Insult to insinuations of being a sloth

Inflation.

Inflation has always been an odd-ball for me to understand. It is one of those things people explain poorly, without conviction. The explanations that do come, say - inflation is the devaluation of money. Money is losing value.
Egads! That certainly is not a good thing, right? For the longest time, this simple definition formed the basis of my paradoxical belief that inflation is evil, yet moderate rates of it, indicate a healthy economic growth.
"What does that mean, how is that possible... Its okay, I am not an economist," has always been my chain of thought. A few days ago, though, on one of the trips, I felt it becoming a little clearer.
Inflation, I think is a product of evolving and multiplying needs of humanity. A 'healthy' rate of inflation just indicates the progress of the complexity of human needs. Money does lose value, but in a way that makes erstwhile basic needs as food, clothing, shelter etc., relatively more affordable; with newer needs taking their place as high value commodities.
No inflation, then, would imply no furtherance of needs; a stagnancy in the collective growth. Negative is even worse. Basics become dearer. An increasing value of survival basics is sure to be an indicator of distress. As needs diversify, and rungs are added to the pyramid, the base must get less dearer.
What if the rate is too high? I think that would cause others to lose confidence in the currency. Too high is probably always an inorganic phenomenon. Things such as, printing of too much currency etc. That probably impedes the whole "bottom-run-getting-cheaper" thing.
A sudden spurt in cash is sure to make junta lazy and less productive. More money to spend, less incentive to work, would skew prices of basic commodities, and commodities in general. And when there is a cash glut, and a supply crunch, prices outpace income. Not desirable.

Inflation is the Relativity of economics, I guess.

The Sunshine Makers

"This is what makes the story of The Sunshine Makersremarkable—that even as the idealism of the 60s turned into the gritty reality of the 70s, the drug that brought about the psychedelic revolution never went away, nor did the hope of a peaceful social mutiny by those who manufactured and distributed it."

Read here.

They say people who are offensively churlish in appearance are soft and caring, if you remove the outer shell. But who's to say the buck stops there? I think I have two; hard-soft-adamantium.

i have always, yet, had a very classical view of relationships.

what if it requires you to be an entertaining monkey all along.

Think about it; and let me know if it's acceptable.

Hi, I am Bater, Master Bater.

It's a peculiar thing, familiarity. For one, it let's you think you know a person. And, should you like that person, it gives wings to you imagination. That, in particular, is a dangerous thing.
It is dangerous because what we concoct in the mind is seldom a representation of reality, which can become a disaster in the making.
But I am still a proponent of it. In the sense that it is an indulgence which is desirable. For there is always beauty in the imagination of a romantic. That, if understood and enjoyed, knowing the pitfalls, can be a marvelous experience. Just as drugs are.

Do that, or do drugs. Your pick.

Winter is coming.

That smell is back. That, which plagues the cooling air of end-autumn. At this time of the year it's ubiquitously spread out. It creeps into my nostrils and reminds me of an aimless melancholy.
To think I used to like this smell is an increasingly fictional thought. I am going to have to deal with it now, till winter truly sets in. Then, I will catch a cold.