Skip to main content

Existential Economics: The Fallacy of Demand-Side Economics

We too often accept that the measure of our own successes must naturally hinge upon the extent to which we are able to include or contribute to the lives of others, but this is, of course, untrue. We can take hold of our own personal lives to enhance them by our own original outlooks, creations, and mechanisms by which life is to be principally and existentially measured and supported, and through which our living, breathing moments may be enriched by the commensurate degree to which we are able to satisfy those personally defined measures. We may in fact face reality with nothing more than our own perspectives and the product of our own labor. This is all too possible. 

Indeed, as Adam Smith wrote, one may largely benefit from his immersion into the divisions of labor, but one is held by no obligation, but of his own choosing, to respond to this inherent material advantage. Moreover, one may operate his own economy which serves nothing but the satisfaction of his own desires. He may build it. And he may contract its fruits out to no one. The modern economist wishes to accept that one’s revenue depends upon the presence of demand. 

Here we may finally discover that this belief is unequivocally untrue. It is only out of convenience that this occurs, as permitted by the economies of scale which enable the mass distribution of production and services to be met most efficiently by those who are then able to specialize in optimal unit production in other fields. However, this fails to discredit the input-output model here described in which man may benefit exclusively from his own production, by which his purchasing power — and that of others who may eventually be permitted entry — is positively correlated with the pool of his supply. It is clear here that no level of exogenous consumption — otherwise known as demand — would advance his standard of living. It is only by the direct input of his creative designs and labor that he may benefit, and by which he may consume and thereby enhance his standard of living.     

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Kaepernick Craze: Exposing the Nation's Fools One Conversation at a Time

The Kaeparnick craze and other viral movements haven't merely pressured people into becoming simpler caricatures of their prior selves, but they have manifestly exposed people for how foolish and uninformed they've been all along. 



In his final year in the NFL, Kaepernick ranked 17th in passer rating and 34th the year before that. 

He played through an entire season in only two of his six years in the league, and his best full-season performance ranks far outside of the NFL's top-250 single-season passing performances in the league's history. 

For reference, the oft-criticized Tony Romo posted a career passer rating of 97.1, as compared to Kaepernick's 88.9. 

Romo's passer rating dipped below 90 for only one season of the eleven seasons he played, whereas Kaepernick failed to eclipse the 90 mark on three of his six seasons, a full 50 percent of his time in the NFL. 

In fact, Kaepernick accomplished this feat only once if we are to discard those other two seasons in …

Institutional Racism: The Sasquatch of Political Folklore

A great confusion has arisen out of the clamor of political debate, one which presupposes that any dismissal of the merits of “institutional racism” somehow equates to one’s rejection of personal struggle. 

Whereas the struggle of any individual remains always and everywhere unique and wholly personal, his common bond of complexion with others who have struggled serves inadequately as the basis for any argument which regards this commonality as the cause, or as the reason, for that veritable struggle. 

To condemn the unidentifiable and nebulous abstraction, then, by castigating an unnamed institution which persists beyond our specific capacity to recognize its power, serves only to absolve individuals of their personal responsibility, to shift blame and culpability to a specter which exists only by the creative designs of our imaginations, which exists as the scapegoat for all outcomes popularly maligned as undesirable. 

This unactionable practice, then, swiftly and categorically excuses…

Homelessness More Lucrative than $150,000/Year Job in SF Bay Area

Most people in the United States long for a $150,000-per-year salary. This makes sense, as the nation's median personal income is roughly 80 percent below that mark. 

It's a lot of money. 

In fact, this income level qualifies for the top 4 percent of Americans and the top 0.1 percent of the world's population; it is 109 times the global average.

If this is true, how could an unemployed homeless person possibly make more money? Well, the federal, state and local governments: that's how!

Let's take a look at the numbers.

A single Bay-Area Californian earning $150,000 per year pays an effective income tax rate of 32.23 percent: this figure is inclusive of a 7.20-percent effective state income tax (and 9.30-percent marginal rate), an 18.27-percent effective federal income tax (and 24.00-percent marginal rate), and a 6.76-percent effective rate for Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) taxes. 



In addition to income taxes, the homeowner incurs an annual mortgage cost amou…