Adam smith vs Karl marks philosophy economics contribution Essay Example for Free

Adam smith vs Karl marks philosophy economics contribution Essay To begin with, Smith came up with the concept of the ‘invisible hand’ (Communist (1848)). This concept was to explain that seeking self interest is not necessarily bad but it sought to explain the reality that people tend to act in their own self-interests. When individuals pursue their self interests, they promote without their knowledge the good of the community at large and so it can be said that an individual who wants to maximize their revenue maximizes the revenue of the society too. This liberty to customers to buy freely what they want and for the producers to produce what they want without any pressure enables the market to settle on a product distribution and prices that are beneficial to all individual members of the community. This liberty to both producers and consumers and the greed to maximize their interests, drives them into a behavior that is beneficial to all in that particular community. Due to this, producers are forced to employ methods of production that are efficient with an aim o maximize their profits. This leads to low prices that are meant to out do their competitors and this forces investors to go for firms that wants to maximize their profits and hence this works as mechanism of balancing. The invisible hand concept acts as the root of modern economics. A good example is the general equilibrium which states that if the economic forces are balanced in the absence of external influences, then the economic variables will not change. This requires that everything in the market beginning with pricing to production be controlled by the players in the market but not by other forces. These external forces may include among others the regulations that are imposed by the government or other organizations that may have a say on the market. According to the general equilibrium, when the prices are very low, then there is surplus supply and when the prices are very low, then there’s a shortage in supply. As a result of this, the situations tend to control themselves without the need for any regulator from outside. These outside forces in the market slow the rate at which the economy grows and they also lead to infancy in the division of labor. As a result of that need for self improvement, efficient division of labor is realized as well as improved efficiency in the economy. This concept is very much in use even in today’s economy . The modern market structure borrows greatly from the earlier ideas of natural monopoly by Adam Smith.( The Poverty of Philosophy human nature) The division of labor Division of labor is a clear indication of qualitative step towards increased productivity and so it acts as an engine that drives towards realization of economic progress. Smith realized that labor division and for that matter labor specialization would improve greatly on the concentration of workers on the duties they perform. This concentration would come as a result of doing a single task many times or repetitively. The need for improvements in productivity of the work force is said to be the root cause for labor division. According to Smith, labor division can lead to increased productivity. This productivity from the workers can be attributed to specialization in one task since specialization leads to greater skill on their particular subtasks compared to what would be accomplished by the same number of workers performing a broad task. For maximum productivity from workers, skills that they have should be matched with the corresponding equipments.   Most of today’s increase in productivity can be attributed to the matching of technological, human and physical capital and mostly in the manner in which they are organized. This means that laborers need to be equipped with the right skills so as to be effective in what they do compared to when there would be no job specialization and hence anybody could perform any job. Todays economics has borrowed greatly from these ideas from Adam smith. Many organization have realized the need to equip their employees and some even hire unskilled ones but pay for their acquisition of skills. Another outcome of labor division according to Adam smith is minimization of time that is wasted by employees when moving from one task to the other. A lot of time is wasted when people keep on relocating and this proves expensive to the company in the long run because they have to pay the employees. Through labor division, this time wastage is minimized . The modern concept of scientific management borrows greatly from Adam Smiths ideas .Scientific management emphasizes on the connection between activities and the transformation that occurs within the process. This is also supported by William Petty who notes and demonstrates its importance in the construction of Dutch ships. He admits that people with a particular task to perform had discovered new ways of doing their work which were later observed and justified by political writers on economy. (An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (1776) specialisation) The wages of labor Wages of labor are dictated by mostly by the availability of job vacancies and also by the availability of workforce. When there are many workers and the available vacancies are few, the amount of money the workers are paid usually fall. Likewise, when employers compete against one another and the labor supply is limited, the wages paid to the employees usually rises but its worthy noting that this process is made possible by unity among laborers and masters. This kind of unity enables laborers to come together and stop biding for jobs against each other hence making the employers increase the wages paid to them. Likewise when employers come together in unity and stop binding against each other, the wages fall. However, in places where the amount of labor is more compared to the amount