Imaginary Numbers, Revisited

Almost ten years ago (October 16, 2013, to be precise) I wrote a post in which I expressed my limited understanding of the concept of imaginary numbers, but recognized its applicability to economics. 

Fast forward to earlier this month, when my friend Bob sent me this video about imaginary numbers. I watched it with great interest, although I still don't fully understand the concept ... you can watch the video yourself and see if it makes sense to you. And here's a cool diagram that shows how imaginary numbers relate to numbers in general:

Imaginary numbers are said to be a key to many other modern concepts in mathematics, physics, astronomy, engineering, and other scientific areas. That may be so. But the field that - now as back in 2013 - most depends on imaginary numbers is economics.

As far as I can see, all numbers in modern economic theory and the operation of government are imaginary. Here's what I mean ...

The national debt as of today is estimated* to be something in the neighborhood of 33 trillion dollars. That number, as large as it is, is not all the debt that's out there. According to a press release from the New York Fed last month, as of the second quarter of Fiscal Year 2023: 

"Total Household Debt" was around 17 trillion dollars, consisting of:

Credit Card debt, about $1.3 trillion; 

Mortgage debt, about $12 trillion;

Home equity lines of credit, about $34 billion;

Student loan balances were about $1.6 trillion;

Auto debt, about 1.58 trillion; and,

"Other" debt, about $53 billion.

If we add a national debt of $33 trillion to a household debt of $17 trillion, we get a grand total debt of $50 trillion. And this doesn't count money flowing through the web of PACs, Super PACs, and cash-stuffed briefcases that purchase our elections. Or the money socked away in bundles of cash and gold bars in politicians' homes or freezers, or the foreign accounts of the 1%.

As I see it, numbers this enormous are arbitrary and ... well ... imaginary. That is, they are, quite literally, beyond the imagination of the average individual. And there are other imaginary numbers that underlie economic theories, too, such as the $7.25/hour minimum wage**, which imagines someone earning it can support a family ... or even themselves alone.

We may not understand imaginary numbers, but they understand us. And they don't care.

Have a good day, if you can afford it. More thoughts coming.

Bilbo

* Nobody knows for sure, which is why every number is expressed in billions and trillions to, at most, two decimal places.

** Which has been the legal minimum wage in the US since July, 2009, although some localities have mandated higher minimums up to $15/hour.

P.S. - There are also "irrational numbers," of which "45" is the most irrational. Change my mind.

B.

Number, Please

One of the stock scenes in movies about espionage and suspense during World War II and the Cold War (the first one) comes when the steely-eyed Gestapo agent or hostile policeman demands to "see your papers," and waits with outstretched hand while the hapless victim scrambles to provide his or her identification.

In the United States, of course, we don't have "papers" - a single national form of identification like most of the rest of the world does - no national ID, no internal passport, or whatever. The closest thing we have is a driver's license, and even those aren't necessarily accepted outside one's own home state.

But we do have Social Security Numbers.

It's virtually impossible nowadays to get credit, rent cars or apartments, go to school, or just about anything else without producing a valid Social Security Account Number (or SSAN). It's the key to your entire financial history and - along with your date of birth - is the information most prized by identity thieves and scammers. So widespread is the use of the SSAN, and so often have databases containing them been compromised, that they have become laughable - if not downright dangerous - as a form of unique and supposedly secure identification.

But what's the alternative? In an interesting and comprehensive Washington Post article, consumer technology reporter Hayley Tsukayama discussed the various alternatives that have been proposed as forms of unique identification and why each was found wanting. Biometrics (fingerprints, retinal scans, facial recognition, etc), blockchains, and a new national ID number have all been proposed, but each has faced opposition on the basis of security or privacy concerns.

Which leaves us with the original question: what's an appropriate, secure form of ID in a high-tech and supremely invasive world?

Nobody asked me, but I have a suggestion that makes use of a uniquely American trait: our love of firearms.

Why not kill a few birds with a single high-caliber stone by reinterpreting the Second Amendment to require every American to purchase and maintain a gun, and then use a combination of the manufacturer and the serial number of the personal firearm as the official ID? Instead of the traditional and badly compromised nine-digit SSAN (XXX-XX-XXXX), the average American would have an ID like "GlockABC1234," "SmithandWesson98047Z9X," or "Beretta54937Y." They might be difficult to remember at first, but that's a small price to pay for reinforcing the quintessential all-American love of guns.

I think this suggestion has a lot going for it: it honors the traditional American worship of firearms; expands the scope of the Second Amendment*; boosts the economy by greatly increasing the sale of firearms and ammunition; and produces an endless supply of possible ID numbers because of the differing numbering systems used by various manufacturers. In addition, because many Americans own large numbers of guns, the compromise of one ID number would not be a disaster because the individual could simply switch to another from his personal armory; those slackers who fail to maintain multiple guns could just buy a new one and start over. On the downside, I can see the more suspicious members of the pro-gun community objecting on the basis that this might make it easier for the government's Jackbooted Thugs™to swoop down in their black helicopters and confiscate everyone's guns ... after all, President Obama did that, right? Oh ... wait ... never mind.

That's my idea for improving national identification standards - what's yours? Leave a comment and be a ... big shot ... by offering a better idea if you have one.

Have a good day. Fire at will. More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

* After all, the Supreme Court expanded its intent from the arming of a citizen's militia (itself a reflection of a traditional American opposition to a standing army that might suppress citizens' rights) to a guarantee of the right of weapon ownership for personal protection (see District of Columbia v Heller, 554 US 570).