#economic theory

[sophieinwonderland]

Rising Tide Economics: What is it, and why should you support it?

Hi there! I'd like to introduce you to a bold new way of thinking about economics and how we can build an economy that works for you! 🫵

A rising tide raises all ships!

Rising Tide Economics is based on a single principle. That when you build an economy that supports its members that are most in need, you build an economy that helps everyone!

For a long time, grifters have sold America on a concept we call "trickle down economics." What trickle down economics proponents claim is that when you support the wealthiest people in the country, they will spend their money in ways that benefit the poorest.

For the past 40 years, we have gone all in on supporting the wealthiest in the country, and where has it gotten us? Wealth disparity is larger than ever, the poorest people in the country struggle to get by, and 30% of the wealth is owned by a mere 1% of the population. Meanwhile, the bottom 50% of America splits a mere 2.6% of the wealth between them.

Our middle class is smaller than ever and shrinking.

What's been found is that money given to the wealthiest isn't invested in the economy. It's hoarded.

You cannot raise the tide of the economy by keeping money in the hands of people who would rather accumulate wealth than reinvest it.

"Okay, but I'm a small business owner or entrepreneur or independent contractor. Won't I get poorer if my tax money goes to people with less than me?"

Nope!

First, this is a lie that the mega corporations and the American oligarchs want to sell you on. The truth is that nobody is interested in putting more taxes on small business owners and the middle class.

In reality, if you are a small business owner, entrepreneur or contractor, Rising Tide Economics is going to benefit you more than anyone else.

You have been playing a game that has been rigged from the start. Mega corporations have huge advantages due to their size and wealth that you simply can't compete with. They can sell their goods at lower prices, create monopolies that eliminate all competition, and afford to hire massive lobbying departments that are designed to create laws that will benefit them by killing your businesses and killing your dreams.

Rising Tide Economics is about leveling the playing field.

Let's say that you own a store in a small town. Maybe it's a grocery market or a book store or a clothes shop. Maybe you're a struggling farmer selling goods at a local farmer's market. Whatever it is, you built this business yourself with your own two hands and hard work. Then a Walmart comes in next door.

Corporations like Walmart are able to keep their prices low by negotiating bulk prices through China and other countries where they can get goods cheaper than you could ever dream of yourself. These are options that you do not have access to because you lack the means to compete on this level.

The way Rising Tide Economics benefits you is twofold. First, it forces an opportunity tax onto the mega corporation. If they have greater opportunity than small businesses, then it's only fair to give small businesses a leg up so they can have a fighting chance.

The second way it will help you though is because people want to support your business. They want to buy local. They want to support the up-and-coming entrepreneurs of the world. They don't want to give money to a soulless mega corporation if they can avoid it. But sometimes, you have to do what you have to do to survive. Because the economy forces you into it.

Imagine a woman named Sarah. Sarah is a hard-working mother of three. But wages are too low in this economy to be able to afford her rent and feed her children at the same time. She's living paycheck to paycheck. Sarah would love to have the economic freedom to support your business, but she lacks the opportunity to.

If we can put more money into Sarah's hands, she will have the economic freedom to put it into yours.

What does rising tide economics look like in practice?

Rising tide economics should take a multi-pronged approach towards leveling the playing field and giving The People economic freedom. Here are a few examples:

By providing Medicaid for all, we can ensure that people with medical conditions won't be overburdened by medical debt due to situations they can't control, and can continue to have the economic freedom to contribute to their local economies. This needs to be coupled with efforts at bringing drug prices down across the board to save taxpayer money.

By investing in affordable housing initiatives, we can get people off the streets and into homes, fighting back against a growing housing crisis in the United States.

By investing further into programs that provide food to the hungry, we can ensure that people can not only be fed, but use their cash to invest in other areas of the economy.

And as a long term goal, we should work towards providing a Universal Basic Income. That way everyone can have money to reinvest into their economies.

To pay for these programs, we start by closing tax loopholes that only benefit the wealthiest in the country. Tax loopholes that the mega corporations lobbied for, using legalized bribery to make sure they wouldn't have to pay their fair share. Another unfair opportunity they have that small business owners don't.

After that, we start looking in to opportunity taxes. How much of an unfair advantage does the wealth of a mega corporations allow them to have against the competition? What type of penalties could be applied to make a fair playing field to let smaller competitors keep up with them?

