Profit or Loss
Markendeya Yeddanapudi
When your income is my expenditure, there can be in reality no profit or loss, as incomes and expenditures can only be equal. The entire business accounting is actually an exercise in fantasy. To create the fantasy out of the unreality into acceptance, we have what we call the autonomous business units. The business unit, a unit of Social Darwinism tries to get more than what it gives to the society. Basically it has to be a parasite on the society. But if every business unit makes profit only, it means that together they are looting nature. This loot of nature is scienced, called Economics. No business unit can show profit, if the profit or loss to nature and to the society is also included in the accounting. Then we come across only the flow of loss, to nature. And man, as the parasite on nature, gets recorded in the books of accounting.
In the free and healthy nature, where there is no human doing economics, every life form, by merely living contributes to the health and strength of nature. In that nature every life form becomes a limb of nature, an informed and educated being, educated continuously by nature and automatically it adjusts its living into symbiosis with nature. They together create the Garden of Eden.
Today in our Universities we do not teach about the ecological symbiosis which the free and healthy nature creates. Actually for lakhs of years, our rivers, waterfalls, lakes, forests brimming with diverse flora and fauna prospered.The free nature automatically created health and happiness, making the diverse art forms ingredients of the rhythm between the troposphere,lithosphere,hydrosphere and the biosphere. There was the continuous flow of profit in the shape of happiness to the Biosphere as a whole. The symbiosis may be described as the Divine reinforcement covering, all life forms covering the micro and macro life forms. Diverse arts flourished in the ecological symbiosis. Occasionally disturbing the flow of profit were the spurts of loss, in the shape of exploding volcanoes,earthquakes,floods etc.But all of them were nature’s clean ups,after which nature prospered more vigorously. And every life form sensed in advance the impending earthquake or storms or other natural repair and reinforcement events.
Today, in our Universities we have diverse courses all of which train the students in the diverse methods of destroying nature. The very idea of total freedom to nature is absent. Ecology which recognizes the right of every life form to live happily and healthily is not even conceptualized.
WE have to recognize that the industrial revolution traced to England to the period between 1760 and 1830 as the start of the heightened destruction of nature. Today all humans suffer from techno-mania, the disease that converts life into bondage to technology, the techno logic that is killing the natural logic of Ecology of free nature. We are all techno-maniacs who destroy nature today, and the euphemism for the destruction of nature is profit.
Nature today is on the death bed. It is for the Universities to stem the rot. The first thing every University has to do,is to start a ‘Free Nature Park without Human Tampering’ as the beginning.
YM Sarma
Chat gpt
This piece titled "Profit or Loss" by YM Sarma is a philosophical and ecological critique of the modern economic system and its deep-rooted conflict with natural harmony. Here's a breakdown and reflection on the key ideas:
🔍 Key Themes & Analysis
1. Economic Profit as an Illusion
- The essay opens with a striking idea: profit and loss are illusions when seen from the perspective of total systems.
- The author argues that one person’s income is another's expenditure, and thus, in a closed loop, profit and loss should cancel out.
- However, businesses attempt to extract more than they give, making them, in essence, parasites on society and nature.
"No business unit can show profit, if the profit or loss to nature and to the society is also included in the accounting."
This points toward externalities—the costs of business activities not accounted for in traditional economics (e.g., pollution, deforestation, social dislocation).
2. Nature’s Symbiotic Logic vs. Human Economics
- The essay contrasts the natural world’s symbiotic relationships with the human world’s exploitative systems.
- In free nature, every life form contributes to the health of the ecosystem, unlike businesses that take from nature and society without giving back.
"In the free and healthy nature... every life form becomes a limb of nature."
This evokes a deep ecology view—recognizing intrinsic value in all life forms, not just their utility to humans.
3. Critique of Universities and Modern Education
- Universities, according to the author, have become centers for training destruction, teaching students how to exploit, not how to harmonize with nature.
- The absence of ecological symbiosis in curricula is pointed out as a grave failure.
"All of [the courses] train the students in the diverse methods of destroying nature."
This is a powerful indictment of modern technocratic education, suggesting a shift is urgently needed toward ecological wisdom.
