A short essay about the economyWatch
1. Kids who are working for other kids = employees
2. Kids for who other kids are working for = employers
3. The actions all the kids do for one another = trade
4. The current rules trying to specify what is allowed and what is not = law
The actions kids do for one another, when they have fun together are generally “I do this for you, you do that for me”, and specifically what this and that is for each occasion.
When they have fun separately generally “either me or you don’t do their part”, and specifically you or me find this out for the specific occasion, at the specific point in time.
For the employees , the above are enough.
For the employers, they are trying to find ways so that “I do this for you, you do that for me” needs less time and effort spend to trade.
This is the purpose of the economy in a society, to reduce the time and effort spend to trade.
This reduction goes on up to a minimum point for the time and effort needed to trade, beyond which things start becoming not fun in society, and kids then need more time and effort spend to trade, because kids don’t do “I do this for you, you do that for me”, they are doing something else.
As fun in society affects where the economy balances, the particular behaviors kids have, affect the economy as well, regardless of the scale of the economy we consider. This can be verified from small teams, to the entire planet, and throughout human history.
Kids have many varied behaviors, so we will name kids the jokers.
Regardless of whether the jokers are employers or employees, they can be happy kids, kids who have fun in their lives, or sad kids, kids who are not having fun in their lives.
Whether kids are having fun or not is judged by other kids, according to what is fun for them.
So we have funny jokers, and sad jokers.
Funny jokers, in the end just want to have fun, so when the fun they have covers their needs, they don’t need to go further.
Sad jokers spend time and effort to trade, but they are not having fun. Because others spend time and effort to trade, plus have fun, sad jokes need to become good at something else in order to compete.
So they spend their time and effort on something else, on which they become efficient. Because they become efficient at something else other than reducing the time and effort spend to trade, they can either not affect the economy, but then they wouldn’t be part of the economy, or increase the time and effort spend to trade in the economy. This happens in accordance to their position in society, and the bigger they grow, the more time and effort needs to be spend to trade, up to the point where the economy goes in a cycle, and returns back to reality.
Because of this, what is no one’s problem in society, becomes everyone’s problem in society. Why? Because some jokers are sad and this is funny. Why? Because others aren’t and they are useful to society.
Law is trying to specify what is allowed and what is not, however kids judge other kids on whether they are having fun, according to what is fun for them.
Law is reducing the time and effort spend to trade, when kids judging other kids on whether they are having fun is not restricted, or when law is common sense for kids, and increasing the time and effort spend to trade, when kids judging other kids on whether they are having fun is restricted.
Because it is the nature of kids to judge other kids on whether they are having fun, isn’t it?
However the parallels with intrinsic human nature have to be used carefully, as that kind of thing is used to justify rampant unregulated capitalism in its part of the cycle, and the existence of an economic underclass. The cyclic movement is such a satisfyingly cynical thing to think about, but there are so many forces and unidirectional trends that stop it manifesting cleanly in every real life situation.
These seems to me to be the possibilities of the economy from the perspective of all of the participants.
But the actions the participants have, together with the rules (because rules don't always apply the same to all parts of society in reality), can affect the economy, which for the average person that it serves, can simply be judged as fun or not fun.
How can one use in reality an economy which is fun versus one which is not fun?
If the economy is fun for the average person who it serves, then the average person doesn't have any reason to break the rules, if the rules are common sense for the era the person lives. Because humans, if they could in reality, would only be having fun, which brings us to.
If the economy isn't fun for the average person who it serves, then the average person has a reason to at least try to get creative, in order to have fun, but that doesn't mean it will be fun for the other people in the economy on the long run.
If it is fun for the other people on the long run, then this person seems to me useful to the economy.
If it isn't fun on the long run, then either it could be fun on the short run, or it simply wasn't fun.
If it was fun on the short run, it is fun, but since it can't be fun on the long run, more time and effort is needed to sustain the creative solution. But people usually like to spend less time and effort to have fun, this is common sense for most people (it doesn't mean it is realizable for all cases though). Still it was fun.
If it wasn't fun, then either something went wrong, and everyone lost (humans aren't that special, so that happens throughout human history), or someone was simply playing the rules against society( otherwise what that someone was doing would be fun for the rest people, thus within common sense rules).