Mind Killer Project

John Maynard

I go back and forth thinking about Economic Theory and other things. My major in college WAS Economics. And now that I write, I ponder the difference between "Economics" and "Economic Theory"

We were not taught "theories" we were taught facts...Economics. Curious. And when I think back to what we were taught, I recall we began with Keyens, then moved to neo-blablabla - and basically told this is what is believed to be true now. And not other possible realities were mentioned. The resulting effect was to produce a lack of critical thought. memorization and regurgitation.

But I have been going back as of late, and for obvious reasons. and analyzing that which I was asked to memorize and regurgitate. It may be needless to say, but I have become critical of the theories with which we used to "oversee" our economy. We all understand that trade is good...or maybe we don't - I do not wish to exclude anyone. It is the law of comparative advantage that explains it. If you (the reader)and I (the writer) both manufacture rubber balls, and breed cocks - we can both enjoy the amount of cock and balls we produce. However, if you are better at making balls (on a cost per unit basis), and I am better breeding cocks, it is the law of comparative advantage that suggests that if we both focus on our individual expertise, the result is more cock and balls for all.

I have come to understand this to be naive for several reasons - first of all, it assumes equanimity and magnanimity. In reality, our reliance of these things is not equal, if cocks are more important to you than balls are to me, this creates an unequal relationship. And while on the static page, written in black and white might still seem okay, it misses an understanding that over time this relationship of trading cock for balls is predicated on the relationship between you and I. And that relationship, no matter how strong at any particular moment in time, invariable changes over time - and when there is an unequal dependence on cock and balls between us, it is unrealistic to expect that exploitation will not occur as a result.

So in reality what is going on when we talk about this "law of comparative advantage" it is not "more for everyone" - it is simply an exchange - you are taking on added risk, in exchange for a lower price and more product. It may, in fact, be a zero sum game.

And this is not a case against trade, this is about specialization. It is risk. And risk itself is not bad either - in fact it is good, but only to a point. Risk is not meant to be avoided, it is meant to be accepted. Free markets are chaotic, free markets have risk. But risk is not mitigated by shoving it off to someone else. that encourages more risky behavior - although even to call it risky behavior is a gross mis-categorization. "Risk-less" behavior, is more like it, because the risk is not born by the perpetrator. It is for this reason, I question the very nature of INSURANCE - it encourages this "risk-less" behavior. If NO ONE had health insurance - if it did not exist at all, people would be more careful. they would take a more active role in their health. they would eat better, exercise more - not live under power lines, not accept fluoride in the water. (It is after all, a poising) and monsanto would not be getting away with what they are getting away with.

Of course if we had true free markets that were not regulated, companies the size of monsanto could not exist. It is the cheap supply of money that corporations get from our system of banking that allow them to grow so large. without that, companies of such scale would exist in much the same way as those newer elements on the periodic table - we bombarded this molecule with protons, and for a split second it became something else, but it was so unstable, it broke apart. Central banking encourages this "risk-less" behavior as well.


whatever, I think I've digressed. Risk is great, but it cannot be passed on. It can be mitigated, but the method of mitigation is that of awareness and preparedness. And you cannot enslave entire populations in order to reduce the risk of higher wages. you cannot force entire populations to be consumers of anything.

Figment Proposal

This is a proposal for figment. It is meant to be considered as a sketch. The gears are used to spin around a central axis. The theory is that this central rotational energy (???) will produce rotation of the the arms. You spin it manually, and then try and sink it into the hole without getting hit by the vortex. It is obviously dangerous, becuase I have no idea where the golf ball will fly off to.


I have no idea if this will work - I also plan on making a version that has lights and is not a golf hole.

Oh and PS - I must credit the Music. it is from the Akira soundtrack. The song is "Dollhouse Polyphony"