Anyone with a basic understanding of the law can debunk our foundational systems and outdated theses.
The more one looks into the constructs we build to support the evolution of humanity, and questions the validity of the theses we preach as untouchable religion, the more a level-headed entrepreneur will want to become an economic atheist, in blissful ignorance of the grandeur of inefficiency that has come before.
And yet, entrepreneurs are highly dependent on newly defined global economics to comprehend how their innovations will most likely continue to encircle the world. Unfortunately for them, the current religion and thesis of economics do not offer much relevant advice.
Pants on fire
The lies we tell ourselves at times are astounding, and the grave consequences emanating from a lack of criticism and lack of innovation are swiftly shoved under the rug of economic religion, as God’s unquestionable intention.
Few dare to question our economic religion, yet all of us should.
In the pursuit and business of innovation I have always ignored these masterful constructs and definitions and verbalized my disdain for specific economic gospel publicly in my blog “Markets don’t exist (2008)”, in “We fail because we lie (2011)” and in “The greatest lie of all (2012)”. And I will prove much of our prevailing economic religion wrong in one chapter of my upcoming book; as another section will be devoted to reinventing economics.
During my life, I was confronted early and often with undeserved authority that attempted to force me in the submission of dreams and aspirations that were not my own.
Growing up, I developed a sixth sense for the impending enslavement to mediocrity I resisted fiercely. Such resistance became a great attribute I have applied to the creation, build-out, and investments in great innovations, and apply now with surgical precision to the analysis and repair of the self-induced mediocrity in venture capital, asset management, and economics.
The tricks I use to discover what kind of Messiah we should reject or accept, are now almost instinctual to me, and hard to teach others in a single blog post. In thinking about this subject for my book it dawned on me that there is a system today that does away with any religion, and religion’s unquestionable constructs presented to it and therefore yields an excellent example of how to develop the evidentiary construct that builds the validity of a thesis.
Justice for all
That construct is part of the justice system.
Yes, I know, the justice system itself is subject to the religion of our old and virtually unquestionable constitution (save for the interpretation by the supreme court), and thus at the macro level subject to some of the fallacies above. And our justice system has been far from perfect, known to have sent innocent people to death row. I applaud The Innocence Project in their successful endeavor to overturn wrongfully convicted people, as it attempts to reform the justice system.
But at the micro level, the way the system deals with evidence in court, regardless of the merit of the case, is a mechanism we can learn from.
Let’s take a closer look.
To build a thesis to adjudicate guilt or innocence criminal law uses the admission of direct and circumstantial evidence to prove its case. Simplified, direct evidence supports the truth of an assertion directly – without the need for additional evidence (a witness saw the infraction occur) and circumstantial evidence requires an inference to connect the evidence to a conclusion of fact (like a fingerprint, etc.). Both or either one can be used to prove guilt or innocence, depending on who owns the burden of proof. The public, as the elected jury on the case, weighing all the evidence, decides whether or not that proof is sufficient, and beyond a reasonable doubt, to support the burden of proof.
No burden, no proof
What is mind-blowing is that most systems we create and perpetuate a thesis, are not supported by direct or circumstantial evidence, let alone a reliable witness or inference to support the hypothesis. And the public, most notably the biggest beneficiary of the merit deployed by the thesis, is entirely left out in weighing the evidence that establishes its proof.
Unchanged for hundreds of years, many constructs derived from the theses, are engrained in the fabric of the way we do things, with the burden of proof moved from those who manage to perpetuate those systems to those who challenge them.
But inadmissible in any court is the notion of hearsay, the process by which a first-person hears something from a second person – without the direct involvement of the first person. Put in systems terminology; hearsay is a derivative of a derivative.
The justice system makes a clear distinction in its willingness to evaluate the testimony of a witness, or assess the corroboration derived from inferences, and bluntly rejects any evidence that is a derivative thereof.
That ability, to distinguish between evidence and hearsay, to establish the validity of a thesis is what is missing in so many systems we create and perpetuate with the false positivity of the hymns of the economic gospel.
Anybody with a law degree can completely invalidate many of our foundational economic theses, as the justice system would not allow them to enter into court.
Dismissed in court
Here are some examples of the systems few of us dare to challenge, yet could never stand up a day in court:
The thesis of classical economics will be outright dismissed in a court of law. For the chain of stacked derivatives that form the basis of classical economics, comprised of artificial constructs such as markets, supply-and-demand, consumption, etc. do not exist in real life. A thesis with serious implication to the real world cannot be based on evidence that is not. Classical economics is therefore in legal terms multi-level hearsay at best and uses invalid inferences to boot.
On the surface, the diversification of investments in diverse asset classes forms the proper circumstantial evidence to solidify the validity of the thesis of asset management, were it not for the improper embedded risk attached to each asset class. Hence, the inferences derived from each asset class can be proven unreliable and invalid, and thus the corroboration of evidence is insufficient to support the thesis of asset management.
Ten levels of diversification of risk in venture capital (regardless of the investment thesis), implicitly deployed by asset management to the sector, forms the multi-level hearsay that proves the hypothesis and implementation of venture capital wrong. Save for the “secret” demi-cartel derived from the collusion of investor socialism that violates our constitutional desire to create free-market access to everyone, with the ignorance of the SEC as its recanting witness.
The point is: it does not take a genius to discover how our manipulation of the evolution of humanity is seriously flawed, damaging human excellence and the pursuit of truth. And that, if we want to continue to lead and inspire the world, we must apply new rigors of excellence to ourselves, with principles we already use for good reason elsewhere.
We can and must reinvent the principles at the lynchpin of the operating-systems of humanity.