The World as Dots and Curves

It is often said that Economics is the study of scarcity. More aptly though, I’m beginning to feel that Economics is more about the study of profit. Sure, Economics is concerned about the limited time, limited capacities of firms and individuals, but the ultimate aim is not reconciling with scarcity. Scarcity is merely the framework through which Economics operates. As it turns out, all individuals want to maximize the utility gained from personal choices, all firms want to maximize the profit gained from corporate decisions, and all countries want to maximize the wealth gained from national policies. In other words, when making decisions about certain actions or policies, the concern for scarcity is reduced to an abstract “limit” on the economic models while the bulk of the attention is turned to how the lines intersect, interact, and respond with one another. Scarcity is included in the equation, but in a way that is beside the point–what it all comes down to is the curves.

One thing I find inadequate about this condition is how deliberately it directs your attention away from the realities of scarcity. In general, all fields create a kind of “framework” within which people are forced to think. If I am given an X-Y graph, I have to think about the relationship of the particular points in X-Y terms, and that imposes a certain kind of thinking on me. If I am in the field of philosophy, I have to focus on the arguments presented, the particular case studies that illustrate the point, and argue the link between the larger argument and the case study; if I am in Ethnic Studies, I have to focus on culture, ethnicity, and history in relation to how they affect contemporary politics; if I am in Rhetoric, I have to focus on the terms upon which I am arguing and question the assumptions made behind particular statements. In other words, in any particular field, there are ways in which I am required to think: I am not only constrained to the structural “form” , but also to the tools of analysis and variables available in a particular field. This isn’t to say that one field is necessarily better than another, but that every field illuminates certain concerns at the expense of diminishing others.

For Economics in particular, I feel that the models provided for maximizing utility are very narrowly focused and micro-based, and the obsession for profit often trumps many other considerations. Environmental Science, for instance, studies how natural resources and other environmental factors regulate and interact with the species in the world. To extract minerals from the ground, to cut down trees, to build factories in particular locations is to affect the ecosystem and everything that lives within it. However, when a business comes into the picture and considers whether or not to establish factories in a particular location, the focus is less on the consequences of its actions and more on its time line for breaking even and making profit. China’s Three-Gorges Dam is a great example. In order to generate hydroelectricity for the country, China flooded the historically significant Three-Gorges by turning it into the biggest Dam in the world. The environmental factors aside (such as the flooding of 1,300 archaeological sites and the loss of rare plants and animals), China had to “re-locate” 1.24 million people–almost twice the population of Alaska–in order to conduct this project.

Ultimately, in a demanding market with many competitors, there is little room to consider the extraneous consequences involved in the process of making profit. Yet, just as the world is not populated by dots on moving lines and curves, the world is not simply a market with competitors. Unfortunately, with the dominant paradigm constructed through the model of Economics, it becomes all too easy to overlook the many social implications that fall outside the bottom line–even if such implications involve the livelihoods of 1.34 million people.