An Era of Rural Revitalization

If you live in a rural area like us, chances are that life hasn't been kind over the past several decades. Sadly, Rural America is dying as industry and wealth becomes more concentrated in the cities. If you're like us, you've probably watched businesses that you love close down or leave because they just can't make enough money in small towns to survive anymore.

Rising Tide Economics seeks to change that by taking the income out of the pockets of megacorporation and putting it into yours! Into your communities!

Under Rising Tide Economics, rural businesses will be able to thrive again, and the American dream will be something attainable no matter where in America you live!

Rising Tide Economics Isn't About Red Or Blue! It's about Green!

It's about money. It's about keeping money flowing, keeping the economy healthy and booming. And it's about getting money into the hands of the people who need it and the people who deserve it!

[benjaminallhope-fulltimemind]

here's a fun little definition to help people understand what inflation is, please follow and reblog for more

/credit: Lily Orchard

[wassuppeeps]

How do you guys think the Technopolian economy works?

It’s not like Technopolis is THAT huge of a world. It’s just a city, not exactly its own nation/state like Kingsland or the Enchanted Forest is. How would money circulation go, especially with being from the outside or other cities? Would the lifestyle be capitalist or communist? If it was capitalist, how would independent businesses work? How rich could the richest person in Technopolis be? Would they have a million dollars or just a couple thousand? If communist, how much would be portioned out to everyone? How much would products cost? What ARE the products? How much would inflation cost? How would investments work? What would their (definitely digital) cryptocurrency be called? What kind of bank(s) would they have and how would they operate? Are there credit unions? What measures do they have in place in case of a crisis? Is there a Technopolian FDIC, Fed, OCC, CFPB, or NCUA? Do they need all of those? Do they need any of those?

WE NEED ANSWERS, PEOPLE!!!!

[wiserebeltiger]

I hope Trump puts Nancy Pelosi in prison for insider trading! I’d fucking enjoy that shit!

[marth1234]

Spynapples

I have come to the conclusion that the government is putting Spy devices in our pinapples inside their dna. If someone has any concrete evidence please let me know, I shall add it to my evidence wall alongside Spygeons.

[haggishlyhagging]

Anyone who has played the board game Monopoly is well versed in the dynamics of Success to the Successful: players who are lucky enough to land on expensive properties early in the game can buy them up, build hotels, and reap vast rents from their fellow players, thus accumulating a winning fortune as they bankrupt the rest. Fascinatingly, however, the game was originally called ‘The Landlord's Game’ and was designed precisely to reveal the injustice arising out of such concentrated property ownership, not to celebrate it.

The game's inventor, Elizabeth Magie, was an outspoken supporter of Henry George's ideas, and when she first created her game in 1903, she gave it two very different sets of rules to be played in turn. Under the 'Prosperity' set of rules, every player gained each time someone acquired a new property (echoing George's call for a land value tax), and the game was won (by all) when the player who had started out with the least money had doubled it. Under the second, ‘Monopolist’ set of rules, players gained by charging rent to those who were unfortunate enough to land on their properties and whoever managed to bankrupt the rest was the sole winner. The purpose of the dual sets of rules, said Magie, was for players to experience a practical demonstration of the present system of land grabbing with all its usual outcomes and consequences and so understand how different approaches to property ownership can lead to vastly different social outcomes. ‘It might well have been called “The Game of Life”’, remarked Magie, ‘as it contains all the elements of success and failure in the real world.’ But when the games manufacturer, Parker Brothers, bought the patent for The Landlord's Game from Magie in the 1930s, they relaunched it simply as Monopoly and provided the eager public with just one set of rules: those that celebrate the triumph of one over all.

-Kate Raworth, Doughnut Economics: Seven Ways to Think Like a 21st Century Economist

[greenlandpissshark]

A MUST WATCH

If the govt. or Meta or Musk gain ownership of TikTok, no matter how much I love it, I will not be returning.

[aphilopoet]

“Now, their promises have faded away. Their chains were freed from the capitalists but then stuck into communism and state exploitation.”

