ok. now kai has unilaterally declared war on argentina over the falkland islands. i am left with two options:
1) join in enthusiastically, waving the flag
2) secede and write my own blog.
while i thought about it, i decided to float some waxed paper boats down the thames in oxford. eventually they will reach the sea, and hopefully, oceanic currents will carry them across the pond and in time they might reach buenos aires, and threaten the main port of argentina with a formidable show of force.
and then i realised that britain had, in fact, won the 1982 war, and that the falklands don't belong to argentina at all. hence going to war with argentina over the falkland islands in 2006 is a stupid casus belli. it's a bit like hitting someone because "i don't like the face of the person next to you." there's always the excuse that in an alternate universe britain did not win the 1982 war (and maggie thatcher lost the subsequent election) and that the mysterious force of order and symmetry (here it comes again!) in this multiverse is acting up to balance it all out with a conflict in our particular universe.
nonetheless, i hope my paper boats don't cause an international incident. hopefully no one actually noticed kai's declaration. and i certainly hope my paper boats do not try to enforce a blockade against instructions!
that is, if they are not sunk on the river by the persistently inclement english weather. it's been raining here for the past 3 days and according to bbc will rain for the next 3.
***
i wonder why adam smith used the word 'demand' to denote what people want and can buy with money in a market. 'demand' is a nasty word, according to the oxford english dictionary:
Demand, n.
1. a. An act of demanding or asking by virtue of right or authority; an authoritative or peremptory request or claim; also transf., the substance or matter of the claim, that which is demanded. [italics my own]
in an economic context, that would mean something like:
Masked man with gun pointed at shopkeeper's head: "F***ING GIVE ME YOUR MONEY!!!"
since it is both authoritative (with authority stemming from the weapon) and peremptory (with peremptoriness stemming from the "F***ING").
which is not, i think, a common example of an economic transaction. so adam smith, in a semantic boo-boo, has saddled us with a piece of jargon with so many unpleasant connotations. sometimes, i wish he had used the word 'request' instead.
supply and request. so a want backed by purchasing power would be 'effective request'.
maybe, in some seedy corner of 18th century edinburgh, smith had been mugged so many times that he could no longer could conceive of a normal economic transaction. or his stint at oxford had permanently affected his brain. (it happens.)
***
in fact, i think i might consider blogging on request.
1) join in enthusiastically, waving the flag
2) secede and write my own blog.
while i thought about it, i decided to float some waxed paper boats down the thames in oxford. eventually they will reach the sea, and hopefully, oceanic currents will carry them across the pond and in time they might reach buenos aires, and threaten the main port of argentina with a formidable show of force.
and then i realised that britain had, in fact, won the 1982 war, and that the falklands don't belong to argentina at all. hence going to war with argentina over the falkland islands in 2006 is a stupid casus belli. it's a bit like hitting someone because "i don't like the face of the person next to you." there's always the excuse that in an alternate universe britain did not win the 1982 war (and maggie thatcher lost the subsequent election) and that the mysterious force of order and symmetry (here it comes again!) in this multiverse is acting up to balance it all out with a conflict in our particular universe.
nonetheless, i hope my paper boats don't cause an international incident. hopefully no one actually noticed kai's declaration. and i certainly hope my paper boats do not try to enforce a blockade against instructions!
that is, if they are not sunk on the river by the persistently inclement english weather. it's been raining here for the past 3 days and according to bbc will rain for the next 3.
***
i wonder why adam smith used the word 'demand' to denote what people want and can buy with money in a market. 'demand' is a nasty word, according to the oxford english dictionary:
Demand, n.
1. a. An act of demanding or asking by virtue of right or authority; an authoritative or peremptory request or claim; also transf., the substance or matter of the claim, that which is demanded. [italics my own]
in an economic context, that would mean something like:
Masked man with gun pointed at shopkeeper's head: "F***ING GIVE ME YOUR MONEY!!!"
since it is both authoritative (with authority stemming from the weapon) and peremptory (with peremptoriness stemming from the "F***ING").
which is not, i think, a common example of an economic transaction. so adam smith, in a semantic boo-boo, has saddled us with a piece of jargon with so many unpleasant connotations. sometimes, i wish he had used the word 'request' instead.
supply and request. so a want backed by purchasing power would be 'effective request'.
maybe, in some seedy corner of 18th century edinburgh, smith had been mugged so many times that he could no longer could conceive of a normal economic transaction. or his stint at oxford had permanently affected his brain. (it happens.)
***
in fact, i think i might consider blogging on request.
<< Home