In this article I will examine three main features of the current dominant economic theory and discuss what I have considered to be its three main assumptions. This theory can today be understood in neoclassical [or neoliberal] economic terms. It is a three-dimensional theory: people's selfishness, consumption factors and production dynamics. Neoclassical economic theory is based on the idea that individuals should be left alone, because they know what they do and what they want. This implies that selfishness is at the heart of whatever happens in the market. Governments should therefore opt for free markets and privatisation. Since the market itself would tend towards economic equilibrium, the end result will therefore be economic growth. From this idea, three models emerged as three main features of the dominant economic theory. First, there is a demand model that aims to explain consumer behavior. Secondly, there is a supply model that aims to explain the factors of production. Third, there is a business model that studies the behavior of businesses. Its three main hypotheses are closely related to these characteristics. First, contemporary economists assume that people have rational preferences between the outcomes of their choices associated with their values. Second, they assume that individuals always act for utility maximization, while firms act for profit maximization. Third, they assume that people act independently with complete and relevant information about their needs. In discussing the characteristics and assumptions specified above, I will refer to some aspects of human life. I will conclude by stating that all assumptions should be revised for the better. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay Consumption and production factors should be in accordance with a clear and practical approach while seeking the truth for the balance of economic growth not from hypotheses, but from facts. The dominant economic theory must be, at first, understood as something that comes and goes at a particular time depending on certain circumstances. In other words, it is nothing more than a temporal effect resulting from adjustments to ongoing changes in the history of the economy. To have a well-structured economy, the dominant economic theory always places its characteristics and assumptions in relation to the conditions. The focus of the economy was shifted from production to consumption and exchange (Chang 121). This justifies why Africa is currently being targeted by China and some other economic powers. In this sense, the current dominant economic theory has fixed solutions to the economy. It did so by focusing on determining the distribution of goods, productivity and incomes in markets through models of supply and demand. This determination is generally ensured with two hypotheses. First, it is seen through a “hypothesized maximization of utility through income tamed by individuals” (Yanis 116). Second, it is perceived in “firms' implicit profit maximization in setting production costs” (130). Therefore, contemporary economists believe that they have generated morality in trade by using available information on factors of consumption and exchange in accordance with the principle of rational choice. Based on the fact that individuals are guided by rational choices and their selfishness, contemporary economists argue that people try to increasetheir happiness while making economic decisions. Such rational choices involve consumption and production factors. These two factors therefore play an important role in shaping the market with an aspect of utility and profit, given the available information. In this sense, contemporary economists have then tried to understand the relationship between consumption and production well. Once this relationship is understood, they believe they can easily and fairly model the economy. Yanis argues that “instrumental rationality requires that our choices be consistent with our preferences. Therefore the same preferences must produce the same actions given the same information” (55). Since in most cases economists are always competitive, the crucial question that arises here is whether all contemporary economists agree on all possible features and hypotheses of the current dominant economic theory. My focus is only on those specified above, as they may not be listed exhaustively. First, the demand model requires people to obtain information about what is available in the market. This information may be relevant or irrelevant to what they expect from the market. It is the nature of the information that guides them every time they have to decide what they want to get from the market. Jonathan Aldred states that “shopping is equally central to understanding how economists think. Modern economics is built on theories of 'rational choice,' which is supposed to be the type of choice consumers make when they shop” (11). I agree with him because people know what they want while shopping, and more choices are far better than less not only for them, but also for companies. A related assumption in this model is that people always use "rational choice" in purchasing and consuming goods. For example, in the education sector, as consumers, individuals pay fees for educational qualifications hoping to earn a lot of money and a better life in the long run. However, they may not be fully informed about their future or the potential relevance of the education they wish to receive. At the market people don't confuse what they want with what they don't want. They buy what they need. However, you may want to know whether everything that is produced or offered to the market is of the best quality. Therefore, contemporary economists would be better off opting for rational choice values ​​rather than any formal rational choice for marketing standards in anything involving commercial dimensions. Furthermore, a “rational choice” by consumers can only be effective when they are fully informed about what they are offered. However, the “consumer can make rational choices without ever having complete and sufficient information about production” (Yanis 96). Once again, consumers, whether considered sovereign or not, do not intervene in setting the prices of raw materials. Economists think they promote morality by taking the rational choice model as one of the main factors in the consumption-production cycle. Indeed, not everyone would agree with them on that point of view. For example, Aldred argues that “many economists are deeply cynical about human behavior and the motivations behind it. Morality, they seem to suggest, is for losers: real people are almost always selfish” (11). It can't be a win-win case. Based on this lack of objectivity, one might want to know whether there is such a thing as “objective free choice” in economic terms. Contemporary economists rely on their assumptions about consumers as they model the market. More hypothesesare taken into account, more markets are created for further transactions. However, such an attitude can create problems for the structure of the economy, because consumers can sometimes change their mentality. Therefore, they are not always consistent in their choices, given what they encounter in the market and the circumstances. Secondly, the supply model that emphasizes consumption and production factors is designed to address changes that arise from the consumption-production cycle. For example, the more production decreases, the more demand increases. On the contrary, greater consumption seems to imply greater production at the same time. In other words, when there is little supply, demand grows, while when demand increases, supply grows and becomes increasingly concentrated on demand. Consumers play an important role in shaping the market, they are even considered sovereign. Aldred highlights what sovereign consumers do in the economy. He states that “the sovereign consumer is the actor, a fully informed person, who knows what he wants and never makes mistakes to get it. In economics, the sovereign consumer has full control of his own life” (12). It follows that if the supply on the market is well balanced with demand, prices will automatically increase or decrease depending on the level of demand. As a result, people will improve, precisely because of the balance between the two. However, you might want to know if the result will always be the same for all types of commodities. Aldred answers this question by saying that “some early scholars of relative position assumed that only relative levels of consumption mattered for some goods while only absolute consumption mattered for others” (57). The theory does not always adapt to other domains. For example, a sick person does not have complete information about medical treatment. In order for that person to get what they need for their healthcare, a doctor's prescription is required. Once the doctor makes a mistake, all the consequences fall on the sick person, while he has already paid for all the medical services. Therefore, consumers are never fully informed and are not in control of their lives. Consumption is actually perceived in a very relativistic way. Suppose there is more supply of clothes in the market, and yet demand is not balanced with supply, prices fall for the sake of utility maximization. Instead, if supply decreases, prices rise for profit maximization reasons. The satisfaction of both consumers and producers will not be valued equally. “The intention of consumers is precisely to purchase a certain quantity of products at the lowest possible price. On the contrary, the intention of the producers is to sell a certain quantity of products at the maximum price. That's all. Neither side is at all interested in whether supply and demand are well coordinated” (Yanis 17). In this case, utility becomes an important factor in the consumption-production cycle. Taxation cannot even affect businesses, since they put profits first. The quality of life seems to remain the same, because there is no accurate cooperation when both consumers and producers act in their own interests. Their happiness cannot derive from utilities or profit maximization. In fact, everyone sells their selfishness and abandons morality. The idea that maximizing utility and profit in economics makes people happier is misleading. Happiness and values ​​cannot be quantified in terms of economic utility and profits. Third, the business model that studies the behavior of firms assumes that a rational producer acts.