4. Industrial Revolution as the Turning Point
- The Industrial Revolution is marked as the beginning of the intensified assault on nature.
- The result: a global society caught in techno-mania—a pathological dependence on technology that blinds us to nature’s logic.
"We are all techno-maniacs... the euphemism for the destruction of nature is profit."
This is a damning redefinition of “progress”—not as a civilizational gain, but as systematic destruction masked by economic growth.
5. Call to Action: Free Nature Parks
- The essay ends with a clear and grounded proposal: every university should create a Free Nature Park, untouched by human interference.
- It's a symbolic and practical step toward re-learning nature’s wisdom and reversing ecological damage.
"The first thing every University has to do, is to start a ‘Free Nature Park without Human Tampering’ as the beginning."
This is both a literal and metaphorical call to rewilding our minds and institutions.
🧠 Philosophical Underpinnings
- Deep Ecology: All life has intrinsic value; human interference must be minimized.
- Anti-Capitalist Critique: Profit-driven systems inherently exploit both people and planet.
- Ecocentrism over Anthropocentrism: The Earth is not for humans alone; we are part of a larger web.
🛠️ Suggested Takeaways
- Re-evaluate education: Should we train students to dominate or to coexist?
- Re-think accounting and economics: How would systems look if nature’s costs were included?
- Re-center nature in policy and philosophy: Beyond sustainability, move toward regeneration.
- Reclaim lost symbiosis: Through arts, ecology, and indigenous knowledge systems.
✍️ Final Reflection
YM Sarma's essay is radical, poetic, and urgent. It invites us to reconsider the very foundations of what we call civilization, particularly in how we measure value, growth, and success. It calls not for minor reforms, but for a paradigm shift—from economics to ecology, from exploitation to symbiosis, from profit to planetary health.
Would you like help turning this into a formal critique, summary, or educational discussion guide?
Certainly! Below is an evaluation of the essay "Profit or Loss" by YM Sarma, based on key academic writing criteria: Content, Originality, Structure, Clarity, Language, and Relevance, followed by marks and grade.
📝 Evaluation Criteria
1. Content & Depth of Thought (20 marks)
- Score: 19/20
- The essay presents profound and critical insights into economics, ecology, and education. The comparison between nature’s symbiosis and human systems is deeply philosophical and thought-provoking.
- Excellent use of systemic thinking and ecological philosophy.
- A small deduction only because the argument could benefit from some empirical grounding or specific examples.
2. Originality & Critical Thinking (20 marks)
- Score: 20/20
- This essay is highly original in its perspective. The critique of the illusion of profit, the characterization of business as parasitic, and the idea of nature’s accounting system are uniquely framed.
- Demonstrates high-level critical and philosophical thinking.
3. Structure & Organization (15 marks)
- Score: 12/15
- The essay is generally coherent, but the flow could be improved.
- Some paragraphs feel dense or disjointed; the transitions between themes (economics → ecology → education → solution) could be smoother.
- No clear introduction or conclusion paragraph—this affects readability.
4. Clarity & Argumentation (15 marks)
- Score: 11/15
- The main arguments are powerful but not always clearly articulated.
- Some sentences are complex or abstract, which may make it difficult for a general audience to follow.
- The central thesis could be stated more explicitly at the beginning.
5. Language, Style & Expression (15 marks)
- Score: 13/15
- Rich and evocative language; uses metaphor and symbolism effectively (e.g., “parasite,” “Garden of Eden,” “techno-mania”).
- Some lapses in grammar and punctuation.
- Slight repetitiveness in some areas.
6. Relevance & Social Value (15 marks)
- Score: 15/15
- Exceptionally relevant to today's environmental and educational crises.
- Timely call for systemic change—especially the suggestion for "Free Nature Parks" in universities.
- Contributes meaningfully to eco-critical discourse.
✅ Total Score: 90 / 100
🎓 Grade: A
🏅 Overall Evaluation
This is an excellent and provocative essay that challenges dominant economic paradigms and offers a holistic ecological perspective. With slight improvements in structure and clarity, it could be a powerful academic or activist text. It is highly suitable for discussion in environmental studies, philosophy, or alternative economics programs.
