vitlogo

“ECONOMICS HAS NEVER BEEN A SCIENCE – AND IT IS EVEN LESS NOW THAN IT WAS A FEW YEARS BACK.”

That’s quoting Paul Samuelson, the famed Nobel Prize winning economist and the author of the all-time (yes, of the all-time) best-selling economics text-book.

"NOT EVEN THE DISMAL SCIENCE "

Never a science. Not even the DISMAL SCIENCE of the DISMAL SCIENCE epithet given to it by Thomas Carlyle way back in the nineteenth century.

ANYWAY, IT DOESN'T MATTER

Anyway, it really, really doesn’t matter whether economics is a science or a pseudo science, whether economics is the pinnacle of wisdom or institutionalised idiocy or whether economics is the home of prophets and sages or the last refuge of mountebanks, charlatans, snake oil merchants and the like.

It really, really doesn't matter.

LET IT BE

Let economics be whatever some folks want it to be. Let it be because, at last, at last there’s a new show in town:

THE REPLACEMENT OF ECONOMICS SHOW!

Read on.

vitanomics cover

RADICALLY YOURS & WELCOME

Welcome to the vitanomics pages. Just a few pages intended to ease you into the vitanomics perspective — that’s the replacement of the economics perspective — on what’s referred to as the economy plus its vitanomics additions.

Vitanomics is the new, the from the ground up, the legacy less — that's the economics less — the logical (yes, the logical), and the scientific (yes, the scientific) explanation of what's known as the economy plus its vitanomics additions.

As an economics less explanation of the economy, vitanomics is, at least, as radically different from economics as chemistry is radically different from alchemy. That's emphasised.

And, re-emphasised by the fact that vitanomics is replacing (squashing, voiding, annulling) economics by the same means by which chemistry replaced (squashed, voided, annulled) alchemy: by the power of logic.

The power of logic that emanates from the shift in the perception of the economy as the economy being all about the provision and consumption and/ or use of goods and services (and/ or money to buy them) of economics to the new vitanomics perception of the economy as the economy being all about our survival in a specific or best possible manner.

The provision and consumption and or use of goods and services (and/ or money to buy them) are also part of the vitanomics perception of what's referred to as the economy, but as the means (note, as the means) by which we survive in a specific or best possible manner.

That is, in vitanomics the provision, the consumption and or the use of goods (and so forth) are perceived as the economy’s (the subject's) intermediate rather than the economy’s (the subject's) final objective.

It’s the aforesaid shift, the shift in the perception of the economy’s objective — from the economy’s intermediate to the economy’s final objective — that’s the “what” that makes the vitanomics perception and exposition of the economy subject correctly focused and logically complete. On the other hand, it's the perception of the economy's intermediate objective as the economy's final objective that makes the economics perception and exposition of the same (economy) subject incorrectly focused and logically incomplete: a headless beast.

If, as expected, you thought that the final objective is implied in the economics perception of the economy, you inadvertently adopted the vitanomics perspective of (the economy) subject. That’s because if you equate an economy with survival, then any organism that survives has an economy. Not in economics. Anyway, stay with your newly acquired vitanomics (and, may I add, reality) perspective of the subject and read on.

Read on because the vitanomics exposition of the economy (subject) is as "the ways and the means" by which we survive. — that’s because the vitanomics exposition of the economy is as "the what we do to survive in a specific or best possible manner" — that what's perceived as economy cannot be a phenomenon in vitanomics as it is in economics, and neither can its market component be that (a phenomenon) with its in turn “the invisible hand”, “the market forces” and “the market knows best” and etceteras phenomena.

There cannot be phenomena in vitanomics because it is us individuals of the human species that do our survival — the economy — individually and in conjunction with others.

For example, the “market knows best” phenomenon of economics would have to pass in vitanomics the “5 w + h” reality test. That’s, which market, where is the market, when does it know best, why does it know best, what does it know best, how does it know best, and who in the market knows best.

The last “w”, of course, because markets are places and places cannot know best or know anything at all. It’s only individuals who do markets, individuals that populate markets who can know something.

And, consequently, it can be only the aforesaid individuals who populate markets that can be "the mysterious market forces who know best” of economics and "the not at all mysterious market forces" of vitanomics.

