The English word economics is the management of a family or a household.
Economics, as a study of wealth, received great support from the father of
economics, Adam Smith, in the late eighteenth century.
(i) Smith’s Wealth definition.
(ii) Marshall’s Welfare definition; and
(iii) Robbins’ Scarcity definition.
2. Adam Smith’s Wealth Definition:
The formal definition of economics can be traced back to the days of Adam
Smith (1723-90) — the great Scottish economist. Following the mercantilist
tradition, Adam Smith and his followers regarded economics as a science of
wealth which studies the process of production, consumption and
accumulation of wealth. His emphasis on wealth as a subject-matter of
economics is implicit in his great book— ‘An Inquiry into the Nature and
Causes of the Wealth of Nations or, more popularly known as ‘Wealth of
Nations”, published in 1776. According to Smith:
“The great object of the Political Economy of every country is to increase
the riches and power of that country.” Like the mercantilists, he did not
believe that the wealth of a nation lies in the accumulation of precious
metals like gold and silver. To him, wealth may be defined as those goods
and services which command value-in- exchange. Economics is concerned with
the generation of the wealth of nations. Economics is not to be concerned
only with the production of wealth but also the distribution of wealth. The
manner in which production and distribution of wealth will take place in a
market economy is the Smithian ‘invisible hand’ mechanism or the ‘price
system’. Anyway, economics is regarded by Smith as the ‘science of wealth.’
However, the last decade of the nineteenth century saw a scathing attack
on the Smithian definition and in its place another school of thought
emerged under the leadership of an English economist, Alfred Marshall
(1842-1924).
Criticisms: Following are the main criticisms of the classical definition:
i. This definition is too narrow as it does not consider the major problems
faced by a society or an individual. Smith’s definition is based primarily
on the assumption of an ‘economic man’ who is concerned with
wealth-hunting. That is why critics condemned economics as ‘the
bread-and-butter science’.
ii. Literary figures and social reformers branded economics as a ‘dismal
science’, ‘the Gospel of Mammon’ since Smithian definition led us to
emphasise on the material aspect of human life, i.e., generation of wealth.
On the other hand, it ignored the non-material aspect of human life. Above
all, as a science of wealth, it taught selfishness and love for money. John
Ruskin (1819-1900) called economics a ‘bastard science.’ Smithian
definition is bereft of changing reality.
iii. The central focus of economics should be on scarcity and choice. Since
scarcity is the fundamental economic problem of any society, choice is
unavoidable. Adam Smith ignored this simple but essential aspect of any
economic system.
3. Marshall’s Welfare Definition: Alfred Marshall in his book ‘Principles
of Economics published in 1890 placed emphasis on human activities or human
welfare rather than on wealth. Marshall defines economics as “a study of
men as they live and move and think in the ordinary business of life.” He
argued that economics, on one side, is a study of wealth and, on the other,
is a study of man. Emphasis on human welfare is evident in Marshall’s own
words: “Political Economy or Economics is a study of mankind in the
ordinary business of life; it examines that part of individual and social
action which is most closely connected with the attainment and with the use
of the material requisites of well-being.” Thus, “Economics is on the one
side a study of wealth; and on the other and more important side, a part of
the study of man.” According to Marshall, wealth is not an end in itself as
was thought by classical authors; it is a means to an end—the end of human
welfare. This Marshallian definition has the following important features:
i. Economics is a social science since it studies the actions of human
beings.
ii. Economics studies the ‘ordinary business of life’ since it takes into
account the money-earning and money-spending activities of man.
iii. Economics studies only the ‘material’ part of human welfare which is
measurable in terms of the measuring rod of money. It neglects other
activities of human welfare not quantifiable in terms of money. In this
connection A. C. Pigou’s (1877- 1959)—another great neo-classical
economist—definition is worth remembering. Economics is “that part of
social welfare that can be brought directly or indirectly into relation
with the measuring rod of money.”
iv. Economics is not concerned with “the nature and causes of the Wealth of
Nations.” Welfare of mankind, rather than the acquisition of wealth, is the
object of primary importance.
