Economic Inclusion
What Goes In Comes Out
In the article Multi-Definitional we introduced the concept of inclusion as is pertains to Real Economics, with inclusion being a definition of realness, and therefore economic inclusion being a definition of Real Economics.
The name and concept of "Real Economics" was itself inspired by the Jewish concept of truth, which can be defined as inclusion (as well as continuity). The word truth is synonymous with the word real, and thus was the inspiration for the name "Real Economics." Real Economics is in essence, True Economics.
The Hebrew word for truth in the Torah, emet, contains the first, middle, and last letters of the Hebrew alphabet. According to Jewish sages, truth is “this and that” and if “that” is lacking, then it’s not true. Meaning, truth is inclusion. As such, the word emet contains the letters (or parts) from the beginning, middle, and end of the Hebrew alphabet (aleph, mem, tav), a portrayal of a fundamental inclusion of parts.
Real Economics then, by definition, would be an economics that includes all elements of economics, minus their negatives which take away from the (inclusion of the) other elements.
As per the traditional expression, "what goes in must come out," if wholeness (aka inclusion) goes in (is included), then wholeness comes out. In other words, the primary thing to be included, is inclusion itself.
Let's take a look now at how Real Economics puts this into action.
Mixed Economics
There are currently (as of 2026) three basic forms of economies: command or socialist economies (run by the government), market or capitalistic economies (run by free markets), and mixed economies (a mix of the previous two).
The global reality, is that while some economies are more government-controlled (command / socialist economies) and some are more free (capitalist / market economies), all economies are essentially mixed economies, with not one national economy exhibiting capitalism or socialism explicitly.
This means that the state of economics today is that of economic inclusion. Real Economics therefore, is not introducing the idea of inclusion, but rather seeks to further it along.
It could be said that the reason there is inclusion to begin with is purely natural and consequential. For example, free markets increase production, while governments increase production security.
Generally speaking however, within the mixed economies of our time, there are no mixed economists. Rather, there exists a dualistic, partisan approach to economics, primarily dominated by capitalists (those representing market economics) and socialists (representing command economics). In other words, as stated above, there are three types of economies, two in opposition (command and market economies), and one a mix of the two (mixed economies). Yet astonishingly, while every economy in the world today is a mixed economy, there are, generally speaking, no mixed economists.
Quite possibly, with Real Economics, we will have for the first time ever, real economists, who really represent economies as they are: mixed (inclusive).
Real Economics is simply charitable economics, and charity acts as the bridge between fundamental capitalism and fundamental socialism, the very core of each in symbiotic cohesion. It takes the existing blend of command and market economics (socialism and capitalism) and uses charity not just to further this blend, but to bring out the best of both.
Therefore, Real Economics does not merely seek to make capitalism or socialism better, but rather seeks to make a better economic system altogether, through the inclusion, harmonization, and expansion of both sides of the spectrum, producing a more wholesome system of economics.
Capitalists desire free trade, socialists desire a redistribution of the wealth that arises from such trade. In order for there to be a distribution of wealth there must be wealth to begin with. Likewise, in order for their to be a redistribution of wealth through charity, there must be free trade to produce the profits that can be donated to charity. Donating profits to the parts of humanity and the environment that need it, is in essence, a redistribution of wealth.
Capitalists seek out private interests, socialists seek public interests. Charity is the bridge between private interests and public interests.
Charity is the redistribution of wealth from private interests to public interests (sought by socialists) and the security and uplifting of public interests required by private interests (sought by capitalists).
More so, a particularly great redistribution of wealth through charity requires that there be a great level of production of wealth that can be donated. Meaning, there must be great capitalism, for there to be great socialism, or if you prefer, there must great private interests for there to be great public interests. The more wealth capitalists produce, the more socialists can distribute.
We see therefore that charity does not merely bridge the gap between private and public interests, it is this bridge that leads to the expansion of both.