From the documents of Socio-Capitalism by aphilopoet

@aphilopoet

[omegaphilosophia]

The Philosophy of Abundance

The philosophy of abundance is a perspective or worldview that emphasizes the inherent richness, generosity, and potential for growth and fulfillment in the world. It contrasts with scarcity mentality, which focuses on limitations, competition, and the belief that resources are finite and insufficient for everyone's needs. The philosophy of abundance encompasses various principles and beliefs that shape attitudes, behaviors, and perceptions towards life, prosperity, and well-being. Here are some key aspects of the philosophy of abundance:

Gratitude and Appreciation: The philosophy of abundance encourages individuals to cultivate gratitude and appreciation for the abundance already present in their lives, including relationships, experiences, opportunities, and resources. By focusing on what one has rather than what is lacking, individuals can experience greater satisfaction and fulfillment.

Positive Mindset: Adopting a positive mindset is central to the philosophy of abundance. It involves cultivating optimism, hope, and belief in one's ability to create and attract abundance in various areas of life, such as wealth, health, relationships, and personal growth. Positive thinking can lead to increased resilience, motivation, and creativity in overcoming challenges and pursuing goals.

Abundance Mentality: Abundance mentality is the belief that there is more than enough to go around for everyone, and that success and prosperity are not zero-sum games. It entails embracing a mindset of abundance in which opportunities, resources, and possibilities are plentiful and accessible to those who seek them. This mindset fosters collaboration, generosity, and a willingness to share and support others in their pursuits.

Law of Attraction: The philosophy of abundance is often associated with the law of attraction, which posits that individuals can attract positive or negative experiences into their lives based on their thoughts, beliefs, and intentions. By focusing on abundance and visualizing desired outcomes, individuals can purportedly manifest their dreams and goals more effectively.

Generosity and Sharing: Embracing abundance involves being generous and open-handed with one's time, energy, talents, and resources. Acts of kindness, compassion, and generosity contribute to the circulation of abundance in the world and create a ripple effect of positive impact on others. Giving without expecting anything in return fosters a sense of interconnectedness and abundance consciousness.

Growth Mindset: The philosophy of abundance encourages a growth mindset, characterized by a belief in the capacity for learning, development, and improvement over time. Embracing challenges, seeking opportunities for growth, and embracing failure as a stepping stone to success are key aspects of a growth-oriented approach to life.

Environmental Stewardship: Abundance philosophy extends to the natural world, emphasizing the importance of environmental stewardship, sustainability, and responsible use of resources. Recognizing the Earth's abundant natural resources and biodiversity, individuals are called to protect and preserve the planet for future generations.

Overall, the philosophy of abundance promotes a mindset of abundance, gratitude, generosity, and possibility, inviting individuals to embrace the richness and potential inherent in every aspect of life.

[thoughtportal]

In Marxist philosophy, the dictatorship of the proletariat is a condition in which the proletariat, or the working class, holds control over state power. The dictatorship of the proletariat is the transitional phase from a capitalist to a communist economy, whereby the post-revolutionary state seizes the means of production, mandates the implementation of direct elections on behalf of and within the confines of the ruling proletarian state party, and institutes elected delegates into representative workers' councils that nationalise ownership of the means of production from private to collective ownership.

Other terms commonly used to describe the dictatorship of the proletariat include the socialist state,[1] proletarian state,[2] democratic proletarian state,[3] revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat,[4] and democratic dictatorship of the proletariat.[5] In Marxist philosophy, the term dictatorship of the bourgeoisie is the antonym to the dictatorship of the proletariat.[6]

[carbonalchemy]

Economy 101 from a sustainable business grad

Classical economics (think Adam Smith, David Ricardo, John Stuart Mill) focused on broader philosophical considerations and was much more concerned with human behavior, ethics and societal well-being. The tools used were more qualitative, based on reasoning, empirical observation and historical case studies. The main language was logic and prose. These lads were philosophers first.

Neoclassical economics, which began emerging in the late 19th century and became dominant in the 20th century, emphasized mathematical models and marginal analysis. This new approach shifted the focus toward optimization, efficiency and equilibrium in market systems. Key figures (lads like Alfred Marshall, Vilfredo Pareto and later, Milton Friedman) put more weight on mathematical models and assumptions about rational behavior (it can be questioned how rational these things are really as many are shit like "answer to everything is consumption", basically), which reduced the focus on broader ethical considerations. Philosophers were replaced by mathematicians.