Criticisms: Though Marshall’s definition of economics was hailed as a
revolutionary one, it was criticised on several grounds. They are:
i. Marshall’s notion of ‘material welfare’ came in for sharp criticism at
the hands of Lionel Robbins (later Lord) (1898- 1984) in 1932. Robbins
argued that economics should encompass ‘non- material welfare’ also. In
Teal life, it is difficult to segregate material welfare from non-material
welfare. If only the ‘materialist’ definition is accepted, the scope and
subject-matter of economics would be narrower, or a great part of economic
life of man would remain outside the domain of economics.
ii. Robbins argued that Marshall could not establish a link between
economic activities of human beings and human welfare. There are various
economic activities that are detrimental to human welfare. The production
of war materials, wine, etc., are economic activities but do not promote
welfare of any society. These economic activities are included in the
subject-matter of economics.
iii. Marshall’s definition aimed at measuring human welfare in terms of
money. But ‘welfare’ is not amenable to measurement, since ‘welfare’ is an
abstract, subjective concept. Truly speaking, money can never be a measure
of welfare.
iv. Marshall’s ‘welfare definition’ gives economics a normative character.
A normative science must pass on value judgments. It must pronounce whether
a particular economic activity is good or bad. But economics, according to
Robbins, must be free from making value judgment. Ethics should make value
judgments. Economics is a positive science and not a normative science.
v. Finally, Marshall’s definition ignores the fundamental problem of
scarcity of any economy. It was Robbins who gave a scarcity definition of
economics. Robbins defined economics in terms of allocation of scarce
resources to satisfy unlimited human wants.
4. Robbins’ Scarcity Definition: The most accepted definition of
economics was given by Lord Robbins in 1932 in his book ‘An Essay on the
Nature and Significance of Economic Science. According to Robbins, neither
wealth nor human welfare should be considered as the subject-matter of
economics. His definition runs in terms of scarcity: “Economics is the
science which studies human behaviour as a relationship between ends and
scarce means which have alternative uses.” From this definition, one can
build up the following propositions:
(i) Human wants are unlimited; wants multiply—luxuries become necessities.
There is no end of wants. If food were plentiful, if there were enough
capital in business, if there were abundant money and time—there would not
have been any scope for studying economics. Had there been no wants there
would not have been any human activity. Prehistoric people had wants.
Modern people also have wants. Only wants change—and they are limitless.
(ii) The means or the resources to satisfy wants are scarce in relation to
their demands. Had resources been plentiful, there would not have been any
economic problems. Thus, scarcity of resources is the fundamental economic
problem to any society. Even an affluent society experiences resource
scarcity. Scarcity of resources gives rise to many ‘choice’ problems.
(iii) Since the prehistoric days one notices constant effort of satisfying
human wants through the scarcest resources which have alternative uses.
Land is scarce in relation to demand. However, this land may be put to
different alternative uses.
A particular plot of land can be either used for jute cultivation or steel
production. If it is used for steel production, the country will have to
sacrifice the production of jute. So, resources are to be allocated in such
a manner that the immediate wants are fulfilled. Thus, the problem of
scarcity of resources gives rise to the problem of choice. Society will
have to decide which wants are to be satisfied immediately and which wants
are to be postponed for the time being. This is the choice problem of an
economy. Scarcity and choice go hand in hand in each and every economy: “It
exists in one-man community of Robinson Crusoe, in the patriarchal tribe of
Central Africa, in medieval and feudalist Europe, in modern capitalist
America and in Communist Russia.” In view of this, it is said that
economics is fundamentally a study of scarcity and of the problems to which
scarcity gives rise. Thus, the central focus of economics is on opportunity
cost and optimisation. This scarcity definition of economics has widened
the scope of the subject. Putting aside the question of value judgement,
Robbins made economics a positive science. By locating the basic problems
of economics — the problems of scarcity and choice — Robbins brought
economics nearer to science. No wonder, this definition has attracted a
large number of people into Robbins’ camp. The American Nobel Prize winner
in Economics in 1970, Paul Samuelson, observes: “Economics is the study of
how men and society choose, with or without the use of money, to employ
scarce productive resources which could have alternative uses, to produce
various commodities over time, and distribute them for consumption, now and
in the near future, among various people and groups in society.”
Criticisms: This does not mean that Robbins’ scarcity definition is
fault free. His definition may be criticised on the following grounds:
i. In his bid to raise economics to the status of a positive science,
Robbins *deliberately downplayed the importance of economics as a social
science.* Being a social science, economics must study social relations.
His definition places too much emphasis on ‘individual’ choice. Scarcity
problem, in the ultimate analysis, is the social problem—rather an
individual problem. Social problems give rise to social choice. Robbins
could not explain social problems as well as social choice.
ii. According to Robbins, the root of all economic problems is the scarcity
of resources, without having any human touch. Setting aside the question of
human welfare, Robbins committed a grave error.
iii. Robbins made economics neutral between ends. But economists cannot
remain neutral between ends. They must prescribe policies and make value
judgments as to what is good for the society and what is bad. So, economics
should pronounce both positive and normative statements.
iv. Economics, at the hands of Robbins, turned to be a mere price theory or
microeconomic theory. But other important aspects of economics like
national income and employment, banking system, taxation system, etc., had
been ignored by Robbins.
