<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Economic Thought vs. Business Thought and the Shortcomings of Both</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.citizeneconomists.com/blogs/2008/09/18/economic-thought-vs-business-thought-and-the-shortcomings-of-both/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.citizeneconomists.com/blogs/2008/09/18/economic-thought-vs-business-thought-and-the-shortcomings-of-both/</link>
	<description>Citizen Economists is an online economics magazine written by citizen journalists. These ordinary citizens provide reports and commentary on the current events affecting the economics of the fields they work in.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2012 04:44:52 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Cristian Mitreanu</title>
		<link>http://www.citizeneconomists.com/blogs/2008/09/18/economic-thought-vs-business-thought-and-the-shortcomings-of-both/comment-page-1/#comment-1444</link>
		<dc:creator>Cristian Mitreanu</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 22 Sep 2008 23:41:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.amateureconomists.com/blogs/?p=296#comment-1444</guid>
		<description>&quot;The basic fault lies in the fact that neither the teaching of economics nor of business places much emphasis on the nature of man,&quot; which, I would add (clarify?), should be the common foundation for both families of knowledge. Unfortunately, as I pointed out in my discussion/initiative &quot;Wake-Up Call for the Business Nation&quot; (thanks for linking to it!), the problem with our general understanding of business is more serious, as most of us don&#039;t even know that we have a problem.

I definitely agree with your closing statement about the need for a new theory, but I don&#039;t agree with the inclusion of &quot;human values.&quot; Human values tend to be representative of particular eras or cultures, and a theory that integrates them will most likely be limited in depth and scope. We need a fundamental theory that is not only free of cultural specifics, but is capable of explaining why some values should be preferred over others. That would make it easier for a society to identify and promote best business practices (best as in &quot;best for the organization AND society&quot;), as well as determine where and when governmental oversight and regulation is needed.

... That being said, I strongly believe that I already have a candidate for such theory. And it begins with the new perspective on human nature, which I already mentioned on this blog, and which is independent of cultural specifics (it focuses on how human needs are dealt with, not what they might or should be).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;The basic fault lies in the fact that neither the teaching of economics nor of business places much emphasis on the nature of man,&#8221; which, I would add (clarify?), should be the common foundation for both families of knowledge. Unfortunately, as I pointed out in my discussion/initiative &#8220;Wake-Up Call for the Business Nation&#8221; (thanks for linking to it!), the problem with our general understanding of business is more serious, as most of us don&#8217;t even know that we have a problem.</p>
<p>I definitely agree with your closing statement about the need for a new theory, but I don&#8217;t agree with the inclusion of &#8220;human values.&#8221; Human values tend to be representative of particular eras or cultures, and a theory that integrates them will most likely be limited in depth and scope. We need a fundamental theory that is not only free of cultural specifics, but is capable of explaining why some values should be preferred over others. That would make it easier for a society to identify and promote best business practices (best as in &#8220;best for the organization AND society&#8221;), as well as determine where and when governmental oversight and regulation is needed.</p>
<p>&#8230; That being said, I strongly believe that I already have a candidate for such theory. And it begins with the new perspective on human nature, which I already mentioned on this blog, and which is independent of cultural specifics (it focuses on how human needs are dealt with, not what they might or should be).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anthony Luafalealo</title>
		<link>http://www.citizeneconomists.com/blogs/2008/09/18/economic-thought-vs-business-thought-and-the-shortcomings-of-both/comment-page-1/#comment-1365</link>
		<dc:creator>Anthony Luafalealo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 19 Sep 2008 16:58:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.amateureconomists.com/blogs/?p=296#comment-1365</guid>
		<description>Thanks for catching that, Chris. The link works now.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks for catching that, Chris. The link works now.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chris</title>
		<link>http://www.citizeneconomists.com/blogs/2008/09/18/economic-thought-vs-business-thought-and-the-shortcomings-of-both/comment-page-1/#comment-1356</link>
		<dc:creator>Chris</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 19 Sep 2008 14:40:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.amateureconomists.com/blogs/?p=296#comment-1356</guid>
		<description>The link to Drucker&#039;s definition of business is broken. It should be http://www.yourbusinesscoach.net/Purpose-of-business.html</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The link to Drucker&#8217;s definition of business is broken. It should be <a href="http://www.yourbusinesscoach.net/Purpose-of-business.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.yourbusinesscoach.net/Purpose-of-business.html</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

