We often think of economics as numbers, charts, and markets. But economics is simply the study of how people make choices under constraints — and life itself is nothing but a sequence of those choices.
We envy because everything is relative. We cling to shame like liabilities on a balance sheet. We feel “late” because our timeline looks worse compared to others. These aren’t just emotions — they’re economics in disguise.
My goal is to uncover these hidden connections. To take ideas like opportunity cost, incentives, or production frontiers, and show how they explain ambition, love, fear, and growth. Not as dry theory, but as living principles.
If economics teaches us how people allocate scarce resources, then life is where we see it played out with time, energy, and hope. By learning to see through this lens, we gain clarity, power, and sometimes — liberation.
This is the journey I want to share: life, as economics disguised.
I also share these reflections on Substack. If you’d like to read more, you can subscribe here: link
Post 6: When the Facts Change, Do You?
John Maynard Keynes once said: “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?”
Yet in life, many of us do the opposite. We cling stubbornly to old chapters—outdated beliefs, past failures, or former identities—even when our circumstances have shifted dramatically.
Why? Because those beliefs become part of our identity. Letting them go feels like losing ourselves. That’s why we sometimes even fight to defend them, long after we secretly know they’re outdated.
Economics has the same problem: some models are outdated, but we still teach them. Paradigms persist until the pressure to change becomes undeniable.
The solution may be to treat our own life visions like economic models: useful but imperfect. Don’t get overly attached. If the “model” stops helping you navigate reality, update it.
Life, much like economics, rewards adaptability. Progress depends on updating our assumptions when new information arrives. Changing your mind isn’t weakness; it’s often the smartest and most strategic move you can make.
✨ Question: When was the last time you updated your own model of the world in light of new realities?
Post 5: ⏳ Parkinson’s Law — Why Time Without Limits Breeds Inefficiency
In 1955, historian C. Northcote Parkinson wrote that “work expands to fill the time available for its completion.”
What does that mean? Simply put: If you give a task five days when it could be done in one, you’ll likely use all five.
Not because the task got harder — but because having too much time creates slack. You get distracted, polish more than needed, hesitate, and lose focus.
💡 In economics terms, this is a supply problem.
When time feels abundant, its value drops. Without real limits, we stop managing it efficiently — much like a flooded market with cheap goods.
⚙️ So, the solution isn’t just to “work faster.”
It’s about setting smart time limits — enough pressure to focus, but not so much that quality suffers.
🕒 Time scarcity by design, not by panic.
If a report needs a day, give it a day.
If a project takes a month, plan what must happen each week.
This structure keeps your time productive, not elastic.
Now, some people think procrastination works similarly — after all, delaying shortens the time left.
But procrastination is different.
🚫 Procrastination wastes time by not properly allocating it.
It comes from avoidance, fear, or distraction — not by design.
It compresses your available time into a stressful sprint, not a calm, focused effort.
When you procrastinate, the task lingers in your mind.
You feel guilt, get distracted to escape stress, and hours slip by with little progress.
💭 Parkinson’s Law wastes time because there’s too much relaxed time.
🔥 Procrastination wastes time because there’s too little well-managed time — replaced by panic and inefficiency.
🌗 Real personal effectiveness lives in the middle —
when time is limited enough to create focus, but not so limited that it causes fear.
✨ Setting efficient constraints gives your time value — enough to keep you moving, without panic or waste.
Post 4: We attract not what we want, but...
We tend to think life rewards effort or desire.
But in economics — and in reality — outcomes follow systems.
Economists don’t ask what people say they want; they look at what people do.
Your “revealed preferences” — how you spend time, attention, and energy — quietly define your true priorities.
And the world responds to those signals, not to your statements.
Incentives, constraints, and what draws attention — your own or others’ — shape behavior far more than motivation ever could.
If you want to eat healthier, don’t fight cake — change what’s in your fridge.
If you want focus, remove noise — silence notifications, close extra tabs, clear your space.
If you want calmer days, design calmer defaults — limit chaos before it enters.
The same logic that governs markets governs life:
we settle into the outcomes that match our patterns, not our intentions.