The rise of neoclassical economics coincided with the mid-20th-century growth in industrial activity, particularly after WW2.

Post-WW2 marks the beginning rapid increase in CO2 emissions. There was a significant rise in industrial activity, especially in the USA, Europe and Japan, which were recovering from the war and wanted to improve their economy. Proof below.

[nochd]

Leftist arguments that don't work

In Aotearoa we're seeing a bevy of conservative and reactionary bills coming down the parliamentary pipeline. I guess it's better than the last National-led government we had, who pushed bill after bill through under urgency to avoid having to consult the public.

(Actually the latest batch are all passing their submission deadlines this week, so this post is a bit late. My executive functioning strikes again.)

We have to make submissions to make our opinions known on these bills. We have to argue our case against the ideas these bills embody. And frankly, the last decade or two of online leftist discourse has not prepared us for this.

There are good reasons for not engaging the Right in debate on social media. There are excellent reasons for not getting bogged down explaining our ideas to people who aren't listening. And it certainly feels righteous to simply declare that certain principles are "not up for debate".

But submissions to Parliament are not social media. When you're writing a submission to Parliament, you have to debate. The place of te Tiriti o Waitangi in Aotearoa perhaps shouldn't be up for debate, but it is being debated whether it should be or not, and all we accomplish by declaring it "not up for debate" is to remove our own voices from the discussion.

Since the Glorious Revolution of Cathartic Violence doesn't seem to be ready to launch quite just yet, for the time being if we want to get anything done we have to talk to people who are also being talked to by our opponents, and who do not share our starting assumption that we are good and our opponents are bad. In order to convince those people to lean our way, we have to show them that our arguments are right and our opponents' arguments are wrong.

And I'm sorry -- there is no way around this -- that means we need to know what our opponents' beliefs actually are, as distinct from the straw-man versions that we pass around our own online communities for everyone to kick and spit on.

I was going to follow that immediately with some common talking points that won't get us anywhere outside of leftist circles, but explaining why they won't work turns out to be wordier than starting with a very, very short potted summary of capitalist theory. This is not going to be anything like complete, because if I try and do the subject justice this post will run to book length and be finished some time after the next election. I can elaborate on any specific point if someone asks.

Capitalist theory starts with the subjectivity of value. The value of a thing is how much someone is willing to pay for it, or to accept as payment for it. There is no "real" or "intrinsic" value to anything outside of that. Money is valueless on a desert island.

Whenever two people who each have something that the other wants more than they do, give each other the thing they have in exchange for the thing they want, they end up both having something they value more than what they had before. This is where value -- all value -- comes from. If one of them preferred the thing they already had to the thing offered in exchange, no (voluntary) trade would take place, and no value would be created.

Each person knows what their own needs and wants are better than anyone else does. Therefore, the best trades happen and the most value is created when people are acting in their own interests instead of trying to guess other people's.

This doesn't mean people have to be purely selfish. A parent trying to get insulin for their diabetic child is not selfish; but from the point of view of someone who isn't that diabetic child, it doesn't make much material difference whether the parent is acting on their own behalf or the behalf of a person they love. Either way they're going to do whatever they can to get that insulin.

A thing's value is whatever people think it is -- but talk is cheap. People can say they want to put an end to plastic pollution or animal cruelty or global warming, indeed they can say it very loudly; but if they then go on buying plastic-wrapped food and cage eggs and driving everywhere because it's cheap and convenient, then that shows they value the cheap goods and convenience over the environmental aspirations that they merely talk about.

Which isn't to scorn the people as hypocrites, but to conclude that, since people prefer the convenience to the environmental ideal and the only source of value is people's preferences, then the convenience really is better than the environmental ideal in the only sense that anything is ever better than anything else.

The alternative to voluntary trade is violence. A government taking people's money in taxes is intrinsically violent; if you don't pay your taxes you'll be fined, if you don't pay the fine you'll go to prison, if you try to escape from prison you'll be shot.

Again: the above is a tiny potted summary of the basis of capitalist theory, not a full account. I may well have worded some part of it clumsily, but picking holes in my wording is not going to accomplish anything.