of the amount of revenue that can used to pay for waged labor, the competition among the employees in greater than the competition between the employers. Smith argues that the amount of revenue must keep on increasing constantly compared to the amount of labor so that wages may remain high. Profits of stock too have an impact on the wages because the more money is spent on compensating labor; little is left for personal profit. This is clearly shown in countries where competition amongst employees is great compared to competition among employers, profits will be much higher. Due to these views, Smith attacks people who are politically aligned and try to use their political influence to manipulate the government and other powers into their bidding. Smith feared that people of this class could form a powerful block and take advantage of their closeness with the authorities into manipulating the state into enforcing certain regulations meant to serve their interests against the general interests. These would maker other players vulnerable and have no say in the way businesses were being conducted. According to other people the level of specialization brought about by division of labor was externally determined but in the contrary, Smith argued that it was the dynamic engine towards economic progress. Surprisingly, Smith himself criticizes the division of labor arguing that it leads to mental mutilation of the workers hence rendering them ignorant and insular because their lives are limited only to doing a single task many times. These ideas by Smith are incorporated into today’s discussions on economic issues. Human capital is one of the discussions in which Adams Smiths ideas are used. Human capital is one of the four types of capital that were identified by Adam as being important for the success of a company. As argued by Smith previously, human capital and the productive ability of the labor force is both dependant on the division of labor. It’s worthy noting that human capital includes skills, dexterity, and the ability to make the right decisions and human capital can be acquired through informal schooling and on the so called on-the-job training. These acquisitions of skills aimed at improving the effectiveness of the workforce are still practiced today by ma ny companies. (An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (1776) productivity) Adam Smith vs Karl Marx Both Adam Smith and Karl Marx shared a common idea and this common idea was their praise for capitalism .These two early pioneers of modern economics agreed that capitalism was the key in unleashing the productive powers. This argument stated that for the employees to be more productive, they needed to be subject to their bosses or seniors. If the employees were left to work at their own leisure these two men agreed that their productivity would be minimal and as a result, their employers would incur big losses. This created the need for competition among both the employers and the employees as well since this would keep these two parties on their feet through out. But despite these similarities in their in their views, there was differences in their ideas as well. Marx and Smith both seem to agree that capitalism is the ultimate driving force in profit maximization .New profits and value added, they seem to agree came as result of the employers paying the workers the exact value that is in the market for their labor capacity. But the sad thing was that in most cases, the market value of the goods which the workers produced exceeded that market value. This clearly means that the employers were making maximum profits while paying little to their workers. Both Marx and Smith agree that     there are different types of capital and they play different roles during production. Production Capitals include things like land, natural resources or raw materials and lastly technology. All the above named different classes of capital were dependant on each other in production. These two men seemed to agree also that social relations of production should not only be made up of relationships between individuals but rather should be between large groups of people or certain classes of people. These two men had the same idea of a free market. They described a free market as a market in which all prices of the goods that are on offer are decided by mutual consent between sellers and buyers   and also one   that did not mislead both the sellers as well as the buyers. They both argued that these two major people in the market, the buyer and the seller, should not be forced into making decision by an external party. The relationship between these two players should not be manipulated by any one but to the contrary, it should be left to obey the natural law of supply and demand. The difference between free and controlled markets is that   controlled markets are controlled by external forces These forces mostly refers to governments which may directly or indirectly try to have control of prices or the supplies in the market. One area where these two men seem to differ is their idea of job specialization. Smith advocates for specialization for jobs among workers. He argues that laborers who were assigned too many different duties were less productive than those who were assigned a specific task to perform day in day out. He says that this leads to efficient usage of time and it seeks to save time that is usually wasted by workers when moving from one task to another. But to the contrary, Karl Marx disapproves this idea arguing that job specialization could result to workers with more poor overall skills. This, as he says would be brought about by tendency of people to resist change. He also says that when people perform one task repeatedly, it may lead to boredom and make them less enthusiastic about their work. He describes this whole process as a kind of alienation. According to him, the more workers become specialized and do the same thing over and