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 Deal with Tariffs

Over the course of President Trump’s two terms, there has been much talk around the matter of tariffs — taxes on imported goods. However, much of the talk seems to miss the point. After all, for those of us who seek the truth, it’s not really a question of whether tariffs are ‘good’ but whether they are preferable to other kinds of taxes — assuming, of course, that taxes are the rule, as certain as the eventuality of death. First, let’s establish the theory: beyond the generic purpose of revenue generation for the state, the institution of tariffs ordinarily serves to  reduce (or discourage) imports by making them artificially more expensive, while encouraging domestic production by making domestic products more appealing on a relative price basis. In the realm of foreign affairs, tariffs are instituted or threatened in the course of international trade negotiations in order to signal dissatisfaction with existing trade barriers and to push for more favorable trade terms; or in ord...

Fischer: Tortured in the Pasadena Jailhouse (featuring the Morals of Chess by Benjamin Franklin)

Buy your copy today of  Fischer: Tortured in the Pasadena Jailhouse (featuring the Morals of Chess by Benjamin Franklin) , available at  Amazon  and Barnes & Noble . The name Bobby Fischer reigns supreme in the world of chess, yet there was a time when it hogged headlines, struck fear into the eyes of the competition, and was on the lips of folks all across the globe. More than the face of the centuries-old game, there was a time when Bobby Fischer was synonymous with the cause and spirit of America, that his moves on the chessboard sought more than checkmate but to pit the strength of “raw-boned American individualism” against “the Soviet megalithic system” which had come to dominate the game of chess at the same time it dominated Cold War politics. Fischer’s triumph over the USSR's Boris Spassky in the ’72 World Chess Championship would ultimately be celebrated as a symbolic and diplomatic victory for the U.S., but, as time would tell, it would not mean the American...

Their Lives, Their Fortunes, and Their Sacred Honor

A  recent YouTube post by the political organization PragerU betrays the truth about the American Revolution. It goes as follows: “Britain spent a fortune defending the colonies in the French & Indian War. America’s response? Boycotts, protests, rebellion. Ingratitude that sparked a revolution.” This description of history is not just a reductive reframing of the issues; it is a crude and provocative statement insulting the intelligence of Americans who remember their history and disrespecting the men who staked everything in their noblest of causes during the American Revolution.  One commenter in the comments section even sided with PragerU, taking to task any who dares criticize the post: “Are you incapable of creating scenarios from the opposite side?” Unfortunately for this commenter, true history isn’t about “creating scenarios”; it’s about understanding what actually happened — the totality of the circumstances. So, let us do just that: let’s get straight to the fac...