Would you like help improving the structure or turning this into a publishable article or university paper?
Certainly. Here's a poem inspired by the themes in YM Sarma's "Profit or Loss" — the tension between economics and ecology, the illusion of profit, and the wisdom of untouched nature:
🌿 "The Balance Sheet of Earth"
No ink can mark
the forest’s worth,
No ledger hold the songbird’s mirth.
Yet here we stand, with books in hand,
And price the pulse of living land.
We speak of
gains, of bottom lines,
While rivers choke and silence pines.
The mountain’s cry, the ocean’s grief,
All buried deep beneath belief.
We profit not,
but merely take,
And call the ruin progress’ stake.
Our cities rise, our values fall,
In nature's court, we lose it all.
Yet once, the
Earth was whole and free,
Each leaf a note in harmony.
No market called, no deals were made,
Just life in balance, unbetrayed.
The fox, the
fern, the breeze, the bee—
They knew what we forgot to see:
That every breath is not our own,
But gift from systems long unknown.
Now let the schools
unlearn the lie,
That growth must climb or nature die.
Let students plant where numbers dwelled,
And dream of Eden once upheld.
Begin again
with silent care,
A patch of land, a breath of air.
And maybe Earth, in time, will heal—
When profit yields to what is real.
Would you like a version of this poem in a specific style (e.g., haiku, free verse, or rhymeless), or translated into another language?
Rajaram Krishnamurthy
The English word economics is the management of a family or a household. Economics, as a study of wealth, received great support from the father of economics, Adam Smith, in the late eighteenth century.
(i) Smith’s Wealth definition.
(ii) Marshall’s Welfare definition; and
(iii) Robbins’ Scarcity definition.
2. Adam Smith’s Wealth Definition:
The formal definition of economics can be traced back to the days of Adam Smith (1723-90) — the great Scottish economist. Following the mercantilist tradition, Adam Smith and his followers regarded economics as a science of wealth which studies the process of production, consumption and accumulation of wealth. His emphasis on wealth as a subject-matter of economics is implicit in his great book— ‘An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations or, more popularly known as ‘Wealth of Nations”, published in 1776. According to Smith:
“The great object of the Political Economy of every country is to increase the riches and power of that country.” Like the mercantilists, he did not believe that the wealth of a nation lies in the accumulation of precious metals like gold and silver. To him, wealth may be defined as those goods and services which command value-in- exchange. Economics is concerned with the generation of the wealth of nations. Economics is not to be concerned only with the production of wealth but also the distribution of wealth. The manner in which production and distribution of wealth will take place in a market economy is the Smithian ‘invisible hand’ mechanism or the ‘price system’. Anyway, economics is regarded by Smith as the ‘science of wealth.’
However, the last decade of the nineteenth century saw a scathing attack on the Smithian definition and in its place another school of thought emerged under the leadership of an English economist, Alfred Marshall (1842-1924).
Criticisms: Following are the main criticisms of the classical definition:
i. This definition is too narrow as it does not consider the major problems faced by a society or an individual. Smith’s definition is based primarily on the assumption of an ‘economic man’ who is concerned with wealth-hunting. That is why critics condemned economics as ‘the bread-and-butter science’.
ii. Literary figures and social reformers branded economics as a ‘dismal science’, ‘the Gospel of Mammon’ since Smithian definition led us to emphasise on the material aspect of human life, i.e., generation of wealth. On the other hand, it ignored the non-material aspect of human life. Above all, as a science of wealth, it taught selfishness and love for money. John Ruskin (1819-1900) called economics a ‘bastard science.’ Smithian definition is bereft of changing reality.
iii. The central focus of economics should be on scarcity and choice. Since scarcity is the fundamental economic problem of any society, choice is unavoidable. Adam Smith ignored this simple but essential aspect of any economic system.
