The Economics of Doing What is Right

Natural law never fails. Natural law gets in the way of people getting what they want. Mostly people can’t tell the difference between what is right and what they want. So, natural law never enters the picture. The communist system was built upon the notion that the end justifies the means. Under communism, there never has never been a positive outcome. Perhaps the envisioned end is not possible if the means is immoral.

Natural law states that the end result is completely dependent upon the means employed. A reoccurring theme in all of the worlds religions is that an immoral beginning guarantees a negative outcome. Judaism and Christianity are big on that idea.

Communist countries have never been alone in trying to get positive results out of immoral initiatives. The end justifies the means, whether stated or not, is part of virtually every government program and initiative. It is the means employed that causes positive or negative outcomes.

What is the right thing to do? Sometimes that is a hard question to answer but usually it is not. Doing what is right in the present moment usually does not have an immediate benefit. Mostly those who do what is right are at a disadvantage in the present moment. Using the “end justifies the means” logic has some advantages up front but in a little time the costs outweigh the benefits.

Why do so many government initiatives turn out badly. The means of achieving the initiatives are immoral. It really is as simple as that.

I really do love math and statistics. Unfortunately those tools have little value in studying economics.

 

This entry was posted in Daily Comments on by .

About Fantasy Free Economics

James Quillian independent scholar,free market economist,and teacher of natural law. Who is James Quillian? Certainly I am nobody special, Just a tireless academic and deep thinker. Besides that, I have broken the code with respect to economics and political science. Credentials? Nothing you would be impressed with. I am not a household name. It is hard to become famous writing that virtually no one in the country is genuinely not in touch with reality. But, if I did not do that, there would be no point in my broking the broken the code. If you read the blog, it is easy to see that there are just a few charts, no math and no quantitative analysis. That is not by accident. Given what I know, those items are completely useless. I do turn out to be highly adept at applying natural law. Natural law has predominance over any principles the social science comes up. By virtue of understanding natural law, I can debunk, in just a few sentences , any theory that calls for intervention by a government. My taking the time to understand the ins and outs of Keynes General Theory is about like expecting a chemistry student to completely grasp all that the alchemists of the middle ages thought they understood in efforts to turn base metals into goal. Keynesian theory clearly calls for complete objectivity. Government can only make political decisions. Keynesian techniques call for economic decisions. So, why go any further with that? Fantasy Free Economics is in a sense a lot like technical analysis. Technical analysis began with the premise that it was impossible to gain enough information studying fundamentals to gain a trading advantage. Study the behavior of investors instead. Unlike technical analysis, I don't use technical charts. What I understand are the incentives of different people and entities active in the economics arena. For example, there is no such thing as an incentive to serve with life in the aggregate. In the aggregate, only self interest applies. It is routinely assumed otherwise. That is highly unappealing. But, I am sorry. That is the way it is. I can accept that because I am genuinely in touch with reality. Step one in using Fantasy Free Economics is for me to understand just how little I really know. A highly credentialed economist may know 100 times what I do based on the standard dogma. Compare the knowledge each of us has compared to all there is to know and we both look like we know nothing at all. There is always more than we don't know than what we do know. I am humble enough to present myself on that basis. Why? That is the way it is. I am not bad at math. I have taught math. What I understand is when to use it and when to rely on something else. Math is useless in natural law so I don't use it. While others look at numbers, I am busy understanding the forces in nature that makes their numbers what they are. That gives me a clear advantage.