Economic behaviors are essentially zoological, evolutionary ones exhibiting the human evolutionary traits of individual/group competition/solidarity as well as specialization into niches. It’s neither natural nor unnatural, but rather performative, neither true nor false.
Economic science is essentially a surviving form of White Racism which falsely universalizes the evolutionary biology of Northwest European Euroids, i.e. European Primates. Economic science thus merely reflects an intellectual infatuation with a particular moment in the economic history of the evolutionary biology of certain parts of the Homo genus.
The purported universality of economic science is premised on the social favorization of the Para-Christian nuclear family. Critiques of the economic phase in economic history known as Capitalism tend to miss the point by applying Marxoid anti-feudal rhetoric whereby Capitalism is essentially criticized as an insidious form of neo-feudalism which of course it is in the sense. However, this misses the essential point that Capitalism would hardly exist as it is without the usually unhappy nuclear family.
The more profoundly ethico-political problem with economic science is rather that it naturalizes abusive behaviors in the name of economic, socially constructed purported “normality”, namely “culture” itself.
2. Psychology of Kleptocracy
Civilization could be defined as the normalization of kleptocracy; namely that its economic, ideologically hegemonic elites establish directly and indirectly coercive power structures in exploiting weaknesses of others, such as the need to make a living.
In democracies this means that realizing business ideas is relatively speaking limited to those with significant access to significant financial resources. In theory of course any citizen can do it but the risk involved for the future of the ordinary person is so significant that the negative economic incentive structures in practice inhibit most others citizens from becoming innovative entrepreneurs. Thus, lack of access to significant amounts of risk capital strongly limits the number of even initial innovative startups to the very minimum, indeed much less than one percent of conceived and viable, innovative business ideas. The same is true of the patent system which in practice is limited to those (i.e. major corporations) capable of paying millions of dollars in lawyers’ fees in response to unethical patent litigation.
In dictatorships the political elites tend to embezzle national resources on a vast scale while typically justifying the regime by at least nominal recourse to ideology and/or religion. Ali Khamenei, the second clerical dictator of Islamist Iran has stolen over 100 billion USD from his fellow citizens, yet surely he must know that sharia requires cutting off a hand of a thief? Of course he is just another cynical hypocrite who uses religion/ideology to engage in mass theft.
3. Telos of Morality
Morality could be described as the justification of unethical behaviors in the name of ethics. Thus immorality is typically the outcome of morality. This has to do with the evolutionary psychology of the Human Herd Animals where immoral acts are essentially needed for survival, self-benefit and/or group solidarity, yet psychologically need to be rationalized. Morality is thus the discursive performance of socially accepted immorality, yet ethics is socially essential despite this inherent paradox. Economic science is just one of many types of such morality that in the name of ethics justifies what in isolation from context would typically be perceived as clearly unethical behaviors. Morality is thus mere discursive justification for evolutionary behavior. Morality functions as a form of social control that is essential for the Human Animals in that the zoology of the Human Herd Animals require social control to inhibit otherwise destructive social behaviors in the interest of group preservation such as a nation state.
What is virtually always missing from most schools of ethics is discursive innovation which after all is what made Jacques Derrida so famous. Utilitarianism (which is the basis for Nazism, Communism and the Animal Industry of Evil) thus advocates what is known as “sacrificing” persons in the interest of what is discursively advocated as “the greater good”.
Morality is typically based on favoring the “good” over the “bad” and is thus similar to aesthetics which favors the beautiful over the non-beautiful. But what is good and what is beautiful? This of course is merely presumed and this typically unquestioned presumption is the discursive basis of morality. This means that the “good” and the “beautiful” are justified by recourse to either normality (i.e. culture) or antinomianism, meaning typically in Western civilization reversing normality upside down and typically so through iconoclastic reverse discourse. One interesting contemporary example of iconoclastic reverse discourse is the doctrine of cultural relativism which simplistically reverses the previous White supremacist notion according to which European culture is structurally “superior” to all other human cultures into the equally bizarre notion that European culture is structurally “inferior” to all other human cultures.
Of course such reasoning is extremely superficial and essentially ridiculous as a properly scientific investigation into the Human zoological phenomenon of morality needs to inquire into the very socially constructed cultural categories of good and bad. Thus is morality from the perspective of evolutionary psychology simply the balancing of competition, solidarity and specialization in the interest of ensuring both individual and group survival.
4. Communitarian Economics
The Para-Christian nuclear family and class-based monopolization of access to risk capital for most human persons most severely limit economic growth in Capitalist economies in that ordinary citizens under normal economic conditions are psychologically strongly discouraged by negative incentive structures in place in therefore avoiding risk to future personal economic security.
However, if the nuclear family is supplanted by more appropriate matrimonial, indeed much larger polygynous familial units by strongly limiting the proportion of male births, then this would change the entire equation currently limiting economic growth in currently preventing the economic realization of nearly all viable, conceived, economic, conceptual and technological ideas. Indeed, larger polygynous familial units are therefore much more capable of taking economic risks. Indeed, an entrepreneur has traditionally tended to be a man who received unpaid domestic labor and psychological support from a wife. Becoming an entrepreneur has traditionally been a much larger step for a single person due to the typically significant risk entailed for the personal life of the entrepreneur, including in many cases losing the relative economic security of permanent employment.
