As I noted recently, lots of people like to talk about the importance of the economy in this election, even though very few people have the slightest understanding of economic theory or important economic truths. One way to improve the situation would be to force everyone to read James Surowiecki’s columns in the New Yorker such as this one, which takes a fresh look at the American dream of owning a house.

If this election turns out once again to be about “The Economy, Stupid,” I’m afraid the “stupid” label will apply more to the voters than the campaign staffers. How, exactly, is the average voter supposed to decide which candidate’s plans for the economy make the most sense? Or even to know how to define “makes sense?”

I have a little bit of education in economics. I took Economics 10 at Harvard 23 years ago and I took courses in microeconomics, macroeconomics, and finance as part of my MBA at Boston University about 10 years later. Now I don’t want to be smug, but I’m guessing that means I have learned more about economics than 90%, 95%, or maybe even 99% of registered voters. And you know what? I DON’T KNOW JACK SQUAT ABOUT ECONOMICS. And if I don’t know enough to make an intelligent decision, what hope is there for the average Joe?

What percentage of voters could give accurate definitions of the following terms?

• Economy
• Recession
• Unemployment Rate
• Inflation
• Federal Reserve Bank
• Gross Domestic Product
• Stimulus
• Corporate Earnings
• Budget Deficit
• Trade Deficit
• Weak Dollar
• Progressive vs. Regressive Taxes
• Tax Credit vs. Tax Cut vs. Tax Rebate

And yet the media and politicians throw these words around as if they were talking about the weather.

Even if we understood what they were talking about, is anyone out there telling us the truth or are they all just saying stuff that sounds good? As far as I can tell, Americans believe that somewhere out there is a magic economic policy that will provide:

• Higher wages
• Lower prices
• Higher stock values
• 100% employment (but only in “good jobs”)
• More consumer spending
• Less consumer debt
• Lower prices for imports
• Higher prices for exports
• A stronger housing market
• More affordable housing
• Lower interest rates (for borrowers)
• Higher interest rates (for investors)
• Lower (preferably zero) taxes
• Less government borrowing
• Everything we want, now
• Nothing we don’t want, ever

Does anyone out there have the guts to explain to us why we can’t have it all?

My college classmate and one-time tenant Michael Pahre writes an excellent neighborhood blog. Tonight he informs me that there was a “dungeon” right down the street from me. Its “mistress” and her husband (the master?) were arrested last week for, according to the Allston-Brighton Tab, “sexual conduct for a fee and allowing a premise to be used for immoral purposes.” I guess those are the official terms for prostitution and running a whorehouse in Massachusetts.

After reading the story, my first thought was naturally “how come nobody invited me to the grand opening?” But I am intrigued by the description of the events leading up to the arrest:

Police began investigating [Kara] Rogers when an undercover officer responded to a craiglist ad on Aug. 21 that said “Gorgeous Mistress available to meet submissive men.”

The officer and Rogers reportedly exchanged e-mails before setting up an appointment over the phone. On Thursday, Aug. 23, the officer went to the building, where a tall blond woman dressed in a sheer robe, lingerie and high heels motioned for the officer to come inside an apartment, police said. The officer was brought into a living room that contained several sex toys and rope, police said.

The woman, who identified herself as “Mistress Gorgeous,” reportedly said to the officer, “So you want to be tied? Well, I can do that with a little spanking, what else do you like?” After negotiating the price of $175 for a half-hour, the officer asked if he would receive oral sex as well, reports state. When Rogers said no, the officer left the apartment.

When arrested, Rogers reportedly said she didn’t think she was doing anything wrong, because there was no sexual contact.

I actually think Mistress Gorgeous may have a point. It certainly can’t be against the law simply to cause pain to another consenting adult. If it were, there would be no such thing as a personal trainer. Suppose the services consisted solely of foot massages or verbal humiliation. Services such as these might well elicit a sexual response from some customers, but that’s by no means a certainty. Seems to me that if there’s no exposing, much less touching, of the genitals, there’s no sex. And if there’s no sex for money, I don’t know what other standard you use to determine if someone’s purposes are “immoral.”

This could be an interesting case.

Congress is working on an energy bill, and yesterday the Senate agreed to a provision that would mandate higher fuel efficiency for automobiles. Fuel efficiency is not a bad thing, but this is not the best way to reduce our consumption of fossil fuels.

It would be better to let gas prices go up, or even force them up through taxation. Here’s my reasoning, as I previously expressed in a Facebook post to the group called “High gas prices are a GOOD thing.” (That’s the name of the group, not the name of my post.)

I am disturbed that so many conversations about gas point to more miles per gallon as the solution. The answer is not more MPG, it is fewer G’s. I can drive a Hummer and still use less gas than my neighbor who drives a Prius, if I work from home and he has a 120-mile-per-day commute. Also, it doesn’t matter what your rated mileage is when you’re stuck in traffic or circling around endlessly looking for a parking space. Higher gas prices are the only way to force us to think about total gas consumption and reduce the amount of unnecessary gas usage.

One thing that would help is requiring car manufacturers to install meters on the dashboard that show current and average MPG ratings. My new Honda CR-V has this, and it certainly makes me more conscious of gas consumption whenever I drive. (Over the first 400 miles, I’m averaging about 20 MPG. Not great, but note that it took me a solid month to drive 400 miles. Some folks drive that much every week.)

Most of what Matt Miller says makes sense. He’s the author of The Two Percent Solution, which just makes too much sense for it to have any impact.

Here’s what Miller has to say about Republican anti-tax rants.

Tim is a good guy and I got to know him when I supported his candidacy for State Rep a couple years ago. We came up 64 votes short then. He’s running for what will be an open seat this November and I invite you to participate in and support his campaign. His web site is brand new and a lot remains under construction, but there is enough there now to get you started.