Why I wrote EconSov Part 3: Creation > Deconstruction

Don’t mind me, I’m just a Law Abiding Citizen, playing judo with some naughty knaves. When an Italian economist from Deutsche Bank sought me out for information collection and entrapment, I knew I was succeeding.

Creation > Innovation > Formulation > Emulation > Deconstruction

What kind of engineers are good at economics? There is a difference between an entrepreneurial engineer and a typical engineer. One innovates, the other formulates. It is easy to give people what they think they want. Most technology companies, nonprofits, and government institutions do that. It’s much harder to give people what they didn’t know they needed. The prior gives us better selfie apps, while the latter gives us the combustion engine and a number of my inventions.

An entrepreneurial engineer of the industrial-organizational domain might create a new factory. And surely, he is an innovator. Let’s say the factory pumps out Pet Rocks. What is the outcome of the innovation? One more trinket to clutter the houses of hoarders? What might an environmentalist say? What might a classicist say, who could recount legendary tales much more amusing than Pet Rocks?

Creation is more than innovation, it requires proper moral and value-oriented considerations. It requires visions of humanity and the world that are enduring. Popular opinion is not the arbiter of what is moral and good. Any pseudo-intellectual who believes that needs to open a history book and turn to chapters on the Mongolians, Weimar Germany, the Aztecs, or the Mayans.

Chaotic evil was popularly “good” to them. I’m sure very bright people in the Mayan civilization helped them to more rapidly accelerate deforestation for their slash and burn agriculture and to plaster their temples of human slaughter with their slave labor. But their hellish orchestra of death and oppression was keeping the sun from burning out, according to their animistic religion. The slaves and slaughtered people certainly were not fond of the innovators who made the ziggurats a reality.

Even an entrepreneurial engineer can innovate useless or harmful things, that turn to dust quickly on the timescale of humanity.

A creative engineer operates upon the enduring traditions and wisdom of history, the moral and value-oriented absolutes inspired by it, and accurate visions of the world. If they possess that foundation, then their inventions become enduring. The stringed instrument is enduring. The aqueduct is enduring – its modern incarnation brings safe water into our homes through plumbing. The magnificent gifts of creative engineers throughout history can only be obliterated by errant or evil people.

Any formulating engineer can solve complex problems. Any entrepreneurial engineer can innovate. But only a creative engineer solves problems to improve the human condition.

There are very few creative engineers, because our rubber-stamp university credentialing system across the globe does not want them. To be like Leonardo da Vinci, Ben Franklin, or Sir Isaac Newton requires as much interest in humanities as formulary. But formulary makes the STEM graduate more readily employable by The Davos Clique and other overlords of much lower intelligence, but much greater power and wealth. In this way, both the creative and destructive processes are usurped by unjustified people. The foolish engineer becomes an instrument of inferior people with wealth and power. In a grand irony, the instrument-maker becomes the unwitting instrument.

I did not intentionally become a creative engineer. I have always demonstrated equal skill in STEM and the humanities since I was a child. I enjoyed it all the same, in fact, I needed the synthesis to be satisfied with my activities. Management came naturally. I grew larger than the other kids faster, so I was a leader in little league football. I mastered musicianship on guitar and composition early, so I was a band leader and composer. I mastered course material rapidly so I was a leader in academics. I mastered my jobs so they put me in charge of people and projects – from small business to resident life on campus. My experience in organizing people gave me insights.

Economics was easy for an engineer with management and humanities expertise. In one semester, they gave us a course that accelerated us through what it takes economics undergraduates three years to learn. They could do this because we were already in our fifth calculus course and we could achieve a lot more with sophisticated mathematics and students of higher intelligence.

Engineering Economy focuses on the complexity of how a technology and organization can perform financially. Will the designed technology be a loss? Will it make returns on investment? How much? Why? These are simple questions, but they have complicated answers. They’re just not nearly as complicated Engineering Physics.

Some of my classmates hated this stuff. I loved economic analysis. I loved creating organizations from nothing. I loved software estimation – not necessarily Cocomo II, but my modern methods were often saving graces for companies that employed me. In one week, I saved the Pentagon $10 million per year in mobile phone charges with a simple spreadsheet. None of their MBA graduates could do that. They spent years wasting that money. For me, financial and economic analysis is easy as pie, and incredibly important.

Perhaps one of the reasons I love it so much is because I value people engaged in virtuous activity. If I can help them optimize the virtue of their time expenditure, I am greatly satisfied. Without accurate economic and financial analysis – people are consigned to waste. And lost time is never found again. The Davos Clique and dirigiste politicians don’t really care about wasting our time, and consequently our lives, so long as their agenda is served.

In the first article of this series, I showed my Engineering Economy textbook. I still use it from time to time. I also use newer books such as CIO Best Practices for managing labor. In the second article of this series, I showed a mug my father bought me for Christmas during my junior year.

It was a common to speak of rocket science as the most complicated knowledge. If something very simple became a point of contention, people would say, “it’s not rocket science.” The smartest people in Iran and North Korea are still trying to figure that one out – poor Nuclear Nadal. So my father thought it was amusing that his son was studying rocket science from a guy who worked on the first shuttle for NASA.

I did well in the class, but I did get the product rule in N2 wrong like everyone else, the first time. We’re used to calculating force presuming that the object remains the same mass as it moves through space. We did those calculations a thousand times. But a rocket burns fuel so quickly that its change in mass over change in time is incredibly significant. Fallacious assumptions are sometimes accepted by the brightest and most knowledgeable people, even in their own field of practice.

I do not believe that all of the economists are corrupt. I think that most are operating on fallacious assumptions by rote habit, just like our brilliant rocket scientists, in their misapplication of Newtonian physics. I hope that they will collaborate with me on Economic Sovereignty when they wish to correct some of their models and conduct research on the novel creations I have made by analyzing the national and global economy.

Creators are infectious. When people finally understand why they need what the creator has conceived, they want a part of the beautiful and noble activities. There are few more rewarding things than knowing you are improving the human condition with your own life and talents. And we do not need a thousand Galileos, but we do need millions to understand the value of his creations and to help him apply them to this world in myriad ways.

To understand how the human condition is improved by Economic Sovereignty, a person must first appreciate how we are threatened. In the first article, I described the Piketty inequality fiction peddled by The Davos Clique. In the second article, The Great Recession, Occupy Wall Street, and the TEA Party take form. In this article, I answered the common question for people who do not understand how certain engineering practices relate to business, economics, and industrial-organizational endeavors, and why I have always participated in this field. Our education was a very special one, with uncommon features, along with my career.

In the next and final article, the genesis of Economic Sovereignty is concluded, the Davos Clique scout from Deutsche Bank is revealed, and the economic knowledge gap of our society is detailed.

One thought on “Why I wrote EconSov Part 3: Creation > Deconstruction

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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