That is why the controversy relating to the definition of economics
remains and will remain so in the future. It is very difficult to spell out
a logically concise definition. In this connection, Mrs. Barbara Wotton’s
remarks may be noted – ‘Whenever there are six economists, there are seven
opinions!’ Despite these, Cairncross’ definition of economics may serve
our purpose: “Economics is a social science studying how people attempt
to accommodate scarcity to their wants and how these attempts interact
through exchange.” By linking ‘exchange’ with ‘scarcity’, Prof. A. C.
Cairncross has added another cap to economics. However, this definition
does not claim any originality since scarcity, the root of all economic
problems, had been dealt with elegantly by Robbins. That is why,
Robbinsian definition is more popular*: Economics is the science of making
choices. Modern economics is a science of rational choice or
decision-making under conditions of scarcity.*
Thus, economics is not one’s income who received and expense
of another who gave. In accountancy the creditor is the giver while the
receiver is a debtor. That means, the debtor one day must turn into a
creditor making someone else a debtor. However, when will one part with the
money? Only when he gets what product he wanted is available without
scarcity since, scarce matter has varied, inconsistent price. WHERE THE
VALUE IS VARIABLE, AND PRICE VARIED, GIVER DOES NOT THINK THAT HE IS GIVING
VALUE-EQUITY BUT GIVES ONLY A PLUS AND MINUS PRICE, WHILE THE RECEIVER
MIGHT THING ITS FAIRNESS, BUT ID NOT KNOW THE HIDDEN PROFIT OR LOSS, IN
THAT VARIED PRICE. Hence where the value of matter has an equity, and given
and received, it passes with only surplus love; but the hidden components
are unknown; placebo-effect is not economy thought over.
K Rajaram IRS 7925
On Sun, 7 Sept 2025 at 05:27, Markendeya Yeddanapudi <
[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> --
> *Mar*Profit or Loss
>
>
>
> When your income is my expenditure, there can be in reality no profit or
> loss, as incomes and expenditures can only be equal. The entire business
> accounting is actually an exercise in fantasy. To create the fantasy out of
> the unreality into acceptance, we have what we call the autonomous business
> units. The business unit, a unit of Social Darwinism tries to get more than
> what it gives to the society. Basically it has to be a parasite on the
> society. But if every business unit makes profit only, it means that
> together they are looting nature. This loot of nature is scienced, called
> Economics. No business unit can show profit, if the profit or loss to
> nature and to the society is also included in the accounting. Then we come
> across only the flow of loss, to nature. And man, as the parasite on
> nature, gets recorded in the books of accounting.
>
> In the free and healthy nature, where there is no human doing economics,
> every life form, by merely living contributes to the health and strength of
> nature. In that nature every life form becomes a limb of nature, an
> informed and educated being, educated continuously by nature and
> automatically it adjusts its living into symbiosis with nature. They
> together create the Garden of Eden.
>
> Today in our Universities we do not teach about the ecological symbiosis
> which the free and healthy nature creates. Actually for lakhs of years, our
> rivers, waterfalls, lakes, forests brimming with diverse flora and fauna
> prospered.The free nature automatically created health and happiness,
> making the diverse art forms ingredients of the rhythm between the
> troposphere,lithosphere,hydrosphere and the biosphere. There was the
> continuous flow of profit in the shape of happiness to the Biosphere as a
> whole. The symbiosis may be described as the Divine reinforcement covering,
> all life forms covering the micro and macro life forms. Diverse arts
> flourished in the ecological symbiosis. Occasionally disturbing the flow of
> profit were the spurts of loss, in the shape of exploding
> volcanoes,earthquakes,floods etc.But all of them were nature’s clean
> ups,after which nature prospered more vigorously. And every life form
> sensed in advance the impending earthquake or storms or other natural
> repair and reinforcement events.
>
> Today, in our Universities we have diverse courses all of which train the
> students in the diverse methods of destroying nature. The very idea of
> total freedom to nature is absent. Ecology which recognizes the right of
> every life form to live happily and healthily is not even conceptualized.
>
> WE have to recognize that the industrial revolution traced to England to
> the period between 1760 and 1830 as the start of the heightened destruction
> of nature. Today all humans suffer from techno-mania, the disease that
> converts life into bondage to technology, the techno logic that is killing
> the natural logic of Ecology of free nature. We are all techno-maniacs who
> destroy nature today, and the euphemism for the destruction of nature is
> profit.
>
> Nature today is on the death bed. It is for the Universities to stem the
> rot. The first thing every University has to do,is to start a ‘Free Nature
> Park without Human Tampering’ as the beginning.