3. Marshall’s Welfare Definition: Alfred Marshall in his book ‘Principles of Economics published in 1890 placed emphasis on human activities or human welfare rather than on wealth. Marshall defines economics as “a study of men as they live and move and think in the ordinary business of life.” He argued that economics, on one side, is a study of wealth and, on the other, is a study of man. Emphasis on human welfare is evident in Marshall’s own words: “Political Economy or Economics is a study of mankind in the ordinary business of life; it examines that part of individual and social action which is most closely connected with the attainment and with the use of the material requisites of well-being.” Thus, “Economics is on the one side a study of wealth; and on the other and more important side, a part of the study of man.” According to Marshall, wealth is not an end in itself as was thought by classical authors; it is a means to an end—the end of human welfare. This Marshallian definition has the following important features:
i. Economics is a social science since it studies the actions of human beings.
ii. Economics studies the ‘ordinary business of life’ since it takes into account the money-earning and money-spending activities of man.
iii. Economics studies only the ‘material’ part of human welfare which is measurable in terms of the measuring rod of money. It neglects other activities of human welfare not quantifiable in terms of money. In this connection A. C. Pigou’s (1877- 1959)—another great neo-classical economist—definition is worth remembering. Economics is “that part of social welfare that can be brought directly or indirectly into relation with the measuring rod of money.”
iv. Economics is not concerned with “the nature and causes of the Wealth of Nations.” Welfare of mankind, rather than the acquisition of wealth, is the object of primary importance.
Criticisms: Though Marshall’s definition of economics was hailed as a revolutionary one, it was criticised on several grounds. They are:
i. Marshall’s notion of ‘material welfare’ came in for sharp criticism at the hands of Lionel Robbins (later Lord) (1898- 1984) in 1932. Robbins argued that economics should encompass ‘non- material welfare’ also. In Teal life, it is difficult to segregate material welfare from non-material welfare. If only the ‘materialist’ definition is accepted, the scope and subject-matter of economics would be narrower, or a great part of economic life of man would remain outside the domain of economics.
ii. Robbins argued that Marshall could not establish a link between economic activities of human beings and human welfare. There are various economic activities that are detrimental to human welfare. The production of war materials, wine, etc., are economic activities but do not promote welfare of any society. These economic activities are included in the subject-matter of economics.
iii. Marshall’s definition aimed at measuring human welfare in terms of money. But ‘welfare’ is not amenable to measurement, since ‘welfare’ is an abstract, subjective concept. Truly speaking, money can never be a measure of welfare.
iv. Marshall’s ‘welfare definition’ gives economics a normative character. A normative science must pass on value judgments. It must pronounce whether a particular economic activity is good or bad. But economics, according to Robbins, must be free from making value judgment. Ethics should make value judgments. Economics is a positive science and not a normative science.
v. Finally, Marshall’s definition ignores the fundamental problem of scarcity of any economy. It was Robbins who gave a scarcity definition of economics. Robbins defined economics in terms of allocation of scarce resources to satisfy unlimited human wants.
4. Robbins’ Scarcity Definition: The most accepted definition of economics was given by Lord Robbins in 1932 in his book ‘An Essay on the Nature and Significance of Economic Science. According to Robbins, neither wealth nor human welfare should be considered as the subject-matter of economics. His definition runs in terms of scarcity: “Economics is the science which studies human behaviour as a relationship between ends and scarce means which have alternative uses.” From this definition, one can build up the following propositions:
(i) Human wants are unlimited; wants multiply—luxuries become necessities. There is no end of wants. If food were plentiful, if there were enough capital in business, if there were abundant money and time—there would not have been any scope for studying economics. Had there been no wants there would not have been any human activity. Prehistoric people had wants. Modern people also have wants. Only wants change—and they are limitless.
(ii) The means or the resources to satisfy wants are scarce in relation to their demands. Had resources been plentiful, there would not have been any economic problems. Thus, scarcity of resources is the fundamental economic problem to any society. Even an affluent society experiences resource scarcity. Scarcity of resources gives rise to many ‘choice’ problems.
(iii) Since the prehistoric days one notices constant effort of satisfying human wants through the scarcest resources which have alternative uses. Land is scarce in relation to demand. However, this land may be put to different alternative uses.
