It is not unusual for an anthropologist, or a sociologist, to misunderstand economics.
Heck, it is not unusual for a politician to misunderstand economics and we elect and pay them to manage the economy for us.
Sadly though, this is what is happening when we are told that we should give up our desires for and work towards “false needs” and concentrate only upon the “vital” things that we actually require rather than just want.
This is entirely to misunderstand what the economist is trying to say. Which is that humans desire lots of things.
Furthermore, having more of those things seems to make humans happier. Therefore, we should be working towards humans having more of what they desire because that human happiness is the goal.
Of course, then we get into all that nitty-gritty of how to maximise the production and therefore availability of those things.
Should it be the benevolent planner that sorts things out for us? The chaos of the marketplace?
We can disagree about which route we wish to take -- despite my repeated insistence that it is markets that deliver -- but the goal seems beyond reproach.
We all want more humans to be happier, right?
Where the true misunderstanding comes in though is in failing to grasp what it is that the economist is defining as making people better off -- or even, what are those desires that are being fulfilled?
Take, as an example, fashion. A large part of the Bangladeshi economy depends upon supplying this to people in other parts of the world.
It is entirely true that no one actually needs a wardrobe full of clothes, nor are the latest styles necessary for the continuation of life. Yet fashion has been around since the year dot.
Every example of every previous civilisation ever shows us that humans like to doll themselves up with pretty things. So, why?
Clearly, it is not there mere covering of skin because even in cultures where that is not done there is still body paint and so on. The speaking is to something much more basic and that thing is social status.
We are, as humans, intensely social beings. Our relative place in the social hierarchy is perhaps the most important thing of all to us.
This is true of every society we have ever been able to observe. Fashion, strangely enough, is a vital part of this.
It is not something invented by the capitalists to keep us in thrall. Nor is it mere vanity to want to look good or anything.
Observe any group of teenagers arguing over the latest sneakers -- or if you prefer a different example, the latest dance band or movie -- and the point is always relative social status.
Those who have the new, the more expensive, have higher status. This is not something about fashion, it is something about people.
In more technical terms new clothes, or fashionable ones, are not about clothes at all, they are a proxy for the thing really being attained which is that social status.
We might not want to think that Bangladesh's major export industry is based upon such a quirk of human psychology but that is what is true.
Those billions of pieces of clothing that leave the country each year are not about covering nakedness; they are about attaining a higher position in the human hierarchy.
This is the concept that economics covers with the word “utility” -- the all-encompassing definition of what it is that makes humans feel better.
We think that people organise their lives in order to maximise their utility that is.
We are aware of twists in this, people can indeed be misled.
It is also true that we are really pretty sure that people do not strive all that hard to maximise their utility -- satisfactory is the usual description.
The idea is that there might indeed be 500 different kinds of toothpaste out there but really, how important is toothpaste?
So, we switch and select between brands until we find one that is good enough and then turn our attention to other areas of life -- we find something satisfactory rather than expend all that effort to find the best.
But our important point here is that this utility is not defined by more things.
The economist is always aware -- or else they are not doing good economics at least -- that while more stuff may be acquired, that is not in fact the point.
It is more basic parts of human psychology that are being assuaged.
More food is not purchased in order to have more food; it is the hunger that is being assuaged.
Mobile phones are not about making phone calls; they are about that deep desire to socialise and it is just another manner of meeting it.
Fashion is not about non-nakedness; it is about the social hierarchy. Socialising and hierarchy are essential components of the human experience.
To demand that we give up these “false desires” and concentrate instead upon “vital needs” is to miss the point entirely.
These supposed fripperies are exactly how we gain those true desires.
The true human desire is to carve out a respected place in the society around -- all those false desires being the way that we do so.
The author is a senior fellow at the Adam Smith Institute in London