Humans are always part of the use of resources. In recent years human have been left out from the development discourse with more emphasis given to productive physical and natural resources. We need to look at the human face of development and consider humans as part of the ecosystem.

Dr. Adhikari:

Is it not fair to say that how wrong economic policies are framing the seeds of ecological destruction, both of human capital and productive capital? Indeed you may agree that there are some definite illeffects of maximizing profits at the expense of workers' rights. One may also agree that more eco-friendly alternatives costs more, but those costs are being passed on to poor countries that are by themselves struggling with conventional methods of productions. The FTA's(free trade agreements) are necessary but not the only sufficient option for achieving the goal of doubling exports. More exports mean more vibrancy in manufacturing operations, but at the cost of environmental degradation, unless such alternatives are enforced which however, increases the cost of capital and thus turns out to be burdensome for developing countries.

To ensure balance between protectionism and liberalization, one should apply the tools of trade agreements optimally, just not by placing undue burden of adjustments on the workers. Consider in the face of a slowdown, firms do often face increasing debt as well excess capacity. So, they lay off workers without proper compensation mechanisms (in developing world). And then again, the compounding effects of forced FTAs to boost exports to partnering countries of the developed nations compromise those developing countries' overall competitiveness in the international markets, as well, the ecology of organizational* and economic growth. One way out of this is further liberalization and more integration with the global economies, calling for greater degree of policy reforms in the tune of allowing foreign players to take stakes in the domestic markets, and removing cap on FDI. That would redistribute those higher cost of capital amongst domestic and foreign players and further create jobs, by filling those excess capacities. So, though it is true that FTAs drive export growth, they can be effectively employed to remove trade barriers, ensure competition, promote exports and lastly, decrease inequality. Yet, such effects of liberalization on workers jobs which were displaced should be dealt concurrently.

Liberalization of trade reforms magnetizes(stimulates) domestic economy that also provide opportunity for foreign players to perform more processing of imports in countries with relatively cheap labour. This creates jobs even for the unskilled or less-skilled workers, further balancing the economy and help restore job growth rate. But that might not mean all the way to think of Asian economies just all about costs, cheap labor and outsourcing. This may otherwise mean new partners of growth that would develop a culture of organizational ecology to work together to share common goals.

Ref:

*Hannan and Freeman;1989, Organizational ecology theory.

Graham:

First, there was the American banking system founded to fund the Civil War of 1862. Then, there were severe bank runs and panics that culminated to the panic ln1907. If it wasn't Aldrich's proposition to create a central banking institute (the Fed reserve act of 1913), which was modeled after such efficient banking system of Europe and Germany pre WWI, President Wilson would have never acknowledged such initiatives which was formulated at the Georgia-Jekyll Island club house. There were rhetoric oppositions from the Republicans, whilst many Democrats were even against such a centrally autonomous body to control money circulation. Those times were very volatile runs for banking activity, there were no deposit guarantee institutions. Slowly, the world abandoned the gold standard and America got its first currency in dollar that matched her real output post WWII. Following Bretton Wood, volatility in the currency markets were much reduced. But indeed, at the time when the Fed Reserve Act was passed, many Americans were kept in the dark, had they known, people wouldn't have allowed to proceed with the Jekyll Island programme. But there were some better purposes served by the Fed, not to deny stability in banking sector and smooth flow of trade across the Atlantic. The European Central Bank was much conceived on those basic premises and so the Euro came into existence, and now that is threatened too(the Euro). Prominence of Chinese trade now has been called into action to create a common currency denominated in Renminbi. The trend is almost similar as well, cyclical, only the place is different. People need to digest the reality as anything of new order would be a half cartel and half democracy.

Timeline of central banking in the United States

1791–1811: First Bank of the United States

1811–1816: No central bank

1816–1836: Second Bank of the United States

1837–1862: Free Bank Era

1846–1921: Independent Treasury System

1863–1913: National Banks

1913–Present: Federal Reserve System

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_System

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_central_banking_in_the_United_States

Dr. Palms:

What you are saying or Griffin wrote in his book has indeed got much truth in it. That's not a big surprise. The real issue with current economic turmoil lay somewhere else since the global economy has become big enough to give rise to too many complexities, with the technology behind such even more complex. Even the power play politics is getting confused on the decision making table. Inadequate supervision of the global trade flow dynamics, the nature of uncertainty, recurrent global calamity, uncalled wars, poverty and rampant inequality are all inducing much problem. these problems need to be studied and remedy sought for such to be devised in a much bigger collaborative environment, with participation from every level of the society. fragmentation in policy making and diversion in ideological opinion is not the answer. If theories fails to handle such problems, practical approaches must be devised taking into consideration all the major think tanks coming together to create a mega platform to study these aspects.

There are almost 6000 think tanks, public funded and some private funded as well in the world. even a common platform incorporating a few hundred of those from all nations would create a greater consortium in line with the UN.

Mathematics are a deep and beautiful subject. The value of studying and using them are known in most disciplines. Does it supercede the immediate practical value that economics can have on our waking lives? Probably not. Visual display of information can convey easily grasped principles that may be addressed in more details in advanced courses.

I personally feel that going into detail is best warranted when there is significant need or interest on the part of a student.

Sidharta,

This paper shares some perspectives on human capital and productivity

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/299747565_Towards_a_talent-driven_outward-oriented_globally-competitive_SME_framework_Discussion_Paper

Technical Report Towards a talent-driven outward-oriented globally-competitiv...

'Productive potentiality and economic value of Human capital, and inequality' are the popular terms to economists. I have least idea about the ultimate goal of researchers. 'Inequality' is the very basis of 'productive potentiality and economic value of Human capital'. 'Potentiality' is a temperament or mind-set against anything else is inequality. Again, 'economic value of Human capital' is a very confused term that means human of productivity is to be valued as per his/her out put. But the researcher or scientist or artist or a corporate individual of full-time in entertainment is non-productive human; what is there 'human value' in view of productivity? These peoples are only human-capital users or consumer section. The whole concept is against 'valuation of human-capital' as well as equality. It is not scientific at all, if we consider it away from the conventional 'economy'. For better discussion, welcome to [email protected]