drawn a blueprint of society on the basis of common ownership of resources. Aristotle viewed this model as an oligarchical anathema. In Politics Book I, Aristotle discusses the general nature of households and market exchanges. For him there is a certain "art of acquisition" or "wealth-getting". Money itself has the sole purpose of being a medium of exchange, which means on its own "it is worthless... not useful as a means to any of the necessities of life".[5] Nevertheless, points out Aristotle, because the "instrument" of money is the same many people are obsessed with the simple accumulation of money. "Wealth-getting" for one's household is "necessary and honourable", while exchange on the retail trade for simple accumulation is "justly censured, for it is dishonourable".[6] Aristotle disapproved highly of usury and also cast scorn on making money through monopoly.[7] |
Добавить в свой блог или на сайт
Похожие:
Разместите кнопку на своём сайте: