nontas.apostolopoulos
Rookie
- Jul 15, 2025
- 3
- 2
- 1
The economy should be free so that ideas, products and services are freely tested in the market. So that people are free to choose what best matches their needs and wants. So that the best ideas, products and services are delivered in a free market at the best prices. In this way those who produce the most in the free market, get the most money individually.
The economy should be balanced. When that happens, the economy produces the most possible in a stable manner. In order for this to happen, the pace of the economy should be satisfactory for most people. Otherwise people are either bored, in which case they can and want to produce more and competition drives them away from this point, or they are exhausted, in which case they cannot keep producing at the current rate in a stable manner. For this stable pace in the economy to be achieved, while the most productive ones can individually have as much money as they can and want to, they can’t collectively have more than half of the total money. At least half of the total money goes to the ones in the middle of society, so that the economy becomes balanced and has a steady pace.
The economy should also be fair, so that it has a steady pace. While the least productive people get the least money, the economy should still be fair towards them. In order for this to be achieved, out of all the most productive people, the ones who are the most beneficial to the economy are the ones who can offer the best wages towards the least productive ones, and they should be rewarded accordingly.
In more detail...
We will start our discussion by defining what money does. People use money in order to do things for one another and so in this text, when people are trading with one another, in general they do “I do this for you, you do that for me”, and specifically whatever “this” and “that” is for the specific occasion and instance.
Now imagine that you are doing the same thing twice from its beginning to its end with the same amount of money, but that one of the two times that it takes you more time and effort in order to complete it. Would you choose to do it over and over again the way that takes you more time and effort with the same amount of money? No you wouldn’t, and so in this text the right way to use money is when money reduces the time and effort that you have to spend to trade with the other ones, compared with other ways.
Next we are going to discuss two categories of people who end up with an increased amount of money compared to the one they started with. In the first category of people we have ones that managed to end with an increased amount of money compared to the one they started with, by either keeping the time and effort during trade low as did the competition, or by reducing the time and effort that had to be spent to trade. These ones we will call the ones who are good at making money. Among them there are ones who are really good at keeping the time and effort during trade low as does the competition or are really good at reducing the time and effort during trade. These ones may not really need that much money as due to their skill it happens that money is coming to them, but are the ones who are preferable at having lots of money as their actions with money at least keep the time and effort during trade low or even better reduce it.
In the second category of people we have the ones that managed to end with an increased amount of money compared to the one they started with, but they increased the time and effort that had to be spent to trade. So these ones do something else than keep the time and effort that has to be spent to trade at least low, and the money they make is more efficient at reducing the time and effort that has to be spent to trade than they are. Because of this the more money these people make, the less efficient the economy becomes. We will call these people the ones who are good at gathering money. It should be apparent that we want to keep people who are good at gathering money to a minimum so that the economy is as efficient and productive as possible.
Next we divide the society into three separate economic classes. First we start with the ones who individually have more wealth than the rest ones, who comprise the upper class. Secondly the ones who have an average amount of wealth, who are the middle class. Finally the ones who have individually the least amount of wealth, the lower class. We will look into each class separately in order to identify what makes people in the class good at making money compared to people good at gathering money, and how we can maximize the first ones while keeping the second ones to a low amount.
We start by discussing the case for the upper class. The upper class should predominantly consist of people that are good at making money. In any other case people who are good at gathering money start appearing in the upper class, and as the upper class consists of people who have lots of money and lead the organization of economic activity in society, this ends up significantly increasing the time and effort spent to trade, which ends up making the economy
more inefficient compared to what it could be. The criteria to examine the economic efficiency in the upper class, is the comparison of the average personal wealth growth in the upper class with the overall growth of the economy. The personal wealth growth of individuals in the upper class can be significantly higher than the growth of the economy when these individuals are contributing significantly to the growth of the economy and their personal wealth rapidly increases. However the average of personal wealth growth of individuals in the upper class cannot be higher than the average growth of the economy. This is because when it happens that the average personal wealth growth of individuals in the upper class is higher than the average growth of the economy, then the way that individuals are growing their wealth in the upper class doesn’t respectively contribute to the growth of the economy. Specifically what happens in this case is that investments from the upper class tend to move away from entrepreneurship and towards acquisition of assets such as housing and debt, which drives housing prices up and causes debt to get out of hand for the rest classes, leading to their impoverishment. In other words what happens is that the middle and lower class are increasingly getting excluded from acquiring assets by the upper class and wealth inequality continually increases, while the economy becomes more inefficient. What should be expected instead from a healthy upper class is a significant contribution to the growth of the economy which in term contributes to the upper class average personal wealth growth. The rule that the average personal growth of wealth should be equal to the average growth of the economy applies to the middle and lower class too. However it is more crucial for the upper class as it is more important to have people in the upper class who are good at making money in the upper class rather than good at gathering money as they lead the economic innovation and investment in society.
We continue our discussion with the case for the middle class. More than half of the wealth in the economy should be owned by the middle class through taxation. This way the average pace of the economy is set by the middle class, rather than by the lower class (communism), in which case people in the middle and upper class are bored and disengaged and the economy underperforms, or by the upper class (classical capitalism) in which case people in the middle and the lower class are overworked and exhausted, and the economy again underperforms as people in the lower and middle class have no incentive to work efficiently. By having the middle class set the pace of the economy and allowing competition to optimize it, needless negotiations regarding the pace are avoided and the time and effort saved can be repurposed for more productive activities. This way people in the middle class have the best economic incentives to perform at their peak, instead of increasing the time and effort during transactions they are trying to avoid. Also by making sure that more than 50% of the wealth in the economy belongs to the middle class, money shortages in the middle class that lead to recessions are avoided and the economy becomes more stable. Finally this helps ensure the minimization of people who are good at gathering money in the upper class. This happens because money is constantly being redistributed to the middle class from the upper class through taxation and mostly people who are good at making money survive the process.
We now turn the discussion on the case for the lower class. The lower class consists of people that on average have the least productivity. This class should be incentivized to increase its performance by the upper class. The way that this works is by having rewards for the upper class for being able to set the highest possible wages for the lower class. This again minimizes needless negotiations between the lower and the upper classes and the time and effort freed
from these endeavors can be repurposed to more productive activities. Also, allowing the upper class to supervise the productivity of the lower class together with competition, helps to create more people who are good at making money even in the lower class, instead of having ones who are good at gathering money.
The economy should be balanced. When that happens, the economy produces the most possible in a stable manner. In order for this to happen, the pace of the economy should be satisfactory for most people. Otherwise people are either bored, in which case they can and want to produce more and competition drives them away from this point, or they are exhausted, in which case they cannot keep producing at the current rate in a stable manner. For this stable pace in the economy to be achieved, while the most productive ones can individually have as much money as they can and want to, they can’t collectively have more than half of the total money. At least half of the total money goes to the ones in the middle of society, so that the economy becomes balanced and has a steady pace.
The economy should also be fair, so that it has a steady pace. While the least productive people get the least money, the economy should still be fair towards them. In order for this to be achieved, out of all the most productive people, the ones who are the most beneficial to the economy are the ones who can offer the best wages towards the least productive ones, and they should be rewarded accordingly.
In more detail...
We will start our discussion by defining what money does. People use money in order to do things for one another and so in this text, when people are trading with one another, in general they do “I do this for you, you do that for me”, and specifically whatever “this” and “that” is for the specific occasion and instance.
Now imagine that you are doing the same thing twice from its beginning to its end with the same amount of money, but that one of the two times that it takes you more time and effort in order to complete it. Would you choose to do it over and over again the way that takes you more time and effort with the same amount of money? No you wouldn’t, and so in this text the right way to use money is when money reduces the time and effort that you have to spend to trade with the other ones, compared with other ways.
Next we are going to discuss two categories of people who end up with an increased amount of money compared to the one they started with. In the first category of people we have ones that managed to end with an increased amount of money compared to the one they started with, by either keeping the time and effort during trade low as did the competition, or by reducing the time and effort that had to be spent to trade. These ones we will call the ones who are good at making money. Among them there are ones who are really good at keeping the time and effort during trade low as does the competition or are really good at reducing the time and effort during trade. These ones may not really need that much money as due to their skill it happens that money is coming to them, but are the ones who are preferable at having lots of money as their actions with money at least keep the time and effort during trade low or even better reduce it.
