Economics is Essential Knowledge for a Patriarch

“It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.”

Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations, 1776

Due to a recent promotion at work I have much less time to focus on this blog or my other hobbies. Posts are thus more limited in scope and the final version of The Guide for a Young Patriarch will be significantly delayed. I do however still have time to read and recently began reading texts on economics, including the classic book “the wealth of nations.”  

Books on war are of clear importance to a patriarch since they involve conflict and fight for dominance, which are in the essence of masculinity (i.e. both create and emanate from testosterone). The motives to study economics are far less clear and emanate from the solid red-pill observations in the heart of classical economic text. We can see the relation between economics and the red pill when we discuss the sexual market place, or when the economists talk about money as a social contract, or when pre-seletion mixes with supply and demand, or when goods are valued due to nothing but scarcity.

To put it bluntly: If war is the most brutal and honest form of conflict, economics is the most brutal and honest form of human relationships. I recommend any young patriarch to read at least one fundamental text in classical economics as part of his education (I added recommendations to “Education of a Patriarch” reading list and you can check the Captain’s blog). It will be relevant to much more than just economics since it will give perspective to sexual relationships and other human interactions.


This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Economics is Essential Knowledge for a Patriarch

  1. Shenpen says:

    The problem with economics is precisely that it is based on overly optimistic accounts of human nature, i.e. that people are following rational self-interest, which is profit, and this is never zero sum, so they can negotiate amiably and get voluntary, mutually beneficial agreements.

    So economics looks at the world through rosy glasses.

    But in reality people compete for status, not for self-interest, status is zero-sum, and therefore it is a whole lot harsher.

    As someone from a fairly small and weak nation, my self-education in being more and more realistic i.e. more and more right-wing, began with learning economics, and becoming libertarian, but at a certain point I had to start to UN-learn economics and criticize libertarianism from the right (not from the left of course) in order to get fully realistic. For example when foreigners come and buy up huge amounts of land and natural resources in a small, weak country, that is not simply a voluntary, mutually beneficial exchange – rather that looks a whole lot like a form of… conquest. When a man owns a factory and 1000 people work for him, and there are no other jobs within 50km… this not an exchange between equals, but a form of power. And so on.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s