Paul Samuelson
American economist (1915–2009)
The numbers
2 + 7 = 9
Lo Shu grid
Missing: 3, 4, 6, 8. Present digits repeat to show how many times they occur.
Life path 9 — The Humanitarian
Nine completes the cycle, and the tradition treats it as the number that has already been round once: broad, forgiving, oriented toward something larger than a single life. It is read as the number of the reformer and the artist. Its tension is the mirror of 6 — where 6 over-gives to the people in front of it, 9 is described as giving to humanity in general while the people in front of it wait.
Complete lines
Line of Resolve
The 1-5-9 diagonal complete. Read as determination that survives the middle of a project, when the initial energy has gone and the result is not yet visible.
Repeated numbers
1 appears 3 times
Concentrated self-direction. Read as conviction that does not need external agreement — and does not always seek it.
5 appears 3 times
Concentrated movement. Read as restlessness at a pitch that makes stillness genuinely difficult.
What is missing
Missing 3
Read as difficulty getting the inner picture out — the thought is complete, the expression lags. Often described in people whose written voice is far stronger than their spoken one.
Missing 4
Read as impatience with structure and maintenance. Associated with starting well and leaving the scaffolding to someone else.
Missing 6
Read as a complicated relationship with obligation — either avoiding it or over-shouldering it, rarely a settled middle.
Missing 8
Read as discomfort with power and money — not incapacity, but an unwillingness to claim authority openly.
Vedic — Ank Jyotish
Moolank 6 comes from the day of the month alone; Bhagyank 9 from the whole date. They differ, which is the ordinary case — the two numbers answer different questions.
Shukra
Venus. Art, pleasure, relationship. Read as attraction and aesthetic sense.
Bhagyank uses the same arithmetic as the Western life path, so the two will always agree. That is not two traditions confirming each other — it is one calculation under two names.
In their words
The General Theory caught most economists under the age of 35 with the unexpected virulence of a disease first attacking and decimating an isolated tribe of south sea islanders. Economists beyond 50 turned out to be quite immune to the ailment. With time, most economists in between began to run the fever, often without knowing or admitting their condition.
Herein lies the secret of the General Theory. It is a badly written book, poorly organized; any layman who, beguiled by the author's previous reputation, bought the book was cheated of his five shillings. It is not well suited for classroom use. It is arrogant, bad-tempered, polemical, and not overly generous in its acknowledgments. It abounds in mares' nests or confusions. In it the Keynesian system stands out indistinctly, as if the author were hardly aware of its existence or cognizant of its properties; and certainly he is at his worst when expounding its relations to its predecessors. Flashes of insight and intuition intersperse tedious algebra. An awkward definition suddenly gives way to an unforgettable cadenza. When finally mastered, its analysis is found to be obvious and at the same time new. In short, it is a work of genius.
Science is not art. Yet, despite the lack of complete identity between art and science, there is much in common among different creative processes.
Just as Hegel is said to have understood his philosophy for the first time when he read its French translation, Vilfredo Pareto could have learned what it was he meant exactly to say when he read Bergson's 1938 classic.
I was lucky to enter economics in 1932. Analytical economics was poised for its take-off. I faced a lovely vacuum that young economists today can hardly imagine. So much remained to be done. Everything was still in an imperfect state. It was like fishing in a virgin lake: a whopper at every cast, but so many lovely new specimens that the palate never cloyed.
The existence of analogies between central features of various theories implies the existence of a general theory which underlies the particular theories and unifies them with respect to those central features. This fundamental principle of generalization by abstraction was enunicated by the eminent American mathematician E. H. Moore more than thirty years ago. It is the purpose of the pages that follow to work out its implication for theoretical and applied economics.
Sourced from Wikiquote, restricted to the subject’s own sourced sections.