issue 19, 关于整体与局部关系的题目，请各位提意见！
Issue 19 "If a society is to thrive, it must put its own overall success before the well-being of its individual citizens."I fundamentally disagree with this idea that any society being to thrive must put its own overall success before the well being of its individual citizens. When argument like this is made, it completely neglects the basic fact that both economic theory and economic practice in present world have cogently established the great possibility of the society’s overall success ensuing its individuals’ well-being. Furthermore, this argument also fails to realize that no society can permanently maintain its ostensible thriving or prosperity, which is achieved at the cost of its individual’s welfare.
Adam Smith，a giant in economics, was distinguished by his famous theorem of “a blind hand”, from and on which almost all the modern economic theories originate and ground. The primary meanings of this theorem is that with the miraculous function of “a blind hand”--market competition, the selfish actions of the individuals to pursue for private interests will automatically lead to the eventual prosperity of the whole society. Modern economics has precisely proved this theorem. Under competition and some other technical conditions, the individual behaviors on behalf of his or her own interests will stir up the most possible efficiency of utilizing limited resources. Evidently, the economic efficiency means lower input, higher output and thus higher profit. All these added together, undoubtedly will generate stable tax revenues to the government, and a higher, sustained economic growth to the society. Therefore, if only we follow the market economy and respect the power of competition, it is completely possible to realize the overall prosperity of the society by firstly making sure of its individual citizens’ welfare.
In reality, almost all the developed countries in the present-day world thrived in this way. The U.S.A is such an epitome outstanding. Since her foundation, America followed the rule of free competition and market economy, and the interests of the individuals were laid on the position of priority. Till the early twentieth century, when the Americans had become most wealthy in those days, the U.S.A. still was not the strongest country, secondary to Britain, Germany and other power centers. To America, the actual thriving of nation must build upon the welfare of the individuals. Without the latter, the thriving of nation would impossibly sustain for long. This thought bears vivifying fruits for America today, who has become the only power center on this planet. The American history clearly illustrates the possibility of the society’s overall success resulting from the individuals’ well-being.
Granted, whether the society can thrive by guaranteeing its overall success before the well-being of its individual citizens. Under some special conditions, this possibility exists. In order to realize the overall success of the society as soon as possible, the government must raise its saving rate, forcing its citizens to put far much money than the normal level into investment rather than private consume. But this is not an easy thing. The government must have the enough control of all kinds of social and natural resources. Maybe the only viable way is to implement the planned economy that had ever adopted by the Soviet Union and China. By this way, the government can accumulate enormous resources in short time and accomplish a highly striking economic growth at the cost of the welfare of the individuals. Both the Soviet Union and China have experienced this period of honey mood. And by this means, the Soviet Union has even attained the position of the main power center at one time, though all along her citizens seriously suffered from the shortage of almost all commodities. But this means has a fatal deficiency. That is, without the propulsion of competition, it couldn’t utilize resources efficiently. For example, to produce one ton of steels of the same quality, the Soviet Union would consume resources more than three times of that in western countries. Obviously, no society can maintain such a low efficient economic system for ever. Therefore, the Soviet Union eventually stepped into collapse and China had to give up the planned economy and begin her economic reforms.
In conclusion, even if the society can make some overall success by sacrificing its individuals’ interests, this kind of success is not real and sustained. Any modern society must base its prosperity upon the welfare of the individuals. (709 words) established the great possibility of the society’s overall success ensuing its individuals’ well-being.这句话看不明白？
no society can permanently maintain 用will eventually完蛋的表达比较好
Granted, whether the society can thrive by guaranteeing its overall success before the well-being of its individual citizens.？缺成分？
语言上基本上没太大问题，有些地方要再润色。
第三个body的论据是非常到位的，不过讲得有些罗嗦。前两个body的主要问题就是没有区分清楚competition和individual well-being的关系，如果默认划等号是不可以的。难道competition就是个体的well being？这个问题必须交待。论述在这里稍微差上了一点。不过总体还是不错的。基本上从经济学的角度出发。
通篇应该更精炼一些，同时把body1和body2论证上的问题要解决。
页:
[1]