Economics of Value

Above all else,
I reject the Economics of Status.

I reject "supply"
and "demand,"
and that if the current model
holds that things can become
"too easy to buy" or
"too hard to buy,"
then it is by its nature
unstable, and cannot
be relied upon
by rational minds.

We've outgrown Economic Theory.
In Real Economics,
Value is priceless.

The Economics of Value
state that worth
determines Value,
not status, and Value
alone must be held
as the standard by which
all things are supported.
Too long have we feared
and lived by fear that
all things can end
in an instant,
and when that happens,
all things lost.

Humanity is not as helpless
as that. I reject
that it ever was. Advances
in thought are not an
excuse to believe that
setbacks can't be
overcome. We done
that too many times
to truly believe it.

The Economics of Value
are an affirmation of faith,
in the intrinsic worth
of humanity, of itself
and to itself, and
in itself.

It's time we saw into that.

Economics of Faith

There was a time
whether for ill
or for the greater
good, faith was
what made the world
turn 'round,

but that was when
it ruled the world.

These days, things
have changed drastically,
where some faiths are
almost literally dying
out, or having to court
with new revivals,
so obsequious they
can hardly be noticed
for what they're doing,
saving souls for Sunday,
explaining why bad things
happen to good people
(why God lets it happen)
and ignoring that faith
never had anything to do
with that. It's cheaper
to do it that way.

But faith is something
you don't realize you had
until it's gone, its
absence almost a sort
of faith itself, because
you need to believe
in not believing, have
faith that you're right,
because faith is faith
no matter what you call it,
how you preach.

If we only realized that
faith is not something
so easily discarded, we
might be better off,
is all I'm saying,
that maybe we wouldn't
worry so much about
which way the money flows.

If we can conquer faith,
we can do anything, right?

Economics of Poetry

Everything I heard
from the State of the Union
confirmed my suspicions
that the new President
simply doesn't understand
that we've found ourselves
in new times, where old ideas
need fresh thinking,
not consolidation, that
jobs flowing around the world
helps everyone, develops
everyone, and allows
our future to emerge,
where poetry is not a thing
of the past, but bounding
inspiration, the shackles
cast off, words mean
something again, and we
can all say "yes."

Economics of Ethics

I don't believe it's in
anyone's best interests
to simply believe being
"good" is good enough.

I believe that "good"
is a state of mind,
that one is good whether
someone else realizes it
or not, that right thought
is what ethics are all
about, that good manners
aren't something that
need be taught, but
rather a basic understanding
that one is not alone,
whether they isolate themselves
or not.

I believe that "good" is not
a social convention or a matter
of charity, that one does
not need to give someone
else anything else than
the respect that acknowledges
their basic right to dignity,
not to hold standard to
a line of thought, but rather
a chance to have what they need,
not just to survive, but
to live their lives.

I believe that "good"
does not have a price,
and cannot truly be
rewarded, but rather
that it is a thing
that treats human
as well as animal
life as of inherent
Value, that if
nurtured must be
respected, that
religion has
no part, but if
it does, it need
not be ridiculed.

I believe that "good,"
if truly given the chance,
need not even be thought of
at all.

These are my ethics,
and why I think they
are separate from economics,
but if imposed on the model,
would improve it immensely.

Economics of Perspective & Change

It's difficult to calculate
the worth of change.

Change isn't always
a good thing, or at
least, doesn't always
feel that way, but
there's always the
chance you'll figure
out a way to make
it worth your while,
to work out a proper
perspective that adds
Value where you saw
none before.

In my view, economics
ought to be concerned
more with Value than
any other concern.

Value determines change,
interprets perspective,
and in short, is how the
world really turns 'round,
not by the Quality or
some other subjective
reasoning, but rather
the undefinable
"divine plan" that
provides an objective view
that must be understood,
to be seen by the eye
of the beholder.

It's like saying there
is only one type of beauty
in the world, when everything
around you contradicts
that view. If you're
blind to it, then that's
not the fault of the beauty,
which discovers the truth
of its Value in that which
appreciates it, rather than
in rank denial.

True love ways.

To find the proper
perspective, or to discover
that change has made it easier
or harder to see, that's
real wisdom, and no rules
of an economy can contain that.

Economics of War

The thig we really don't like to hear
is that war is sometimes necessary,
that destruction is not always a bad thing.

It sucks because no one (okay, most people)
don't like the idea of getting hurt,
and the natural progression is that anyone
getting hurt is a bad thing, but somehow
that translates to some that even a wrong
to right a wrong can't become a right.

