Drawbacks of Economic Theory and Realities

Drawbacks of Economic Theory and Realities

The Homo Economicus is a virtual character of Economic Theory, deciding strictly rational (principle of rationality). The economic principle in general assumes any actions being undertaken to reach a certain outcome with minimal effort. The principle of rationality itself incorporates no ethic or moral. It just counts the quantitative results of human actions. Insofar the actor that is singing to playback is acting rational, as well as the EPO consuming athlete. One needs not to go so far: the seller of alcohol in White Clay are acting rational and even according to the law.

The Homo Economicus is protected by law. The law protects the structure of a certain society against any influences that might attack this community. Even if the development of a society has incorporated illogic or inhuman basics, they are protected. Nature has no right in western societies, but only the „owner of nature“, which is illogic. This is a reversion of the dependencies, because nature needs no owner, but the owner needs nature to be called an owner. One can imagine a world without owner, but not without nature. Law protects this illogic hierarchy.

There is no doubt, that the low quality TV- and Movie-Industry standing only as an example for the distractions of modern times, steals peoples time and keeps them more stupid with less understanding of their world. The business promotes and establishes a low cultural niveau. This is inhuman. The law covers the entrepreneurs and society honors them. They can even get president and leaders of their people (Italy).

The end of the Roman Empire was marked with “panem et circenses” – feeding the people to keep them quiet and distract them with games in which people where fed to animals.

Within the societal framework the rational acting people are well regarded and rewarded with money.

The Homo Economicus has no moral. And the money, rewarding his deeds hasn’t either. Certain money cannot be identified, being earned under an ethical value or not. The reason is the transition between the money and capital. Money is been taken to exchange goods or services. If one takes money only in the function of transaction, one could distinguish between good or bad money. Which actually means to distinguish between good or bad sources of money. Assuming the dealing people were acting morally certain money will only circulate in a certain moral environment. No one really wants to do this.

In the banking system money is loosing its origin. When money changes to capital, no one wants to know the difference. In some special cases the banks are forced to declare, if they have doubt about the clean origin of money. Albeit one never heard that it is really impossible to wash black money.

3.6 Trillion US-Dollar of turnover is done worldwide with prostitution, drugs, people-trafficking and blackmail. This money looks like the dollars donated to feed starving children anywhere in the world. Due to money circulation it might be the same dollar in both utilization – paying for prostitutes and feeding children.

We are talking about economy in practice and about the Homo Economicus in theory. The drug dealer acts in accordance with economic principles achieving the stipulated goal of economy: Economy is acting with shortages and tries to supply the needs and to achieve the best possible level of wealth. And he is rewarded with money for his actions. Either money is not the appropriate reward system or money is not the appropriate transaction medium. From an economic point of view the drug dealer is the ideal Homo Economicus, being not influenced by moral or ethics, not taking care of the long term „externalized“ consequences and the price of the good is his only decision parameter.

If society is reduced to this simplified economic sense, than art is outside the visibility of society. Vincent van Gogh was in looking for infinitude and not for the money. Albert Einstein was searching for an explanation of gravitation outside the gravity of earth and found the General Theory of Relativity. He was not searching for money. Nils Bohr was dissatisfied with the atomistic theory being not able to explain the results of the double-slit experiment and found Quantum Theory. He was not dissatisfied with his financial situation.

Every foundation of the modern culture was not based on money or the Homo Economicus. Every source of satisfaction and happiness is independent of money.

Robert F. Kennedy:

The Gross National Product includes the destruction of the redwoods and the death of Lake Superior. It grows with the production of napalm and missiles and nuclear warheads.... It includes... the broadcasting of television programs, which glorify violence to sell goods to our children. And if the Gross National Product includes all this, there is much that it does not comprehend. It does not allow for the health of our families, the quality of their education, or the joy of their play. It is indifferent to the decency of our factories and the safety of our streets alike. It does not include the beauty of our poetry, or the strength of our marriages, the intelligence of our public debate or the integrity of our public officials... the Gross National Product measures neither our wit nor our courage, neither our wisdom nor our learning, neither our compassion nor our devotion to our country. It measures everything, in short, except that which makes life worthwhile, and it can tell us everything about America -- except whether we are proud to be Americans.

The wealth of a nation is not measured in economic terms.

The ethic and moral foundations of the Lakota Way of Life are: Courage, Fortitude, Generosity and Wisdom. Nobody would have found them or at least stipulated on this sources of happiness under the overall goal of money.

None of the existing economies of the west could ever reflect this ethics evolved over thousands of ages of wisdom. The economy of the west isn’t even able to reflect its own ethics and moral. Maybe many people of the western society do not agree on this and designate the existing economic framework as an appropriate representation of the entire western society. In this case one has to admit that the economy is immoral and inhumane.

A certain economy is but the result of a process that involves its ethics and moral, civilization, technological evolution, as well as its geography, resource endowment, and ecology, among other factors.

The economy of the Lakota may ground on the ethics principles of Courage, Fortitude, Generosity and Wisdom, deriving other goals from that sources. Accepting this grounding the Economy of the Lakota has to:

•    Identify the sources of money
•    Use money only for transaction
•    Grant credit on reliance
•    Regard capital not as accumulated money
•    Establish no ownership on nature
•    Reflect the infinite rules of nature
•    Allow no waste of goods and human potential

This bullet points are far away from being complete. At the very end there are no rules or guidelines for the economy. It has to develop as a result of human actions.

As a conclusion of the discourse economy is contradictory. When economy is most effective, the result is the lowest possible level of wealth.

There is but one future for the people without economy.

More Infos about T. Hildebrandt on Shopmarketing