over, they later become totally alienated. Marx goes ahead to argue that division of labor brings with it spiritual depression to the workers. This means that the workers perform their duties feeling as if they are being forced other than doing out of their own will .This greatly lowers the morale of the workers and as a result lower their productivity. Physical tiredness or fatigue can be brought about by job specialization as Marx goes ahead to argue since they no longer feel like human beings but they feel more of machines. Contrary to the idea of Smith, Marx believes that fullness of production is very essential to human liberation goes on to say that he would accept the idea of a strict division of labor as a temporary necessary evil. These views can be said to be in total contrast to those expressed by Smith. Smith on his part believed that any business was a collection of inter related tasks that were aimed at solving a particular issue. So as to effectively do this, Smith argued that the workload should be divided into simple sets of tasks which could be done effectively by workers who were equipped with special skills for doing that particular job. It’s worthy noting that Smith, despite his advocating for division of labor, he does not advocate for achievement of labor division at all costs. It’s worthy noting that in contrast to Smith’s view which were only limited to functional domain only and were made up of activities that were direct in sequence as far as the manufacturing process is concerned, modern processes are very inclusive. It was as a result of his ideas that labor division was adopted. Today, we can clearly say that much of today’s practices in the job markets have bor rowed greatly from the ideas of Smith. In all organization, there is job specialization. This has led to the rise of departments in many organizations and each department is allocated certain workers who are in most cases equipped with certain skill to enable them perform specific duties .The sense in this whole exercise as argued by Smith is that it saves a great deal of time that could be wasted by employees when moving from one task to another. This proves very essential since no employer will want to waste his money employees without maximizing their productivity. However, it is good to note that Smith admits that seeking self interests is not always good. All he tried to do was trying to reverse believe that self interest is generally bad. He also intended to bring to the light the idea that wile human motives are selfish and greedy; the out come of these human behaviors would bring benefits to the whole community at large. This is the direct opposite of the ideas that Marx had .In his arguments; Marx says that the major struggles are always between the producers and those who work in the industries. Another of his greatest contribution to modern economics was his sharp distinction between the two types of division namely social and economic division of labor .If these two labor divisions are conflated, it might look as if labor division is inevitable rather than being constructed socially and influenced by power. (Adam Smith, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (1776) Karl Marx, The Poverty of Philosophy). References Edwin G. West, (1976)The Man and His Wor

The Influence of Mythology on Literature and Society Essay -- Mytholog

The Influence of Mythology on Literature and Society Edith Hamilton is the author of the book Mythology. This book is about the Mythology of the Romans and Greeks through her eyes and the way she interprets it. In the beginning of the book Hamilton writes an introduction to Classical Mythology and how, and why it came about. She starts off by writing that Greek and Roman Mythology is meant to show us how people felt about the human race and about where they came from many years ago. She points out that Mythology describes the Earth when it was young and people cared for the Earth more than today. This is true, because in today?s world not many people are caring about the Earth and its going by us fast. She also points out that these stories in Mythology and the characters are describe in such great detail that even through you cannot see them, that maybe just maybe they are real and believable. Mythology is the way the Greeks and Roman saw and understood the world around them and it is written in which a way that we may never truly understand it. Hamilton now describes the Mythology of the Greeks as a totally different picture than the one described in Classical Mythology. She describes it as being vile, and savage, but the reason for this is because the Greeks wrote about themselves when they had a brutal and poverty filled life. They wrote like this to show you how they came to power and what they went through to get there. Not only was Greece coming to power, but also they changed the world as it was back then and forever. The reason for this was, because when Greece came to power so did mankind, and because they finally saw how powerful they could be, mankind was born. Greek originally obtained their gods fro... ...die and who wanted to fight the good fight. I believe that the Norsemen gods had something to die for, where as the Greco-Roman gods had everything to live for. The Greco-Roman gods were gods who indulged in their delights and who were in a way stuck up. Both Greco-Roman and Norsemen Myths are similar in principal, but are different in meaning. The Norsemen gods seem more like people who are struggling for a common goal, and go through a lot to get their desired happiness. The Norsemen gods? way of life is the way most people think of Mythology when they hear of it. That would be the whole good versus evil battle that supposed to take place between Heaven and Hell, but even though the Norsemen gods are not as strong as the Roman-Greco gods they are stronger in faith and that?s more important than any incredible power that the Greco-Roman gods will ever have.

