Dear Professor Moss, 
 
Thanks for your graceful guidance. I now wish that the thread title = 
should be changed, because the metaphor is making me a boy as bad as I = 
am not. I wish the title to become 'Nine lives of unintended = 
consequences'. I do not know if it is against the convention to change = 
the thread title. Unless there is objection in a week, I propose to = 
change the thread title. 
 
  
 
Here is how Wassily Leontief  introduced realism to me:  "Well Mohammad, = 
should we now talk about a vulgar matter?"  The problem is that some = 
people have the vulgar aim of getting useful knowledge from a science, = 
which  can give them power through practical applications. But of course = 
there are those who seek entertainment, trying to satisfy curiosity. = 
Those who seek power are ready to endure the boredom of vulgar details. = 
I am the vulgar one. I have nothing against refined tastes. Indeed, I = 
also get excited by the neat models. In case you enjoy a metaphor, let = 
us say that high theory is like the beauty queen wearing sparkling = 
jewels, whereas a vulgar man like me worries about the ground she walks = 
on. By all means, let her walk in beauty;  but please allow me to check = 
if the ground she graces with her great feet holds. 
 
  
 
My plan is to examine <descriptive completeness> in a specific setting. = 
Adam Smith's idea of unintended consequence is the starting point, which = 
I plan to study in nine tracks of later developments. The gist of what I = 
wish to present is this: the assertion that the butcher pursues = 
self-interest and does not intend the benefit the customer gets from = 
consuming meat is only half the story. The other half is that the = 
customer intends to get the benefit and pays for the meat. I want to = 
argue that the missing half of the story was never told, specifically = 
concerning (1) how the butcher and his customer reached an agreement on = 
how much meat to deliver against what price; and (2) with what could the = 
customer pay the butcher. My contention is that if the full story could = 
be told at the outset, neither micro nor macroeconomics would be needed, = 
because economics would be unified.  And if the full story is told = 
formally, we do end up with an economics in which micro is the same as = 
macro, and theory of trade is the theory of money.  
 
            If you still like the metaphor of the beauty queen, I am = 
saying that she has been limping on one leg, which is beautiful. But if = 
she could walk on two, she would be more beautiful.  
 
  
 
Mohammad Gani