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.