MODELO DE OPTIMIZACIÓN DEL RECURSO CAMA

Xenophon’s book Oeconomicus, where the term economics was derived, contained an analysis of household management and the meaning of wealth during Ancient Greek times. The following passage taken from Xenophon’s writings was part of a detailed interaction between Socrates and Kritobulus, concerning the merits of wealth:

‘… wealth was equivalent to those things that are of use to us.’

‘You seem to imply, Sokrates, that even money is not wealth if the owner thereof is ignorant of its use.’

‘Yes … wealth consists of those things from which a man can deride advantage … Suppose … use of his money … brought about deterioration alike of his body, his soul and his household … be regarded as a benefit to him?’

In this passage the difference between use-value and exchange-value was introduced. It also made it clear that wealth was not equivalent to money. While Xenophon may have introduced use-value and exchange-value into the economic lexicon,18 it was Aristotle who provided a more detailed analysis. Aristotle remarks in his writings:

Each possession may be used in two ways, both of which belong to the thing itself but not in a similar way; for one of them is but the other is not appropriate to the thing’s [nature]. For example, a shoe may be worn or it may be exchanged for something else, and both of these are uses of the shoe; … but this is not the appropriate use of the shoe, for the shoe was not [originally] made for the sake of exchange. (Aristotle, Politics Book A, part 9, translated by Apostle, 1986, p. 28) [square brackets in original]

Here Aristotle divided the economy into two parts, distinguishing between use-value as a natural phenomena and exchange-value as an unnatural one. The satisfaction of natural wants was deemed the correct use of goods as it served merely as an extension of household management. Conversely, goods exchanged for monetary gain went beyond the confines of the household and was deemed unnatural.

Subsequently, wealth was divided into two forms: household management and retail trade. The former was productive and natural, the latter, unnatural and destructive.19 Aristotle viewed money as comprising only a medium of exchange; it had no useful value in itself and could not be considered wealth. It was however identified as a measure of wealth and as a measure of value in general. Of course, as Spiegel (1991) prudently adds, money and wealth must not be confused; after all, who is rich in coin may be in want of food.20

Not surprisingly, many economists such as Staley (1989) have criticised Aristotle’s explanations regarding wealth due to its ‘monumental vagueness’. While this argument has some merit, Aristotle nevertheless did examine the problems of exchange-value, and

18

Laistner (1923) points out that whether the views expressed in the passage are Xenophon’s or Socrates is a subject of much controversy.

19

Schumpeter (1976) critiques the destructive nature of resources due to production, adding that the process of ‘creative destruction’ is an essential fact of capitalism.

20

This of course is not a new idea. The Old Testament also states that one cannot fill his stomach with silver and gold (Ezekiel, 7:19-20).

the function of money in its determination and wealth accumulation.21 His views were to influence western society for a long period of time, however elsewhere another view emerged.

2.5 Dark Ages

With the western world experiencing a rather stagnant period, knowledge wise, an abundance of literature was being produced in the Islamic world concerning economics. According to the Qur’an, five major Islamic economic and financial instruments are identified: the abolition of usury, profit sharing under economic cooperation between labour and capital, joint ventures (principally though not wholly through equity participation), the institution of charity and the avoidance of wasteful use of resources (Choudhury, 1999).

The avoidance of wasteful use of resources, Naqvi (1994) claims, concurs with the Islamic principles of wealth sharing. It was decreed that any individual who holds landed property that he does not cultivate himself must make it available for others to make do so useful. This is referred to as Zakah (the obligatory charity in Islam), where a certain percentage of wealth must be distributed among the due beneficiaries. In fact, there is an uncompromising insistence in Islamic economics regarding distributive justice, which can be defined as ‘a superior distribution of income and wealth, in accordance with the universally accepted norms of fairness’ (Naqvi, 1994, p. 89).

The emphasis on human and social considerations regarding the concept of wealth, in particular the notion that all of society must share in it, is paramount. Consequently, both ethics and economics are intertwined in a way that surpasses both Ancient Greece and Old Testament teachings. Despite the progress made by Islamic scholars, the western world would have to wait until the thirteenth century before the concept of wealth was thoroughly re-examined to reflect the times.

21

Gordon (1964, p. 119) contends that Aristotle recognised that both utility and labour cost (at least in the limited sense of labour skill) were relevant to the determination of exchange-value. However, he adds, it was not a very satisfactory synthesis of the two.