We begin by addressing the charge leveled by many that current day "economics" is a perversion of the classical field of "political economy". Those who level this "perversion" charge at neoclassical economics are convinced that the current "schools" of economics are not considering the social impacts of their economic recommendations to the same degree as classical economists such as Smith and Richardo. While the classical economists were not totally altruistic, they were not totally bent on the destruction of social responsibility in the guise of anti-socialism. The classical economists such as Adam Smith, and David Ricardo seemed to subscribe to the notion that the field of economics was much concerned with the proper use of government action in promoting the general welfare. The classical school assumed, quite correctly, that less monopolistic power in the hands of a central authority (and less monopolistic power in the hands of a few competing authorities) was a proper course to maximize overall wealth. They did not, however, reject the concept of sovereign governments, nor did they imply that government was incapable of positive actions to improve economic well being. Later day economists, on the other hand, seem to be much more concerned with ingratiating themselves among the powerful monopolistic "authorities" than they are in pursuing the maximization of overall wealth. Of course, what else would one expect. These actions can be characterized as self defense. As the only source of support for current day "economists" is from those who are in power, those who control all the wealth, then to find fault with the system that supports this power, or to find fault in the concentration of wealth and power into these hands that feed would be self defeating. On closer examination we find that Adam Smith suffered this same disease. The book for which he is most noted is, after all, not entitled "The Wealth of People", but "The Wealth of Nations". Smith sought to ingratiate himself among the powers that were by showing them how to win the war of opulence being waged with the nobilities of other sovereignties. The difference in the classical and neoclassical schools of economics may well be explained in the melting away of sovereignty all together. In the classical era the competition for richness was the nobles of one sovereignty vs the nobles of another. And as geographically and morally defined sovereignties melt away, to be replaced by monopolistic corporations, there is a competition for opulence and power among these new forms of "governments". And whether we have a competition between the nobilities of sovereign nations or a competetion between the noble executives of multinational corporations the measure of success is the economic distance between the exalted privileged few and the masses. The inescapable conclusion is that both classical and later day economics are perverted.

Seminal in this alleged perversion in later day economics is the insistence that the individualism and egoism at the root of microeconomics is the supreme guiding light of the economic universe. As the micro-economist pontificates upon the good old days of Daniel Boon and Robinson Crusoe; the days of real men, when people earned their way and there was no "welfare state", he serves each and every feudal lord and proposes that any form of social action is nothing less than an insidious "leftist" plot. The mainstay of this nonsense, the primary tool of enforcement, is of course, religious dogma. The protestant work ethic, the noble ants and the worthless grasshopper, the notion that hard work is good whether or not it is necessary are religious notions as opposed to anything scientific. And within this microcosmic view of the antisocial universe we find an even more serious perversion in the rejection of the only theory of value that is of any real consequence in the field of political economy. By rejecting the idea that value is based on the reduction of labor in the provisioning of goods and continually touting the creation of jobs and the exchange of money as measure of economic "success", the current economic "schools" are able to claim advance in the face of continuing decline. By embracing the notion that a discipline as stunted as microeconomics should concern itself with anything other than the minimization of human toil and discomfort, and by adopting an air of righteousness regarding toil, microeconomics seeks to create the illusion that removing what is painted as interventionist government will result in the maximization of wealth for all (or at least a maximization for the truly deserving). Running counter to this claim of course is the reality that, at the time of this writing, individualism and self reliance and freedom are denied as corporations and special interest groups, and just very wealthy and powerful individuals are in total control the, so called, "elected" government of the United States. By blessing the placement of economic and police state powers into the hands of these feudal lords under the banner of individualism the latter day economist moves in a totally different direction than maximization of freedom/wealth. What most would refer to as the far right see this as a triumph of individualism over government. But, of course, it is merely a different form of government. Even as the far right in the USA purport to be ardently opposed to government intervention of any kind in the workings of the, so called, free market, they are merely advocating a different system of governance, a different form of markeyt control. They posit that unchecked monopolistic privilege is a better form of government than more common sovereignty oriented democratic forms. Later day "economics" is a perversion because it is an attempt to strip the necessary social considerations from the field of political economy; an attempt to present as "science" a subject that is almost totally political and/or religious. In the adoption of microeconomics as the totality of the field of political economy, economics has become a weapon of the powerful used to sway public opinion through the presentation of incomplete and simplistic data while representing such data as "science".

