The economics of love: Following the heart, not the head

Humans move beyond the strictures of homo economicus we are more than economic entities.
BY ROBERT SKIDELSKY PUBLISHED 15 JANUARY 2014 9:48

There's nothing transactional about love. Photo: Alec Soth/Magnum.

Lets start with an addled view of what it is to be human. According to economists, it is the ability to calculate. Their picture of the human is that ofHomo economicus, economic man, a calculating machine who is always weighing up the costs and benefits of every course of action.

Economics is about economising eliminating waste (including waste of time) so that all behaviour becomes efficiently purposive. The task of economics, according to the economist Dennis Robertson, is to economise on love, that scarce resource. We need to economise on love because we live in a world of scarcity and cannot afford to spend too much time on wasteful activities such as love. Economics offers us a way of getting what we want without love. Excluded is the idea that we might want to love and be loved, that we might want beauty, leisure and many other things that make life worth living. In order to make the construction Homo economicus plausible, economists assume that human behaviour is self-interested and that wants (preferences) can be measured in money. It is money that makes possible the calculation of costs and benefits from different courses of action. Every activity has a cost and a benefit measurable in money. Love has a cost. If I spend time on love, I forgo the opportunity to make extra money to buy the iPad I crave, because time is money. The best form of love for Homo economicus is quick sex, because that wastes very little time. Most people believe that marriage is about love, but the economist Gary Becker has shown that individuals, in making their choice of partner, calculate the costs and benefits of different types of relationships. Similarly there are costs and benefits in telling the truth, not cheating at cards, buying ones partner flowers, listening to music, reading a poem. Indeed, there is almost no form of activity one can think of that does not have attached to it at least the pretence of costs and benefits calculable in terms of money. And if one habitually makes this calculation before deciding to act, one will slowly but inexorably cease to be human. The alarming thought is that, exposed to training in economics, human beings do start acting in the way economists say they should. In a marvellous book, I Spend, Therefore I Am, Philip Roscoe reports on research that shows that students studying economics are markedly more calculating than students of other subjects. Economics contaminates all our motives, forcing, in Amartya Sens words, smallness on us. The dilemma in defining what is human is this: calculation is an integral part of the human outfit; animals dont calculate. Without calculation, there could be no economising behaviour. And without economising behaviour there would be no growth of wealth. But if calculation is all we do, then we cease to be human. For the alternative forms of existence are not human and animal, but human, animal and robotic. Robots can be programmed to act exactly as economists think human beings should: efficiently, purposefully. There is no waste in a robotic civilisation.

So, as I would see it, the essence of distinctively human activity is action without thought of the consequences, without counting the cost of the activity and weighing it against the prospective benefits to be obtained. And I would also claim that for many, if not most activities, this is the only rational form of action. For, contrary to Dennis Robertson, the truly scarce resource is not love, but knowledge. The great advantage of acting from motives of love is that it economises on the need for knowledge. Usually we have only the foggiest idea of what the consequences of our actions will be, especially further in the future. And the net of delusion is being cast ever wider, as we are bombarded with more and more information masquerading as knowledge, more and more material for the calculus, which far outruns our ability to sift it into truth and falsehood. Therefore to follow our hearts rather than our heads, our intuitions rather than our calculations, is the distinctively human way of being. And if economics tells us the contrary, down with economics. Robert Skidelsky is emeritus professor of political economy at the University of Warwick http://www.newstatesman.com/economics/2014/01/economics-love-following-heart-not-head

n Bosnische Sprache geben 7 Zeitformen + Imperativ + Potenzial.

Infinitiv: ( wurtzel+endung)

In Bos.Spr Infinitiv hat 2 Endungen -ti, i z.B: uciti, raditi, misliti, pei, rei (lernen, arbeiten, denken, backen, sagen)

Prsent:

In Bos.Spr, sadasnje vrijeme ist einfach Gegenwartsform, Aktion findet in Moment statt, wenn du ber diese Aktion redest.

