The quintessential economist is the reasonable guy who must balance both sides of an equation, whether supply and demand or the budget or the monetary release; the models are based on reasons that must conform to an equality, it would be very different if the lack of reason would have led to inequalities of all kind.
But the economies are saddled with inequalities; supply almost always is in excess of demand, money supply follows suit and the piling mass of excess reserves sparkle at the vaults of Federal Reserves to the balance sheets of most successful corporations, much to the vexation of the rest in the economy.
Is it unreasonable that reserves of cash, whether excess or otherwise is the new reality for any business? This excess by the way must be gainfully employed and most economies cannot absorb it to generate income; the cumulative effect of this we see in the accumulation in the capital markets.
The old models seem to be struggling to explain this phenomenon that growth in income or its absence both can be seen coexisting at a time when interest rates have largely fallen across the globe, which essentially is unreasonable that large doses of money supply could not stimulate the inflation barometer.
The business leader on the other hand is the unreasonable guy who treads on a plane that is mostly based on the models of inequality; if there was perfect equilibrium in the market, all products would have lost its value, it is inequality in branding, supply chain efficiencies, pricing, cost and the like that makes it possible for the preponderance of a particular business model to do better than the other which continues to topple the equilibrium.
There would not be an added sales opportunity if everything remains in perfect equilibrium and supply equates demand. It is this additional supply which did not have an effective demand which topples the equation.
The supply of information that the internet provided did not have a demand, no reason would have led to the mad scramble for creating a search engine, that too as a free offering.
History is replete with examples when very reasonable people wanted to follow a path that was predicted by their modeling; the best treasury secretary of the countries were not Schumpeter or Keynes, although both tried their best between the two wars to stimulate the economies of Austria and England. They influenced some very unreasonable people to challenge the status quo of their modeled economic equilibrium, which failed to solve the puzzles and create growth.
The business leader or the politician on the other hand is never constrained by the theoretical model that perfectly balances both sides of an equation. They are at peace with a surplus that could be a by- product; they look at intended and unintended consequences and they are willing to take a U-turn if the situation demands.
Not being anchored by the models that analysts provide through their reasonable mind, the business leader looks beyond the vestige of factors of production as they collide with the forces of the market. There is an interplay that cannot always be explained by reason.
The market sometimes clears at a price which cannot be reasonably ascertained, an entrepreneur similarly takes a call way beyond what the models would predict as the right valuation; some assumptions that the leader has in his mind could be the most unreasonable ones to carry.
Some leaders have sold their best business while buying the most unreasonable one which later would prove to be adding the maximum worth and none of this happens coincidentally. The unreason in their thinking prompted them to take a risk and then they worked backwards to challenge conventional thinking.
The best brains of the world, Newton or Fisher, ended up bankrupt with their investments, they were the supreme examples of reason but it seems a lack of it would have done wonders as it did with those who held the opposite side of the pole.
Challenging a status quo with as much unreason is what propels many great leaders to reach unassailable goals; sometimes they start with an unreasonable end in view and then they work backwards into the current milieu.
They are supreme risk takers and the lack of reason equips them with the arsenal they need the most, to try unconventional things and not be perturbed with failure. They can take failures quickly, brushing them off as a means to the next step of possibilities.
Unreason wins more than reason, almost every time, otherwise progress would have stalled; from markets to economies, it is the same story.