Work is a Second Choice

Big_Male_Lion_Eating_An_Animal_Carcass_600One big myth is that lions always kill their own meat. More often than not, they find a dead carcass and eat that as a first choice. Usually they run off some weaker predictors and steal their prey and that is a fraction of the effort it takes to track and kill. In nature, work is a second choice. Work is a second choice in mankind also.

Are you aware that historically, economists have been overwhelmingly wrong at every significant economic turning point in history? This is largely because they use erroneous assumptions in all of the work they do. In economics, human beings are assumed to be champing at the the bit to do do productive work.  In practice, work is in fact a second choice. Work is only done if the same return cannot be gained without working. Living off the efforts of others is always the first choice with work a respectable second choice.  It is a human characteristic to present oneself as completely noble in every thought and action. In real life it doesn’t work that way.

Entire institutions and behaviors have become organized around the effort to get payed without working. All of modern democracy today is centered around millions of people trying to get what they want by getting others to provide it for them. For generations, the rich have used government as a way to exempt themselves from any constraints of a free market while making sure that free market principles apply to all others.

It is impossible for economists to predict human behavior when their assumptions with respect to the most basic incentives are completely backwards.

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.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.