Economical Ideas

ECONOMISTS that I've met since 2 weeks ago included Adam Smith with his invisible hand, Thomas Malthus the Doomsday prophet, David Ricardo and his Corn Law, John Maynard Keynes and his General theory, Karl Marx the self pitying fool, Alfred Marshall and his Principles, John Stuart Mill and his Principals of political Economy, Jean Baptiste Say and his Say's Law.

From this encounter, I confirmed several concepts about money that I had, as well as changed some that were erroneous. Here, I must stress that I'm going to make corrections to what I might have implied in my previous posts.

First thing to correct on the list, hard work is absolutely important in order to sustain any economy. The error I made was to assume that someone who has seen the way can get away with not working. Work is after all the basis of all creation. Only when things are in motion, will there be work done. The factor that separates rich people from poor people is the level of work they do. And the level of work they do is differentiated by the level of desire each class possess. Rich people has strong desire to be rich while poor people's are weak. Desires drive people to do things naturally. It defeats reason and makes accomplishing a certain task seemed less foreboding. Therefore, instead of avoiding work, I shall now embrace it, bearing in mind the differences.

Next thing is my discouraging speech on not having a job. I realize that its not something I should be preaching. Having a job is the essence of human purpose. Many people grew up trying to find a purpose finds it in a job. Discouraging people from having a job is an extremely dangerous notion. I shall modify what I've said. Have a job to find your purpose in society, but do not be so bogged down by your job that you forget the reason you exist. You do not exist so that you have a job and serve others, you exist so that you serve your own purpose. The most important thing to bear in mind is to do things that you are most comfortable with. That's common sense but its surprising how so many intellectually-able people are suffering because they are in jobs that are good only in others opinion, not their own.

One new concept that I discovered is that the world has to be in constant non-equilibrium. There can never be a balance. No such thing as everyone rich and happy at the same time. That's foolish etopian mindset that past economist and socialists tried to achieve. They fail miserably because they underestimated human nature. Not to say that I'm an expert in human nature, but no one can declare that they are a human nature expert. Human beings are too complex to be put into a equation as a constant. It is this inconsistency that allowed humans to be at where they are now. I still stand firm to the thinking that only those who has seen the way will find wealth. Money cometh to those who can manage it well. Those who stumbles upon wealth but do not understand its worth will lose it in the next instance.

Another thing I realized from the debates these economist had against one another, the concept of money is extremely subjective. There's no right or wrong, only whether its feasible or not. An economist can be extremely logical in explaining a certain cause and effects, but it will remain just an idea unless its put into test and proved that it works. So the most credible economist is not some musty old man who spends his whole life struggling with money. The best person to go to for advice on money is the richest person. Don't only say, do and show it.