Economics, and probably all other social phenomena, are caused by nothing other than human nature. We will not dwell on where it came from or what exactly it means—for our purposes, this does not matter. Let us focus on such a universally known fact as human dissatisfaction. Unlike animals, a human is never completely satisfied with his current situation. He always feels that things could be better. As soon as he sees opportunities for improvement, he begins to act.
This is the only reason why economics exists. Economics is the science of human action, and the cause of his action is dissatisfaction. For economics, a beggar searching for a crust of bread and a millionaire fascinated with, say, breeding fish are the same. The reason they act is that both believe things could be better.
It seems a simple statement—what is there to argue about? On the side of this statement stands the experience of humanity, expressed in mythology, fairy tales, literature, and everyday observations. However, here is what is interesting: journalists, experts, and politicians claim something completely different. Of course, they do not go so far as outright denial, but if we reconstruct the basis of their reasoning, it will be quite different.
With politicians, journalists, and experts, things look objectively. That is, it turns out we have needs that should (and most importantly—can!) be satisfied. Objective needs, such as needs for food, housing, and reproduction. It is around them, they tell us, that everything happens.
This viewpoint remarkably coexists with people’s lived experience, which directly contradicts it. I recall how, during the 1994 elections, Ukrainians, from the smallest to the greatest, repeated the same thing like parrots: “these ones have already stolen plenty; new ones will come—they’ll start again.” This is how Ukrainians motivated their desire to vote for power. They voted. And so, did those they voted for finally steal enough? No, of course. It is impossible to steal enough. As they say, there is no limit to perfection. If Ukrainians had been more attentive to their own experience, recorded in the most varied ways, they might have acted differently. But experience is sometimes difficult to extract from piles of “objective” texts on a current topic.
Why go far at all? Let us look at what is happening with us right now. Objectively speaking, my friends, we live simply excellently. Needs for food, housing, and reproduction are satisfied at 110%. Nobody is swelling from hunger. Everyone has a place to live; reproduction is also occurring. So why are we so dissatisfied? Think about this simple fact and its interpretation by politicians, experts, and journalists. What do they offer you as an explanation of the situation and, most importantly, as a justification for their own existence? They constantly tell you about minimum wages and consumer baskets, that everything is bad because they are so small. They also say that many live below the poverty line. That is, if the poverty threshold is, say, a thousand hryvnias per month, and you received one thousand and one, happiness will immediately be yours. Isn’t this nonsense?
Apparently, objective needs are not at all objective. You do not need food in general, housing in general, and reproduction with just anyone. Besides this, there is much else needed, today one thing, tomorrow something completely different. And this is what constitutes the everyday content of your life—which, in its economic guise, is called economics.
In conclusion, let us dwell on two conclusions that clearly follow from the assertion that dissatisfaction is the cause of economics. These conclusions nicely illustrate how basic understandings determine the nature of activity.