Unless I'm reading the world incorrectly, economics appears to have originally been intended to be an impartial mediator to facilitate cooperation by allowing competition without direct physical harm being done. However, as it is impossible for anything which exists to be impartial, taken to it's logical extreme at the end of the age which it began, it has now entirely replaced all other motives by strongly favouring those who are capable of expending the most resources on endeavours entirely alien to the real world. As anything which has been created ought to never be placed in a position of authority above those which have created it, I expect that at this point economics will consume all those who rely upon it to make decisions about how they should act, rather than asserting authority over decisions about how economics ought to behave based upon human ideals. As things currently stand, this will likely require people to simply refuse to do business with anyone who insists upon playing the same sorts of games with money that are part and parcel to modern economies.
Very few are even aware of how deep the real world actually runs, and therefore end up following short sighted ideologies which fail to recognize how much they personally would benefit from working to improve human society as a whole.
>Generous and brave men live the best,
>seldom do they harbour sorrow;
>but the cowardly man is afraid of everything,
>the miser always worries when he gets gifts.
>either which way it doesn't matter as we have been intellectually stymied and are powerless to affect lasting change to the benefit of others.
Remember that there was quite likely a point at which the whole of the world didn't even consider attempting to improve anything, and yet still there were intrepid individuals who sparked the fires which eventually would send man to the moon.
Don't confuse the daunting with the impossible.
"As I have before, so I will again" is the mantra which creates the world.
"If only…" is the mantra of the dead.
Can't be fixed from the inside.
>we have been intellectually stymied
On this note, Rousseau had some interesting thoughts. Attempting to distill it, the idea is that as any society becomes larger and therefore more complex, communication must become more specific in order to manage this. Yet as communication becomes more specific, a great deal of information is lost, which used to be conveyed through interpersonal relationships.
This is among the reasons that I've previously harped upon the importance of speaking with others face to face.
Chkt