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

America's Civil War: Not "Civil" and Not About Slavery

Virtually the entirety of South and Central America, as well as European powers Britain, Spain and France, peacefully abolished slavery — without war — in the first sixty years of the nineteenth century.  Why, then, did the United States enter into a bloody war that cost over half of the nation’s wealth, at least 800,000 lives and many hundreds of thousands more in casualties?  The answer: the War Between the States was not about slavery.  It was a war of invasion to further empower the central government and to reject state sovereignty, nullification of unconstitutional laws, and the states’ rights to secession.  It was a war that would cripple the South and witness the federal debt skyrocket from $65 million in 1860 to $2.7 billion in 1865, whose annual interest alone would prove twice as expensive as the entire federal budget from 1860. Likewise, it was a war that would witness a five-fold increase in the number of civilians employed by the federal government, as federal gove

Into the Wild: An Economics Lesson

There is a great deal of substance behind the Keynesian motif, “In the long run, we’re all dead.” If this is your prerogative, your axiom, we are destined to differ on matters of principle and timeline. Surely, any quantity or decided cash figure is relevant exclusively to the available produce yielded by its trade. The current valuation thereof, whilst unadulterated, corroborates a rather stable, predictable trend of expectations, whereas its significance wanes once reconfigured by a process of economic, fiscal or monetary manipulation.  Individuals, vast in their interests and their time preferences and overall appetites, are to be made homogeneous by an overarching system which predetermines the price floors, ceilings and general priorities of life. Of course, all of this exists merely in abstract form. However, the supposition proposed by those who champion the agenda of “basic needs” fails to complement the progress achieved by the abolition of presumed guilt by the sole mis

Cullen Roche's Not So "Pragmatic Capitalism"

In his riveting new work Pragmatic Capitalism , Cullen Roche, founder of Orcam Financial Group, a San Diego-based financial firm, sets out to correct the mainstream schools of economic thought, focusing on  Keynesians, Monetarists, and Austrians alike. This new macroeconomic perspective claims to reveal What Every Investor Needs to Know About Money and Finance . Indeed, Roche introduces the layman to various elementary principles of economics and financial markets, revealing in early chapters the failed state of the average hedge fund and mutual fund operators -- who are better car salesmen than financial pundits, Roche writes --  who have fallen victim to the group think phenomenon, spawning the nearly perfect positive correlation to the major indexes, and thus, accounting for tax, inflation, and service adjustments, holistically wiping out any value added by their supposed market insight.  Roche also references popular studies, such as the MckInsey Global Institute's report whi