The Spiritual Cost of Money
Buddhist countries have adopted the Buddhist culture. The culture features belief that a person should change his or her behavior in order to develop knowledge, be kind to others, and have qualities of awareness. The Buddhist societies like to remain loyal to their culture where they distinguish religion from economic progress or material things. The Buddha, who adopted the Buddhism culture, is entitled to follow his dreams, but should achieve it according to his faith (Schumacher 1-3). The Buddhist countries adopted Buddhist economics while the advanced countries adopted modern economics.
Human labor is a factor in developing wealth. Modern economists view human labor differently from the Buddhist economists. Modern economists view human labor as an expense that could be reduced or minimized to increase profit. Human labor reduces one’s leisure time, and it is rewarded with wages to compensate for the time lost. Modern economists adopt the division of labor, where work is divided among individuals. This leads to faster production of products. There is also the production of standardized goods as employees’ work, where they are fully skilled (Schumacher 1-3). The Buddhists view human labor to be an activity that gives an individual the chance to develop personal skills, to enable an individual to increase personal self-esteem as the individual works with other people and produces goods and services needed by humans. The Buddhists also view work and leisure as compatible; they cannot be separated. Work should be organized in such a way that it becomes joyful even when performing it. If humans are not enslaved, but work in a pleasant environment, they are able to produce quality products, as they are already motivated.
Buddhists place more emphasis on workers, followed by the quality of work. Women and children are not supposed to work since it will reflect poor economic progress. The modern economists place more emphasis on work production than the workers, where attaining wealth has taken priority over the responsibility towards interests of other human beings. Everyone is entitled to work to increase production. Modern economists do not care about the physical well-being of humans, while the Buddhist economists do (Schumacher 4-7). The Buddhist economists are not complicated, create no physical suffering, and ensure good production where people are well satisfied.
Modern economists do not care about the natural resources, except the human effort. They waste and destroy the living matter; they destroy the ecosystem by cutting trees and polluting water, which is an inhabitant of the living organisms. This results in the countries facing drought, floods, soil erosion, extinction of some animals, poverty and so on. The Buddhists rely heavily on natural resources. They protect it by conserving the environment, through such things as planting trees. Every individual in the Buddhist religion plants a tree and cares for it until it is fully grown (Schumacher 4-7). Modern economists do not recognize the difference between the renewable and non-renewable resources; they pay attention only on the money value that the resources have. The Buddhists pay attention to the resources, whether renewable or non-renewable. For example, they may use non-renewable resources by putting great environmental conservative measures so as not to pollute the environment. In conclusion, Buddhist economists should be recommended more in modern economics as modern economists prefer economic growth rather than spiritual welfare and many negative consequences are observable. In contrast, the Buddhist economist is safe, non-violent, and enjoys good livelihood.
In 1993 and 2003 in the United States, there was an increase in people’s income. Increase in income was distributed from the top earners to bottom earners. The top earners increased their income with a higher percentage as compared to the lower income earners, whose percentage was not too significant. This concludes that rich people are becoming richer at a higher rate than the poor (Brooks par. 1-4). This has not changed over the past years as the rich continue to double their income even more. Some people like Edward, a political analyst, are trying hard to reduce the economic inequality and high taxation rates and enhance proportional distribution of wealth and resources. He talks of inequality among people, which makes them live unhappy lives. According to the author, it is not economic inequality that makes people miserable, but it is lack of identifying the available opportunities.
Egalitarians suggested that people prefer to owe more than others do even if they are not observing their financial status. Research was carried out to see if economical inequalities result in the unhappiness people’s suffering. It resulted that there was no effect. It is noted that even with equal distribution of income, people will not be happier. This is because more policies still affect the have-nots, making them unhappier. Working hard and being patient are the major factors for a person’s achievement. If a person is able to achieve, he or she is able to move to the other rank living a more comfortable life (Brooks par. 4-8).
Human beings are dependent of the environment that surrounds them like the cultural norms to improve their life. People’s rights and welfare should be looked into to encourage a comfortable life. People’s rights are universal and every individual is entitled to the same standards and equal treatment (Chomsky par. 4-6). Doing good increases human development to become healthy in diversification. Increase in human development has enabled people to be able to solve problems that they do encounter in life. Some of the researchers viewed that man is supposed to be selfish but some of his characters may make him unselfish, which makes him or her happy and results to nothing.
Human development enables individuals to come up with things like power, structures, ranking in social classes, and ability to come up with solutions when encountering challenges. The anarchists of today work with the government to ensure that people are protected, and that they benefit from private institutions. In the United States, the populations of people who have low income or wealth have no effect on the policy, but rather the rich people who have the influence to rule the country. Some of the scholars came up with suggestions on how to deal with inequality. Aristotle suggested that the government should put strategies for more measures, while Madison suggested the best way to reduce inequality is by reducing democracy (Chomsky par. 4-9).
People have become so involved with work and getting money that they do not have time for families or friends – influencing them to live alone (Slouka par. 1-6). There has been great demand to look for money; thus, people go to seminars to be educated on how to get more money. There is so much to do that people do not create time for themselves – to know themselves and set their objectives and goals. People have turned to worshiping money and forgotten religious matters because they lack enough time to make money.
Works Cited
Brooks, arthur. “What really buys happiness? Not income equality, but mobility and opportunity.” City Journal. 2007. Web. 29 April 2015. <http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_3_economic_inequality.html>.
Chomsky, Noam. Chomsky: How Can We Escape the Curse of Economic Exploitation? AlterNet. 2013. Web. 29 April 2015. <http://www.alternet.org/visions/chomsky-how-can-we-escape-curse-economic-exploitation-and-political-and-social-enslavement>.
Schumacher, Vreni 2005, Buddhist economics. PDF file. 29 April 2015. <http://static1.1.sqspcdn.com/static/f/754651/12780714/1308427537003/Buddhist+economics.pdf?token=MAHIoXNQi6G7bbrTGUGSv0wbElg%3D>.
Slouka, Mark. “Quitting the Paint Factory.” Harper’s Magazine, Nov. 2004. Web. 29 April 2015. < http://wiscostorm.net/?page_id=434>.