Why It Is That Difficult to Change Economics?


 

The system Economics has evolved in time into Game Theories based on data mining; conceptions founded, many times, on idiosyncratic endogenous principle conclusions. Mathematics has been used to backup these conclusions: formulas taken as status quo in time. The over all philosophy of the orthodox economics accepts straggle to survival as bringing in individuals, markets the vivid powers to invent, innovate, create, organize, adjust to the changing economic conditions; when exaggerations, redundancies, inefficiencies compile a adjustment, recession occurs that could be self-adjusted by individuals, companies, institutions to a point when a new fun off can start; thus, spinally the economic pressures increase productivity, sufficiency the standard of living, better conditions of infrastructure, education, better life for the many. A minimum unemployment rate needed to carry on enough eagerness for the labor to support the demand for employment, labor without prompting inflation as if the unemployment goes under the % so the labor market is disrupted then high wages are required that boost inflation, high prices and limit businesses ability to increase productivity, production, keep competitive internationally in the US it means interstate, too.

The orthodox economics has evolved into game theories when in time varieties of factors, indicators appear that obviously invoked the need to use probabilities but still in an idiosyncratic, close system. Even though the game theories give certain wider spectrum of data and using that data, the overall scheme of certainty was retained: the principles of debt, investment limits, productivity have never been overwritten or taken in different but the developed trickle-down economics. From the pure Capitalism of the wild wild west to the Social Capitalism of some European Countries, to the Communism of the post communist block economies the system of spinally self-adjusting economic growth – recession – growth has been the status quo – the orthodox economics of the 20th Century. The Keynesians added more monetary through governmental intervention counter cyclical measures to shorten recessions, even accelerate business activities. Same of the game theories added to that by targeting different economic sectors to boost further business. However, the status quo of debt, investment, productivity has been retained and any substitute was considered be done by expanding the governmental role in business activities: the two opposite right to left either asking for less or more governmental intervention, and explaining economic developments by such economic interference; blaming one another for all the gloom and bust.

Actually, the leftists and the rightists of the present are both correct the economy in the developed and with few exceptions in the developing countries is grossly under-performing: debt, inequality, un and under employment, insecurity, diminishing middle class and rising poverty are spreading as a plague. But, when the pure Capitalism approach has been used it did not affect these developments neither prevented it – such as the 2007-9 recession that enveloped the globe, neither the Social Capitalism, not the least the Communism have done it, the Soviet Block disintegrated, the European Union is in a process of disintegration: the Brexit, Italian referendum, Hungary, Romania are good example of what have been the consequences to not working economies. The globalization and the rising Productivity of the 21st Century have changed the pro-supply economic pressers of the past to pro-demand, asking for equilibrium forces of the presence. China’s Industrialization, the Internet have aggregated these new conditions actually started and worked out by the Transnational corporations, the improving Technologies, the hugely accumulated Capital that exploited these new conditions to move, outsourced, expended industrial production, financial services, retail, wholesale, farming, services. The global marketplace has become overtaken by these forces to change the pro-supply economic prevailing force to the pro-demand, pro-equilibrium required such. The economies changed into markets; the economics must change into market economics to apprehend these new developments, but it did not happen: ideologies, status quo, politics have prevented the science of economics to evolve into market economics. That has brought the economic slam elsewhere but China who accommodated an ‘as it comes; as it goes’ economics that worked out the 2007-9 recession and post recession global slow down and instead took out of poverty 600 Million people, and maintained high economic growth.

The China example has not prompted the western politicians, economist to start figuring out what really has happened to adjust and adopt the orthodox economics, but in the opposite, it made them become hardliners insisting that these new developments are temporarily, or a result of not imposing even further austerity, debt restrictions, shady business environment.

The 21st Century calls for flexible market economics that will ensure less inequality, full employment, Earth’s environment protection, open global marketplace, however individual markets developing such flexible policies that can manage consistent market development, alleviation of poverty, saving of the personal freedoms and the democracy for all.

Joshua Ioji Konov 2017

Advertisements