5. Ethical Economics
There is overwhelming scientific documentation and evidence indeed that ethical corporate behavior is very highly economically profitable. It is even overall profitable for companies to act ethically in particular situations where acting ethical as seen in isolation is unprofitable.
One peculiar aspect of modernity is the separation of law and ethics, meaning that laws and interpretations of laws are not necessarily expected to be ethical but rather instead ritual indeed. Capitalism is traditionally premised upon the idea that it is morally acceptable to act unethically as long it is legal. This is a structural dysfunction that is built into not just the economy but the judicial system as well. Thus Capitalism is one long series of serial abuse as justified by legalistic excuses.
Yet unethical economic behavior is also harmful on the level of national economics as self-realization is the basis of economic evolution. Abuse harms and stigmatizes persons and hence inhibits economic growth. Therefore there should be no distinction between law and ethics, including with regard to the economic rules of the game. Also, unethical behaviors harm the motivation of employees. Hence the law should not only be ethical, but ethics should be the law itself. Therefore, corporations should be legally obliged to act optimally ethical. The Nuremburg process made clear that the recourse to legalism argument is ineligible in defense of abuse and so should this apply universally in application of law generally.
6. Economic History
The Marxoid critique of Capitalism essentially assumes that Capitalism is an evolved and ideologically sophisticated form of technologically advanced feudalism posing as a deceptive ideological fiction. Yet this assumption is problematic as Capitalism was in fact never feudal in character. Although the economic structures of Capitalism first emerged among Jewish (and non-Jewish) traders of Western Europe, the emergence of Capitalism as a form of mass slave economy has its roots in the brutal enslavement of African human beings on plantations in the Western hemisphere where cotton was cultivated and subsequently sold back to Europe.
The cotton economy was based on exploiting enslaved Africans for as much labor as possible while simultaneously giving the enslaved Africans as little food as possible. Some enslaved Africans were used for the purpose of daily and sadly most brutally so whipping their fellow African slaves in therefore maximizing profits for plantation owners by forcing them to work as much as possible while at the same time giving them as little food as possible. This idea of exploiting laborers for as little cost as possible thus spread back to England where textile industries were established for turning slave cotton into European clothes. Textile industries are infamous in the history of Capitalism and even today for their cynical exploitation of poor peasants migrating to the cities in search of economic opportunity. Yet textile industries are certainly important in the spread of Capitalism because textile industries typically lead to the emergence and spread of yet other industries and thus typically commences the process of industrialization.
The certainly highly immoral aspects of Capitalism involving highly unethical exploitation thus did not emerge in the historical context of feudalism as English farmers were never enslaved as were peasants in most of continental Europe. Rather, Capitalist exploitation of weak and vulnerable populations were copied and adapted directly from the enslavement cotton economy in the British colonies of the Western hemisphere which in turn was probably inspired by the cruel English rule over Ireland. Capitalist exploitation thus does not directly have its root in feudalism which was a system that provided for limited social security for peasants in the case of famine. If feudal lords did not take care of their serfs, the serfs would die in famine and a feudal lord would essentially lose irreplaceable labor whose demise constituted significant economic loss for feudal lord. Feudalism is thus more similar to the Western welfare state which economically subjugates citizens and burdens them through taxation with a highly economically inefficient public sector. In fact, the Western welfare state in Europe emerged in response to widespread longing for psychologically returning to the economic sense of security in communal destiny in pre-Capitalist feudal Europe. The two main ideologies in European modernity namely nationalism and socialism thus both reflected the nostalgic, yet certainly reactionary longing for psychologically returning to pre-capitalist rural communitarianism with its sense of mutual destiny in shared ancestry. The other famous Capitalist institutions such as the stock exchange did not originate in feudalism but rather emerged in a predominantly Jewish economy of migrant traders in Western Europe in late medieval times.
Feudalism was 1) a decentralized form of government, 2) a form of early welfare state while at the same time being 3) a certain eugenic economy where genetically valuable persons with exceptional achievements were ennobled and given privileged status a feudal lords. Feudalism did not share the much later conception of “pure blood” of Nationalism Socialism, but European royal courts were rather eugenic institutions where the sovereign monarch had sexual access to the married women of the Court meaning that the noble class came to be largely genetically descended from kings. Queens were often not impregnated by kings who typically had no sexual interest in the socially isolated queens who had been “granted them” as political currency in deepening diplomatic relations between different European states. Therefore typically the king did not impregnate the queen but the queen was rather impregnated by other men at the court and the king instead impregnated the married noble women of the court. This was in essence a sophisticated eugenic system which similar to Jewish minorities developed significantly higher intelligence than the rest of the population through eugenic practices as justified by recourse to the pursuit of virtue.