You don’t attract what you want.
You attract what you’re structured for —
what your incentives, habits, and daily choices quietly reinforce.
Aspiration still matters. It’s the spark that helps you see what could be different.
Willpower matters too — it’s the bridge that carries you through the early steps of change.
But lasting transformation begins when effort turns into design —
when your daily structure starts working with you, not against you.
Post 3: Relative Prices and Our Mental Health
In economics, what matters most are not absolute prices but relative prices. A relative price shows the cost of one thing in terms of another.
👉 Example: a coffee costs $5. If a book costs $10, then the relative price of coffee is half a book. Unlike the absolute price (just $5), the relative price highlights what you must give up in terms of another good—coffee vs. books. This framing helps economists analyze choices when income is limited.
But here’s the interesting part: life often works the same way. We rarely measure ourselves in absolutes. Instead, we compare relatively:
· My $200k salary doesn’t feel like “$200k” in absolute terms.
· It feels like “less than my friend’s $300k” or “more than my cousin’s $50k.”
The comparison, not the number, drives how satisfied or anxious we feel.
This is why envy bites harder than poverty, and why many people feel “poor” at a level others dream of. We live in a world of relative measures.
💡 But economics also reminds us there’s another way: absolute prices. An absolute price says: coffee is $5, period. In life, the equivalent is looking at your own values and costs directly, without benchmarking against others.
So, instead of making decision on relative comparisons, focus on absolute costs for you. Pushing for a promotion to “keep up” may look good in relative terms, but the absolute cost is missing time with your children. Likewise, pursuing luxury goods to match peers may bring status, but the absolute cost is financial stress and lost peace of mind.
Focusing on absolute costs makes decisions clearer and more personal:
· What exactly am I giving up to achieve this?
· Do I value what I’m losing more than what I’m gaining?
That perspective cuts through the noise of comparison and brings decisions back to what really matters for you.
✨ Takeaway: Relative prices may guide markets, but in life, living by absolutes—anchored in your own values—can protect your mental health and free you from the endless race of comparisons.
Post 2: Ceteris Paribus: A Stoic Economic Principle
In Economics 101, we teach students how agents make decisions: choosing between coffee and books, producing X instead of Y — always under the assumption of ceteris paribus.
Ceteris paribus is Latin for “all other things remaining equal.” It’s a simplifying assumption: when we analyze one variable, we treat others as fixed.
For example, in utility maximization it means: given the actions of others, the agent optimizes his own choices.
🌍 In Life
But in real life, people often try to change others’ behavior. An economist would smile and say: that’s like fighting the model itself. Unless you’re in a cooperation or coordination game (where strategies truly align), the rational move is to treat others’ choices as given — and optimize around them.
💡 Why This Matters
Disappointment comes when we try to “rewrite” other people’s preferences.
Ceteris paribus offers peace: accept others’ behavior as fixed conditions — like gravity or the weather. Your power lies not in changing them, but in adjusting your own strategy within the constraints.
✨ Takeaway
Ceteris paribus isn’t just an economic assumption — it’s a stoic life principle:
Don’t waste energy trying to bend others.
Recognize the game you’re in.
If it’s cooperative, coordinate. If not, treat their behavior as “given” and optimize your own.
Post 1: Most people overcomplicate decision-making.
Should I start a new path or continue studying a bit longer to become more prepared?
Should I change jobs or wait until I feel “ready”?
Jeff Bezos offers a simple but powerful recommendation — relevant not only in business, but in life:
Type 1 decisions: irreversible, high-impact → require slow, careful thought.
Type 2 decisions: reversible, low-impact → can be made fast and adjusted later.
This framework prevents two traps:
Paralysis: spending endless time on trivial choices.
Impulsiveness: rushing through critical, life-changing choices.
Economics adds a complementary idea: learning by doing.
In many cases, you only discover whether you’ve studied “enough” after you act.
If the downside is small → start. You’ll learn in the game itself.
👉 Practical rule I keep coming back to:
Move fast on reversible decisions.
Slow down on irreversible ones.
And when in doubt, act — because inaction has its own cost. Economists call it opportunity cost.