by Martin Št?pán
I have used the term “invisible hand of nature” in the last post. This is deliberate to create an association between nature and market because that is what nature is, a market. A self-correcting system, constantly trying to approach an equilibrium it can never reach because there’s too many variables involved.
I expect anyone with a basic understanding of economics without a belief in evolution to have much firmer grasp of natural laws than some leftist defending evolution just to pawn the religious conservatives because economic laws are natural laws. One only needs to start accounting for exchanges of both positive and negative value on demonstrated interests (property-in-toto).
Illustration:
A rabbit meets a fox. An exchange is initiated.
Fox has the option to avoid the exchange or spend calories for a chance to obtain more calories. This will generally be preferable option for the fox.
However, such exchange is highly disadvantageous for a rabbit because he spends his life in exchange for nothing. The option to simply refuse isn’t open to him but he can spend his own calories in exchange for a chance to survive. Neither option is productive for him but that’s just the way it is.
The outcome is either that fox gets more calories that it can then spend as it chooses, for instance, to make more foxes, and that the local supply of rabbits goes down and increases their value, or that the fox wastes its calories, is less successful and risk losing its chance at reproduction while the same happens to the rabbit but his chance to increase the supply of rabbits remains positive.
On the market of nature, we’re all both entrepreneurs and products at the same time.