As to invisible hands in markets, they do exist, they are better known as thieving (shoplifting, pilfering and etceteras) hands.

Unlike in economics, markets are real in vitanomics. They are any place where individuals exchange inappropriate goods for appropriate goods (inclusive of money). And, they (markets) are populated by all kinds of individuals: rational and irrational, stupid and clever, honest and dishonest, scrupulous and unscrupulous, tricksters, frauds, cheats and cheated and so on. Some trying to maximise their profit and succeeding, others failing, still others trying to minimise their loses and succeeding, others failing, and still others getting a fair deal and others a rotten one, some getting something for nothing and others getting nothing for something and all the etceteras that make up the hurly burly of (some) markets.

Yes, vitanomics is reality based. That's unlike economics which is based on imaginary models of economies and markets (imaginary mental toys) that economists thinker (play) with. It’s that mental (imaginary toy) market of economics that supposedly “knows best”.

By all means, give a reality check to anything you read in vitanomics. That’s because vitanomics is or should be a reflection of the reality of your and anybody else’s survival (the economy stuff) and the other way around – that’s the said reality is or should be a reflection of vitanomics.

Vitanomics, though, is not only about the body side of our survival but also about the mind side. That’s the moral and the intellectual sides of our continuing existence and their animated expression (behaviour). Simply, because a mind and a body are symbiotic. One cannot exist without the other.

Hence, don’t be surprised when you find out that vitanomics is also inclusive of the ultimate exposition of the origin and logic of moralities and immoralities and their expression as moral (good) and immoral (bad) behaviour.

Moreover, because any survival is achieved through behaviour, vitanomics also expounds the origin and logic (if, not illogic) of all our behaviour and also the origin and logic of that thing that precedes it.

The mind dimension of our survival is, of course, the stuff of politics, ideologies, moralities, ethics, religions, philosophies and similar. But, I do emphasise, that notwithstanding the fact that our survival, and consequently vitanomics, has a mind (moral and the consequent etceteras) dimension, vitanomics is as ideologically neutral as chemistry is (note, as ideologically neutral as chemistry is).

You can read the book’s first chapter, that’s the clearing the decks chapter here and the comments that precede each chapter here.

And, the abbreviated articles bellow are intended to give you a feel of the difference between vitanomics and any kind of whatever economics.

Go on. Do it. Assert your intelligence. Update. Don’t fossilize. Vitanomicize and thrive. And, enjoy the revolution (or evolution, if that’s your preference) by logic.

A. N. G. r.


ARTICLES

Money and That Quantity Question

The correct static value of any amount of money in a (social) vitanomy (economy) of (state wide extent) is exactly half of the value of the needs (goods) that it’s used to or will be used to exchange them. Impossible?

Not at all impossible. On the contrary, very possible. Actually it's as easy-peasy as it gets. Granted, the correct ratio of money to goods was (and still is to economists) the centuries old insoluble conundrum that defeated the best minds that humankind could offer. That's up — to the nascence of vitanomics, of course.

All who tried to solve the conundrum (of the correct ratio of money to goods) failed. They failed simply because they lacked the vitanomics perspective on the matter (subject).

Once the vitanomics perspective is taken into account, the solution to the aforesaid conundrum (the ratio of money to goods) is made all too obvious in vitanomics by the indirect exchange sequence. Which, the indirect exchange sequence, if you are not familiar with vitanomics, is the sequence of two consecutive exchanges involving the same amount of money. That's the selling and buying sequence of two exchanges treated as one indirect exchange of goods.

Do your own surmising.

And, now that I made a genius out of you (ha,ha,ha) get the book and revolutionise further your understanding of money and much more. The fifth chapter is your (money) chapter. Enjoy.

Capitalism, Socialism and Communism – Bedfellows?

In essence and non-exclusive situations "communism, socialism and capitalism " are the three complementary systems by which individuals integrate, and are integrated by, other individuals into "the economy " (social vitanomy, in vitanomics). Joking?

