Question (1): Why we need to change our economic regulations or rules?
My answer: We have to change some rules because we have an environment with high speed changes (in the reference with my article of "External Real Forces and Pseudo-Forces to Design a Strategic Plan: Fuzzy logic Vs. Classic Logic" posted on link:http://emfps.blogspot.com/2013/12/external-real-forces-and-pseudo-forces.html) and we need to have amendment to them forever. In the matter of fact, we should shift the changeable laws to constant laws in which the concept of them will be the same in the view of all aspects. Let me bring you an example:
Assume the government releases a rule that the people do not allow to go from location A to location B. It is clear, the people will find the location C and at the first they will go from location A to location C and then they will go to location B. Therefore, the government has to have so many amendments. Now, we use from a constant law:
Assume that the distance between location A and B is equal “x” km and the government authorizes the rule as follows instead of previous rule:
“Someone who would like to come to location B from location A, must travel through the distance less than “x” km”
There is a simple law about the distance between two points that is always constant and here we do not need to have an amendment. Of course, there are the executive problems that they will be solved by using of technology.
Question (2): What are the differences between real economy and economies theories? How can we make them closer with clear views?
My answer: I think that this question about real economy and theoretical economy is very important.
By answering to your question, we are able to understand the real reason behind of financial crisis and so answer the below question:
Actually, why do economists in the world take a mistake in their analysis?
As I mentioned in my previous article, I would like to continue it in the case of “about problem (2)” that is the new definitions of scarce resources.
Please be informed this question will be exactly answered in my new article. But I have concern if I must write my real idea or I must censor myself because my approach is to solve the problem not to complicate the problem. Besides, we should not say the facts which are the problems and it is possible by presenting these facts, we will destroy the business of the people around the world.
Perhaps, I will write my real idea about this problem in the future, if I find out a solution.
In fact, now my new attitude to the life is as follows:
"Do not broadcast the problem that you have not any solution for it and you feel that it will destroy the business of some people in the world, even though this problem is the fact"