Studying Economics for 3 years, I studied a lot of theories. Some were easy to understand, others took sometime for logic to kick in, while the rest went completely over the top. Some of these theories, simple and complex alike, make a lot of sense. Being based on general consumer and market behavior, one could really apply these and conclude that yes, they actually do fall true. But a lot of them failed to make sense (at least to me). They felt like forced efforts on the part of the economist to just get done with it and put a theory forth. I couldn't comprehend many such theories; but it did end up making me realize what the general 'anatomy' of a theory is. It isn't that complex. Start by selecting a variable/phenomenon. Pick up any random consumer behavior (your own for example), study it, analyze it for sometime till you can convince yourself that it is pragmatic enough, add a few Utopian assumptions to it, garnish it with a cause-effect relationship and spice it up with a few exceptions. There you have it, your very own Economic theory.
I'm not preaching without practicing. I did apply this too. I came out of the last TY exam, earlier than the others as usual, and started wondering, why... why did I opt for Economics? The answer was too vague. It did give me a sense of contentment though. I'm happy with what I did, no regrets whatsoever. But I had to give something back; try to return a part of what I learnt to the field which taught me so much the last 3 years. And I realized there couldn't be nothing better than a theory; my very own theory, analyzed, studied and proposed. Hence, I put forth, The Theory of Universal Application of Economics OR simply The Theory which gives Economics one up over Science.
Any and every element/thing/substance, living or non-living, physical or abstract, can be expressed it terms of its demand and supply. Lets start with something known and usual, jobs for example. Demand for work and supply of jobs available. Similarly education, demand for schools/colleges/universities and supply of the same. Entertainment (movies, plays, musicals, dramas, TV shows, sports etc.), their demand and the amount available i.e. supply. Something a bit more complicated, getting laid for instance. The demand for action and the relative opportunities one gets (supply). Suggest any thing, and I mean, ANY THING you can think of, and I can (even you) can put it in terms of demand and supply.
Exceptions, not many, but specially those which can be self-achieved. Taking the above into consideration, you can self-employ yourself, you can be home-schooled and similarly you can entertain yourself too and entertainment that can cover the need for contentment as well as that for pleasure.
Taking this ahead, I began to think, actually how universal is Economics? What is its real scope? The theoretical definition I've learned says that Economics is a Science as well as an Art. Economics is an art cause there lies a major scope for creativity and personalization (what you're reading right now). But why a science, I could never get my head around it. Science has been accepted as a term which stretches across various fields and branches of education. Why this universal acceptance and how it came about is something I can't answer. What I do know is that instead of 'science' why can't everything be pegged to 'economics'. After all, isn't everything directly or indirectly connected to money and its management. Medicine, aeronautics, law, biology, psychology... all deemed as 'Sciences' per say are connected with money, earning or spending likewise, which is invariably Economics.
Think about it! It is simple logic. Science is all about money and so in a sense, Economics is not a Science, but rather Science IS Economics.
I'm not preaching without practicing. I did apply this too. I came out of the last TY exam, earlier than the others as usual, and started wondering, why... why did I opt for Economics? The answer was too vague. It did give me a sense of contentment though. I'm happy with what I did, no regrets whatsoever. But I had to give something back; try to return a part of what I learnt to the field which taught me so much the last 3 years. And I realized there couldn't be nothing better than a theory; my very own theory, analyzed, studied and proposed. Hence, I put forth, The Theory of Universal Application of Economics OR simply The Theory which gives Economics one up over Science.
Any and every element/thing/substance, living or non-living, physical or abstract, can be expressed it terms of its demand and supply. Lets start with something known and usual, jobs for example. Demand for work and supply of jobs available. Similarly education, demand for schools/colleges/universities and supply of the same. Entertainment (movies, plays, musicals, dramas, TV shows, sports etc.), their demand and the amount available i.e. supply. Something a bit more complicated, getting laid for instance. The demand for action and the relative opportunities one gets (supply). Suggest any thing, and I mean, ANY THING you can think of, and I can (even you) can put it in terms of demand and supply.
Exceptions, not many, but specially those which can be self-achieved. Taking the above into consideration, you can self-employ yourself, you can be home-schooled and similarly you can entertain yourself too and entertainment that can cover the need for contentment as well as that for pleasure.
Taking this ahead, I began to think, actually how universal is Economics? What is its real scope? The theoretical definition I've learned says that Economics is a Science as well as an Art. Economics is an art cause there lies a major scope for creativity and personalization (what you're reading right now). But why a science, I could never get my head around it. Science has been accepted as a term which stretches across various fields and branches of education. Why this universal acceptance and how it came about is something I can't answer. What I do know is that instead of 'science' why can't everything be pegged to 'economics'. After all, isn't everything directly or indirectly connected to money and its management. Medicine, aeronautics, law, biology, psychology... all deemed as 'Sciences' per say are connected with money, earning or spending likewise, which is invariably Economics.
Think about it! It is simple logic. Science is all about money and so in a sense, Economics is not a Science, but rather Science IS Economics.
