Nonsensical economic manuscript with no actionable leads

do with words alone. One less something nearer zero, whether that something (the thrift index) is positive or negative, is nearer one. The wonderful books of Einstein (with Enfeld) and Steven Hawking, not to mention Mill, show that even calculus can be put that way. My task has been to follow their tough act. But I will now start to infiltrate notation where | think that that form of shorthand should help more then it hurts. Summary The data for the free growth index of total capital @(Kt) in the charts and tables do not represent a separate test. It is the same test adjusted to the three fourths rule. That was proposed as a convenient rule of thumb. I would have shown a true separate test if 1 knew how. Pure consumption might become separately measurable some day, but human capital will not. The Phil and Bill parable shows that not even evidence from slave markets would be on point. Human capital has no possible value to any but its original owner. Whether in words or notation, I hope to make the point that Chapter 4 and the charts and tables showing ¢(K)are likely to understate the case for Mill. Those showing @(K,) should be nearer the truth. Physical capital and pure consumption are less than the whole. My three fourths rule will never be exact because reality cares little for the convenience of modelers. Proportions between the kinds of consumption will not hold exactly constant and will never exactly agree. But I don’t think the three fourths rule is so wrong that the real value of g(K,,) doesn’t run nearer one than the real value of @(K). (The infiltration begins.) Then the data support free growth theory convincingly enough if we trust equation (4.1), as do all macroeconomists as far as | know, and probably more convincingly when human capital is considered too. Chapter 5 Bringing Human Capital In 1/13/16 14 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_011033