What if Adam Smith was wrong? The problem is not with capitalism being better or worser than socialism. The problem is with the science of economics.

For what its worth: What is worth?
Wealth builds nations. Nations build wealth. A palindrome that sums up the 1208 pages that make the greatest book written on economics. The four factors, land, labor, capital and the entrepreneur get returns as we carry out economic activities in the name of living. What about earth. What is its return? Surely this is an unsustainable model that we expect every country to develop. Of course its a dream. To see the whole world developed. But we need to redefine development. Development is not getting a bigger GDP. For that is converting natural resources into monetary wealth. And the faster you can do that the better acccording to the economy that we have learnt about and lived in. Convert trees into wood. Water into Juice. Just sell, sell and sell. In the name of making jobs. The argument is, people wont have jobs if companies didnt make money. And companies wont make money if they didnt sell. Dont people get this crazy chain of events that we are indulging in in order to carry forward our nation. But is there an alternative. Should we still have a 'Zombie Economy' that will only work if people buy things.

Of course there is. We need to collaborate upon it. Not debate on wealth distribution. But debate on wealth. Or more importantly 'worth'? Can we keep printing money from thin air. Can we still have millionaires who can afford anything they want in any number. The answer probably lies in the animal kingdom. Or maybe in myth. Or maybe going back to barter, a place where people wont inherit wealth. Where wealth cannot be stored as money. Where people would share things for things. Or wealth itself never existed and worth never needed to be paid for. Yes we can still think of an alternative system.

I would like to imagine a model where the ignored factor of production: EARTH. Gets a return. Yes! Just like labour gets wage, capital gets interest and the risk taker gets profit. Well economists may argue; land gets rent. But who is land. Some guy who owns a paper saying he owns that place because his father did or because he got it using his purchasing power. Either way. The land as in earth doesnot get benefitted. Whether people are going deeper on it to get a mineral, or building houses to create an asset bubble like we saw recently.

And yes about the asset bubble. Everyones blaming the bankers arent they. What about the marketers. Those men and women who sit in their offices and think of an ad campaign. Those men and women who call you up and ask you if you need something you never want. Yes, the marketers, the mascot of corporations. Who have managed to induce consumerism as a fad. And the economists like I said earlier support them by saying. Well if General Motors doesnot sell another car then they wont be able to make money. And when they dont make money they will have to lay off people. I think we need more of Joseph Schumpters Creative Destruction. If GM thinks it can keep selling cars to people. Its wrong! And if neo-economics tells us that corporations must keep selling or else we wont have jobs. Then they are wrong too. And maybe profit is wrong. Why do developing nations need capital from developed nations. Since they have the labour why dont they themselves start organising and using their resources. Why Capital? Can we make incentives internally?

Since my idea is in its chaotic form, I have put an analogy below for better understanding.
You find a mango tree. You get a mango from the tree. You eat the mango. The seed from the mango? Respect it. Dont throw it in the bin. Dig it in your backyard. Or throw it on a piece of land where you know there is atleast a small possibility for it to grow up. The throwing the seed in the bin approach is what the world is doing in the name of development. Same applies if you've bought grapes from the market. Throw the seeds onto your yard! Thats the concept of this fancy sounding greedy word''quid pro quo'' isnt it. Why do you think fruits were designed to be delicious. So that we would use our intelligence in picking it from the tallest trees. And once we eat it, we would show the same intelligence by giving the seed a chance. I think even monkeys throw the seeds on a good patch of land once their done. Give a return for nature. This is just a small example of how individual people can help make an economy that respects nature rather than exploits it.

Heres a great deed on the same lines that is popularly done by environmentalists.  For every tree cut, a sapling is grown. Can such ideas be applied. For every fish fished? Or For every home built, shirt stitched or train gone? Carbon trading also if its done is a neat step forward.

Lets understand worth or forget all about it; but in the end lets make this world a better place.
Where trade would be called share
Where nations would rise and the earth shall be!