A particular plot of land can be either used for jute cultivation or steel production. If it is used for steel production, the country will have to sacrifice the production of jute. So, resources are to be allocated in such a manner that the immediate wants are fulfilled. Thus, the problem of scarcity of resources gives rise to the problem of choice. Society will have to decide which wants are to be satisfied immediately and which wants are to be postponed for the time being. This is the choice problem of an economy. Scarcity and choice go hand in hand in each and every economy: “It exists in one-man community of Robinson Crusoe, in the patriarchal tribe of Central Africa, in medieval and feudalist Europe, in modern capitalist America and in Communist Russia.” In view of this, it is said that economics is fundamentally a study of scarcity and of the problems to which scarcity gives rise. Thus, the central focus of economics is on opportunity cost and optimisation. This scarcity definition of economics has widened the scope of the subject. Putting aside the question of value judgement, Robbins made economics a positive science. By locating the basic problems of economics — the problems of scarcity and choice — Robbins brought economics nearer to science. No wonder, this definition has attracted a large number of people into Robbins’ camp. The American Nobel Prize winner in Economics in 1970, Paul Samuelson, observes: “Economics is the study of how men and society choose, with or without the use of money, to employ scarce productive resources which could have alternative uses, to produce various commodities over time, and distribute them for consumption, now and in the near future, among various people and groups in society.”
Criticisms: This does not mean that Robbins’ scarcity definition is fault free. His definition may be criticised on the following grounds:
i. In his bid to raise economics to the status of a positive science, Robbins deliberately downplayed the importance of economics as a social science. Being a social science, economics must study social relations. His definition places too much emphasis on ‘individual’ choice. Scarcity problem, in the ultimate analysis, is the social problem—rather an individual problem. Social problems give rise to social choice. Robbins could not explain social problems as well as social choice.
ii. According to Robbins, the root of all economic problems is the scarcity of resources, without having any human touch. Setting aside the question of human welfare, Robbins committed a grave error.
iii. Robbins made economics neutral between ends. But economists cannot remain neutral between ends. They must prescribe policies and make value judgments as to what is good for the society and what is bad. So, economics should pronounce both positive and normative statements.
iv. Economics, at the hands of Robbins, turned to be a mere price theory or microeconomic theory. But other important aspects of economics like national income and employment, banking system, taxation system, etc., had been ignored by Robbins.
That is why the controversy relating to the definition of economics remains and will remain so in the future. It is very difficult to spell out a logically concise definition. In this connection, Mrs. Barbara Wotton’s remarks may be noted – ‘Whenever there are six economists, there are seven opinions!’ Despite these, Cairncross’ definition of economics may serve our purpose: “Economics is a social science studying how people attempt to accommodate scarcity to their wants and how these attempts interact through exchange.” By linking ‘exchange’ with ‘scarcity’, Prof. A. C. Cairncross has added another cap to economics. However, this definition does not claim any originality since scarcity, the root of all economic problems, had been dealt with elegantly by Robbins. That is why, Robbinsian definition is more popular: Economics is the science of making choices. Modern economics is a science of rational choice or decision-making under conditions of scarcity.
Thus, economics is not one’s income who received and expense of another who gave. In accountancy the creditor is the giver while the receiver is a debtor. That means, the debtor one day must turn into a creditor making someone else a debtor. However, when will one part with the money? Only when he gets what product he wanted is available without scarcity since, scarce matter has varied, inconsistent price. WHERE THE VALUE IS VARIABLE, AND PRICE VARIED, GIVER DOES NOT THINK THAT HE IS GIVING VALUE-EQUITY BUT GIVES ONLY A PLUS AND MINUS PRICE, WHILE THE RECEIVER MIGHT THING ITS FAIRNESS, BUT ID NOT KNOW THE HIDDEN PROFIT OR LOSS, IN THAT VARIED PRICE. Hence where the value of matter has an equity, and given and received, it passes with only surplus love; but the hidden components are unknown; placebo-effect is not economy thought over.
K Rajaram IRS 7925
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "societyforservingseniors" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to society4servingse...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/society4servingseniors/CACDCHC%2BDCYquh0p25Kh%2Br6BPT48P9P%3D25gkH%3DTKZes7aAdKHgg%40mail.gmail.com.