In the second category of people we have the ones that managed to end with an increased amount of money compared to the one they started with, but they increased the time and effort that had to be spent to trade. So these ones do something else than keep the time and effort that has to be spent to trade at least low, and the money they make is more efficient at reducing the time and effort that has to be spent to trade than they are. Because of this the more money these people make, the less efficient the economy becomes. We will call these people the ones who are good at gathering money. It should be apparent that we want to keep people who are good at gathering money to a minimum so that the economy is as efficient and productive as possible.
Next we divide the society into three separate economic classes. First we start with the ones who individually have more wealth than the rest ones, who comprise the upper class. Secondly the ones who have an average amount of wealth, who are the middle class. Finally the ones who have individually the least amount of wealth, the lower class. We will look into each class separately in order to identify what makes people in the class good at making money compared to people good at gathering money, and how we can maximize the first ones while keeping the second ones to a low amount.
We start by discussing the case for the upper class. The upper class should predominantly consist of people that are good at making money. In any other case people who are good at gathering money start appearing in the upper class, and as the upper class consists of people who have lots of money and lead the organization of economic activity in society, this ends up significantly increasing the time and effort spent to trade, which ends up making the economy
more inefficient compared to what it could be. The criteria to examine the economic efficiency in the upper class, is the comparison of the average personal wealth growth in the upper class with the overall growth of the economy. The personal wealth growth of individuals in the upper class can be significantly higher than the growth of the economy when these individuals are contributing significantly to the growth of the economy and their personal wealth rapidly increases. However the average of personal wealth growth of individuals in the upper class cannot be higher than the average growth of the economy. This is because when it happens that the average personal wealth growth of individuals in the upper class is higher than the average growth of the economy, then the way that individuals are growing their wealth in the upper class doesn’t respectively contribute to the growth of the economy. Specifically what happens in this case is that investments from the upper class tend to move away from entrepreneurship and towards acquisition of assets such as housing and debt, which drives housing prices up and causes debt to get out of hand for the rest classes, leading to their impoverishment. In other words what happens is that the middle and lower class are increasingly getting excluded from acquiring assets by the upper class and wealth inequality continually increases, while the economy becomes more inefficient. What should be expected instead from a healthy upper class is a significant contribution to the growth of the economy which in term contributes to the upper class average personal wealth growth. The rule that the average personal growth of wealth should be equal to the average growth of the economy applies to the middle and lower class too. However it is more crucial for the upper class as it is more important to have people in the upper class who are good at making money in the upper class rather than good at gathering money as they lead the economic innovation and investment in society.
We continue our discussion with the case for the middle class. More than half of the wealth in the economy should be owned by the middle class through taxation. This way the average pace of the economy is set by the middle class, rather than by the lower class (communism), in which case people in the middle and upper class are bored and disengaged and the economy underperforms, or by the upper class (classical capitalism) in which case people in the middle and the lower class are overworked and exhausted, and the economy again underperforms as people in the lower and middle class have no incentive to work efficiently. By having the middle class set the pace of the economy and allowing competition to optimize it, needless negotiations regarding the pace are avoided and the time and effort saved can be repurposed for more productive activities. This way people in the middle class have the best economic incentives to perform at their peak, instead of increasing the time and effort during transactions they are trying to avoid. Also by making sure that more than 50% of the wealth in the economy belongs to the middle class, money shortages in the middle class that lead to recessions are avoided and the economy becomes more stable. Finally this helps ensure the minimization of people who are good at gathering money in the upper class. This happens because money is constantly being redistributed to the middle class from the upper class through taxation and mostly people who are good at making money survive the process.
We now turn the discussion on the case for the lower class. The lower class consists of people that on average have the least productivity. This class should be incentivized to increase its performance by the upper class. The way that this works is by having rewards for the upper class for being able to set the highest possible wages for the lower class. This again minimizes needless negotiations between the lower and the upper classes and the time and effort freed
from these endeavors can be repurposed to more productive activities. Also, allowing the upper class to supervise the productivity of the lower class together with competition, helps to create more people who are good at making money even in the lower class, instead of having ones who are good at gathering money.