Without further ado, here are some common talking points that aren't going to get us anywhere outside of leftist circles:

"Capitalists are greedy and selfish and take more than they need and only care about money." In capitalist theory the distinction between greed and need is an empty one; you don't second-guess why someone wants something, the only question is how much they're willing to pay for it, and the measure of that is money.

"Capitalists believe in objective value." No they don't. Next! Oh, all right. When you have a whole lot of buyers trying to buy cheap and a whole lot of sellers trying to sell dear, eventually they'll land on the price that the maximum possible number of people will accept. This is called its equilibrium price or market price, and it is the closest capitalist theory comes to affording anything an objectively "real" or "correct" value.

"Capitalism is when the owning class subjugates and exploits the working class." In capitalist theory, labour is a service like any other service, which workers sell, like any other seller, to employers, who buy it like any other buyer. Class doesn't exist.

"Employers pay workers far less for the goods they produce than the price those goods sell for. Profit is theft." In capitalist theory all value is generated by the disparity in value between buyer and seller. Without such a disparity, no trade takes place and no value is created.

"But that value rightfully belongs to the worker whose labour created it." They sold that labour. When you sell a thing it's not yours any more.

"Capitalists want us to do without healthcare / education / national parks / clean air and water / etc." No, they want us to buy those things from commercial sellers rather than take them, by government violence, from taxpayers.

Now just to reassure you that not all hope is lost, here are a couple of arguments that I have never seen a capitalist produce an answer to.

Capitalist theory is all based on a bunch of assumptions about human behaviour, where we're all rational agents motivated solely to increase the value we get out of every transaction. It's mathematically elegant and makes beautiful symmetrical graphs, but it doesn't make good predictions about real-world economics, it doesn't match people's actual behaviour, and it doesn't produce good outcomes in terms of wellbeing and happiness. I'm more interested in something that will actually work than something that makes pretty graphs.

People don't in fact act to maximize the value they get in transactions, simply as such; they act to maximize what is called the utility of those transactions. On an individual level this results in the same choices, but utility is about how much difference economic value makes to its recipients -- which is determined by how much they had already. A homeless person benefits vastly more from a gift of $100, in any terms worth wanting, than a billionaire benefits from a gain of $1,000. The goal of economic policy should be to maximize the total utility, rather than the total value, across the population; and that means taking value from the rich and giving it to the poor.

Labour, in the real world, is very different from any other good or service. In capitalist theory the last thing a seller would ever do would be sell more of their goods or services when the price went down, and less when it went up. But workers very often do exactly that -- work longer hours if their wage goes down, and shorter ones if it goes up -- because they are trying to make a minimum amount each day that will allow them to reach their goals. In these conditions, market logic does not work. Market logic assumes that sellers sell more as the price goes up and buyers buy more as it goes down, and at some point they meet in the middle. If instead sellers sell more as the price goes down, what you get is not an equilibrium in the middle but a race to the bottom. This could be remedied by a government-mandated minimum wage, or by a guaranteed livable unemployment benefit that employers would have to compete with, or by a strong union movement to set wages that employers would have to accept, or some combination of the three; but funnily enough, capitalists don't like minimum wages or unemployment benefits or unions.

You may be able to think of others. Once again, this is a very compact potted summary and I am here to answer questions if any of the details don't make sense.

[wiserebeltiger]

AI might destroy technological art (film, tv), but lead to a revival of non-technological art (poetry, novels, music).

Technological art forms are more at the whim of ever-changing technology, and are more likely to be outmoded, it turns out, than timeless, unaffected-by-technology mediums like poetry (carried by oral tradition, expression of individual without technological aid).

Of course, every art form is indirectly technological. Novels needed the steam printing press. Music needs the instrument. Poetry needs all the technology that maintains a literate, functional society (no poet without windmill or bus).

[love-ardour-anarchism]

look, even as an anarchist i can believe in the FANTASY that Tolkien puts out... a GOOD king who is just and full of mercy and love for those that are smaller, a world where that could work without becoming an oppressive regime and where power truly doesn't corrupt you if you're "spiritually pure" enough

but an INVISIBLE HAND and a system of infinite growth running on finite resources? fuck right off.

