On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 8:28 AM, Deepa Mohan <[email protected]> wrote: > If on the practical level ‘economical’ means arranging one’s affairs > to maximize the earning and utilization of money with a minimum of > work-input, then the project of heating my home from the wood of my > forest is not economical. By the same standard I fear that raising my > own children would not be very economical. Once money, especially in > the form of hourly wage, is used as the fundamental measure of the > worth of activities, where do we stop?
The gentleman evidently doesn't understand economics. I'm not an economist myself, but economic theory states that the rational choice in any situation is the one that provides the most value. That naturally implies that you should have a clear understanding of the value attached to any action. That value varies from person to person -- which is why my Dad would spend an hour extra in Madiwala market to save a few rupees per kg on vegetables than I would. My time is worth more to me than the 30-40 rupees that would be saved. Clearly, the author attaches more value to chopping wood than the cost of the firewood thus produced. But he's wrong in saying we can't or shouldn't measure this value using money. Like it or not, money is our civilization's measure of value. More accurately, whatever we measure value with becomes money. In this case, the author is willing to forgo revenue earning work in order to chop wood. Lets say he'd be able to earn $100 in that time. Therefore, the time spent chopping wood provides him with at least $100.01 worth of satisfaction. As a bonus, he also gets firewood -- which just improves the value of the transaction. In economic terms, it's an eminently sensible decision. -- b