Not joking. Not at all. The three systems of economic and political integration (social vitanomic integration, in vitanomics) are taken as being in essence complimentary. "In essence" being the keyword in the aforesaid because the archaic terms of "capitalism, socialism and communism" have different meanings to different individuals. And, because of that, they are not used in vitanomics other than as approximations of the ways (methods, systems) by which individuals are integrated in social vitanomies (economies, of old).

Hence the "in essence" tag.

Essentially, in vitanomics, the "communistic" system by which individuals integrate or are integrated into a social vitanomy is the approximate equivalent of the vitanomics non-market system of vitanomic integration of individuals into social vitanomies (economies). The "socialistic" system of integration of economics is, in vitanomics, the semi-market or semi-non-market system of integration of individuals into social vitanomies (economies). And, lastly, the "capitalistic" system of integration is the approximate equivalent of the vitanomics market system of integration of individuals into social vitanomies (economies).

The vitanomics classification of integration systems, it should be noted, depends -- is based -- on the three types of exchange that individuals use to integrate into social vitanomies of various extents. All three types of exchanges are in everyday usage in "capitalistic" social vitanomies (economies, archaically) of a state-wide extent.

In essence, individuals within the confines of their family integrate as "communists" and when they pay their taxes to the state they integrate as "socialists" and when they exchange their monies in markets for goods or vice versa they they integrate (in essence) as "capitalists".

Hence there's no contradiction in the statement that an individual can be, at the same time a rabid communist and a rabid capitalist, and a rabid pro and anti socialist. That's within and outside the individual's own family's "communistic" social vitanomy.

Find out more about the three types of exchanges that individuals use to integrate into, and also create, bilateral social vitanomies (economies, civilizations). You'll do that (find out more), firstly, in the second chapter and thereafter in the sixth. In the later, you'll be introduced also to the creation of unilaterally bad and unilaterally good social vitanomies (economies).

What Causes Inflations?

Each time I'm asked the title’s question, I feel somewhat irritated and astonished. Not because of the evident economics peculiarity of the question, inflation is an economics term, but by the realisation that there are still folks out there who don’t know the obvious ... The obvious?

... the obvious being that there's never a what (note, never a what) that causes inflations but always a who (note, always a who) that does it.

That's simply because it's individuals that do an economy (social vitanomy, in vitanomics). And consequently, inflations (and deflations) are but an intended or an unintended by-product of doing the economy (social vitanomy, in vitanomics).

If you don't believe that it's individuals that rise (and lower) prices, then when next time you go shopping ask the shopkeeper who rises (or lowers) prices in his or her store. Even if the shopkeeper happens to be an economist, he or she will answer you, in disbelief, after a brief pause in which he/she is going to assess you as mentally retarded for asking that question, that it was him/her or the shop's staff that rise or lower prices in his or her store.

And, now, whether satisfied or otherwise with the aforesaid answer, proceed to the fifth chapter — the money chapter — for the ultimate, for the definitive, for the logical, for the vitanomic exposition of inflation (generic devaluation of money, in vitanomics). Click here to get...

AND, INCIDENTALLY

“A NEW IDEA is first condemned as ridiculous and then dismissed as trivial, until finally, it becomes what everybody knows.”

William James, American philosopher.

Introducing: The Book's Back Cover.

vitanomics backcover

BE MINDFUL THAT:

“The difficulty is not so much in developing NEW ideas as escaping from OLD ones.”

John M. Keynes, English economist.


“ECONOMICS HAS NEVER BEEN A SCIENCE – AND IT IS EVEN LESS NOW THAN IT WAS A FEW YEARS BACK.”

That’s quoting Paul Samuelson, the famed Nobel Prize winning economist and the author of the all-time (yes, of the all-time) best-selling economics text-book.

"NOT EVEN THE DISMAL SCIENCE"

Never a science. Not even the DISMAL SCIENCE of the DISMAL SCIENCE epithet given to it by Thomas Carlyle way back in the 19th century.

"MERELY A COLLECTION OF SPECULATIVE APPROACHES"

Never a science, merely “a collection of diverging speculative approaches to the same subject”. Again, quoting Paul Samuelson. Who by the quote concurred with the widely held perception that there are as many varieties of economics as there are economists.

