Better Economy, Better Environment! Environmental Protection needs Growing Capitalism!

Brazilian space agency reported the 3,069k㎡ Amazon deforestation in the first half of this year. Not only environmentalist activists but also major firms of international finance are furious at this immense lose. This immense deforestation was caused by the rise of various illegal economic activities due to this year's severe economic downturn. These criminals extract their resources for illegal trades from those places where economic regulations discussed through the discussion of politicians, financial brokers, and various private industries.

The economic regulations are established by means of the equilibrium point of the short term gains and the long term sustainability which majority capitalist politicians and private agents agree with. Nowadays, many of these politicians and private agents are aware of the external costs of their economic activities, and they cannot live without a social tie with the local community. As Aristotle said "Human-beings are naturally social: The one who is not social at all is either a beast or God". None can live without a mutual agreement with the others living in the community.

What those who are from these major international funds are disappointed with the current situation is that they have lost their massive financial benefit from that deforestation. These forestry resource as the commodity which requires to be managed carefully so the price of these commodities are priced carefully enough to mitigate the future loss of our living environment sustainability. In addition, people in the world are now aware of environmental carefulness of private firms extracting this resource so that the excess extraction of resource induces the substantial loss in the stock value, which those funds investing to these private firms incurs an immense financial loss.

Furthermore, this matter is also related to the emission tax trade. The current capitalist economy encourages the emission trade between countries and regions in order to balance the ecological footprints in the world environment. This taxation system attempts to restrict wasting environmental resources by not slowing down the economic development. The current illegal businesses causing the massive deforestation disturb the calculus of balancing the permission for extraction and the prohibition of forestry. The emission tax trade scheme is prepared for rewarding those who are ethically performing the extraction and looking after the sustainability at the same time.

It is permitted to extract a huge amount as long as they are obliged to pay for an equivalent immense tax compensating the loss. However, this obliged tax payment is ignored by these illegal businesses. It is about not only losing the tax revenue but also it derivatively means to penalise those who are ethically performing well. The reward for their ethical performance is relatively devalued against those who unfairly gain the resource by paying no penalty for it. This is why capitalist politicians, fund managers, and private manufacturing firms are furious at these criminals.

At the same time, these criminal have some reason d'etre to operate this illegal business. The root of all evil comes from the current economic downturn caused by COVID-19 pandemic. Because some firms have lost their business due to the temporarily but significant aggregate demand downturn, those who have technologies and labour resources start shifting from legal market to illegal or unethical (or often both) market which demand these production quality. This is why the aggregate demand management is crucial for not only supporting businesses but also preventing the aggregate supply materials switching from the ethical legal market to the unethical illegal counterpart.


On the other hand, the economic growth is important not only for the resource management purpose but also the environmentally friendly technology development. The lack of the aggregate demand decreases the revenue covering the cost for the innovation. When the aggregate demand level is enough, the disposable income is fulfilled enough to spend something a little bit more costly than the regular products so there is an enough opportunity for innovative products to be consumed. By contrast, when the aggregate demand is depreciated, consumers become reluctant to spend something authentic or innovative products whose price is higher than the other even though the price difference is a little bit.

For example, the plastic waste problem is highly emphasised in the global level so that the invention of the substitutes is highly urged. The severe ecological problem of plastic is that plastic is not biodegradable when it is disposed. When plastic is landfilled or sinks into the sea, it remains without being naturally rotten to cease. This is why there is a movement of banning or at least restricting the single use of plastic for disposable products.

Then, paper for various many substitute products is adopted because of paper's biodegradability as well as its processability. Nevertheless, the processability of plastic surpasses paper so that the disposable items made of plastic such as plastic straws used for drinking beverage is still cheaper and more comfortable to use than paper counterparts such as paper straws.

There is a paper product but yet it is difficult to be recognised as being made of paper. This kind of product is based on chemically processing papers. For example, there is a material which was used even before plastic was initially introduced in the world, and this material is manufactured by laminating papers dipped into chemical liquid to solidify its hardness and durability. This example material represents as one of substitute materials of plastic after its various usages were replaced by plastic. This movement is a typical example of "visiting old、learn new".

The fundamental issue of this alternative product made of chemically processed papers is that its unit marginal cost is significantly higher than plastic even with some public subsidies provided for this manufacturing process. This product is critically time consuming for its lamination process in the chemical liquid. Furthermore, the processability of this product is critically lower than plastic despite its higher hardiness than plastic. The sales of this processed material has been relatively higher during economically stable period meanwhile the sales substantially dropped after the business cycle falls into the current downturn due to COVID-19 pandemic.

