The economic way of thinking about problems stands in sharp contrast to two other points of view, which l have labeled the
romantic and the monotechnic. The romantic point of view denies the existence of scarcity or blames it on some convenient scapegoat such as communism, capitalism, unions, advertising, or defense spending. Unfortunately, the problem of scarcity cannot be solved by denying its existence. For all our affluence, we still live in a world where our wants exceed our ability to fulfill them, and, so far as anyone can see, we always will.
The necessity for choice is part of what it means to be human_ The monotechnic point of view acknowledges scarcity, but seeks an optimal solution as defined by a particular technolo. This approach denies a role for the values of those who must bear he costs. For instance, a specialist in medicine (or in education) might understandably want to provide as much medical care (or schooling) as is technically possible, even though the resources required would be more valuable in some other use.
Helpful as it is, the economic perspective is only a partial one because people face problems other than scarcity. For instance, there is the problem of peace and order, both in the community and in relations with other countries. There are problems of learning, of socialization, and of human relations. Finally, there are problems of meaning, ethics, and aesthetics. The diversity of human problems makes clear the importance of many approaches—-political, sociological, psychological, philosophical, religious, and others. To avoid falling into a monotechnic fallacy of economics, we must remember that scarcity is only one aspect of the human condition. Economists are trained to deal with questions of scarcity, but we must not assume that scarcity is the only problem and that the most efficient use of resources is the only goal.