Compare and Contrast the Presentation of Family Relationships Essay

‘Oranges Are Not the Only Fruit’ (OANTOF) by Jeanette Winterson, and ‘Behind the Scenes at the Museum’ (BTSATM) by Kate Atkinson both highlight the fundamentality of families and the dissatisfaction experienced between these seemingly strained relationships. Both protagonists of the two books feel a sense of unacceptance due to a variety of reasons involving suppression of desire – caused by family members; however this secret yearning also reveals itself through the characters experiences as the two novels progress. Both novels share one main theme – the quest for identity – not only for the main characters, but also for their mothers. Ruby Lennox, the protagonist of BTSATM is a quirky, complex character who relates the events of her life and those of her dysfunctional family with equal parts of humour and passion – starting with her conception in York, England, in 1959: â€Å"I exist! â€Å"(p. 9) Atkinson centres the novel on the idea of the conventional ‘nuclear family’, which is almost ahead of her time as this concept wasn’t in place at the time it was written, however she illustrates this through mother-daughter relationships and also explores this family unity first with her depiction of marriage. She presents this concept in generally unfavourable terms, her writing shows us how marriage has evolved from women in the Victorian era marrying for primarily social and economic reasons to the more liberated views of the 1960’s. Atkinson uses the character of Alice to provide an example of a lower middle-class woman in the 1800’s marrying for security thus no longer having to work, rather than love. Alice’s choice was simple in its restrictions: â€Å"to go on teaching (which she loathed) or accept Frederick’s offer of marriage† (p. 32) Her purpose of marriage thus becomes ironic: She marries believing she would escape the one thing she loathed, but thus traps herself in years of unhappiness with a man she does not even like; â€Å"not a day passes when Alice doesn’t imagine what life would be like if she hadn’t married Frederick Barker† (p. 33). Unmarried women are spinsters, therefore frowned upon by society. Neither Rachel, whose marriage to Fredericks was merely out of justification of acceptance in society, nor Alice, find any kind of fulfilment from their marriages to Frederick Barker as â€Å"a sullen drunk with an insatiable appetite for gambling† (p. 33) Similar experiences happen to the women of the next two generations. Nell’s fear of being a spinster encourages her to marry Frank, the only eligible man left after the war, and resigns herself to a similar life to that of Alice’s, one of dissatisfaction and ‘second best’. This settling for substandard simplicity rather than following dreams seems to become a prominent theme for the women of the book; this is thus reiterated with Bunty: She marries George after being abandoned by her fianci ; â€Å"She wasn’t entirely sure about this, but, with the war now drawing to a close, the possibilities were beginning to fade† (p. 108). Bunty’s marriage was thus, to the reader, predictable to fail as it follows the same unfulfilling course of antipathy and adultery as the previous generations. Both Nell and Bunty are pressured into marriage by social expectations of the time. It is only in the liberation of the1960’s, when Ruby’s generation begins to see love rather than social acceptance as the primary motive for marriage; this new idea ultimately highlights the fairy tale like quality of the new reasons behind matrimony. Ruby illustrates this illusive expectation of romanticism in marriage and how damaging these unrealistic expectations can be. Ruby marries â€Å"a beautiful boy with green eyes and black hair† (p. 335) However, these romantic ideas end in â€Å"some truly wretched years† (p. 358). Atkinson presents to us a picture of marriage through the ages that shows how a woman originally gave up her passions for a marriage of acceptance and convenience in society, to one of Ruby’s idea of true love, however ultimately all marriage is predetermined, and is thus harmful to all women – This is due to previous generations being so unsuccessful. This can be compared with Jeanette’s mother’s motivations for marriage in OANTOF as a way of progressing further in the church rather than love itself, however she secretly desires Pastor Spratt. The want for and lack of maternal love between Nell and Bunty leads on to the central point of the novel, the relationship between Bunty and her youngest daughter, Ruby. The social restrictions of the 1950’s leave Bunty feeling a sense of imprisonment to survive within the domestic expertise as a wife and mother; â€Å"a slave to housework† and she’s â€Å"chained to the cooker† (p. 44). Bunty, trapped in a role she does not wish to have, dreams about â€Å"What it would be like if her entire family was wiped out and she could start again† (p. 