For all of you taking economics, do economists
really tend to ignore the human element, as this writer claims? Do you think Germany can be an economic
model for other countries, including Slovakia?
Which of these suggestions appears doable? Do you agree with the writer’s assertion that business should be
socially useful?
The author of the article made several good points, which, however, seem to me quite idealistic. I think that economics, as human science, does not look at humans as beings, but rather as some units. Factors affecting some economy are connected with quality and quantity of these units, but in my eyes, they do not include social, human side of these units. After all, economics is a science, and I think that sciences at all do not deal with humanity. Have you ever seen a physicist talking about human element when describing certain law or feature?
ReplyDeleteHowever, sciences do not entirely create our lives. There is a human side in each one of us. Therefore I think that human element is present at each science, even though it tries to be detached from the element. I mean that even in chemistry feelings and relationships influenced the inventions and discoveries to a great extent. Thus, I think that human element is quite ignored by economics as by other sciences, but I personally do not see anything bad with it. I think that human element it present at application of sciences.
The article is not about the economics as a science, but rather about real-life situations. Economics is a theoretical science which does not completely apply on real life, since its favourite law – ceteris paribus – does not apply on real life. Therefore, when speaking about unemployment in particular country, we are no more in the sphere of science, but rather in real life. Germans found their way to fight unemployment and thus induce economic growth in the country. Mittelstand represents an effective production of goods and services. I appreciate this model. I think that if also other countries understood benefits of Mittelstand, they would be probably likely to establish similar system in their own country. However, this change is not simple at all. It is really hard to change stereotypes and to come to new ideas and new ways. Humans are just unable of radical changes and therefore other economies would have to accept the model step by step. According to features mentioned, such as collaborative spirit, social usefulness, Mittelstand seems to be a really good model. It definitely helps German economy to flourish. Since it is highly focused on human factor, I can say that it increases the aggregate happiness of Germans. As is clear from my words, I consider Mittelstand to be a good economic model.
Have a look at Norway. The unemployment rate is below 4% and the habitants seem to be really satisfied with their country, with their life situations. There is a different economic model applied. I could say that it is quite opposite to Mittelstand. There are many factories and firms owned by the state, by the government, rather than by private sector. As you can see, their economy is highly effective. I think that this provides a proof that it does not depend on the economic model in a country, but rather on people and their mentalities. As I have said earlier, this is exactly real life, the application of science, where the human element is very important.
The author advised to follow Mittelstand. I would not say so. I think it only depends on human’s understanding and realization of our, human values and principles. I think even Slovak economy would be much more effective, if people did not tend to steal, to deceive, to cheat. We need to realize what are we here for, why do we have an opportunity to live. I would just advise to think twice of one’s actions and decisions and to consider also the impacts on environment and other people in the society.