[pumpkin-the-girlie-girl-vixen]

The World Without Phones: A Journey into Chaos and Communication Breakdown

Imagine waking up one day to find that phones, as we know them, have become nonexistent. The comforting buzz of notifications, the ability to connect with loved ones at a moment's notice, and the vast ocean of information at our fingertips have vanished. In this reality, the repercussions would be monumental, transforming every aspect of our daily lives and plunging society into chaos.

Communication Breakdown

The first and most immediate impact would be the breakdown of communication. In our hyper-connected world, phones have become the primary means of interaction. Without them, people would revert to more traditional forms of communication—face-to-face conversations, letters, and landlines. While these methods could still facilitate connections, they would also slow down the pace of life significantly. Urgent messages, quick check-ins, and instant updates would be replaced by long waits and uncertainty.

The lack of real-time communication could lead to misunderstandings and heightened tensions. In a world where timely responses are crucial—such as in emergencies, business dealings, or even social coordination—the absence of phones would create a chaotic environment. Friendships would strain under the pressure of miscommunication, family members would find it difficult to stay in touch, and the very fabric of relationships would fray.

Impact on Business and Economy

Businesses, too, would face dire consequences. The modern workforce thrives on speed and efficiency, much of which relies on mobile communication. Without phones, remote work would become nearly impossible, stifling productivity and collaboration. Entrepreneurs and small businesses would struggle to reach customers, leading to a significant economic downturn.

Logistics and supply chains, heavily dependent on instant communication, would collapse. Delays in shipments, breakdowns in coordination, and the inability to track inventory in real time would lead to shortages and chaos in markets. The global economy, already fragile, would face unprecedented challenges, with many businesses forced to close their doors permanently.

Emergency Response and Public Safety

Perhaps the most alarming consequence of a world without phones would be the impact on public safety and emergency response systems. In times of crisis���natural disasters, medical emergencies, or public threats—the ability to communicate quickly and effectively is paramount. Without phones, emergency services would struggle to respond swiftly to incidents, leading to lost lives and increased risk.

Communities would face vulnerability, as people would be unable to report emergencies or receive crucial alerts. The lack of coordination among law enforcement, firefighters, and medical services would create a perfect storm for chaos. Panic would ensue, and trust in public institutions could erode, fostering a sense of fear and helplessness.

Social Isolation and Mental Health Decline

As phones have become integral to our social lives, their absence would lead to widespread feelings of isolation and loneliness. People rely on their devices to connect with friends and family, share experiences, and find support. Without phones, many would struggle to maintain these connections, leading to increased mental health issues.

Isolation could exacerbate existing mental health conditions, leading to a surge in anxiety and depression. The younger generation, already facing challenges with social interactions, would find it particularly difficult to navigate friendships and relationships without the immediate connections provided by their phones.

Information Void and Misinformation

In today's world, information flows seamlessly through our devices. News updates, educational resources, and social media platforms keep us informed. Without phones, access to information would be significantly hindered. People would revert to traditional news sources such as newspapers and television, which may not provide the immediacy or comprehensive coverage that today’s digital platforms offer.

This information void could lead to increased susceptibility to misinformation. In the absence of real-time fact-checking and reliable sources, rumors could spread like wildfire, leading to panic and confusion. The challenge of discerning truth from falsehood would become a societal crisis, as people struggle to find reliable information amidst the chaos.

Cultural Shift and Adaptation

While the immediate consequences of a world without phones would be chaotic, it could also lead to a profound cultural shift. People might be forced to reconnect with their surroundings, engage in face-to-face conversations, and rediscover the beauty of human interaction. Communities could come together in ways that have been lost in the digital age, fostering a sense of belonging and shared experience.

However, this shift would not come without its challenges. Adapting to a slower pace of life would require significant adjustments. The relentless rush of modernity would give way to a more deliberate way of living, which might be welcomed by some but resisted by others who thrive in the fast-paced digital world.

Conclusion

The prospect of a world without phones is a daunting one, fraught with challenges that could lead to chaos and societal decline. Communication breakdowns, economic turmoil, public safety risks, social isolation, and the struggle for information would create a perfect storm of crises.

Yet, amidst the chaos, there lies the potential for transformation. Society could emerge with a renewed appreciation for face-to-face interactions, community bonds, and the power of human connection. The journey would be fraught with difficulties, but it could also lead to growth and a deeper understanding of what it means to be human in an increasingly connected world.

