The Chimera of Macroeconomics

  By providence, we human beings cannot stay on Earth for long or short without consuming utilities of various kinds and that periodically. By nature, on the other hand, our desires for “conveniences” and “luxuries” are unlimited and consequentially keep us hard-wired with self-interest. We are always hungry for utilities as defined in our dictionary; the word saturation to “stagnation” is not in our  dictionary.              One of the boundary conditions of life is that the time ante Eternity is limited to 125 years at the longest. All in all, we shall try to save time in fulfilling our demand for utilities of unlimited kinds. Making, producing or constructing a thing of no use, real or nominal, must be a genuine “waste of time,” one of the Original Sins: “Homo Sapience, thou shalt not be prodigal on thy time in Here.” The Smithean Maxim . Quoting Adam Smith, the Harvard economist Gregory Mankiw says, “Consumpti...

  The nature comprises of five dimensions: three dimensions in space (L 3 , L for length), one in time (T 1 for the period of time) and one in mass (M 1 for mass of all differences). Blessedly we can observe through the visionary system what is happening in front of us across space (L -3 ) and over time (T -1 ). (Negativity for the purpose of accounting only)                Physicists would say that we with the system capture the “real images” of the actual things. When we wear lenses, on the contrary, we capture the “virtual images,” which can possibly be dubbed “nominal” if in macroeconomics. Real , virtual or nominal , we recognize the nature in five dimensions. C'est la vie réelle!        In the Puppet Show . We see the imitations of the real things moving across the space and over the time. The mass is imaginary but the space of moving and the time of lapsing are real . Those in the Cave . For the sake of con...

  An opening question: Is the market as in economics a conceptual framework or a sample marketplace as is in the reality? The most probable answer or the most realistic one at least will be a metaphorical framework of reasoning.             A flowing question: Have we ever seen a widely-recognized time-tested metaphor fail? A plausible answer would be “No, almost by definition.”             Well, “so many macroeconomists” so often blame the market for “failures,” the case number of which has ever been growing. More often than not, they are “barking up the wrong tree,” so to speak.             First of all, they miss the point that the market is of their own invention. If anything goes wrong therewith, they must point fingers at themselves. Put it differently, the market is the conceptual venue of trade with perfec...