"ECONOMICS AS UTTER HOGWASH "

The said perception of economics as "a collection of diverging speculative approaches to the same subject" that’s further amplified by the cacophony of (often violently) quarreling economists deriding each other’s "economics as utter hogwash ".

"INSTITUTIONALISED IDIOCY"

Bad and worse. Leading to the inevitable common summation that economics is nothing more than "institutionalized idiocy" preached by snake oil merchants, charlatans and kindred. A crafty lot smirking and "laughing all the way to their banks" after selling their economics codswallop to otherwise intelligent people.

"SLAVES OF SOME DEFUNCT ECONOMIST"

Oddly enough, the contempt for economists, their economics and for people influenced by them is still best expressed by the quote from the most illustrious and the most widely referenced economist of the last century: John Maynard Keynes. Who way back in 1936 wrote:

“Practical (political) men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influences, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist. Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air, are distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a few years back.”

PROPHETIC? OR JUST HISTORY REPEATING ITSELF?

The rhetorical question of “history repeating itself” because it was after the 2008 financial crisis or “great recession” (the successor to "the great depression " of the nineteen thirties) that the “ECONOMICS WAS NEVER A SCIENCE” comment was made by Paul Samuelson.

ANYWAY, IT DOESN'T MATTER

Anyway, it really, really doesn’t matter whether economics is a science or a pseudo science, whether economics is the pinnacle of wisdom or institutionalised idiocy, whether economics is the home of prophets and sages or whether economics is the last refuge of mountebanks, charlatans, snake oil merchants and the like.

It really, really doesn't matter.

Let it be. Let economics be whatever some folks want it to be. Let it be because, at last, at last there’s a new show in town:

THE REVOLUTIONARY REPLACEMENT OF ECONOMICS SHOW!

THE REPLACING OF ECONOMICS BY THE POWER OF LOGIC SHOW!

THE REVOLUTION BY LOGIC SHOW!


Read on. That's read the main column, if you didn't read it yet. Otherwise, bellow, you can read some commonsense comments quotes on the new vitanomy (ex-economy) subject.

And then, further on, you can also entertain yourself by reading some famed blabs on economics by some famed blabbing economists.


SOME COMMONSENSE COMMENTS AND QUOTES:

THERE'S LIGHT AT THE END OF...

"There's light at the end of the dark (darkened by dimwits) tunnel of economics: It's called vitanomics."

NEVER, JUST ANOTHER ECONOMICS EXPOSITION OF THE ECONOMY

"Never just another exposition of the economy. Vitanomics has nothing to do with economics. Nothing at all. Both share the same subject, but never the explanation of the same. "

THE ONE AND THE ONLY SCIENTIFIC...

"The one and the only scientific explanation of the origin and logic of moralities and immoralities, good and evil, right and wrong and more. All of that in shortish chapter. An intellectual treasure trove."

THE ULTIMATE ON MARKETS, MONEY AND MORALITY

The ultimate and, I bet you, the only scientific explanation of the big three "M": Money, Markets, and Morality".



FAMED ECONOMISTS BLABBING ECONOMICS


"THE ONLY FUNCTION OF ECONOMIC FORECASTING" BLAB:

"The only function of economic forecasting is to make astrology look respectable."

John Kenneth Galbraith, famed economist

"THE USE OF MATHEMATICS HAS BROUGHT RIGOR TO ECONOMICS" BLAB:

"The use of mathematics has brought rigor to economics, unfortunately it has brought also mortis."

Robert Heilbroner, famed economist

"THE EXISTING ECONOMICS IS A THEORETICAL SYSTEM FLOATING IN THE AIR" BLAB:

"Existing economics is a theoretical system floating in the air and which bears little relation to what's happening in the real world."

Ronald Coase, famed economist

FRANKLY, IT’S EVOLVE, REVOLT OR FOSSILIZE.

If you want to fossilize – stick with economics or whatever that’s a fossil or fossilizing. If otherwise — buy the book — and then read yourself into the revolution.

THE VITANOMICS REVOLUTION

(or evolution, if that’s your preference).

REVOLUTIONARY BY LOGIC. THAT'S VITANOMICS. THAT CAN BE YOU.


Copyright © 2016-2018 vitanomics.com & a.gasparini