All in all, sales of the environmentally friendly items is pro-cyclical to the (legal) business cycle and counter-cyclical to the illegal (Which is often unethical) market business cycle . Unlike many anti-capitalist socialist environmental activists rant, capitalism has evolved to take an external factors of economic activities such as emission of pollution and environmental impacts as seen in the aforementioned stories. This is why the aggregate demand stimulus and its management are non-negligible, and environmental protection requires a constant economic growth.

The Greatest Sum of Pleasures with the Lowest Sum of Pains shall be the Principle of Moral and Legislation!

I always wonder why there are some bunch still interested in boring traditional stuff such as Opera and Poetry, and some government subsidy it. I am rather able to understand those who enthusiastically observe their supporting football team matches with their expense. I am interested in neither side meanwhile I would rather like to support latter and abolish subsidy for the former because it offers interests and pleasures for the majority and produces a higher aggregate revenue if I had to chose either of these two sides.

Our function of body and sense generating pleasures and pains is provided by our creator (You may call God). By contrast, morals, policies, and activities whose policy does not explicitly show the trade off between the calculus based on pleasures vs pains should be heavily criticised with an enormous scepticism, and we should possibly avoid or even counter-act against to abolish.

The example which we should be highly sceptical and try to abolish is monarchism and tribunal traditionalism. The political and moral theories of these two usually ignore the aforementioned calculus of pleasures and pains. They enforces individuals to follow their orders and customs merely because they are long-lived tradition people have looked up and monarchy or tribunal chief are the symbol of stability and longevity of civilisation. It is simply a subjective interpretation of the status-quo which indoctrinates the rest majority individuals with superstition.

There used to be a time when the existence of monarchy was in a high demand. At this time, the community network of the majority individuals was so primitive that it was restricted by obstacle of natural landscapes and communication barriers mainly of language. Then, conflicts between various feudal tribes were common, and people sought a powerful charismatic figure binding people together. Under a threat of frequent conflict, there needed to be someone who has an ultimate power of final decision making processes when the outcome of their discussion was unstable without some enforcement unit stabilising it.

Then, as shown in the algebra, initially introduced by Jeremy Bentham's Fragment on Government, individuals used to demand the strength of monarchy stabilising their living environment while sacrificing utility (pleasures minus pain) drained by monarchy monopolising their resources in their living environment.



On the other hand, thanks to the development of international trades and information technology, the strength which monarchy provides with individuals is insignificant for maximising the sun of the utility any more. The global trade based on the free market equilibrium has enabled individuals to mutually agree with each other through the spontaneously derived market equilibrium force without any physical single authority enforcing the decision making process. The information technology development has enabled citizens to rationally accept and understand pluralistic norms and values of various unique individuals living in various different regions and cultures, and to even start to share new norms and values in a shared cybernetwork.

The aristocrats nowadays mean corporate elites and government bureaucrats. The form of this modern aristocracy is now interpreted as meritocracy. There tends to be a gap between those who are able to obtain talents and skills highly demanded for sustaining modern technologies and trade affairs and those who are in the shortage of them. As long as this gap exist, individuals hardly forfeit the utility derived from modern aristocrats' wisdom even though majority individuals have to accept the economic and social inequality caused by this distribution which these modern aristocrats own a higher share of control-ability.

F-14 Tomcat ( US Navy ), Night Scramble! by coloured pencils

F-14 Tomcat ( US Navy ), Night Scramble! by coloured pencils


F-14 is definitely the legendary air-fighter which was designed to shot down enemy airplanes and ballistic missiles from the evil socialist empire!!

F-14 Tomcat is my most memorable one! Not only its specification but also its ultra innovative design with beautiful line are really attractive despite its massive cost for purchase, fuelling, and maintenance.

Mana K by Coloured Pencils 20200510

How free can individuals be in liberalism under a rational expectation

The editor claims for liberating individuals and the motto of his project is spreading liberalism (In the U.S.A., it is referred as Libertarian or Classical-Liberalism). By contrast, there is another task to consider after liberating individuals to live in a liberalised world. The task is considering what kind of freedom individuals achieve in their aspiring liberalism.

It is also important to note that liberation means to free someone whereas its meaning contains a far more comprehensive concept than mere freedom. Generally speaking, freedom is considered to be the unconditional freedom and limited to a certain individual and a group meanwhile liberty promotes a conditional and comprehensive freedom for individuals and their living world. All the other political philosophies claim for unconditionally expanding their own freedom for their own interest and ego for a limited numbers of individuals belonging to their interest group. On the other hand, liberalism regards highly of expanding the comprehensive freedom sustainable in the long term for all individuals and their living environment by occasionally restricting some form of the short term freedom.

