What is wrong with this definition? Adam Smith lauded as the father of economics defined economics as an analysis of the nature and cause of wealth. It is wrong because it only emphasized accumulation of wealth is the only thing that can satisfy man. It is wrong because it does not recognize the reality that wealth is only one of his satisfactions. There are intangible things that can give man satisfaction.
The definition of Professor Alfred Marshall is more appropriate definition of economics. According to him, economics is “a study of mankind in ordinary business of life, it examines that part of the individual and social actions which is closely related with attainment and of material requisite.
The definition has few interesting points to worth discussing. It supposes that economics is a social science since man has differences in terms of behavior and actions. Thus, economics is not possibly similar with other sciences where uniformity is observed. Unlike with science, economics discusses man and the relationship of economic problems with regard to the way he conduct his daily life.
Another point of definition states that wealth is only a means for satisfying material needs, thus weal is not the ultimate among his activities. Wealth is just a means to acquire material objects that satisfies him. Economics therefore, promotes the idea of how men can acquire these materials for his satisfaction. The last point of the definition is that economics is all about what it should be and what it should not be
This definition of economics by Professor Marshall has been criticized for a variety of reasons. For critics, the definition has inherent flaws. Therefore, it is a weak explanation on the nature and scope of economics. Here are some of the flaws that critics were arguing.
It is not alright to insinuate that man is only interested in material objects as the only source of his satisfaction of his welfare. There are other intangible things that can satisfy man and live normally without the benefits of material objects. The critics pointed out that the individual difference among men is enough to argue the materialistic tendency of Marshall’s definition.
To preach what is morally good and right is not the domain of economics. It only examines why. This definition of Alex Marshal has restricted economics to delve only on the material aspect of satisfaction. This is already an inherent weakness of the definition. Therefore it is not the correct definition.
Furthermore, critics emphasized that economics has no moral authority to tell what is right and what is wrong. Thus, this makes one of the weaknesses of the definition. The definition is not even realistic as it exempts intangibles as source of satisfaction.
The writer has been writing articles for nearly 2 years. Come visit his latest website about remotecontrol ceiling fans that discusses everything you need to know before buying remotecontrol ceiling fans
Economics: The Nature And Its Scope
What is wrong with this definition? Adam Smith lauded as the father of economics defined economics as an analysis of the nature and cause of wealth. It is wrong because it only emphasized accumulation of wealth is the only thing that can satisfy man. It is wrong because it does not recognize the reality that wealth is only one of his satisfactions. There are intangible things that can give man satisfaction.
The definition of Professor Alfred Marshall is more appropriate definition of economics. According to him, economics is “a study of mankind in ordinary business of life, it examines that part of the individual and social actions which is closely related with attainment and of material requisite.
The definition has few interesting points to worth discussing. It supposes that economics is a social science since man has differences in terms of behavior and actions. Thus, economics is not possibly similar with other sciences where uniformity is observed. Unlike with science, economics discusses man and the relationship of economic problems with regard to the way he conduct his daily life.
Another point of definition states that wealth is only a means for satisfying material needs, thus weal is not the ultimate among his activities. Wealth is just a means to acquire material objects that satisfies him. Economics therefore, promotes the idea of how men can acquire these materials for his satisfaction. The last point of the definition is that economics is all about what it should be and what it should not be
This definition of economics by Professor Marshall has been criticized for a variety of reasons. For critics, the definition has inherent flaws. Therefore, it is a weak explanation on the nature and scope of economics. Here are some of the flaws that critics were arguing.
It is not alright to insinuate that man is only interested in material objects as the only source of his satisfaction of his welfare. There are other intangible things that can satisfy man and live normally without the benefits of material objects. The critics pointed out that the individual difference among men is enough to argue the materialistic tendency of Marshall’s definition.
To preach what is morally good and right is not the domain of economics. It only examines why. This definition of Alex Marshal has restricted economics to delve only on the material aspect of satisfaction. This is already an inherent weakness of the definition. Therefore it is not the correct definition.
Furthermore, critics emphasized that economics has no moral authority to tell what is right and what is wrong. Thus, this makes one of the weaknesses of the definition. The definition is not even realistic as it exempts intangibles as source of satisfaction.
The writer has been writing articles for nearly 2 years. Come visit his latest website about remotecontrol ceiling fans that discusses everything you need to know before buying remotecontrol ceiling fans