Adam Smith, considered by many as the father of classical economics, defines political economy as follows:

"Political economy, considered as a branch of the science of statesman or legislator, proposes two distinct objects: first, to provide a plentiful revenue or subsistence for the people, or more properly to enable them to provide such a revenue or subsistence for themselves; and secondly, to supply the state or commonwealth with a revenue sufficient for the public services. It proposes to enrich both the people and the sovereign." -- Adam Smith

And with this simple definition Adam Smith set forth to convince the aristocracy that the wealth of the nation as a whole and the wealth of the nobility and the wealth of the king could all be enhanced by adopting concepts, laws, and codes that would enhance the productivity of the common people. More importantly, he hypothesized that by allowing, and even promoting the industry of the merchants, manufacturers and farmers within the sovereignty, the nation as a whole and the king/sovereign would be enriched. It is this point about the positive use of government power in promoting industry among (what was then) the common people that is purposefully suppressed in later day "economics". Adam Smith did not formulate his theories in a true representative democracy like that which is described in the United States Constitution. For in the United States, as in all supposedly democratic nations, the people are defined to be the "sovereign". And that being the case we find that Smith's last sentence can be rewritten to say, "It proposes to enrich both the people and the people", or simply "It proposes to enrich the people". And that is precisely what the division and specialization of labor, property rights enforcement, the development of real capital, and the maintenance of a common market (those things that are the province of government and the soul of political economy) are to accomplish.

The field of "political economy" is concerned with government's application of rules of order that will increase freedom and well being in a society where the division and specialization of labor and the market trades that should result from this socialization are in full bloom. The word "political" in the science of "political economy" will always mean government force (the enforcement of rules of order). And this latter observation concerning government would be true even if government is each man standing on a land claim holding a sharp stick so as to prevent others from taking his stuff. When we speak of or hear about "the economy" we are speaking about or hearing about the common market where we all trade our goods and services for the goods and services of others. It is quite appropriate to refer to the economy as "the common market". But the word "political" as used by Smith in "political economy" will always imply force, or enforcement. There is simply no way to separate government from the common market. Without the enforcement of property rights, the policing of fraud, and the bridling of excessive privilege there would be no market. There is no way to have a field of "economics" that does not use government power (in some form) to enforce rules of ownership, rules of order, and rules of trade.

The ownership of one's property, of the fruits of one's, labor is the primary foundation of all society and all trade. Again from Smith:

"Every man is rich or poor according to the degree in which he can afford to enjoy the necessaries, conveniences, and amusements of human life. But after the division of labour has thoroughly taken place, it is but a very small part of these with which a man's own labour can supply him. The far greater part of them he must derive from the labour of other people, and he must be rich or poor according to the quantity of that labour which he can command or which he can afford to purchase. The value of any commodity, therefore, to the person who possesses it, and who means not to use or consume it himself, but to exchange it for other commodities, is equal to the quantity of labour which it enables him to purchase or command. -- Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations.

This (and not the communist manifesto or the writings of Karl Marx) is called "The Labor Theory of Value" and it derives from the axiom that "Every man seeks to fulfill his desires with as little labor or discomfort to himself as possible". The concept is so simple the mind repels; the truth so self evident as to be irrefutable. The vast majority of humankind does not toil away in a mosquito infested swamp for the sake of entertainment. And in spite of all efforts to refute this self evident truth by mixing it together with Marx, Communism, Socialism, or devil worship, the actual "labor theory of value" as proffered by Smith remains untainted and factual. This theory does not infer that an item is worth whatever labor went into its creation. It says quite plainly that an item is worth whatever labor or fruits of labor (those things that we own as property) we would be willing to pay for such item in the common market. Clearly "the quantity of labor which he can command" refers to the purchase of an item with the fruits of one's own labor. For all of the things we call our own, most certainly including our money, is ours to keep or to trade by virtue of the enforcement of property rights. That is the essence of property rights and it requires the enforcement of some form of government even if each individual is his own government. The accumulated fruits of our labor (especially money) can and will be used to command the labor of others in the common market now or in the future. When we use our money to buy a car we are commanding the labor of those who built the car. The same with the food we buy and the electricity we buy and use. In every case we are trading our power to command labor for some manifestation of the labor of others. If we purchase the car on credit then we are trading a share of our future labor for the right to possess the car right now. In the future, as we earn wages, we will pay for the car and the recipient of that payment will, even more clearly, be commanding our labor. If we had paid cash for the car then we would have traded the fruit of our past labor (our savings) for the car.

