Most of the problems of economics emanates from the undeniable truth that human wants are unlimited and means to fulfill those wants are limited and they have alternative uses. So, at the heart of economics is the law of scarcity. If infinite quantities of every good could be produced or if human desires were fully satisfied, what would be the consequences? People would not worry about stretching out their limited incomes because they could have everything they wanted; businesses would not need to fret over the cost of labor; government would not need to struggle over taxes or spending, because nobody would care. In such a case of affluence, there would be no economic goods, that is goods that are scarce or limited in supply. All goods would be free, like sand in the desert or seawater at the beach. But no society has reached a utopia of limitless possibilities. Goods are limited while wants seem limitless. Even in developed countries, production is not high enough to meet everyone’s desires. And in developing countries, there are millions of people suffering from hunger.
Given the unlimited wants
and limited resources everyone is forced to choose only some of the options. In
other words, due to the scarcity of resources and unlimited wants, the problem
of choice arises. Therefore, the central economic problem for a society is how
to reconcile the conflict between people’s virtually limitless desires for
goods and services, and the scarcity of resources (labor, machinery, and raw
materials) with which these goods and services can be produced.
In economics, the
decision-taker is assumed to be rational. Economic rationality of a decision
taker implies the following:
a) The
decision-taker sets out all possible alternatives, which are available to him/her.
b) S/he evaluates the
costs and benefits associated with each of the possible alternatives.
c) S/he ranks the
alternatives in order of preference.
d) S/he chooses the alternatives highest in the
ordering.
Comments
Post a Comment