Your observation is correct. I made the same point in the Part II of my message, albeit in an slightly oblique manner. Please see below for the relevant passage:
"Daoists consider the duty of a ruler as that of protecting with minimal
interference his subjects from harm, thus avoiding the overriding injury
that excessive intervention would bring. A truly wise ruler should act in the way nature's unseen hand gently protects the good, the definition of which is complex and philosophical. The word: governance (zhi) in Chinese is composed of the
root sign of water (shui) and the modifying sign of platform (tai), suggesting that to govern is similar to preserving stability of a floating platform on water. Excessive and unbalanced interference, even
when motivated by good intention, does not always produce good results. Periodic, mild famines may be considered good in the long run because the people will learn lessons from them on the need for grain storage. Excessive prosperity may be considered bad because it leads to wasteful consumption with environmental and spiritual pollution that eventually will destroy the good life. Modern economists would come to appreciate the desirability of sustainable moderate economic growth over the alternative of fluctuating booms and busts. Daoists consider Confucian reliance on the Code of Rites (Liji) to guide
socio-political behavior as oppressive and self-defeating. The Code of Rites is the ritual compendium as defined by Confucius (551-479 B.C.) to
prescribe proper individual behavior in a hierarchical society. Daoists
regard blind Confucian penchant for moralistic coercion as misguided. Such coercion neglects the true power of roushu (flexible method). Daoists think that in the ultimate, great success always leads to great failure because each successful stage makes the next stage more difficult, until, by definition, failure inevitably results."
Also, on your second point, it would be valid to say that in the modern sense of the term, Buddhist concepts have no economic content, since they tend to be inclusive notions. The separation of rational materialistic decision-making and its impacts, the study of which is labeled "economics" by Western social sciences, is alien to Buddhist thought. However, Buddhist ideas are applicable to modern economics as they are applicable to the whole range of human behavior and inter-personal relations. Buddhist notions are particularly pertinent to issues of values and priorities, a fundamental concern in economic policy analysis.
Gunnar Myrdal (1898-1984), Swedish sociologist-economist, in his 1944 definitive study: The American Dilemma, for which he would receive the 1974 Nobel Prize for Economics, having declared the "Negro" problem in the United States to be inextricably entwined with the democratic functioning of American society, would go on to produce a 1976 study of Southeast Asia: The Asian Dilemma. In it, he would identify Buddhist acceptance of suffering as the prime cause for economic underdevelopment in the region. Myrdal's conclusion would appear valid superficially, given the coincident of indisputable existence of conditions of poverty in the region at the time of his study and the pervasive influence of Buddhism in Southeast Asian culture, until the question is asked as to why, whereas Buddhism has dominated Southeast Asia for more than a millennium, pervasive poverty in the region would only make its appearance after the arrival of Western Imperialism in the nineteenth century? Marxists and nationalists, many of both professing no love for Buddhism, would suggest that Myrdal had been influenced in his convenient conclusion by his eagerness to deflect responsibility for the sorry state of affair in that region from the legacy of Western imperialism. By his attempt to rationalize social misery with an accommodating theology, a posture the clever social scientist knows would capture the appreciation of his secular Western readers, Myrdal would try to blame the virtues of indigenous religion for the sins of international politics. As with Schumacher, Myrdal and many other Western observers misunderstood Buddhist quest for spiritual contentedness with "being satisfied with not too much". In fact, Buddhists want "the whole thing, but in balance." To Buddhists, trade-offs, the favorite game of economics, are losing propositions. The fact that Buddhists often fail to achieve their ideals is a separate issue from the validity of Buddhist precepts. Many fail to be great singers, but that does not negate the art of singing. To Buddhists, utility is not synonymous with desirability. By the way, I am personally not a Buddhist, nor a Daoist, nor a Confucian. Yet as an Asian (Chinese), I am aware that I am fundamentally influenced by the ideas of these philosophies. I have learn to reserve judgment on them until I can master their complexities, which I have yet to do after many decade of study. The more I study, the more I realize that things are seldom what they appear to be at first sight.
Thanks for commenting on my message.
Henry C.K. Liu
"Rosser Jr, John Barkley" wrote:
> To Henry C.K. Liu:
> Is it not true that in ethnically Han Chinese parts of
> Asia that Daoism is associated with a pro-laissez faire
> attitude towards economics whereas Confucianism is
> associated with a pro-state-intervention-in-the-economy
> attitude?
> Also, it would seem that Buddhism has almost no
> economic content at all. Certainly E.F. Schumacher argued
> in his _Small is Beautiful_ that "Buddhist Economics"
> implies being satisfied with not too much, and thus
> presumably supports pro-ecology sustainable development.
> But in Thailand it is pro-laissez faire with little
> environmental concern and in Tibet is/was pro-feudal. More
> a matter of meditating on Emptiness, I guess...
> Barkley Rosser
>
> --
> Rosser Jr, John Barkley
> rosserjb at jmu.edu