Inflation

Today I was reading a book by Murray Rothbard, and I hope I learned something about inflation and the business cycle. First, let me get clear about definitions. I read in my economics textbook that inflation is a general rise in prices. To me, this says that there is no good definition of inflation. I suppose that during any given time period, some prices will have gone up and others down, but what proportion of prices have to go up for the rise in prices to be "general"? Obviously, this definition is as good as it can be, and there would be no benefit to making it more precise. Perhaps if I consume only one item, wheat, then inflation to me would mean that the price of wheat is rising. But any one consumer will consume a great number of items, and not all consumers consume the same set of items. So inflation must need to be measured by some kind of average, squishy number.

Next, what can I say about the cause of inflation? Let's suppose for now that the money supply is fixed in an imaginary economy. It's reasonable to also suppose that not all of the money supply is circulating. Any given person in this economy will probably consume a certain amount and save a certain amount, with those being the only two options. But what would happen if consumption started to increase while the number of goods in the economy stayed the same? This extra desire for consumption relative to the same number of goods would drive their prices up. I think this is called demand-pull inflation.

Let me now take this a little further and more general. It seems that any time the amount of money being offered for goods rises with the amount of goods staying the same (or decreasing) then prices will go up. I believe this is just what the law of demand claims. And so the inflation I just described seems like nothing but a corollary of the law of demand. Now I wonder how else this rise in circulating money relative to goods can happen. From reading Rothbard's book it seems this can also happen as a result of government creating new money, which he reasonably claims they would do as an easier alternative to taxation. If new money is created by government, then it seems there would have to be some inflation. But the inflation would be uneven. The initial recipients of the new money would be able to spend it at un-inflated prices. Eventually, later recipients would have to suffer the inflated prices, as would those who were saving money which turned out to be spent at inflated prices. Maybe there is some good to money creation by government, but it does not seem to do any good for those who see their monetary units decline in real value as a result.

Rothbard also explains that inflation is also a cause of the business cycle, which is a cycle of high and then low employment and real GDP. Here's how money creation by government seems to cause this cycle. Suppose that the newly created money is loaned to businesses, who intend to use this money to invest in future growth. What I mean by that is that this money business put to use does not increase their output in the present, but will do so at some time in the future. The problem with that is that these counterfeit loans to business do not reflect savings on the part of consumers. If they did, then it would be some indication of consumers deferring consumption for the future. But the loans are not of the result of savings and consumer willingness to defer consumption. So, what we have is business planning for greater future output, rather than present output, and consumers wanting greater present output. Because of this mismatch, the businesses will then find it best to liquidate the original investments, and I suppose the misdirected energy and resources which results in the down side of the business cycle.

Now, I'm sure that I've gotten a lot wrong about this. But like most arguments I read concerning economics, it seems that if the premises are true, then the conclusion does logically follow. I guess the controversy lies in whether the premises are really true. With this explanation of the business cycle, I'll take the premise that the counterfeit loans cause businesses to devout resources to future output. If that doesn't turn out to be what consumers want, then why don't businesses just re-employ those resources to the present? It seems that part of being successful in business would be to adjust to consumer demands.

Caffeine

I know that the posts on this blog are almost always extremely boring. Normally, I don't have any good excuse for writing such boring material, but tonight I do. Once again, I'm having trouble falling asleep, so maybe some boredom is in order.

So, here's what I'm thinking about tonight. I know that tea has caffeine in it, but I find myself thinking about what caffeine is. Now, the truth is that I have no idea what caffeine is. Does that sound like an absurd statement? Let me clarify: I know how people use the word "caffeine," and I know that "caffeine" appears on the label of migraine medicine, and I know what foods and drinks are said to contain caffeine. I also know that caffeine is said to cause insomnia in some people, and is reputed to lead to increased mathematical abilities (all other things being equal). But my point is that I don't know what caffeine is in a scientific way.

