On August 22 2017, off Gold Creek Road off Highway 410 in Washington state, 
I realized I had become enlightened with respect to economics.

Jainism posits kevalins, who have shed karma using Jain techniques until, 
freed from the limitations of bodily perspectives, they achieve a state of 
omniscience.

I propose omniscience can apply in limited scope: to one field, for example; 
I believe Louis Armstrong demonstrated musical omniscience. Armstrong knew sound. 
I call Louis Armstrong a kevalin with respect to music.

Similarly, Leibniz, or Grigori Perelman, may be said to be a kevalin 
with respect to math.

I believe I have achieved kevalin status with respect to economics.

Because economics can add new wrinkles, my remaining task is to program 
a learning chatbot using AI to teach my economic omniscience to. The bot can 
continue my economic omniscience into the future.

---

August 26 2017

Prices are arbitrary; motels charge different rates for different people, 
at the same time. The price often depends on the desk person's judgment. 
No auction to determine the best price has taken place.

Counter: The desk person is conducting an auction, and I am free to walk away 
if the price is too high.

However, I may be without other options, and pay a high price against my better 
judgment. Still, one can argue that the law of supply and demand is being applied 
in the motel price offer and my acceptance or refusal. 

How to counter the argument that the law of supply and demand finds an efficient 
price for the room?

I am taking the room on trust. Some rooms for higher prices make me feel sick.

The law of supply and demand supposes a hardwired link between scarcity and 
inflation. The supply curve slopes upward because the model presupposes a 
natural, rational, desire to charge the highest market-clearing price.

But I don't feel such a desire. Am I therefore irrational? Will the system 
punish me? Does Pareto-optimality mean that irrational agents can be made worse 
off? In a pareto-optimal equilibrium, is the equilibrium preserved if all and 
only rational agents are not made worse off? My worsened position, as a result 
of my irrational desire to give stuff away, is ignored by the 
pareto-optimal-equilibrium-producing model?

---

What does a $100 motel room price represent?

The price expresses the owner's money demand.

The owner participates with government to restrict access to public and unused 
private land that might be used as an alternative to paying the owner's price.

Government further restricts dollar-denominated asset creation to the private 
sector, allowing the Fed to maintain par between privately created dollars and 
Federal Reserve dollars.

If the owner wants $100, let the government give me enough money so that I can 
afford it.

I think the owner's expression of money demand through price is really an expression 
of the owner's desire to feel better than others. The owner wants to retain the right 
to belittle and demean, and expresses that desire through price.

If the owner wants $1000, increase the money supply so that I can still afford it. 
Meet increased money demand with increased money supply.

[I think the difference between my indexation propsal and demurrage is that indexation 
is not enforcing inflation. The owner is free not to demand so much money, just because 
the money supply increased.]


Instead of talking about supply and demand and the quantity theory of money, we should 
be talking about price setters' desire to control, to belittle and demean, to discriminate 
based on arbitrary criteria. The neoliberal ideology holds that markets find prices best, 
but upon examination we have seen that prices reflect psychology and personal taste more 
than supply and demand is a factor.

So let us talk about control. Who gets to control access to vast, persistent surplus? Where 
do they get the money? I contend the money is privately created credit, which trades 
essentially at par with public, Fed-created US Dollars.

The rich meet money demand by expanding the supply. But they impose scarcity on public spending. 
They have a double standard and it must be exposed. The rich are really expressing their desire 
to control others when they set prices, constrain public spending, and consume.