In this article I will examine three major features of current mainstream economic theory and discuss what I have considered to be its three major 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 are doing and what they want. This implies that selfishness is at the heart of everything that happens in the market. Governments should therefore opt for free markets and privatization. Since the market itself would tend towards economic equilibrium, the end result would then be economic growth. From this idea emerged three models as three major characteristics of dominant economic theory. First, there is a demand model that aims to explain consumer behavior. Second, there is a supply model that aims to explain the factors of production. Third, there is a business model that studies business behavior. Its three major hypotheses are closely linked 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 to maximize utility, while firms act to maximize profit. Third, they assume that people act independently and have complete and relevant information about their needs. In discussing the characteristics and assumptions specified above, I will refer to certain aspects of human life. I will conclude by stating that all assumptions need to be revised for the better. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why violent video games should not be banned”?Get the original essayConsumption and production factors must be in line with a clear and practical approach while seeking the truth about the balance of economic growth not from hypotheses, but from facts. Mainstream economic theory must first be understood as something that comes and goes at any given time depending on certain circumstances. In other words, it is nothing more than some period effect resulting from adjustments to ongoing changes in the history of the economy. In order to have a well-structured economy, the dominant economic theory always poses its characteristics and assumptions according to the conditions. The focus of economics shifted from production to consumption and exchange (Chang 121). This justifies why Africa is currently the target of China and some other economic powers. In this sense, current mainstream economic theory has proposed solutions to the economy. To do this, he focused on determining goods, productivities, and income distributions in markets using supply and demand models. Such a determination is generally assured with two assumptions. First, this translates into a “hypothesis of utility maximization via income tamed by individuals” (Yanis 116). Second, it results in “the implicit maximization of profit by firms by setting the costs of their production” (130). Therefore, contemporary economists believe that they have generated morality in commerce by using available information on the 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 seek to increase their happiness when making economic decisions. Such rational choices involve factors of consumption and production. These two factors then 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 tried to fully understand the relationship between consumption and production. Once this relationship is understood, they believe they can easily and fairly shape the economy. Yanis argues that “instrumental rationality requires that our choices be consistent with our preferences. Thus, the same preferences must produce the same actions from the same information” (55). Since in most cases economists are always competitive, the crucial question that arises here is whether all contemporary economists have agreed on all possible features and assumptions of current mainstream economic theory. My attention is focused only on those specified above, as they cannot be listed exhaustively. First, the demand model requires people to obtain information about what is available in the market. This information may or may not be relevant to what they expect from the market. It is the nature of the information that guides them when they have to decide what they want to get from the market. Jonathan Aldred says that “shopping is also essential to understanding the way economists think. Modern economics is built on theories of “rational choice,” which is supposed to be the type of choice consumers make when shopping” (11). I agree with him because people know what they want when they shop, and more choice is much better than less, not only for them, but also for businesses. An assumption related to this model is that people always make "rational choices" when shopping and consuming products. For example, in education, as consumers, individuals pay tuition fees to obtain degrees in the hopes of earning a lot of money and having a better life in the long run. Yet they may not be fully informed about their future or the potential relevance of the education they wish to pursue. In the market, people don't confuse what they want with what they don't want. They buy what they need. However, one may want to know if everything that is produced or offered on the market is of the best quality. Thus, contemporary economists would do better to opt for rational choice values ​​rather than formal rational choice when it comes to marketing standards in anything involving commercial dimensions. Furthermore, “rational choice” by consumers can only be effective if they are fully informed of what is being offered to them. However, “the consumer can make rational choices without ever having complete and sufficient information on production” (Yanis 96). Once again, consumers, whether they are considered sovereign or not, do not intervene in setting the prices of raw materials. Economists believe they promote morality by considering the rational choice model as a major factor in the consumption-production cycle. In fact, not everyone would agree with them on such a view. For example, Aldred asserts that “many economists are deeply cynical about human behavior and the motivation behind it. Morality,they seem to suggest, is for losers: real people are almost always selfish” (11). This cannot be a win-win situation. Starting from this lack of objectivity, one may want to know whether there is such a thing as “objective free choice” in economic terms. Contemporary economists rely on their assumptions about consumers to shape the market. The more assumptions are taken into account, the more markets for other transactions are created. However, such an attitude can harm the shape of the economy, as consumers can sometimes change their mindset. Thus, they do not always demonstrate consistency in their choices, taking into account what they encounter in the market and the circumstances. Second, the supply model that emphasizes consumption and production factors is expected to cope with changes that arise from the consumption-production cycle. For example, as production decreases, demand increases. On the contrary, higher consumption seems to imply higher production at the same time. In other words, when there is little supply, demand increases, while as demand increases, supply increases and becomes increasingly focused on demand. Consumers play an important role in shaping the market, they are even considered sovereigns. Aldred highlights what sovereign consumers do in economics. He states that “the sovereign consumer is the doer, a fully informed person, who knows what he wants and never makes mistakes to get it. In economics, the sovereign consumer largely controls his life” (12). It follows that if supply in the market is well balanced with demand, prices will automatically increase or decrease depending on the level of demand. As a result, people's situation will improve, simply because of the balance between the two. However, it is questionable whether the result will always be the case for all types of products. Aldred answers this question by saying that "some early researchers on relative position assumed that only relative consumption levels mattered for some goods while only absolute consumption mattered for others" (57). The theory does not always apply to other areas. For example, a sick person does not have complete information about medical care. For this person to get what they need for their health care, a doctor's prescription is necessary. Once a doctor makes a mistake, all the consequences fall on the sick person, even though they have already paid for all medical services. As a result, consumers are never fully informed and in control of their lives. Consumption is actually perceived in a very relativistic way. Suppose there is more supply of clothing in the market and yet demand is not balanced with supply, prices fall in the interest of maximizing utility. Instead, if supply decreases, prices skyrocket in an effort to maximize profits. The satisfaction of consumers and producers will not be equally appreciated. “The intention of consumers is simply to purchase a certain quantity of products at the lowest possible price. On the other hand, the intention of 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 will be well coordinated” (Yanis 17). In this case, utility becomes a major factor in the consumption-production cycle. Taxation cannot even affect businesses, since they prioritize their profits. The quality of life seems to remain the same, because there is no.