It has been stressed explicitly or implicitly how important the new axioms will play in the evolution of economics by examining their various meanings. However, there remains one problem that must be solved in order to accommodate them in economics. It is a matter of logical consecutiveness. Even if the new axioms enable scientific reasoning of economic principles by showing consistent trends or tendencies, it does not make sense unless they appear repeatedly and stably. Specifically, the propositions that resources are relatively scarce and their relative scarcity fluctuates, that economic entities try to behavior rationally and that the economic phenomena are to be balanced must be maintained constantly over time to be given its theoretical significance.
This is a matter of dynamic balance as shown in the context of the logic developed above. This problem have to be solved because it has been repeated several times that the new axioms is the starting point for the dynamics of economics. The theory without logical coincidence is just a fiction. Therefore, the above axioms have to retain dynamic balance in order to maintain stability in the course of time. If the equilibrium moves, then the logical stability have to be maintained in the new equilibrium, so that the theory can have scientific significance. The clues to solve this problem of dynamic balance can be found in the logical antinomy of the new axioms.
The first axiom that ‘economic activity is the process of eliminating the scarcity of resources’, the second axiom that ‘economic entities are trying to rationalize’ and the third axiom that ‘the economy tries to achieve balance’ mean that they are always in imbalance states. The terms of 'process' and 'try' mean that there is a power to pursue balance in activities of economic entities and economic phenomena. However, in terms of time, this is an obvious antinomy. If the balancing process is proceeding by the intrinsic motive to pursue balance, the ‘balance of perfect steady state’ which mainstream economics presumes have to be reached already.
Since the economic history of mankind has already flowed for thousands years, the economy should have reached perfect balance now, which is a logically natural consequence. However, the new axioms always assume imbalance. This is a logical contradiction. It does not make sense at all to say that the economy does not have reached the balanced state, since it has been running for balance for many years already. How can we get rid of this oddball? There is only one way that the opposite power must be assumed in order to establish a consistent logic for the situation that ‘the balance is not achieved and the economy is always in imbalance state, despite that the power to achieve balance always works’. Just as there are action and reaction for the laws of motion in physics.
In any case, the new axioms can not be viable unless we assume the power to depart from balance with the power to achieve balance. The new axioms can always exist logically only when the balance power and the imbalance power act simultaneously. All the forces that maintain scarcity, the forces that cause unreasonable behavior and the forces that sustain imbalances must be premised together. Therefore, it is essential to assume departure from the static balance in the theoretical framework of dynamics.
So what is the imbalance power and what role does it play in the economy? The theoretical grounds for the imbalance power is provided by which the mainstream economics has considered as exogenous variables that make resources scarce continuously, that make economic entities behave irrationally and that makes the economy become unbalanced. The mainstream economics has overlooked their theoretical importance treating them as exceptional. However Choe’s economics draws them into the theoretical system and make them endogenous variables of the dynamic balance. Thus, it assigns an essential mission to them as below.
In short, Choe’s economics evolves the economics from statics to dynamics through establishing the principle that the convergence power and the deviation power interact to achieve dynamic balance, by taking the endogenous variables of the static balance theory as the convergence power of the dynamic balance and by taking the exogenous variables of the static balance as the deviation power of the dynamic balance. Although this principle of dynamic equilibrium may seem strange right now, however it is impossible to theorize the economic phenomenon as it is without introducing this concept of 'dynamic balance'. It is for this reason that the community of economists has been constantly raising the issue of evolving economics from statics to dynamics so far but has not achieved any clear results. In addition, although the crisis of economics has been discussed many times but have been resulted in vain, it is mainly due to the fact that economic theory is based on statics which disturb reading economic phenomena as they are.
By analogy, it looks like that the orbital movement of the earth is deviated from the static balance by a little bit in the viewpoint of the circular motion. Therefore, its orbital movement should be observed in the viewpoint of dynamic balance. Likewise, all the economic phenomena should be viewed from the dynamic perspective. When we approach economic behaviors and phenomena based on this dynamic equilibrium, it is logical that all the economic phenomena which seems to be deviated from the static equilibrium is rather balanced in the dynamic viewpoint. If the interaction between convergence power and deviation power is considered to maintain a dynamic balance, it is natural to see that all the imbalances in the classical sense is dynamically balanced. To conclude, all the existing economic phenomena is dynamically balanced if it is stable.
Now, according to the 'balance theory of imbalance', all the prices in reality can be regarded as equilibrium ones even if they are unbalanced statistically. Equally, all the incomes in reality can now be regarded as equilibrium ones. By this point, economics has established a place to build a theory system for economic phenomena that appear in reality. Now we can identify the principles for the economic phenomena that appear in reality. It is also possible for us to establish economic theories that can explain 'all the phenomena as they are' when we approach them based on the 'dynamic balance theory'. This is the starting point of a new paradigm of economics, that is, Choe's economics. I would like to emphasize that changes in reality can be accommodated in a consistent theoretical system of economics only when it is approached from the viewpoint of dynamic equilibrium. Without applying this 'dynamic equilibrium' and embracing the departure from the static balance, economics can not accommodate any economic fluctuations, economic growths, or systemic changes within the theoretical framework.
If the dynamic equilibrium is not assumed, all the economic phenomena should be regarded as stopped and all the economic fluctuations can not be accommodated into the theoretical system of economics, since it is difficult to evolve from the statics to dynamics without the interaction of convergence power and deviation power. Finally, economic cycles, economic growths and historical development steps of the system, which were not allowed until now in the paradigm of the mainstream economics, can be understood in the theoretical system of economics.
Now that the 'new axioms' have been modified completely and the 'dynamic equilibrium' has been established, a place has been set to deal with the paradigm of Choe's economics in earnest. In fact, the new theory or dynamic equilibrium has hardly realistic meaning in the individual dimension. Definitely there is little practical usefulness. But when applying the new axioms and the dynamic equilibrium to the whole theoretical system of economics, it has not only practical usefulness but also very important academic meanings. I will start this work from now on. Before that, there is one problem to look into. It is the policy hurdle caused by the overly strict axioms of the current mainstream economics. In particular, the axiom of 'the economy is always balanced' has left a serious evil in reality. Looking at this, it is easy for us to see how important it is to revise axioms and establish a dynamic balance theory.