Skip to main content
Skip to content
Case File
d-19028House OversightOther

Self‑referential discussion of novel economic theories in a House oversight manuscript

The passage contains no concrete allegations, names, transactions, dates, or links to powerful actors. It is a speculative commentary on the author's own ideas about economics and monetary policy, off Author claims originality for several economic concepts. Mentions use of Piketty‑Zucman data for testing theories. References potential impact on lawmakers but provides no specifics.

Date
November 11, 2025
Source
House Oversight
Reference
House Oversight #011117
Pages
1
Persons
0
Integrity
No Hash Available

Summary

The passage contains no concrete allegations, names, transactions, dates, or links to powerful actors. It is a speculative commentary on the author's own ideas about economics and monetary policy, off Author claims originality for several economic concepts. Mentions use of Piketty‑Zucman data for testing theories. References potential impact on lawmakers but provides no specifics.

Tags

research-methodologymonetary-policytheoryhouse-oversighteconomics

Ask AI About This Document

0Share
PostReddit

Extracted Text (OCR)

EFTA Disclosure
Text extracted via OCR from the original document. May contain errors from the scanning process.
CHAPTER 9: SO WHAT’S NEW? To claim originality in any field is rash. It is safer to say that some things in this book are new as far as 1 know. | know at least what I can’t remember reading elsewhere. | am more confident in judging what will surprise in the sense of conflict with what is taught today. There we need only keep up with the current conversation. Judging originality with confidence means having read everything before. My surprises were not all new, and my novelties (if such) where not all surprises. A few ideas met both descriptions. They pay rule, and the equally heretical Y rule, probably count as both although Becker came within a step of getting there first. Depreciation theory is likely to be both. Other possible candidates might include my observation that holds by money managers reveal prices as clearly as trades do, and my hawks-and-doves analogy inferring from this that index funds should outperform managed ones when aggregate AUM held by money managers, not trades by them, exceeds a critical percentage of the market to be determined. There may also be both surprise and novelty in my suggestion of monetary policy by establishment of real dollars as legal tender. In my wannabe biologist role, I just may have been first to the point out the gaffe in the math of Hamilton’s rule. Free growth theory takes Mill a little farther by ruling out growth by thrift at the collective scale. It should prove a major surprise to lawmakers, who incentivize thrift in the name of growth, and a milder one to economists already prepared by the insights of Solow. My possible originality here was in the simultaneous rates equations | derived to test them, and the test itself accessing data for market-valued capital as well as consumption from the Piketty-Zucman website. My definitions of market-valued net investment and net output, substituting for the book-valued versions used in national accounts, were essential for testing. I suppose these rank as novelties but not surprises. Chapter 9: So What ‘s New? 3/17/16 1

Forum Discussions

This document was digitized, indexed, and cross-referenced with 1,400+ persons in the Epstein files. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.

Annotations powered by Hypothesis. Select any text on this page to annotate or highlight it.