14); this thought to any mother would seem totally unacceptable, she obviously loves her children, however due to her own relationship with her mother, she is incapable of expressing this love. Bunty begrudges her daughters because they have entrapped her in an unsatisfactory life, this view is similarly held by Ruby, however she dislikes Bunty as a mother due to the romanticised notion of fairy godmother like figures that society enforced upon little girls. Ruby represents her mother as a monster, almost leaving the reader unsympathetic and ignorant to Bunty’s pressures, however this highlights the reality of conventionality within mother-daughter relationships. Although Ruby may try to leave the reader disliking Bunty, it actually creates the opposite feeling as many mothers themselves reading the book will relate to Bunty’s situation as it is very normal and there is fascination and empathy behind the reader’s view of Bunty. This can be compared with Jeanette’s mother in OANTOF as they are both similar in respect of their individual struggles. Jeanette’s mother actively seeks out combat with others. She feels delighted when she is able to sing hymns to irritate the next-door neighbors. While Jeanette’s mother relishes religious fighting, other indication of her hypocrisy stands out in the novel – for example her picture of her â€Å"old flame† yet she condemns lesbianism. This fight against the world is similar to Bunty’s however a contrast could be distinguished as Bunty does not have the strength or confidence to broadcast her struggles or deploy any mechanism to help her, due to her social unacceptance if she did so. We feel sympathy for Bunty, even thought Ruby outwardly wants the reader to see her flaws, we know she is not living the life she wishes to lead and has only married for functionality, whereas this contrasts the view we have on Jeanette’s mother as she is made a mockery of. Both Ruby and Jeanette feel a sense of rejection from their mothers. For Ruby this is due to her and her family stopping Bunty living the life she wished for, but also due to the belief of causing Pearls death. For Jeanette this is because of her mother’s fight with her homosexuality rather than her daughter herself, which has cursed her mother’s plan for Jeanette to be a servant to God – For Jeanette’s mother, Jeanette is merely a tool for filling expectations of the church – thus when she leaves, she leaves acceptance also. Both mother’s and daughters share a similarity which makes their unacceptance ironic – Bunty in that she was never accepted by her mother â€Å"stuck right in the middle†(p. 94), and Jeanette’s mother by the fact she had a lesbian encounter herself. This can be compared with Jeanette’s and her mother’s relationship. Although there are obvious difficulties in Jeanette and her mother’s relationship, Jeanette learns much from her mother and her mother’s role in the church. Jeanette is similar to her mother in the sense that she learnt to be an outspoken and strong person, important in dealing with and defending her sexuality. Although she has broken away from her mother’s faith Jeanette has inherited her mother’s strength of conviction on pursuing happiness and what she believes is right.

Research Paper on Social Behavior Patterns

Research Paper on Social Behavior Patterns People are social creatures and they are differentiated from animals by the ability to think. The mental element has a lot to do with the character of a person in the society. No one is able to lead a completely isolated life away from the society and its products. The background of this research is that of the changes that happen to the character during person’s life within the society. Each one of the individuals has some kinds of activities that he does on his own, but if we consider the sociological aspect along with the psychological one, it becomes a whole different scenario. The research was conducted in a group of people, which included representatives from different classes of society and several age groups. The way in which they responded to a specific situation differed considerably from the other reactions. Each one of them had his or her own way of approaching the problems and situations. Still, people, who were friends in real life, showed some similar results, which means that they had specific influence over each other. This is the perfect example of the social interaction which exists between people in a society. Even though every one of them was not engaged in real communication with each other, they were able to convey the ideas and influence the mind of others in the group. To sum up, the social interaction is not a process, limited by the development in the communication skills. The mental influence of a person over other people is not a physical aspect, as it is purely related to the capacity of the mind to analyze and organize the activities that they see and hear around them.