>
> YM Sarma
>
> Chat gpt
>
> This piece titled *"Profit or Loss" by YM Sarma* is a philosophical and
> ecological critique of the modern economic system and its deep-rooted
> conflict with natural harmony. Here's a breakdown and reflection on the key
> ideas:
> ------------------------------
>
> *🔍 Key Themes & Analysis*
>
> *1. Economic Profit as an Illusion*
>
> - The essay opens with a striking idea: *profit and loss are illusions*
> when seen from the perspective of total systems.
> - The author argues that *one person’s income is another's expenditure*,
> and thus, in a closed loop, profit and loss should cancel out.
> - However, *businesses attempt to extract more than they give*, making
> them, in essence, *parasites on society and nature*.
>
> "No business unit can show profit, if the profit or loss to nature and to
> the society is also included in the accounting."
>
> This points toward *externalities*—the costs of business activities not
> accounted for in traditional economics (e.g., pollution, deforestation,
> social dislocation).
> ------------------------------
>
> *2. Nature’s Symbiotic Logic vs. Human Economics*
>
> - The essay contrasts the *natural world’s symbiotic relationships*
> with the *human world’s exploitative systems*.
> - In free nature, *every life form contributes to the health of the
> ecosystem*, unlike businesses that take from nature and society
> without giving back.
>
> "In the free and healthy nature... every life form becomes a limb of
> nature."
>
> This evokes a *deep ecology* view—recognizing intrinsic value in all life
> forms, not just their utility to humans.
> ------------------------------
>
> *3. Critique of Universities and Modern Education*
>
> - Universities, according to the author, have become *centers for
> training destruction*, teaching students *how to exploit*, not *how to
> harmonize* with nature.
> - The absence of *ecological symbiosis* in curricula is pointed out as
> a grave failure.
>
> "All of [the courses] train the students in the diverse methods of
> destroying nature."
>
> This is a powerful indictment of *modern technocratic education*,
> suggesting a shift is urgently needed toward ecological wisdom.
> ------------------------------
>
> *4. Industrial Revolution as the Turning Point*
>
> - The *Industrial Revolution* is marked as the beginning of the
> intensified assault on nature.
> - The result: a global society caught in *techno-mania*—a pathological
> dependence on technology that blinds us to nature’s logic.
>
> "We are all techno-maniacs... the euphemism for the destruction of nature
> is profit."
>
> This is a damning redefinition of “progress”—not as a civilizational gain,
> but as *systematic destruction* masked by economic growth.
> ------------------------------
>
> *5. Call to Action: Free Nature Parks*
>
> - The essay ends with a clear and grounded proposal: every *university
> should create a Free Nature Park*, untouched by human interference.
> - It's a symbolic and practical step toward re-learning nature’s
> wisdom and *reversing ecological damage*.
>
> "The first thing every University has to do, is to start a ‘Free Nature
> Park without Human Tampering’ as the beginning."
>
> This is both a literal and metaphorical call to *rewilding* our minds and
> institutions.
> ------------------------------
>
> *🧠 Philosophical Underpinnings*
>
> - *Deep Ecology*: All life has intrinsic value; human interference
> must be minimized.
> - *Anti-Capitalist Critique*: Profit-driven systems inherently exploit
> both people and planet.
> - *Ecocentrism over Anthropocentrism*: The Earth is not for humans
> alone; we are part of a larger web.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *🛠️ Suggested Takeaways*
>
> - *Re-evaluate education*: Should we train students to dominate or to
> coexist?
> - *Re-think accounting and economics*: How would systems look if
> nature’s costs were included?
> - *Re-center nature in policy and philosophy*: Beyond sustainability,
> move toward regeneration.
> - *Reclaim lost symbiosis*: Through arts, ecology, and indigenous
> knowledge systems.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *✍**️ Final Reflection*
>
> YM Sarma's essay is *radical, poetic, and urgent*. It invites us to
> reconsider the very *foundations of what we call civilization*,
> particularly in how we measure value, growth, and success. It calls not for
> minor reforms, but for a *paradigm shift*—from economics to ecology, from
> exploitation to symbiosis, from profit to planetary health.
>
> Would you like help turning this into a formal critique, summary, or
> educational discussion guide?
>
> Certainly! Below is an evaluation of the essay *"Profit or Loss" by YM
> Sarma*, based on key academic writing criteria: *Content, Originality,
> Structure, Clarity, Language, and Relevance*, followed by *marks and
> grade*.