So let me start my scientific pondering in this way: I have read that an 8 ounce cup of green tea has about 30 mg (milligrams) of caffeine in it. Now, that is a claim about the weight (or mass) of this substance in a cup of tea. But how much caffeine is that? If the cup of tea evaporated and left the caffeine behind, would their be a visible residue? (I don't know if that's even possible.)

Let's get an idea of how much 30 mg weighs. It turns out that 30 mg is 0.03 grams. One teaspoon of volume of water weighs almost 5 grams. That means that the water used in making one cup of green tea is about 165 times as heavy as the caffeine in the tea. Equivalently, if you remove the caffeine from 165 cups of green tea, that amount of caffeine would weigh the same as one cup (8 ounces) of water.

What about the volume of the caffeine in one cup of green tea? The infallible internet has provided me with the proposition that 1 cubic centimeter of volume of caffeine weighs about 1.23 grams. Since one cup of green tea has 30 mg of caffeine, the volume of caffeine in one cup of green tea is 24.4 cubic millimeters. So, imagine a cube that is 24.4 millimeters on each edge, and that would be the volume of caffeine in one cup of green tea. This would be equivalent to 0.005 teaspoons, or one part out of 200 of a teaspoon.

So, I guess as far as weight and volume are concerned, a cup of green tea has very little caffeine. It has surprised me then that one can easily buy pure caffeine. It seems that any tangible quantity of pure caffeine would be enormous compared to the amount in common beverages. I found that people have died from taking as little as four grams of caffeine, and that you can buy 100 grams of pure caffeine on Amazon. The label of the product I found on amazon says that 2 grams will send you to the ER. It's crazy to think there is even demand for such a product. Caffeine is common enough, and 100 grams of such a potent and seemingly benign substance seems like an insane amount to want to possess.

These past few weeks have been very exciting. On second thought, I think I should limit that statement: anyone else would probably opine my outer and inner life to be either ordinary or boring. What I think has happened is that the same old life has started to seem so much more interesting. In fact, all of the perceived excitement has been keeping me awake at night, and during the day too. Money is much less of a prolem, mainly because I stck to a budget. Part of the enjoyment in that is having to be creative at times to make the sum of all our expenses be within budget. Most people would find this obligation to be a real annoyance. Why do I like it? We also avoid eating out as much as possible. But doing so has caused the chore of cooking to become somewhat of a craft or hobby for me. I have somewhat expensive taste in food, but I'm too lazy to make recipies out of cookbooks, and also too frugal to eat out. But I've learned to cook simple recpies to my taste.

Also, a newfound fascination about electronics overcame me during the drive home one day in February. (I still remember the occasion very well.) Part of this fascination is just as a hobby, but I have also become optomistic (for no reason I can think of) that it will advance my career. Part of it might be this: I feel like I could study electronics non-stop. It seems this new fascination is more than it seems. I feel all powerful, like I can do anything. Maybe that's a delusion, but it feels real, as all delusions do.

Another thing that I feel like I've become more efficient in all aspects of everyday life. I used to think that it all had to get done at once, but now that drive doesn't nag me too much (as if work and leisure always had to be kept seperate). Now I just do what I can when I can, as if easy and frequent transitions between work and leisure are easy to make. The bottom line is that more gets done with what seems like less investment.

The real meaure of my new attitude is how much I am looking forward to the summer, which is more than ever. I have no anxiety about not working or about all the free time there will be.

Email

At this time, I am a full-time math instructor at the Northwest Campus, where I teach the full gamut of math courses, and I am formerly a full-time South Campus math instructor. For various reasons, I want to diversify my profession, and I am looking to learn if it would be practical for me to teach electronics or engineering related courses at TCC. I think it would be a worthy ambition to teach full-time in that capacity, but I am at this time considering that it may only be possible for me to teach some combination of mathematics and electronics related courses.