But even if we had accumulated our cash by theft, inheritance, the luck of the draw, or by guile, we would be trading our capacity to command labor in the common market for this particular item (the car). We will be trading our stored up capacity for the command of the labor of others. It is immediately apparent that without ownership/property rights there would be naught with which we could purchase anything at all. And the enforcement of these "rights" and the policing of the market so as to prevent theft and chicanery and fraud is the primary (but not necessarily the only) purpose of government.

Most latter day "economists" seem to be trying to pretend that there is no need for enforcement; pretending that force is not a part of economics. But the removal of the word "political" from the name of the field ("economics" as opposed to "political economy") does not alter the reality. No property rights, no market, and no economy. The latter day "economist" seems intent on illustrating how wonderful the world would be without government. Instead of admitting the need and insisting on the use of enforcement to enhance the rights of the individual to keep the fruits of his labor, the microeconomic Neanderthal limits his efforts to citing the failures of our current form of government. Instead of insisting on the use of government to enhance the workings of the common market and thus the life of the common man, later day economics "profession" concerns itself with doing away with government. The fundamental reason for this effort is, without doubt, the fear of democratic processes that lies in the heart of every person of power and privilege. The professional economist will be made famous and aggrandized and kept in his station as a professional economist either directly or indirectly by those of wealth and power for the sake of those of wealth and power. And what other pronouncement would we expect from the "professional" economist but a pronouncement that will serve the hand that feeds him. If there is no public support for the field of economics there is no financially disinterested source from which to support the "economist". As such, the professional economist will have difficulty in adopting a position that is not supportive of the concentration of wealth and power. It is our position that "real economics" can only be entreated upon by an amateur or by someone who's source of livelihood is outside the aristocratically supported "schools" of economics. Many recognized figures in economics, if not most truly famous economists, have found sources of income outside the mainstream by writing popular books, and/or by simply abandoning economics as a profession and then pursuing the field as a hobby. Real economics or political economy should not be about enhancing privilege and/or the perfection of opulence for the few. Real economics is not about the building of a nation or the creation of skyscrapers or art museums. And it is not about the concentration of power into the hands of the learned messengers of God so as to insure the dogmatic procession of the human species toward some prophesied Nirvana in an after life. Real economics is about the enrichment of the lives of the common people in their current life on this earth. And the true focus of that effort is the minimization of labor and discomfort and thus, the maximization of individual freedom.

"If a person or group or culture or creed wishes to believe that an afterlife will offer eternal rewards that are proportional to one's Earthly poverty, sickness, disfigurement, ignorance, and brevity of life, then a system of rules promoting Earthly prosperity, health, and longevity would be inappropriate. If, however, one seeks rules that are likely to optimize or maximize 'life on Earth,' these rules must at least be consistent with, or respect, the natures of 'life' and 'Earth'." --- Ayn Rand

And when the economics "profession" marches in a different direction it is being fed by those who wish to establish and/or maintain a nobility or an aristocracy with themselves as the great leader(s). Most commonly it is fed by those who wish to steal the fruits of labor of the common people so as to support and aggrandize themselves. And in this pursuit they will be using religion, patriotism, or self righteous egoism (natural law or objectivist theory) as a cloak. Such perversion is about the perfection of

In our discussions of real economics we will employ and discuss the "factors of production" much as Adam Smith has done (land, labor, and capital) so as to comment on the process of production in the economy. However, if we wish to achieve the goals laid out by Smith in his statement concerning "Political Economy", his 3 factors of production (land, labor, and capital) are inadequate to describe the reality of the productive process and so too what has come to be called "the economy". For if we are to enrich the people (to elevate their well being) then our goal is not ever increasing production so as to provide the king or the people with more gold, more art museums, more tall buildings, or more fireworks. Our objective is the minimization of labor, discomfort, and strife. This objective is achieved by increasing "productivity" as opposed to increasing production. And as we develop proper capital and use our intellect to organize our labors to more efficiently produce goods, the amount of labor and discomfort required to produce any given amount of goods should fall. Real economics will spread this relief from drudgery to the greatest number of people while providing proper incentive to the creative activities that are the wellspring from which such advancement will flow. And it is the former consideration that seems to go by the board in current trends of globalization and tax relief for the wealthy.

