New economic theories are perilous to the existence of Homo sapiens and not nature friendly. The social science bone up the laws of the production, distribution and exchange of wealth is ?economics?. It grew and developed within the mechanical and materialistic framework of the western classical philosophy. As a result of it, the ?economics? failed to see the ?economical and social issues? in totality. The animate relation between the man and animals and the man and natural resources were not considered by the ?economics?. The economic experts believed that the man progress through the ?continuous clash with the nature? and ?duty of the man is to conquer the nature?. Overstepped Karl Marx wrote: ?Hitherto all the philosophers were interpreting the universe, but we have to change the universe.? It is the same stance that reflects in the capitalist approach that, ?though the nature becomes imbalanced exploit her?. The communists and economical theoreticians believe that it is for the over-production of goods that the growth of ?production-force? is intended. The annual consumption is the measurement of living consumer index in both the systems. Maximum production is the slogan of both.
In both the capitalist & communist countries the ardour of consumption grew. The markets did not distinguish the needs and greeds. The endangerment behind the maximum production and maximum consumption is not seen by both capitalism and communism. The example is the energy sources. This blind maximisation of production gave birth to social inequality, inflation, unemployment, over-centralisation of wealth, energy crisis and environmental disaster. It is still in the clutches of very old western classical philosophies. It is best on the competition of materialism & development. This promoted greed, arrogance, selfishness and thus hatred.
The ancient economics assumed divinity to the nature. Charging interest is considered immoral. It assured reasonable price. Black marketing and hoarding are social evils; and those warranted heavy penalties. In that time the production system was for the social needs. Food, cloths, house, and other resources have only utility value. The phenomenon of market originated in 17th century in England. It spread all over the world. It'sa modern form is the world market. Even in stone-age the exchange of goods was there. Till the industrial revolution, the market was considered to be a system to exchange goods locally. No exchange of coin was there. Metal coin was related to tax collections. As a result of advancement in the field of production due to industrial revolution, the quest for amassing wealth started developing. Material wealth became the measurement of human life. Materialism became strong in the society. In commerce & industry deception grew. New social, economical, and cultural institutions formed in tune with the new industrial-commercial circumstances. The new theories were formed for production, distribution, exchange and transactions. Thrive for profit, the basic character of capitalism spread over. The Protestant and Catholic churches of Europe gave silent consent to capitalism. The culture developed in Europe was non-environmental and material centred. On this circumstances the modern economics originated.
The modern economics is only 300 years old. Its origin was in Britain. Sir William Petty, a close friend of Isaac Newton, Professor of Anatomy of Oxford University and a musician laid foundation to the modern economics. Political Arithamatick is the famous book of him. It is on the basis of views of Newton and Descartes, Petty originated the Theory of Work Value. He established that the ?value? of a product is the work required for its production. John Locke by introducing Atomic Theory of Human Society made the above foundation strong. Locke was trying to introduce the atomic theory of Newton in economic field. According to Locke, value of a goods depends upon the supply and demand. In accordance with the changes in supply and demand the prices changed continuously. On a particular moment the value and price need not be equal. If ?price? increases more than the ?value? then production will go up; ?price? falls. If ?price? decreases more than ?value?, the result is vice versa. These theories discard the social significance of economics.
The Wealth of Nation of Adam Smith, published in 1976 accelerated the growth of capitalism, this book gave theoretical foundation to the market economy. This stimulated the industrialisation in Britain. Smith explained that the wealth of a nation is based on the productivity of its people and, basis of production is human-work and natural resources. He emphasised the necessity of usage of high machineries. Smith believed that the market is an invisible source and it protects the interest of the consumer and the producer. Instead of production for consumption, he said, the consumption should be in accordance with the production. Due to the balance of demand and supply, the free market decides the price of products, Smith argued. It is suitable for the uncontrolled exploitation of nature and labour.
David Ricardo, the famous economist of early 19th century, codified the theories of economics. Ricardo was a millionaire stockbroker. He predicted that at one point of time the economic growth will cease due to the limitation of extend of earth and increase of production of food materials. He developed the theory of work-value of Petty and Smith. The theories of Ricardo stimulated the capitalist market system. He established that, ?the haves & have-nots? are nature'slaw. Ricardo'seconomics justified the diverse exploitations and colonisation of West in 19th century.
After Ricardo'stheories welfare economics and Utopian economics came in Briton. Through social welfare measures and legislations the gap between the haves & have-nots can be minimised, this was the new view. The Utopians established factories and mills on co-operative basis giving higher payments, entertainments, insurance protection and accommodation facilities with lesser work time. They gave importance to the moral, artistical and spiritual values. But the Utopians failed. Marx, who is indebted to the ideologies of the Utopians, evaluates that the Utopians failed due to the incompatibility of that theory with the then existing material-economic situations. But those theories then propounded by the welfare economists and Utopian have contemporary value in the present days.
