The Dr. said this morning that I am healing on target pace. Evidently I am not faking it. The second set of x-rays confimed it.
I should be out of the boot in another four weeks.
Between now and then, I will be transitioning to walking on the boot rather than crutches.
Progress is good. I wonder if I'll be up to doing the Middle Teton in August.
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Foot trouble
I had a dream last night that I went to the doctor with Katie and the doctor made me take off my boot and walk barefoot. The amazing thing was that there was no pain. The doctor started to ask me a bunch of questions, and I felt ashamed that I had obviously been faking the whole thing.
This morning my foot still hurt a bit. Bummer.
This morning my foot still hurt a bit. Bummer.
Tuesday, June 09, 2009
Why cities shouldn't bring in chain stores.
Jane Jacobs in Cities and the Wealth of Nations, gives a pretty convincing argument for her theory of economics.
In summary, her theory says that the most important unit of economics is the city, and the most important activity that a city can do to create a robust, healthy, and growing economy, rather than a stagnating and declining one, is to replace things that they were importing from other cities with identical or similar goods produced at the home city.
If this import-replacement process is fostered, then the economy will grow and generate real wealth and prosperity in that city. If any one or more of many things happens to decrease or end import-replacement in the city, then the economy of the city will stagnate and decline.
One of the implications of this theory is that by bringing in chain stores, the city is decreasing the production of goods in the home city, thus reducing import-replacement, and leading to the stagnation and decline of the city's economy.
No matter how much taxes the city gets from the chain store, it doesn't make up for that fact that the chain store is siphoning money out of the city economy and decreasing the variety and amount of goods produced in that home city.
Down with Walmart, Target, and every other chain store in the world!
In summary, her theory says that the most important unit of economics is the city, and the most important activity that a city can do to create a robust, healthy, and growing economy, rather than a stagnating and declining one, is to replace things that they were importing from other cities with identical or similar goods produced at the home city.
If this import-replacement process is fostered, then the economy will grow and generate real wealth and prosperity in that city. If any one or more of many things happens to decrease or end import-replacement in the city, then the economy of the city will stagnate and decline.
One of the implications of this theory is that by bringing in chain stores, the city is decreasing the production of goods in the home city, thus reducing import-replacement, and leading to the stagnation and decline of the city's economy.
No matter how much taxes the city gets from the chain store, it doesn't make up for that fact that the chain store is siphoning money out of the city economy and decreasing the variety and amount of goods produced in that home city.
Down with Walmart, Target, and every other chain store in the world!
Friday, June 05, 2009
Economics
I'm reading Cities and the Wealth of Nations by Jane Jacobs. I found out about this book from Economic Self-reliance Club in college.
I'm no economist (Although I was sent a letter after passing my Econ 110 class in college recruiting me to be an Economics major. My mom thought this was a pretty big compliment until I told her that my friends who got C's in the class got the letter too.), but it seems like Ms. Jacobs is pretty accurate in what she is describing.
It makes a lot of sense to me. I assume it would be in the Macro-Economics category. And it helps me to dislike a lot of things about the way our economy works and the way politicians deal with the economy.
I think this book should be a required reading for all politicians before they can be allowed to make any policy or law.
I'm also wondering why more economists don't talk about Ms. Jacobs' theory. Or maybe they do and I don't know it. Maybe there are flaws to it that I, being untutored, economically speaking, don't know or see.
Despite that, reading the book makes me dream about being in charge of a city and attempting to use her theory to guide the development of a robust economy.
There's got to be something good in a theory that inspires me like that.
I'm no economist (Although I was sent a letter after passing my Econ 110 class in college recruiting me to be an Economics major. My mom thought this was a pretty big compliment until I told her that my friends who got C's in the class got the letter too.), but it seems like Ms. Jacobs is pretty accurate in what she is describing.
It makes a lot of sense to me. I assume it would be in the Macro-Economics category. And it helps me to dislike a lot of things about the way our economy works and the way politicians deal with the economy.
I think this book should be a required reading for all politicians before they can be allowed to make any policy or law.
I'm also wondering why more economists don't talk about Ms. Jacobs' theory. Or maybe they do and I don't know it. Maybe there are flaws to it that I, being untutored, economically speaking, don't know or see.
Despite that, reading the book makes me dream about being in charge of a city and attempting to use her theory to guide the development of a robust economy.
There's got to be something good in a theory that inspires me like that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