In another word, individuals are not allowed to be unconditionally free in liberalism, and the guiding principle of how freedom is distributed among individuals can be more complicated and restrictive than the other political philosophies. Liberalism attempts to maximise the aggregate freedom by reforming the flow of available freedoms among individuals. Then, as it is so complicated that there are different perspectives on how to achieve liberalism, and it has been debated among unique political philosophers to determine what form of liberalism should be and how individuals should sustain their aspiring liberalism in their living environment.

The firstly introduced concept is the liberalism guided by a philosophical guiding principle promoting as well as controlling the liberty among individuals. In this concept, individuals pursue liberalism as their political ideal where individuals voluntarily act to fulfil their freedom within the condition whilst allowing the others' freedom within the condition and establishing the long term sustainable liberty for all. Individuals are endowed with the right to be free meanwhile they have to fulfil the duty to obtain their right, and there is no authority cohesively enforcing them to do so that they are encouraged to voluntarily trade off between their right and duty. The duty includes the following two things. The one is the virtue where individuals work at something they are excel at to contribute for the others and their environment. The other is the moral and legal guide line which individuals are discouraged from deviating from in order to sustain the balance of their permitted freedom for each individual and their aggregate long term freedom for all individuals. This is considered as the idealistic liberalism because this is the ideal situation where individuals voluntarily pursue themselves for accomplishing their ideal.

The next introduced concept is the liberalism guided by more realistic needs and wants which are notably biological and psychological. Instead of aspiring for an ideal (the comprehensive philosophical and political meaning of freedom), this focuses on the matters concerning with biological survival competition and psychological interference among individuals. Individuals freely trade off their pleasures and pains directly related to their biological and psychological sensation instead of abstract concepts like right and duty. Their limitation of freedom is determined spontaneously at the equilibrium point where each parties of individuals agree on the spot. Furthermore, when it comes to the matter of fulfilling the interest of an institutional group of individuals, then it considers this institution as a big organic body of one individual where the individuals living within it are supposed to act as though they were biological cells and cogwheels of this institutional body. Within it, individuals may have to occasionally sacrifice their freedom in order to increase the freedom for their living institute. There are ongoing conflict between different institutes, between an institute and individuals living in it, and between individuals themselves. Instead of their shared principle, the power balance determines the stable outcome of the distribution of freedom. Therefore, there may need an authority powerful enough to accomplish it although this authority must be rational enough to promote the equitable fair trade among these conflicting parties.

These two concepts seem to be conflicting theories not philosophically agreeing with each other. The first idealistic concept seems to be the closest to the world succeeding in establishing liberalism although it is still unrealistic to expect all individuals living in this world to share one universal ethical principle. It may conversely require a moral entrepreneur autocracy to cohesively teach all individuals to implant this principle into them before enabling all individuals to voluntarily act themselves if requiring to establish in the relatively short term. In order to establish this idealistic concept, it will require time, effort, and perseverance of promoters of liberalism to gradually enable all individuals to be enlightened with the ideal. The second realistic concept may be far more effective to instantly establish the liberalism than the previously introduced idealistic one because the stimulus of inducing individuals are visible and immediately control-able variables. The problem of this realistic concept is that it induces to the state where liberalism gradually declines in the relatively longer term after the physically stronger individuals and institute survive to monopolise the power of the trade. All in all, both the former concept and the latter concept have advantage and disadvantage of establishing liberalism.

In order to keep insisting on liberalism, liberalist theorists and political activists ought to recall both the concepts and somehow synthesise them to create their own theory of form their own liberalist theory. On the spot, it had better refer to visible and understandable variables for majority individuals to settle their agreement for maximising the freedom of all parties simultaneously. At the same time, it ought to recall the abstract principle of liberty in their mind which promotes not only physical but also spiritual/philosophical aspirations of individuals to voluntarily sustain their liberal life and furthermore expand their liberty. Under the certain condition where individuals are rational to chose and their living environment provides them with the rational options, these two concepts are essential to take into consideration to think of liberalism. There are more other conditions of pursuing liberalism than these previously mentioned two concepts meanwhile these two concepts are most hotly debated topics of theories of liberalism. From the editor's point of view, these two concepts can be synthesised together under the condition where both individuals' choice and their living environment's options are rationally available.

No More Economic Theories !