In the end, the absence of phones would force us to confront not only the chaos that ensues but also the core elements of our identity and our relationships with one another. It would be a test of resilience, adaptation, and the enduring power of human connection.

[haggishlyhagging]

The Circular Flow diagram depicted labour appearing—hey presto!—fresh and ready for work each day at the office or factory door. So who cooked, cleaned up, and cleared away to make that possible? When Adam Smith, extolling the power of the market, noted that it is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, he forgot to mention the benevolence of his mother, Margaret Douglas, who had raised her boy alone from birth. Smith never married, so had no wife to rely upon (nor children of his own to raise). At the age of 43, as he began to write his opus, The Wealth of Nations, he moved back in with his cherished old mum, from whom he could expect his dinner every day. But her role in it all never got a mention in his economic theory, and it subsequently remained invisible for centuries.

As a result, mainstream economic theory is obsessed with the productivity of waged labour while skipping right over the unpaid work that makes it all possible, as feminist economists have made clear for decades. That work is known by many names: unpaid caring work, the reproductive economy, the love economy, the second economy. However, as economist Neva Goodwin has pointed out, far from being secondary, it is actually the ‘core economy,’ and it comes first every day, sustaining the essentials of family and social life with the universal human resources of time, knowledge, skill, care, empathy, teaching and reciprocity. And if you have never really thought of it before, then it's time you met your inner housewife (because we all have one). She lives in the daily dealings of making breakfast, washing the dishes, tidying the house, shopping for groceries, teaching the children to walk and to share, washing clothes, caring for elderly parents, emptying the rubbish bins, collecting kids from school, helping the neighbours, making the dinner, sweeping the floor and lending an ear. She carries out all those tasks—some with open arms, others through gritted teeth—that underpin personal and family well-being and sustain social life.

We all have a hand in this core economy, but some people (like Adam Smiths mum) spend far more time in it than others. Time may be a universal human resource, but it varies hugely in terms of how we each get to experience and use it, how far we control it, and how it is valued. In sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia, time spent in the core economy is particularly visible because, when the state fails to deliver and the market is out of reach, householders have to make provision for many more of their needs directly. Millions of women and girls spend hours walking miles each day, carrying their body weight in water, food or firewood on their heads, often with a baby strapped to their back—and all for no pay. But this gendered division of paid and unpaid work is prevalent in every society, albeit sometimes less visibly so. And since work in the core economy is unpaid, it is routinely undervalued and exploited, generating lifelong inequalities in social standing, job opportunities, income and power between women and men.

By largely ignoring the core economy, mainstream economics has also overlooked just how much the paid economy depends upon it. Without all that cooking, washing, nursing and sweeping, there would be no workers—today or in the future—who were healthy, well-fed and ready for work each morning. As the futurist Alvin Toffler liked to ask at smart gatherings of business executives, ‘How productive would your workforce be if it hadn't been toilet trained?’ The scale of the core economy's contribution is not to be dismissed lightly, either. In a 2002 study of Basle, a wealthy Swiss city, the estimated value of unpaid care being provided in the city's households exceeded the total cost of salaries paid in all of Basle's hospitals, day care centers and schools, from the directors to the janitors. Likewise, a 2014 survey of 15,000 mothers in the United States calculated that, if women were paid the going hourly rate for each of their roles—switching between housekeeper and daycare teacher to van driver and cleaner—then stay-at-home mums would earn around $120,000 each year. Even mothers who do head out to work each day would earn an extra $70,000 on top of the actual wages, given all the unpaid care they also provide at home.

Why does it matter that this core economy should be visible in economics? Because the household provision of care is essential for human well-being, and producivity in the paid economy depends directly upon it. It matters because when—in the name of austerty and public sector savings—governments cut budgets for children's daycare centres, community services, parental leave and youth clubs, the need for care-giving doesn't disappear: it just gets pushed back into the home. The pressure, particularly on women's time, can force them out of work and increase social stress and vulnerability. That undermines both well-being and women's empowerment, with multiple knock-on effects for society and the economy alike. In short, including the household economy in the new diagram of the macroeconomy is the first step in recognising its centrality, and in reducing and redistributing women's unpaid work.

-Kate Raworth, Doughnut Economics: Seven Ways to Think Like a 21st Century Economist