« Speculative Bubbles Grow Outside US | Main | NetBank Changes Name To NOTBank »



I just took the quick and dirty option of going to Wikipedia to get some very basic numbers. Here they are:

The North American Free Trade Agreement:

- Formation: 1 January 1994

World Trade Organization:

- Formation: 1 January 1995

William Jefferson Clinton:

- 42nd President of the United States: January 20, 1993 – January 20, 2001

I seriously considered doing a theory on "economics", but decided against launching it because I was sure if I discovered the real theory, it would be ignored, since it would be of no utility to the powers that be.

I have, however, (following an endless, often vicious(!), argument spanning a dozen websites, beginning with my initiation to the blog world on the now defunct 'repentantnadervoter.org') done an extensive stint in voting theory, which is closely related to "economics theory" (such as it is).

I even have my "own" page on the Electorama Wiki (but it's a Wiki):


((----- Copy & Paste -----))



You'll notice there is nothing in the "discussion" tab, and my page stands utterly apart from all the other game theory oriented pages on that wiki. I am just "there", all by myself. All the pages are at:


I have a more up-to-date version (which is more "Wiki-ish, which I should perhaps (maybe) substitute on the Wiki) on my own political blog:

((----- Copy & Paste -----))



However, I have in fact virtually begun launching a theory on economics with my seemingly (though not really) nihilistic post:

((----- Copy & Paste -----))



What I am really doing there is scything down the weeds in contemplation of planting a new crop of theory. That's just my way; I eschew messing around with highly developed fields like, say, physics, and prefer to build new stuff in poorly developed fields.

I think I will start from the perspective of "A Theory of Betrayal". It sounds so cynical and all, but if cynicism is what it takes to build the thing, I won't let that inconvenience get in the way of the theory. I think I will start with the premise that life is about betrayal, and levels of betrayal. Maybe you could break out of the cycle of betrayal by becoming a Buddhist, or something. But as long as the great anthem of the Song of the Self plays in your head, like a neverending self-eulogy, the Great Betrayal must be your very own shadow. Even your own betrayal, in the end.

I find you so interesting, Elaine, because I have observed your own vast war against all forms of betrayal. I'm a bit like that too. Once you start to create a theory based on betrayal, the ones who set themselves against the stupendous forces of betrayal become your best informants. I would be much pleased should you find my project to be at all interesting.

I am not much concerned with the "prisoner's dilemma" style questions, since I see no choice between cooperation and betrayal. The cooperation part is the pie crust, the betrayal the filling. In fact cooperation and betrayal exist only in conjunction, like quarks. Well, I'll see how far this will go. It's all in "beta", though, and I make it up as I go along.

Back at the ranch, I have just now completed a four year-long review of my gigantic linguistic project (which I call "itemics"), and plan to begin rolling it out in my now-overripe old site:


So I guess that's the news about blues.

Elaine Meinel Supkis

Yes, Blues, thanks.

As for the prisoner games: what I see is a series of horns of dilemmas that traps people into forcing them into actions they don't want to take but must and the outcome is always worse than going in: the decline of empires. Building things is a different complex: mistakes are made and these mistakes are GOOD in that they open up possibilities!

Ergo: life is paradoxical in the extreme and thus, very interesting.


Curious what you think of China's move to consolidate a sixth of their Forex reserves in a single fund?


My wild guess is that this is done partly to centralize enough cash so it can be used as leverage for more favorable terms with trading partners.


Again, prices can't be cheap - they can only be low. Products can be cheap...


Molecool, quick, call the Wikipedia police! (No wait, this is a blog.)


Okay, time for a basic linguistic analysis of the noun phrase cheap prices. I a rather formal sense, the phrase is malformed, as is the the phrase hot temperature

However, it is clear that the typically well-formed phrase low prices has become what they call in the grammar racket "semantically bleached". That is, it has been more or less worn out from overuse. All our lives, we have heard low prices reiterated in media ads, and this overexploitation has by now saturated it with so many connotations that it doesn't register properly with readers.

Elaine Meinel Supkis

Yeah! Blues! Thank you. You are a wonder.

And yes, there is no such thing as 'proper English' ...it is FAKE! Made up by lots of teachers over the generations, you should read Shakespeare. Or the older Bibles. Hell, try reading Beowulf! Haha! I have!

I studied the medieval languages. Should write about them, they were quite charming when they all tried writing in their native tongues. Everyone tried to write PHONETICALLY with some Latin text thrown in.

THEN the clerics learned GREEK. This fouled up the spelling for um, about...400 years! And to this day, I get confused on 'surprize' or 'surprise' or 'grey' rather than 'gray' etc because I read a lot of Brit writing! Many words are spelled differently!

As in 'My Fair Lady,' Professor Higgens says, 'Why can't the English learn to speak their language? And then there are the Americans, they haven't spoken Enlish in many years!'

I love that musical. A must-see.


Of course I read Beowulf.

But for the real Old Englach, one must read Chaucer:

((----- Copy & Paste -----))



~ Whan that April with his showres soote
The droughte of March hath perced to the roote,
And bathed every veine in swich licour,
Of which vertu engendred is the flowr; ~

Elaine Meinel Supkis

yes, the sweet nectar of spring's flowers...time to get drunk!


"For much of my life, I read economists all yelling that inflation is caused by wage hikes."

So, in other words, they're all lying sacks of weasel shit.

Because inflation is a specific phenomenon. It occurs when the size of the money supply grows at a faster rate than that of the underlying economy which that money supply represents. Period.

Elaine Meinel Supkis

In a nutshell! Thanks, John!

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad