I don't see the implication that the effect of money or the economy isn't discoverable. It seems to me that you have an issue with the term semi-imaginary.

Right. Economies are not the same thing as things that are fictional, and I continue to find the idea that some parts of economics (i.e., currency) depend on certain shared beliefs (the value of currency) non-profound.

Jessica is right here:

But I don't know of any human society that does not exist on some level because people agree to trade things for other things -- economies develop because it is better to specialize and trade than to be self-sufficient.

The changing values of tulips, typewriters and AOL are interesting but not imagined; economies develop as Jessica notes and the valuing process is just a small part of it that doesn't impact the reality of economics as a part of society.

Journey is not worth a bushel of wheat. However, if you would like to take any (imaginary) Journey albums off my hands, I will graciously allow you to pay me in Beatles.

Ha. Beatles for Journey is like trading heavy dark Swiss chocolate for a picture of pooh.

I don't know of any human society that does not exist on some level because people agree to trade things for other things

I am so terribly lost. I don't know who implied otherwise.

In more-easy-for-me-to-follow news, I watched the last two episodes of the new British Robin Hood and it was stupid crap. I guess I was watching it to feel something about Robin of Sherwood--either to get me excited about the legend again, or to miss the "original" sharply.

Wow. I so got the latter.

Now I'm trying Terry Pratchett's Hogfather. Hmm. Perhaps I should stop this and convert it to iPod format for my travels.

I want to place a put on Nutty's Journey collection.

Next up: a Buffista discussion of the illusion of pari-mutuel betting!

(N.b. I don't actually know what pari-mutuel betting is, just that it's a point of debate among style guides and anyway kind of a cool word, like passerine or igneous .)

I am so terribly lost. I don't know who implied otherwise.

I'm not saying *you* did.

An economy in ruins still exists, though -- the disappearance of a market (for tulips, comic books, or Enron stock) does not imply the disappearance of the larger system of supply/demand/exchange in which that market existed.

That's true. But the value we place on tulips or Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle knockoffs is the fluid part which can look as wispy as Ben Affleck's real hairline. So the whole of economics isn't imaginary, but the fact that value is held aloft by an abstracted system driven by consensus leaves it vulnerable to consensual whims. And when people consense that Lee sucks tulips suck then economies which seemed solid melt into air.

Government, or even social codes, are also products of consensual agreement, but do not (generally) have that kind of volatility. Well, at least not in the culture I live in. If I lived in Rwanda I might have a different view on what's more volatile.

In more-easy-for-me-to-follow news, I watched the last two episodes of the new British Robin Hood and it was stupid crap.

Watch The Lost Room! It's neither stupid nor crappy. It's smart and engrossing.

The horse may be dead now - veering off into Journey is usually a good sign of that - but my thought as I walked home with my WAY TOO HEAVY baby strapped to my chest was that my beef about economics is that many economists think it's about how money behaves. IMO, money does not behave at all (mine sure as hell refuses to stay put, for example). Economics is about how people behave.