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"

Nano Tech Experiments

The Theory of Everything

My current art project

I will attempt to explain things simply. To begin with, forget everything you "think" you understand about science. Most of what you know is Ptolemaic in nature. There is no such thing as gravity. There are no such things as protons neutrons or electrons - no quarks - and no gravitons. Only "stuff" that is infinitely dividable into self similar parts. This "stuff" has spin - either clockwise, or counterclockwise. But the spin is a bit more complicated than it sounds. It is a system that involves the vortex. We understand fractals only in the context of shapes - and forget that it is the underlying systems that generate the shapes. It is the system of the vortex that is the fractal system explaining the universe.

Sketches from Bolivia

Here are a bunch of random Sketchbook images from the past few months.

Goodbye Rome

Looking back, I was a dullard in collage. Actually I’ve been a dullard much of my life. But no more, so its okay now. and its this new perspective on life that allows me to understand how much of a dullard I was…of course, it is only a matter of perspective. Afterall, maybe now I am even more of a dullard that I was before – certainly less sane of course.

Lately, I’ve been giving a lot of thought to the underlying theory behind the purpose of running a national deficit. In collage, I majored in economics, of all things, and I recall the phrase “a debtor nation is a better nation,” and while I don’t recall the logic behind this rhyme, I remember there was one. The theory being running a deficit makes us a stronger country.

I realize now looking back that pretty much the whole of college involved very little critical thinking. It was about just getting the answers and hitting the marks. Conditioning. But that’s the system. There is no dissenting viewpoint presented, so what is presented as fact, and you are not asked to question anything. My Civil war History class was the only one that challenged me to think. At the time it made me a little uncomfortable, but I didn’t understand why. Now I do.

Like I said, at the time I was a dullard. Now I am not. But the larger point was that I wasn’t alone, in fact, EVERYONE was the same way. Mindless drones. Chomsky is right when he says the Educated are the most indoctrinated. And I state that as a previous member of the indoctrinated.

So looking back, I realize how ludicrous a proposition that was. The type of power that provided on the scale of society is similar to that of the sweaty balding guy at the strip club in order to get attention from the strippers. And as far as the individual is concerned within the context of the larger hole, it really is running up a bill and leaving it for your children to pay. Morpheus was fucking right when he said that we are borne into a cage that we cannot touch, see, or smell. We are born owing money, not to the government, but to banks, in the form of interest payments.

This isn’t about the recent federal bailout of the financial system; it only caused my awareness to spike. The very system is not only corrupt it is unsustainable. And it is because we have created a nation of dullards, and we are so far gone that for most, the inability to even consider this as a possible truth, in part or whole, is evidence. “America is Great!” - “Freedom!” blablabla. Can you be more indoctrinated? If you take a serious look at the history of the United (and not the one you were taught in high school. Don’t fucking kid yourself that what is going on in Texas right now is an isolated incident) you will find it hard to take such statements seriously/ But America is nothing special, this is the history of ALL nations, with the same story lines of the struggle for control between the individual and the institutions. The story is always the same.

Rome is burning my friends, and I don’t think there is anything I can do to stop it, so I am going to stock up on graham crackers, marshmallows, and chocolate bars and make smores and sing and dance and laugh and play while Rome burns. You did this. You did this.