Of course, I am open to the possibility that this may be an impractical move for me, but let me try and make my case as follows. I have bachelor's and master's degrees in math, but I also have recent electrical engineering coursework with no degree earned. I have taken 2 sophomore-level classes in circuit analysis, 1 course in electronics, and 1 junior-level course in electromagnetism, all at UTA. I realize that this coursework alone is not enough to qualify me to teach in your department, but I am ambitious and I would pursue additional coursework at TCC if needed.

So, my bottom line here is to seek answers to a few questions in order to see if this is a practical ambition for me.

(1) Would it qualify me to teach at TCC in the "electronics" field if I completed such classes at TCC? I don't see myself finishing the EE degree I started at UTA, due to the expense of doing so. But I would be willing to complete the entire range of coursework at TCC if it meant that I could diversify what I could teach.
(2) How much professional experience in the field (or outside of the classroom) would I have to have to be qualified to teach? In the math department, we do hire teachers with no related industrial experience, but I expect that's not the case for every department.
(3) Are there any reasons why this is not a practical goal for me of which it does not appear I am aware?

Thanks for taking the time to read this message. As for why I sent this message to you, I remember when I was at South Campus listening to you speak on a few occasions, and as a result I am inclined to think that you might be able to answer some of my questions. Please excuse me if that is not the case.

Spanish Rice

Here's how to make Spanish rice. I created this recipe with little hope that it would be good. But I got lucky and it is very good.

about 1 cup white rice (rinsed)
about 1 cup water
about 1/2 cup tomato sauce
about 1/4 cup canned green chilies
some parsley
about 1/2 teaspoon garlic salt

Combine all ingredients, apply medium heat, and stir together as the mixture heats to boiling. Once boiling, reduce heat and cover for about 20 minutes. Once cooked, transfer the rice to a serving dish. Slice and distribute about 1/4 cup butter over the top layer of the rice, and cover to let melt. Then stir the rice and re-cover and serve.

Insomnia

Insomnia has been frequent this semester. For example, last night I fell asleep at 4 am and then woke up at 8:30. I didn't rest during the day and it's now midnight and I'm still awake. It hasn't even been that noticeable to me that I've only had four hours of sleep. So, maybe it's not insomnia. Truth is I usually find myself lying awake excited about hobby interests and time off this summer.

knife sharpening

Why have I become curious about knives and knife sharpening recently? Well, knives are practical, and so is knife sharpening. And knife sharpening seems to require experience, knowledge and skills of observation. Anyway, here's what I've learned about it after a morning reading about it.

First, there are tools: a sharpening stone and lubricant. Most stones come with two sides: a rough grit and a fine grit. The finer the grit, the finer or sharper you can get your blade. You usually start off sharpening on the rough grit and then finish sharpening it on the finer grit. Additionally, you would have to observe the grind of the blade. My kitchen knives and my pocket knife are of the sabre grind. Then there is the angle. No matter the grind, it seems that a knife's edge is nothing more than two planes that intersect along a line with a constant angle of intersection. As far as I can tell, this angle is between 10 and 20 degrees, but I'm not sure how you tell what it is for a particular blade.

Now for a brief description of the sharpening process. There are many methods, but the method/process of sharpening matters way less than the end result. A "dull" blade has some degree of ’rounded edge.’ A sharp edge is nothing more than two planes intersecting at a point. When sharpening all you are doing is removing metal until the bevels on both sides of the blade meet at a point. This can take six strokes or six hundred depending on the blade's current condition and the type and grit of stone you are using.

So, how can you tell if a good edge has been created? Look directly at the edge with a light behind you, and you'll notice that rounded areas will reflect light. Keep sharpening until no light gets reflected. The sense of touch can also be of use. Carefully feel the edge with a finger. Don't underestimate what you can learn this way. Does the edge feel rounded? Is there a burr? Are the bevels even on both sides of the blade? Finally, what's a good test of a well sharpened blade? Apparently, a blade can be sharpened so that it can sever a hair with almost no pressure applied.

See this link:

http://artofmanliness.com/2009/03/05/how-to-sharpen-a-pocket-knife/