I have written many, many times, both here and at The Journal Blog, that I am not an economist. But I have recently discovered that if I were an economist, I could be loosely classified as a Neo-Keynesian.

That is because of my lack of faith in the wisdom of markets.

If the last ten years have taught us anything, it is that both money and wealth will gravitate to themselves in much the same way that water molecules are attracted to each other.

What that means, if you're talking about water, is that wet sponges soak up more liquid than dry sponges. If you're talking about money and wealth, it means that full purses soak the economy more thoroughly than empty ones.

That is why the pre-occupation of the White House and Congress with economic growth, and their apparent belief that markets are sacrosanct, might best be described as misguided.

Why? Because, as I have mentioned here before, the whole point of having an economy in the first place is to meet the material needs of people.

Mere, unencumbered economic growth does not accomplish that.

How do I know that? I can tell because, fifty years ago, you could support a family of four on one salary at the local manufacturing plant. Today, you need two salaries, at least one of which is probably one of those low-paid retail service jobs. Even then, you may still need a side business or a moonlighting gig to make ends meet.

This is progress? I think not.

Where I diverge from Keynes is in the focus on jobs. From my 21st century viewpoint, the issue is not ‘jobs.' It's ‘work.'

Why? Because, in many cases, ‘work' has the potential to get you better-paid than a ‘job.' You can have multiple clients instead of a single employer and, for some reason, clients seem to consider you more valuable than employers do.

All of which means that eventually 'work' will replace 'jobs' as the best way for the average citizen to meet their material needs. In fact, their ability to do that might be considered one way to measure the success of the economy.

Which, in its turn, means that Congress needs to wake up to self-employment. It is this century's labor market.

We can only hope that, sometime before the century is over, they'll figure that out.