Put Your Thinking Caps On

Economics, the Market, is a Game...

For anyone who has run a business for some time, some realities rise to the surface.

You realize that the market is always changing; nothing is constant, other than the bills.

How about a person who simply desires a joyous life and not the headaches of the business world?

You must also 'mind your own business' as a famous entrepreneur and financial teacher has coined, with a different meaning.
- (all links I share in my articles, please read them...for they are purposed) - 
The concepts of money, business and the market can be overwhelming when listening to people who are 'experts' talking about it.

But wisdom without red tape can be had from those who are experts according to their hands-on experience.

This is where the economist and the entrepreneur diverge.

One works in a world of concepts, statistics and reading about what others are doing, the latter is actually performing, innovating and later sharing their experiences...which in turn the former rationalizes and puts into theory with opinion.

A doer turned teacher is better than a teacher who never did.

I don't mean to insult anyone, but I'd like to speak clearly in sharing honest sentiments (although they may not be regarded as non-insulting or honest).

I've been a doer (business owner) and a thinker of doing (armchair economist).

I've also worked too many jobs to recall, and learned how businesses were run even when not running them myself.

The topic and attached ideas regarding money are rarely accepted without hearers sharing common opinions (and interests).

And so this leads me to the difference between a free market, or a regulated market, or a planned economy (and the difference of opinions regarding these two schools).

The U.S. and most other countries have a mixture of such ideas.

Planning economy is what governments do.

Free market is what entrepreneurs do in concert with or exclusively without government planning.

In ancient societies void of central government or a federal council (nothing beyond the tribe), the 'plan' was to survive...and maybe prosper and grow if possible.

In modern societies, even the ones that boast being purely a 'free market' society, the amount of government planning and regulation is usually interpreted as something else.

China is a model of a mostly planned economy (so say economists), with the populous falling into place as best they can.

America is portrayed as a model of a free market (or so say economists), yet when one begins to look into the numbers of economics, one sees the planning being a fixture in the larger economy and large industry, like energy and agriculture to name two.

Read this article about the argument between government jobs vs private jobs.

I think that article is a decent example of approaching the subject matter as objective as possible, although through two political pundits.

Notice that one side of the argument is dependent on the other, and they intersect in regards to what is a better market system.

If all institutions that are currently government (public) were privatized (owned by independent individuals), imagine yourself going to the court of Smith (owned by Mr. Dubious Smith) and pleading your case against one of his kin.

Or trying to do business in Smithville, and you find out that your money is not accepted tender because it is not Smithscript.

But if you were related to the Smiths, you would most likely not be opposed to the Smithsonian style of government planning.

You, being a Smith, benefit from such plans and you would most likely do all you can to protect your interests.

What this next article does (notice it is an 'opinion' piece) is talk about how people decry government assistance in opening new markets yet at the same time, monopoly is accused.

I can't help but be partial, because I see Elon Musk as not only an innovator, but a unique personality regarding his business practices and his activities.

Much how Nikola Tesla revolutionized the approach to energy, it has taken a century for other big thinkers to unleash Tesla's ideas into the marketplace.

So also several revolutions are afoot, and one is to change the way people see energy, space travel, road travel and all points of life in between.

The U.S. government has people in it who desire to look forward to a cleaner environment, producing energy in a cleaner manner, and pretty much participate in the peaceful revolution at-hand.

The U.S. government also has people who care to only do what their contributors desire, and they are professionals at changing their minds (or not) when their influences change theirs (or don't).

Some people whose interests are entrenched in the current model of energy and commerce do not want much to change...yet the market is always changing, and new ideas retire the old.

This is what is very good about a market that is highly influenced by people's buying habits...and government usually has to give in, follow, or try to preempt such influence.

The point made by Mr. Ron Paul in that opinion article is a typical protest against government meddling in the free market (and I partially agree).

Hasn't anyone told Mr. Paul that the government he has worked throughout his extensive career is a planned economy very similar to China?

Hasn't Mr. Paul helped write bills that have funneled tax dollars to the interests in his district?

The ideologies intersect and most folks are clueless, or care not to talk about such similarities.

Elon Musk could be the poster child for the free market.

Notice how government must meed the new innovations and have no choice in doing so.

Point for the free market.

And since clean energy is the future, the plan for government is to regulate and ensure the new development's are as harmless as possible for the end consumers (we hope, thus why government seems legitimate most of the time).

Point for planned economies.

So we see that for civilization to continue and be balanced, government does its part in encouraging certain ideas and discouraging others.

If only the financial incentive could be gauged by the players (in and out of government) in order for the validity and value of any particular idea to be honestly realized.

If we were all Smiths, we wouldn't care...but since we are not, we need those not of the Smith family to keep an eye on the Smiths...while we mind our own business.

Lastly, read about the term “multiplier” in this article.

Aside from that challenging article, in short a multiplier is how monies flow from one hand to another in the economy...whether from a government job or a private job without government direction.

It is this term which I think both free market and market planners should work to make happen.

With greater potential for multiplicity, more money flows from hand to hand, and more people are able to benefit from all aspects of economy (says this armchair economist with some experience in the business world as a past business owner).

Comments

Popular Posts