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