However, charity on its own, undirected, is unlikely to produce such results. What Real Economics brings to the table is a directed mechanism of charitable giving, directed by, and incorporated into the world through the entity "Real (Economics) Inc." whose mission is to convince entrepreneurs of the benefits of Real Economics for their own sake, collaborate with them through, for example, affiliate relationships, or compete with them if they don't desire the previous two, and in the wake of such competition, an establishment of a new market standard, required or at least desired by the majority of consumers (in other words, competition through contribution).
We will now go into the two major types of economics, capitalism and socialism, and how they relate to Real Economics.
On a side note, there are less popular, minor forms of economics such as circular economics, environmental economics, doughnut economics (not the economics of doughnuts), etc., all with their own unique benefits. It would be wise not to dismiss the unpopular simply because they are unpopular, but rather to examine, consider, and include their benefits accordingly.
Socialism
Socialism has took a turn in recent years, gaining traction amongst the masses. It could be said that the reason this is so is because on the surface, socialism seems so righteous, and the masses have righteous intentions.
It is quite safe to say that if the vast majority of people are not economists, then the vast majority of people don't choose socialism for what it is, but what it appears to be, on the surface. Therefore, why would the majority of society desire capitalism, when on its surface, it is simply not socialism, an economics for society.
While we can say that this is how socialism appears on the surface, it is also not so different at its core. Socialism, as defined by a typical dictionary, is an economic system that promotes public (societal) interests. The problem with that, and particularly why strict socialism has failed many times over, is because the public is represented by the government, and if only governments were less corrupt, less attendant to their own private interests, and more productive than capitalists, socialism could prove to be more beneficial then it has proven throughout history.
Nonetheless, the core of socialism stands justified, the interests of the private must (eventually) lie with the public, for even the private is for the most part, but a function of the public, especially if the environment is included under the term "public." Public interest is not just the core of socialism, it is inescapably the core of any society.
Where Real Economics enters the picture, is how exactly private interests (individuals) can provide for public interests (the collective of individuals). In other words, Real Economics answers the question of "how can wealth be distributed (without harming its own production, through private capital(istic) means)?" The answer of course, is charity (under the system of Real Economics), to the extent of giving all of what we don't need to those who do. Yet for that giving to occur, there must be an initial taking and a making, and that's where capitalism comes in.
Capitalism
Above, we spoke about how the core values of socialism are essentially pro-charity. Now we're going to speak about how the mechanics of socialism, namely governmental aid (the counterpart to charity by the public), is actually anti-charity, and anti-public. Through charity by the public, as opposed to government aid, capitalism itself becomes what socialism was always supposed to be: public-oriented.
Each section below will be an answer to the question, "how is charity different (and even better) than government aid?"
Charity Is Aid
Government aid is the antithesis to charitable giving by the public for the public (the main idea of Real Economics). To begin with, government does not need to give aid, because that's what charities are for. Of course this only applies if the charities are more effective at aiding then government aid is. However, as will be explained below, due to the many flaws of government aid, where it exists, it quite possibly causes more harm than good.
Government aid is antithetical to Real Economics not because governments can't be charitable, they absolutely can, but at the expense of its citizens (the public) not giving to charity. Government revenue comes from taxes. When government revenue goes up the revenue of the citizens goes down.
In general, when there’s big government from big taxes, there’s no big contributions from the people (therefore a people untrained to be contributive) and no big charities either.
As well, the more ultimate goal of Real Economics is not for people to give to charity but not needing to. In fact, the end goal of charity is to not have to give it at all. This comes from self-sustainability, and for us, in our time, that means work.
Work is done in a business and higher taxes means less money for the business to hire and pay its workers, let alone to grow and be a successful, let alone, well-maintained business. Excessive taxes, over-regulation, complicated compliance, these are hindrances on giving people a job, not allowing them to sustain themselves, and therefore the entire economy as a whole.
