Adam Smith argued that the source of national

Adam Smith argued that the source of national wealth is production factors such as labor, capital, and land. Since the founder of modern economics argued so, later economists also developed the theory of national wealth or growth based on his arguments. In short, national wealth increases only when the factors of production are abundant.

However, an economist proved that only 10% of production factors contribute to economic growth. No economist has yet developed a theory that is scientifically irrefutable to what the remaining 90% is.

Economics was established by considering the economy as an organism, and the answer is easily revealed when compared to the most outstanding human body among organisms. Let's give a metaphor.

What should I do to become an excellent soccer player like Son Heung-min? First of all, I have to be born with a great physique and excellent athletic ability. However, these are only requirements. You can become an excellent soccer player only when you have sufficient conditions such as excellent physical strength, soccer skills, and a sense of play.

In an economy, production is a necessary factor. Among the sufficient conditions, physical strength is growth potential, soccer skills are international competitiveness, and economic sense is growth sustainability.

However, the sufficient conditions require sweat (effort), tears (suffering patience), and blood (sacrifice). This is the same for both soccer players and the economy. However, no Koreans welcome blood, sweat, or tears, especially in the economy. So the above sufficient conditions have no place in economics. This is why populism, in particular, is rampant in the Third World.

I had no choice but to do economics in the city because I was only able to get a Ph.D. at the age of 70, and I was looking for sufficient conditions against Adams, the father of economics.