Which is complete hogwash.

Sometimes, no matter how bad it gets,
no matter the cost, the right thing
no matter how wrong it seems
is still the right thing. The whole
world can say it's wrong and it can still
be right. Right and wrong, black and white,
sometimes neither is the right one,
and that's why we have the area we
always talk about but never believe in,
the impossibility of having your
cake and eating it, too, beauty and brains,
a great idea and working reality.

But no, we believe in the first impression,
and we always judge the book by its cover.
Sometimes we say the right things and don't
understand that we don't actually believe them.

The world is full of more complexity than you can understand.

But try doing something about that,
and all you become is fodder for history,
a joke and a dunce, not something that
simply can't be understood, but shouldn't.
Because that just wouldn't be right for the rest of us.

It would be destructive.

And while it seems I'm saying that in all good sarcasm,
I may be, but I also mean it, and I mean
that creation is destruction, and destruction is creation.

You can't end up with anything more than what
you already had, just a greater understanding
of its potential.

Economics of Progress

I think more would be done
to improve ourselves
if it didn't cost more
to do so than it does
to maintain the status quo.

And that's why progress
is slow and steady while
we see destruction much
faster. It's just plain
easier to see, so we assume
that's all that's really
happening.

Economics of Love

Love means
always finding the time
to say I love you
in whatever form it takes.

Economics of Leadership

I’m not saying that leaders
have to be liked or disliked;
they need to be respected.

Sometimes that’s entirely
in their control; actually,
if the system in place
doesn’t make that possible,
then either the system
is wrong or they shouldn’t
be a leader.

A leader is someone worth
looking up to, not someone
it was decided for some
meaningless reason should
be placed in that role. If
they can do the job and can
be respected for doing it,
then the results are secondary,
are not even the point. The
point of a leader is to make
a situation make more sense,
to set some kind of standard
by which the rules can be
applied. Rules first,
leadership second. But if the
leader can’t think outside
of the rules, then they can’t
lead, because to lead, they have
to be respected, and hey,
respect is all about trusting
that they’ll do the right thing,
and the right thing is not
always in the rules.

The leader is someone who
can be trusted to have the best
interests of those below them
in mind, even when those people
don’t understand them. The leader
combines the rules and the needs
of the people together, and that
is what earns them respect.

If a leader only leads by following
rules and wanting to be liked,
then they’re not worthy of respect,
because neither the rules
nor wanting to be liked are
any basis for leadership. A leader
is able to lead, was picked to lead,
because they are capable of
earning respect, and respect is
what leadership is all about.

If there is no respect, there is
no leadership, and the leader
cannot lead. There may be a
problem when respect is
confused with whether this
leader is liked, and maybe that’s
something we really have
to work on, but that is not
something that’s worth
arguing here. It’s not even
something that should be
a problem, maybe something
they have to teach in school,
maybe (the economics of
education are probably
more complicated than those
of leadership), but here, respect
is all, respect is key, respect
is leadership.

I think the present concern
for society is all about that,
about getting past the past,
past the need to hold leaders
in any regard but the need
to respect them, a basic struggle
to get past the old rules
and old prejudices, that
would shatter old pretenses
and the model of ‘rich’ and
‘poor,’ so that ‘rich’ really
meant people were successful
only in figuring themselves out,
knowing what they set out to do
and doing it (which is what our
common understanding of the
‘American Dream’ already says,
though it’s not how we actually
understand it), and ‘poor’ meant
that a person shouldn’t can’t
understand where their life
was headed.

In a perfect world, economics
would allow leadership to be
defined merely by respect,
and success merely in achieving
goals, and not in collecting
meaningless things to get
meaningful things. Leadership
would mean directing matters
to mutual benefit, and not
to maintain rules that ultimately
serve only limited good, that
fluctuates and tell people
they’re not worth what leaders
are, even though most leaders
aren’t worth what their title means.

Success today means actually
getting the chance to do what
you love, which necessarily says
most people can’t, or are pressed
into corners that corrupt passion,
and power means corruption. Leadership
is power, and it is understood best
as a joke, something without
respect. I think that’s the struggle
we face, the unsteady scales on which
we balance. A leader is the person
who can place weights on both sides,
and that is what we best need to be told now.

What is that worth? I think the value
is great, greater than any quality
can measured, and better understood,
if only we’d allow ourselves to see it,
but we are in a struggle, and sometimes
it’s so very hard to see. Sometimes
we prefer to judge, and tip the balance
wherever it’s easiest.