However, the much later attempts to destroy Capitalism in the name of the pursuit of virtue resulted in the creation of incredibly cruel mass slave economies in Communist lands.
7. New Rules of the Game
As Capitalism is increasingly being supplanted by a new form of economy of Talentism where advanced individual talent is rapidly becoming the main resource, the antiquated rules of the game of economy certainly need to be deconstructively reconsidered indeed.
The science of economics is essentially a systematic investigation into relatively high IQ human zoology at a particular stage in the history of technological evolution. Economics is thus the intersection between human zoology and human technology at any particular point in history.
An apparent disadvantage with Capitalism is its irrational volatility such as in stock markets in traders not speculating in real market value but in expectation of psychological distortion of markets. Free markets are however useful indeed when reflecting real values rather than bubbles and irrational expectations. As a comparison is natural gas traded in long-term contracts while oil is traded in a volatile and psychologically irrational international commodity market. The long-term contracts in commodity markets are clearly preferable in not only avoiding unnecessary and irrational volatility in the markets but also in reducing completely and utterly unnecessary economic risks for economic actors.
E.g. European car manufacturers thus have a distinctive disadvantage when planning for export to the United States in that domestic US car manufacturers face far less economic risk in their own domestic market as they don’t need to worry about volatility in the currency market when it comes to selling cars inside the United States.
While having a national currency no doubt has some advantages, a universal currency as combined with strict fiscal responsibility as inscribed in international law is most preferable indeed as balanced national budgets must be strictly required in international law.
Thus should the new economic rules of the game eliminate unnecessary, indeed utterly redundant risks in the markets such as irrational market volatility (whether for financial instruments, commodities or currencies), something which will in turn eliminate the need for independence in monetary policy, in short there will be no need for national currencies and national central banks. This importantly requires that markets are slowed down in providing room for more reasoned and less instantaneous decisions by various actors in the markets. Long-term contracts are certainly a useful model as are decisions that are delayed, such as delaying every sale in stock markets with say 30 days. Also traded shares should be held for at least a year. Those interested in speculation as opposed to serious investment should instead be practically compelled to focus on venture capital investment in innovative startups which is where speculation truly belongs.
Ethics should be the primary rule of the game in the new economy of Talentism as unethical corporate behaviors should all be criminalized indeed. Unethical corporate behavior will thus be associated with the significant risk of prosecution with most painful fines and sentenced public humiliation for those responsible and so will unethical corporate behavior therefore become associated with unnecessary, indeed utterlu redundant and certainly unprofitable economic risk and significantly also very risky loss of corporate public goodwill assets.
Political elites generally use discourse as a means for economic elites to maintain domination in society. This practically functions by describing self-interest in enrichment as virtue much as realism is typically justified by recourse to idealism in diplomacy. Intelligent individuals thus form networks among each other which they use to exercise domination over yet other humans as this is how both Capitalism and liberal democracy function indeed. All human civilizations so far have functioned in precisely this manner as both governance and economy is the very exercise of power through recourse to discourse by the relatively more intelligent over the relatively less intelligent.
While this is clearly human zoological behavior, it certainly needs to be questioned to what degree this domination by the intelligent over the less intelligent is necessary. Indeed the utility and purpose of particular hierarchies should be questioned as organizations indeed should be supplanted by social technologies that will make sure that each and every participant does what s/he is individually good at performing by thus providing for a high degree of specialization in talent. Virtual organizations should thus be about ensuring individual and collective self-realization. This is typically prevented by only allowing self-realization for the most intelligent and subjugating everyone else to the incompetent tyranny of the intelligent when in fact self-realization for as many as possible will ensure tremendous economic growth in the era of Talentism. If becoming an innovator and an entrepreneur is thus considered a normal thing for everyone to do during at least some stage in life, then clearly an era of unprecedented growth and prosperity will commence indeed.
The relatively more intelligent typically consider themselves more virtuous than the relatively less intelligent, yet intelligence without creativity is actually of quite of limited utility as is indeed intelligence without good judgment. In fact, it is common among highly intelligent men (and especially among genetically Ashkenazi men with typically very high verbal intelligence) to confuse their high intelligence with good judgment and creativity respectively and they do so precisely due to excessive production of testosterone that causes distorted self-confidence.
Thus undue hierarchy is a vast problem in modernity that prevents individual and collective self-realization while preventing economic growth of accelerated economic specialization through daring innovation & entrepreneurship. Hierarchy is therefore not bad in and of itself but undue hierarchy is certainly most redundant and unhelpful indeed. While the idea of the rule of stupid is surely somewhat terrifying, what is rather needed is appreciation for the individual strengths of every person as well as respect for weaknesses of every person.
It is the job of governments to in every way facilitate for human individuals to achieve self-realization while helping compensate for the individual weaknesses inherent in every human individual. However, if almost every human person irrespective of chronological age who is capable of working gainfully is doing precisely that, then functionally compensating for individual weaknesses becomes much more affordable for tax payers. Also the public sector is ridiculously ineffective and its costs must be cut by over 90% while increasing quality in services and adding many more new important services.