NEO-CLASSICAL ECONOMICS BREACHES HUMAN RIGHTS

blackstoneI am constantly overwhelmed by the depth of knowledge displayed by scholars and individuals in the sciences and humanities. From where came their essential inspiration, incessant determination and constant application to succeed so obviously in their field?

Whilst myriad discoveries from these people tend to progress modern society, the countervailing forces have become all too obvious.

I’ve read many erudite papers in economics and constantly felt let down. I do admit to becoming bewildered and lost in some of the mathematics, but then I’m able to get a pretty good sense of what a paper is trying to get across to me, and come away feeling underwhelmed, even cheated, from virtually everything I read in economics.

It is not an exaggeration to say much economics is bunkum, and even the maths is unable to serve and save it. (It often seems to compound the problem!)

Economics is the most overarching study of all.  People and the world constitute economics, but the study of economics has led us into a dead end.

Neoclassical economics currently acts as a deadweight that holds society and human aspirations back as it hijacks the rewards from work, knowledge and innovation, donating these to speculative rent-seeking parasites.

My 2007 report Unlocking the Riches of Oz: A case study of the social and economic costs of real estate bubbles 1972 to 2006 for the Land Values Research Group (on behalf of Prosper Australia), demonstrated in easily understood maths how we could double GDP and see to its better distribution in short order by tweaking our revenue system. Why is the study of economics not up for this?

The relatively few heterodox economists and other disciplines must call modern economics to order and to an intellectual rigour which accounts for economic rent.

We first need to understand the difference between public and private property–because economics currently breaches human rights–and the great lawyer William Blackstone (1723-1780) is a good starting point here:

The earth, therefore, and all things therein, are the general property of all mankind, from the immediate gift of the creator.

…there is no foundation in nature or in natural law why a set of words upon parchment should convey the dominion of land.

– “Commentaries on the Laws of England” (1766)