Aufbau: wurtzel + (- m) (-mo) (- ) (-te) (- ) (-u/ -ju/ -e) z.B: ja mislim (Ich denke) mi mislimo (wir denken) ti mislis (du denkst) vi mislite (ihr denkt) on/ona/ono misli (er/sie/es denkt) oni misle (sie denken)

Perfekat In Bos.Spr, proslo vrijeme ist einfach Vergangenheitsform, Aktion hat sich in Vergangenheit stattgefunden.

Aufbau: Kurzform vom Hilfsverb jesam + radni glagolski pridjev

**Kurzform vom Hilfsverb jesam: Singular Plural sam smo si ste je su

**radni glagolski pridjev kann nicht auf DE bersetzen, ich versuche zu erklren.

Singular Plural RGP = Wurzel von Infinitiv + (-o /-ao) (-li) (maskulin) (-la) (-le) (feminine) (-lo) (-la) (neutrum)

Beispiel fr RGP: Verb misliti(denken) mislio mislili mislila mislile

mislilo mislila

Endung (-ao) fr Maskulinum kommt nur wenn Infinitiv Wurzel endet mit Konsonant.

z.B: misliti So wird ein Man sagen: ja sam mislio mi smo mislili ti si mislio vi ste mislili on je mislio oni su mislili

Hier muss man schon unterschied zwischen Genus beobachten.

Der Student hat der Arbeit gut geschrieben. = Student je uradio dobro rad. Die Studentin hat der Arbeit gut geschrieben = Studentkinja je uradila dobro rad. Die Studenten haben der Arbeit gut geschrieben. Studenti su uradili dobro rad. Die Studentin = studentica oder studentkinja Inhaltlich 100% gleich.

Aorist: Diese Zeitform beschreibt auch Vergangenheit, aber das Ereignis hat sich passiert direkt vor Moment, als wir ber diese Aktion sprechen. In Prinzip hat gleiche Bedeutung als Perfekt, aber wenn du Aorist nutzest, gibst du Akzent auf Zeit wann hast du das gemacht. In tgliche Sprache wird nicht so oft benutzt. Aufbau: Infinitiv Wurzel + Endungen (-h, -, -, -smo, -ste,- e ) (-oh, -e, -e, -osmo, -oste, -oe) Hier existieren zwei Gruppe von Endungen, welche wird benutzt, hnd das von Infinitiv Wurzel ab,

z.B: uiti

ja uih mi uismo ti ui vi uiste on ui oni ui e

- Upravo sam procila tvoj E-mail= Gerade habe ich dein E-mail gelesen - Proitah tvoj E-meil = Ich habe dein E-mail gelesen.

(hier muss ich nicht sagen wann ich gelesen habe, hier ist schon Vorausgesetzt z.B bevor 5 oder 10 Minuten)

**Aber ich schreibe ber dieser Zeitform, weil sie wichtig fr Potenzijal wichtig ist. Potenzijal in bos.Spr ist gleich wie Konjunktiv in Deutsch. Potenzijala beschreibt Wnsch, Mglichkeit

z.B Wenn ich du wre wrde ich mir deine Email Adresse senden. Ja kada bih ti bila, ja bih meni tvoju Emil adresu poslala. p.s. es ist nu ein Beispiel Aylin January 19, 2014 7:55 PM Report Abuse

Zelim uspjesnu radnu sedmicu ,

oben habe ich schon diese grammatische Teil gesendet , aber diese Editor ist schrecklich ich habe es in Word Dokument erstellt, dort kann man viel besser sehen Leider hier habe ich keine Mglichkeit das ich es im Anhang hier mache.....

Fr diese Grammatische Teil muss ich noch etwas schreiben, aber ich mache Rest nchste Wochenende, bis da vielleicht schaffe ich dass ich dich berzeuge, dass du mir diene Emil schreibst, wo ich ganz normal Word Dokument senden kann :)

du hast gefragt ob ich mich lache weil ich unter druck bin? Ich wei nicht ich lache mich einfach .... wie war deine WE?

imas mahanje iz Stuggija