Government is a necessity. But when government gets unnecessarily big, the citizen gets unnecessarily small, and subsequently, the government gets unnecessarily small as well. The smaller the citizen, the smaller the tax, the smaller the government, and the smaller the giving (of charity) to the world, whether by citizen, or government.
Welfare Is Not Always Well Nor Fair
While they're are forms of proven success of government aid such as emergency humanitarian and environmental aid, and many times necessity calls for such programs, there is also proven failures of government aid, and one in particular is welfare. Now, it could be said that charity is itself welfare (from the citizens and not the government), and one can rightfully ask: "Hasn't it been proven that giving people a livelihood is better than giving them charity?"
The answer is yes and no. No for the people who are suffering and can't work because of it. Yes for the people who aren't suffering and it would be better for them to be in a place where they can give handouts instead of receiving them. Handouts cost money, or are money, and money comes from producing value, i.e. work.
Welfare is also called public assistance, and this name draws upon a very simple clarification of the matter: some people (of the public) simply need assistance. Others need to learn how to assist themselves, and to actually do so. And all of us should get to a point where we can also assist others, which can only come from first assisting ourselves. The catch here, is that if a person continually receives assistance, and he doesn't need it, he'll never be able to learn how to assist himself, and surely not others who actually need it.
As such, it goes without saying, that where there is a limited pool of welfare (or charity) resources, they should not be given to those who can work (and therefore don't need it), if it means not being given to those who legitimately can't work (and therefore do need it), and especially to those who are suffering or at risk of death. Ultimately, the problem with giving money to those who don't work, but can, is that why should they work? They already have the money.
A primary goal for any society is to be contributive, and that practically means that the members of that society are in a position where they are producing value (giving), i.e. work, and not only taking it, i.e. welfare. In this way it could be said that Real Inc., the business entity putting Real Economics into action, is a business with a goal to get people involved in or starting their own business by removing the barriers to do so (such as lifting them out of poverty, removing governmental hindrances on economic opportunity, etc.), and eventually providing them with the means to work in a business or starting their own.
To sum it all up, governmental hindrances on businesses (excessive taxes, over-regulation, complicated compliance, etc.), as well as unchecked welfare, not only prevents people earning money and therefore giving charity (and thus Real Economics), they also prevent the very goal of charity itself (and thus the very goal of Real Economics), not needing it.
Nurture Needs To Be Nurtured
This concept was already mentioned in the section above this one, but should really have a section of its own.
Giving is a good quality to have, and in many ways, it is the definition of goodness itself. But when government is doing all the giving (which, as mentioned above, is by first taking from the people), there's nothing left for people to give. There's no room for goodness. There's no means to nurture the trait of nurturing others. This produces a people untrained to be contributive, or simply put, a people that does not contribute, takers and no givers. It's hard to think of things worse than that. In fact, it could be said that the worst things start with that.
Charity Is By Choice
Government aid comes from taxes which are taken against the will of the taxpayer. Real Economics based charitable contributions are given at will by those who desire to give them and one can find the incentives as to why to do so throughout the What Is Real Economics? page and Concepts articles.
It also seems to be a part of basic human nature for people to not have the will to do, what their forced to do against their will. Forcing someone to give, in many ways, eliminates their desire to give to begin with. A people that doesn't desire to give, is a people that blindly desires its own demise.
Rather, instead of government forcing a tax to fill the aid budget, it would be more beneficial for us all, including for the government itself, to simply educate business owners on why giving charity (according to Real Economics) is better for their business, including the incentivization of customers to buy (and continue buying) from their business to begin with.
Follow The Money
Government aid goes through the government and the government isn't known to have a pristine track record of efficiency and morality. On the other hand, as surprising as it might be for some, in a study done by the charity GiveDirectly and five charity researchers, it became clear that people who lack basic necessities were free from corruption. That's hard to say about politicians, of whom handle the aid money before it ever sees the hand of whom they should be aiding.
Just Launched