This is my preface to my newest work
Economists write continually, attempting to explain the realities of the Economy. People come to expect either dire predictions, or a meddlesome effort to enjoin some alteration of obtuse nature. Their definition of the methodology of the Economy requires tiresome multiple readings of Economists long dead. Basic introductory courses in Economics concentrate on the integration of fundamental economic equations, all necessary for the future research of the field of Economics, but providing little insight into the functioning of the Economy. Doctorates are given to trained Researchers who have spent vast amounts of personal time and money towards attaining knowledge of previous Economists, along with the assessments made by these previous Economists. Such knowledge is mandatory, if one wants to make an occupation of the study of the Economy. It does not provide a rational understanding of the Economy for those who cannot expend the time or effort. It is also true that a little knowledge can be worse than none at all. The profession of Economics regrettably trains only its own, not the general Public.
A more ignoble element resides in the fact that Economists themselves are in deep disagreement over the functioning of the Economy. Most determine that Government should intervene in the Economy, few schools of Economics agree with one another over the construction of such intervention. The majority of Economic schools of thought, today, imagine Government should spend heavily to propel economic performance, quarreling only over who should be the beneficiaries of such spending. Business-oriented Economists insist on deficit spending with inadequate taxation, so Business acquires vast untaxed Profits while the Poor can afford to buy the Products which Business produces. Liberal Economists insist Government spending must be tied to social programs designed to raise the standard of living of the economically disadvantaged. Conservative Economists detest social programs as economic liabilities, though most would eschew the rollback of business welfare programs. Almost no one associated with the field of Economics would proclaim adequate taxation to cover Government expenditures, even the advocates of von Mises call for elimination of Government spending rather than adequate taxation.
The Author stands as someone of different stripe. He feels Government must be construe d as an integral functionary within the overall Economy, one ever-present within the Economy with the duty of providing communal services. Transportation systems must be build and maintained, community structures and protections must be established and maintained, legal recourse must be granted to economic participants, and the Whole must be defended from outside aggression. The above functions are not easily funded by private enterprise, and must be provided. Government must, like every other economic activity, fund its participation within the Economy. This can be done by adequate taxation, or by deficit spending. The Author has often written of the dangers of deficit spending. He will attempt to portray the advantages of adequate taxation within the Work, through a common sense explanation of the functioning of the Economy, which his more renowned enemies in the profession of Economics will tear apart if they choose to spare the time.
The reading Public should be aware that all Economic schools of thought, including the Author, remain beholden to the economic organizations supporting their efforts. They will find few revolutionary tracts, as no one is willing to abandon their base of support. The literature, though, remains important; it informs the Public of the direction each School would take, if allowed dominance of economic policy--inside or outside Government. The Author feels We are losing economic performance through what is effective malignant economic policy, which create their own Cancers on the economic body or structure. The drain on economic assets costs a lowered standard of living for Everyone, a drain which is entirely avoidable. This action is insidious as it is not a calamity, simply a contraction of economic vitality which propels accumulative damage.