My digital clock shows twenty minutes past eight.
Since I abandoned this silly
analogue clock, my life, again,
turned a little more rational.
I am a little tipsy, if not quite drunk; perhaps not really unusual for a detective; yet insufferable for a business crime detective called homo oeconomicus, unless the drunkenness is absolutely predictable.
I am currently involved in a self-test with a precisely quadrangular whiskey bottle with precisely quadrangular glasses, connected by a logarithmic scale. I thought it was practical and close to reality, but, as – due to the drums in my head – I just discover it was a rather dilettant attempt and perhaps treason against a purely rational doctrin.
My next experiment should be with an
alcohol-efficiency-device with a wonderful algorithm
that even takes the evaporation at the storage place into consideration -
along with long-term weather recording of the micro climate.
Future drunkenness should, therefore, be exactly calculable.
To 1% remaining drunkenness within a precisely determined
time. With a precision level significance of 5% of
the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test.
But here is my new experience, which gives
me quite a bit of hope.
New York City University.
As usual, I do not interview the latest winner of the Nobel Prize directly. As before, disturbances in the area of personal sentiment cannot be correctly predicted and will inevitably cause berathtaking errors. These will range in the nano-sphere.
But for me, what his colleagues tell about him is, well, how can I best describe my enthusiasm, well, I would say a hundred, yes, precisely a hundred on my personal scale, without the slightest Heisenberg fuzziness.
They say.
Thomas Sargent assumes a consumer who can
very well predict the future.
For example, he knows that, if a government borrrows more today in order to stimulate the economy through additional spending, taxes will rise, because the deficit must be financed. That means that concepts such as a boom program will be in vain. His logical consequence without compromise is: in the long run, politics is powerless.
In my book, Thomas Sargent is the best economist of the late modern area and already a classic of the more ancient old times. Of rational economy. His approach, for which he absolutely deserved being awarded the “Prize of the Swedish National Bank to Honour Special Economic Achievements Reminiscent of Alfred Nobel” (some 1000% envious natural scientists still refuse to allow us rational scientists the Nobel Prize), says that the players will always behave in an economically rational way and that the markets regulate themselves perfectly.
That is exactly what I wanted to hear.
So now I will indulge in order to achieve my favourite state of drunkenness along with a remaining drunkenness … but stop, they have not yet invented the alcohol-efficiency-device, have they?
How am I now going to get precisely my favourite drunkenness?
SIX
(Translated by EG)
Loading ...