The inadequacies in using Smith's "factors of production" in discourse concerning the broader subject of political economy is best exposed by focusing on the term "labor". The latter day "economist" constantly uses the term "labor" to describe the people in the process of production. The "economist" then seems to lose sight of the fact that humans are not robots or machines dedicated to the increase of production or productivity. The freedom of the common man from drudgery, and discomfort, are the reasons and the where all and be all behind real economics. Real economics does not not seek to produce more stuff, but to produce more freedom. The elevation of the human species through the relief from drudgery and labor are the real reasons for political economy, i.e. the use of division and specialization of labor, of capital creation, and of markets. As stated previously, it is not an increase in production that is being sought, but an increase in the well being of the populous as measured by a relief form drudgery and discomfort. When we allow the use of the word "labor" in describing the human component of the economy we fail to deal with the joblessness and poverty that can result when the return to privilege and capital are maximized or valued too highly. As capital development or better organization takes the place of human toil, many people are left with no means "to provide (such) a revenue or subsistence for themselves", thus defeating the real objective of political economy. The use of the word "labor" to define the human component of production is valid. But the use of that same word to define the human component of the society (the consumer), or the true objective of economics is absolutely incorrect. While human beings are not simply a "factor of production", that is the treatment afforded human beings in the world of most latter day schools of economics and most latter day "economists". Such treatment is an aristocratic view that centers on the enhancement of the state, or the enhancement of a religious order or the enhancement of life for a privileged caste, and the field of economics is thus subverted by treating, and even referring to the populous as a "labor pool" to be used to achieve some goal other than the enrichment of the laborers/producers. In order to form a proper social science of "economics" we must be vigilant in our efforts to distinguish between "man" (the object of economics) and mans "labor" which we are attempting to minimize. We must resort to a terminology that clearly distinguishes man as the consumer from man as the producer and then advance toward the creation of a proper science of economics. We must always keep in our minds the fundamental axiom of economics that is accepted by any and all schools of economics:

"Man seeks to satisfy his wants with the least discomfort and drudgery to himself".

As we are successful in our endeavors in real economics, humans spend less time in providing for themselves and their families the basic necessities of life, and to that extent are they free to spend time pursuing the objects of their desires. Whether this is simply time spent with their friends and loved ones, or time spent in pursuit of luxuries, or gold, or diamonds, or sexual partners, or time spent in the pursuit of knowledge and understanding of the cosmos or of other human beings is of no concern to economics or economists. What matters is the freedom from discomfort and drudgery that will allow the pursuit of whatever our unique ideas of happiness or duty might be. Further, in order to "enrich" everyone (to provide more freedom from toil and discomfort), the field of real economics must find methods that do not "enrich" one person or one group of persons at the expense of some other set of persons. Real economics must find ways to "enrich" the common people without unduly constraining or punishing the not so common people. Simply stated: To the extent that disparities in wealth will increase the freedom of the vast majority of the people, then to that extent is wealth disparity a form of "good" economics.. If, however, the freedom of the populous is unduly hampered by disparities of wealth, then support, or even tolerance, of such disparity would not be considered as "good" political economy or "good" economics.

In our presentation of real economics we have concocted a short story about fundamental existence to illustrate basic concepts. The use of such a concoction is not really any different than the typical right winged Neanderthal presentations of a "Robinson Crusoe" type of existence. Our own offering is The Berry Patch. A world without force or rent.

We have commented upon Smith's "factors of production" because they are so much used in economic discussion that it would be impossible to ignore them. And an understanding of production is essential to any discussion of political economy. But as we have already remarked, these factors are inadequate and somewhat misleading. We must never lose sight of the fact that man's well being is the objective of any production. We must constantly remind ourselves that man as consumer is a separate object from man as the supplier of labor in the process of production. We must remember that production itself is not to take the place of the real objective of real economics. Production is only "good" if it enhances the quality of life of the vast majority of the people without significant harm to the rest. And lastly we must observe the proper definition of .