The Dimensions of a 'National Economy'

It is apparent that the present economic crisis is not just a temporary case of mismanagement but an outcome of the fundamental flaw of the Liberal economic policies. It re-iterates the need to form an alternative economic policiy which is not based on both the Capitalism (which is failing) and socialism (which has failed).It is high time that we defined what is a 'national economy' ( i hope one of these 'economists' would come forward and write a book on the topic). In my view, the following 3 criteria would form the fundamentals of a national economic policy.

1. It would be based on the Buddhist concept of 'contentment' (Santhrushti)-- The Kensian economic policy starts with saying that economy is an effort to match the limited resources with the unlimited human needs.

This flawed philosohphy has resulted in an unprecendented income gap and huge environmental issues such as global warming and climate change. Rather, the basis should have been 'limiting human needs to suit the limited resources'.

2. It should take the 'economy' as an inherent component of the 'culture' and 'politics'. In other words, it should not be an 'abstract' economy.-- The liberal economic policies fail to identify the impact on some 'economically sound' ideas on the environment and culture. This sometimes results in forming a negative impact when u take the holistic picture into account. For example, when they say that the tax revenue by Alcohol is essential, they fail to identify the cost incurred for treating the patients who suffer from alcohol incurred illnesses, or the total man-hours lost by an untimely death of a person from such an illness.

It is totally blind to the social impact of alcohol, which could in turn hurt the economy (the education of a child disrupted bcos of an alcoholic parent, is a loss to the economy). Another example is the hailing of the 'foreign revenue' gained by the Sri Lankan house maids in the middle east (slave trade).

3. It should be mindful of the environment and its resources and should have a financial value to the 'continuity' of resources. -- In a way this can be included in 1 and 2 above. However, this cannot be stressed more as we are faced with a situation that the earth is becoming un-inhabitable for humans and all other living beings, due to the present economic policies. We have to be mindful of the 'continuity' of resouces and not just on 'utilizing' resouces. Our ancestors built houses using clay and colonut leaves exactly bcos of this. In the last few centuries, we have built houses with concrete and cement.

Now we are faced with a situation where we don't have enough sand to build houses, and we are scraping the river beds for sand. I don't think we can go back to Clay houses. But maybe we can build houses that are not too extravegant and which use less resources to build. (or maybe form 'apartment villages'). Another example would be using public transport whenver possible to lower carbon emissions and traffic jams. The 'national economy', should have the 'environment' at its heart but not as a seperate component, rather an intrinsic thread that binds all beings not non living things together.

The 'National Economy' would not eradicate the income disparity. The 'equal society' is a eutopia that cannot be realised in the human realm. There will always be rich and poor in the society. However, it will bring down to income disparity level to a bearable and acceptable level.