Currently, there does not seem to be any way to control the world economy. Regardless of the will of individuals, economic indices are volatile and the prediction hardly predicts any expected outcome. Economic theories seem to be excellent at explaining the nature of how various economic activities whilst they seem to be poor at predicting the outcomes caused by these activities. Individual agents in this world have become so interconnected with each other that small margin of errors and frictions is no longer insignificant to ignore. Any spontaneously matters of this world are now influencing economy simultaneously. In another word, predicting economic outcomes is like predicting any seismologic matters. Predicting and controlling when another recession strikes is like doing for when the next earth quake occurs.

I have never regretted having studied economics even in a postgraduate degree level. The subject economics helps to systematically understand the nature of how any trades, decision making processes, and power relationship are maintained in daily life, business, and politics. However, I have simply found out that professional economists are just adding up footnotes onto the already invented economic theories, and any brand new invention, surprising the mass in this world, seems to be unable to come up.

Adam Smith, the father of economics, has already summed up the fundamental principle of economics. Various classical economic theorists added up some unavoidable footnotes onto Adam Smith's work. Then, John Maynard Keynes introduced countermeasures against chaos causing economy deviating from the ordinary movement of what Adam Smith explained. All these economists admired Adam Smith and kept his idea as the fundamental criterion of their own theories. Market economy itself does not seem to fade out as long as trades are carried out in our daily life and the notion of private properties, which seems to be one of innate human natures, prevails to exist. Then, the free market principle explained by Adam Smith keeps prevailing, and only some minor reforms are adapted to it.

Karl Marx attempted to offer an alternative principle but his principle sounds suspicious. Marxian theory is that it claims for a very abstruct factor such as determining the value of labour which is often substantially undervalued in the market economy. The problem of this claim is that the scaling method of this value is utterly subjective and this is inconceivable as same as the quality of a faithful spirit. Despite materialist focus and atheist perspective, Marxian theory sounds more like a religious theology expecting for an absolute being and a universal morality judging human qualities. Furthermore, Marx's theoretical backgrounds are actually not so original. His basis economic principle highly relies on David Ricardo's theory. His philosophical foundation is based on his teacher Friedrich Hegel's dialectic philosophy. Marxist economics thus prevails as one form of culture meanwhile it seems to be difficult to categorise as a newly invented academic theory analysing economy.

Adam Smith said "Only fair is laissez-faire (Let it do)". This implies that there is no way economy can be manipulated and there is no universal principle of how economy should be operated. Economy nowadays is prone to be influenced and even messed up by any chaotic friction. In addition, reactions to any change and any economic policy in economy vary across different psychological mindsets of individuals and their culture codes. The mainstream modern economic theories excessively standardise market structures and the mindsets of individual agents. Only the solution seems to be just let the market move alone and let each individual agent to handle it with their own way.

The major financial institutions can be guilty for having messed up the world economy with their pseudo science called financial engineering. Even John Maynard Keynes had already warned that financial market is more psychological than natural-scientific so there is no legitimate answer and equation precisely tracking the market movement. Despite Keynes's warning, these financial elites and government aiding them ignores as though Keynes's original theories of investment had never existed. They have injected extraordinarily massive supply of cash and financial assets into the market against the natural level of the demand.

The extraordinary market stimulus propped up by the excess supply of cash and financial assets are causing the severe negative bounce back effects. Understanding of their financial engineering does not exist to solve problems of economy; It actually causes unnecessary problems caused by those using this engineering technique only for their own short term gain by sacrificing the majority others. As a matter of fact, those gaining the short term gain from this pseudo-science eventually lose out due to the negative impact of the bounce back caused by their reckless manipulation. It comes back to the point of the quote by Adam Smith "Only fair is laissez-faire".

It is the right point that the subject economics was originally introduced as one of philosophical theories by Adam Smith. Although economics nowadays tend to be considered as more physical scientific, Smith was more concerned about metaphysical matters like how the world is formed and how logic derives answers and is evaluated by its principle. Perhaps, there is no absolute answer in economics as same as metaphysics and other philosophical realms. Many economic theorists seem to pretend to be natural scientists claiming there shall be a solid answer for something they are pursuing and demonstrating some pseudo-natural scientific something.

In particular, nowadays, the world is dynamically changing and any already existed social scientific theories hardly prevail to solve the newly emerging problems and promote the newly emerging opportunities. It has already come to the point where it is necessary to start thinking in terms of metaphysical ways of thinking about the world functions including economy. Economy is a life style so it should be more free to think about economy and there should be various unique ways of conceiving it such as doing philosophy.