And in that way,
we are truly blind.

So, just listen for the voice,
and hope for a leader.

A Democracy of Economics

I can imagine a world
where people can choose
how things are done,
where rules have not
been set in stone,
but rather can be molded
to best shape the occasion,
where employment is equal
and things can be done
not because they have to be,
but because people want
to do them.

How can so many people
come together to make
a movie or a TV show,
and work so coherently
so consistently, yet
no one else can seem
to grasp that this might
work elsewhere?

How can so many people
talk about free elections
and the pursuit of happiness,
when in practice we govern
ourselves by the most
archaic methods possible,
rule by economics?

If it works in government,
if it works in entertainment,
if it works in sports,
why can't it work in economics?

I imagine a world in which
a democracy of economics
allows everyone to prosper,
to leave no tyrant unchecked,
no slave to no man,
where man can choose
on his own whether he is happy,
not conform to chains around him,
but bask in the efforts that
are his right.

Economics of the New Fade

I’ve found that people struggle
whether they realize it or not
to do the right thing. Change
is always on the wind. If we
know where to look.

Of course, it always starts
at the beginning, with some
new generation considering
things anew, refusing in
their early years to accept
what seems to have become
permanent for their elders,
old rules and old truths,
the theory of relativity
explained not by Einstein
but by rock and roll, which
no youth can embrace without
it being condemned by those
who heard what came before it,
rejected, like a martyr, not
for what it is but for what
it isn’t, the same thing
they always knew.

Rebels always have a cause,
it’s just that, to them, the cause
is not what matters, but the simple
will to live the way that makes
sense to them, not to someone else.
They’re more willing to take, for
granted, for free, what others
invested their lives in, as if
a life is meant to be devoted
to things and not to ideals,
as if ideals and things are
mutually exclusive, held in check
by systems that impose hierarchies
and declare heresies merely
as a matter of course.

I did not climb aboard the bus
because I saw no relevance in it;
I was content to walk along behind it,
no need for speed but all the will
to accept what it stood for, a means
to reject tenets, but to exist
outside the limits of the thoughts
that fueled it. Most people,
though they define and reject
the economics of transportation,
are defined and rejected by their own
thoughts, and they never know it. We
barrel faster along the road
all the time, causing transitions
to flip by without our truly
understanding them, all the words
in the world to describe them
but no dictionary to define them,
too hip to be square.

Modern pirates steal because
they’re ahead of the curve,
and everyone thinks they’re
doing the right thing, and they
are, but they use the wrong words,
because they don’t know what
they mean, only what they think,
lost in a jumble of righteousness,
a new religion without a name
or creed or temple, but coffers
all the same, a need to sustain
terms that are no longer relevant.

We’re learning, but we’re not
there yet, cancelling world debts,
singing the new hymns, believing
what is to be believed, but praising
what we cannot sustain just because
it looks so pretty. Pretty without
substance is the only true
enemy we have, a bully pulpit
like a rebel without a cause,
railing against the wind.

In A Perfect Economy

everyone would feel bad times;
in that way, there might be
incentive to make sure they
don't happen - in other words,

you wouldn't even know it was there;

I somehow refuse to believe that
people with money even know what
it means not to, and that's the
problem with current economics,
the real snowball effect

The Economics of Economics

I never trust an expert in economics.

It's not that I have any particular
interests in directing the shape
of economics, it's just,

I never trust an expert in economics.

People who go along with the general
flow of economics are people who
trust heavily in the concept of economics,
who don't see a problem with a trend
that goes up and down on a regular basis,
as if there's no way to find some balance
in economics. That's why

I never trust an expert in economics.

I guess I just don't understand economics,
why there are people who have everything
they want and there are people who
apparently can't have anything,
why we're to believe it has anything
to do with whatever a person happens
to spend their day doing. Checking
a sheet is not beneficial to economics.
We pay people to entertain us,
for crying out loud, quite a large
amount, dear economics! You may
recall I once proposed to solve
the ails of economics by allowing
anyone in need to put on a mere puppet show,
and get paid for that, oh economics! But
we can't just do that, and that's why

I never trust an expert in economics.

Budgets are for people who believe in
budgets, who need budgets, who didn't
get enough constraint in the womb.
Budgets are for people who can't
imagine a world that has actually
been pretty self-regulating for a
good number of thousands of years,
yet the economics of the environment say
its budget is shot. Well, like I said,

I never trust an expert in economics.

I could go on, but I'm exercising restraint...