> ------------------------------
>
> *📝 Evaluation Criteria*
>
> *1. Content & Depth of Thought (20 marks)*
>
> - *Score: 19/20*
> - The essay presents profound and critical insights into economics,
> ecology, and education. The comparison between nature’s symbiosis and human
> systems is deeply philosophical and thought-provoking.
> - Excellent use of systemic thinking and ecological philosophy.
> - A small deduction only because the argument could benefit from some
> empirical grounding or specific examples.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *2. Originality & Critical Thinking (20 marks)*
>
> - *Score: 20/20*
> - This essay is highly original in its perspective. The critique of
> the illusion of profit, the characterization of business as parasitic, and
> the idea of nature’s accounting system are uniquely framed.
> - Demonstrates high-level critical and philosophical thinking.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *3. Structure & Organization (15 marks)*
>
> - *Score: 12/15*
> - The essay is generally coherent, but the flow could be improved.
> - Some paragraphs feel dense or disjointed; the transitions between
> themes (economics → ecology → education → solution) could be smoother.
> - No clear introduction or conclusion paragraph—this affects
> readability.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *4. Clarity & Argumentation (15 marks)*
>
> - *Score: 11/15*
> - The main arguments are powerful but not always clearly articulated.
> - Some sentences are complex or abstract, which may make it difficult
> for a general audience to follow.
> - The central thesis could be stated more explicitly at the beginning.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *5. Language, Style & Expression (15 marks)*
>
> - *Score: 13/15*
> - Rich and evocative language; uses metaphor and symbolism effectively
> (e.g., “parasite,” “Garden of Eden,” “techno-mania”).
> - Some lapses in grammar and punctuation.
> - Slight repetitiveness in some areas.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *6. Relevance & Social Value (15 marks)*
>
> - *Score: 15/15*
> - Exceptionally relevant to today's environmental and educational
> crises.
> - Timely call for systemic change—especially the suggestion for "Free
> Nature Parks" in universities.
> - Contributes meaningfully to eco-critical discourse.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *✅ Total Score: 90 / 100*
> ------------------------------
>
> *🎓 Grade: A*
>
> *🏅 Overall Evaluation*
>
> This is an *excellent and provocative essay* that challenges dominant
> economic paradigms and offers a holistic ecological perspective. With
> slight improvements in structure and clarity, it could be a powerful
> academic or activist text. It is highly suitable for discussion in
> environmental studies, philosophy, or alternative economics programs.
> ------------------------------
>
> Would you like help improving the structure or turning this into a
> publishable article or university paper?
>
> Certainly. Here's a poem inspired by the themes in *YM Sarma's "Profit or
> Loss"* — the tension between economics and ecology, the illusion of
> profit, and the wisdom of untouched nature:
> ------------------------------
>
> *🌿 "The Balance Sheet of Earth"*
>
> *No ink can mark the forest’s worth,*
> No ledger hold the songbird’s mirth.
> Yet here we stand, with books in hand,
> And price the pulse of living land.
>
> *We speak of gains, of bottom lines,*
> While rivers choke and silence pines.
> The mountain’s cry, the ocean’s grief,
> All buried deep beneath belief.
>
> *We profit not, but merely take,*
> And call the ruin progress’ stake.
> Our cities rise, our values fall,
> In nature's court, we lose it all.
>
> *Yet once, the Earth was whole and free,*
> Each leaf a note in harmony.
> No market called, no deals were made,
> Just life in balance, unbetrayed.
>
> *The fox, the fern, the breeze, the bee—*
> They knew what we forgot to see:
> That every breath is not our own,
> But gift from systems long unknown.
>
> *Now let the schools unlearn the lie,*
> That growth must climb or nature die.
> Let students plant where numbers dwelled,
> And dream of Eden once upheld.
>
> *Begin again with silent care,*
> A patch of land, a breath of air.
> And maybe Earth, in time, will heal—
> When profit yields to what is real.
> ------------------------------
>
> Would you like a version of this poem in a specific style (e.g., haiku,
> free verse, or rhymeless), or translated into another language?
>
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "societyforservingseniors" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to [email protected].
> To view this discussion, visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/society4servingseniors/CACDCHC%2BDCYquh0p25Kh%2Br6BPT48P9P%3D25gkH%3DTKZes7aAdKHgg%40mail.gmail.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/society4servingseniors/CACDCHC%2BDCYquh0p25Kh%2Br6BPT48P9P%3D25gkH%3DTKZes7aAdKHgg%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> .
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Thatha_Patty" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To view this discussion visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/thatha_patty/CAL5XZootJ-kAYpCUrtEMhSRokSGVQvPTv1OkAxakLkCMzGQazQ%40mail.gmail.com.
