I'm no economist, but being someone who tries to keep abreast with things, I read up a lot, with economics, business and capitalism being some of them.
One of my favorite topics under those 3 main subjects is the idea of zero-sum games, wherein there can only be one winner in a situational "game" among 2 or more participants. Because these situations put human behavior in a purely "selfish" and capitalist setting, its interesting how people behave under these static conditions.
But the truth is, the real world is not a zero-sum game, our everyday lives encapsulate so many trade situations wherein people, all take part in varying degrees of trade and exchange. Its interesting to note that despite a lot of altruism and group-think that litters our consciousness, we still act and behave in our self-interest. At the end of the day, self preservation and genetic continuation are still the rules in the game of life.
But the beauty of this is that self-interests can also work for the benefit of the group, and that oftentimes, in life and in trade/business, its not this-or-that, but this-and-that, meaning, we all win or we all lose. This has been proven by John Nash (yes, the role played by Russel Crowe in A Beautiful Mind, and yes, the Nobel Prize winning mathematician, and yes... the schizo) that the point wherein a competitive system achieves balance and a win-win situation for all its participants can be determined through quantitative means and is called the Nash Equilibrium.
So anyway, where does this take me? Game theorists and economists have a favorite situation called the Prisoner's Dilemma, wherein 2 cellmates are given the opportunity to decrease their sentences by squealing on his cellmate's other crimes. Now, if both stay silent, they maintain the status quo. But since people act in their self-interest, both will try to squeal on the other, and try to do it earlier than the other cellmate.
Mathematically, the Nash Equilibrium for this situation is achieved when both squeal on each other at the same time. Where does this lead to then? Well the defined variables are limited, but chances are it will lead to both of them getting their sentences extended, or both of them maintaining the status quo. But at the end of the day, it just shows that given they both have other crimes unconfessed, all is fair in love and in war, and yes, in prison.
From a purely worldly standpoint... Quits lang... walang santo/altruist at lahat tayo nandito sa mundo at ang laro nating lahat ay para sa sarili natin. Iba-iba lang ang standard natin ng victory and definitions of preservation/genetic continuation. Some see money and material wealth as their currency for preservation, while others see favors and kind acts as their instruments to salvation.
The irony of it is that kind acts and altruism cannot be quantified and put in an equation. If you try to establish an equilibrium by repaying these acts, or for exacting a repayment for your kind acts, society and our morality labels you as garapal.
Which is why (pardon the subtle racism and ethnic bias) I see Chinamen, or better yet, Businessmen/Capitalists (who operate in the freemarket) as the most moral and just people in the world. At least they give you the chance to get to a win-win settlement by providing room for payment for goods and services. They do not act as altruists and plant seeds of utang-na-loob with which you as the beneficiary cannot repay them for. There is no such thing as a human altruist, because everyone acts in his own self-interest
And which is why Jesus Christ could be classified as the only and ultimate altruist. He repaid our debts without asking for repayment, in fact he repaid our debts in order to save us. The summation of all our offerings, faith and good works wouldn't even amount to His ultimate act, that of self-sacrifice. That is why I know he is God, because a man or a woman cannot fathom/think of self-sacrifice unless it is in his or her own interest!
