Elsewhere I've described an econoist as a person who believes that women become pregnant by swimming in the rivr.

Here's what a physicist. As a mathematician, I know I must show how arithmetic is derived from certain bais notions. As a physicist, I know I must show how energy is available for the various physical processes. But I have been searching for years for a comparable explanation by economists.

Briefly, every year our popoulation increases markedly. How can the new "mouths" be dealt with? Only be increase in wealth. But what creates new wealth?

The 18th century British economist, David Recardo (x-y), offered "suprlus value" as an explanation. I've this idea to pre-school, kindergarten and elementary schools children. A kindly shoe-maker, who had for years put out mild and bread for the Elves when he put out the leather forth next day's work, would find each morning that the Elves had overnight sewn that leather into shoes. The shoe-maker could see these for enough leather for even more shoes, with a surplus left over to buy food and neceesities and even luxuries for his family.

But the Communist doctrinist, Karl Marx (x-y), promoted "the surplus value" explanation, which made most economists not willing to be associated with this explanation.

In the ninettenth century, marginal utility/i> ideas were developed to expain surplus value, but only economists can understand these ideas, and some of them disagree with the utility of marginal utility to explain new wealth.

Meanwhile, econmists explain other aspects of economics, but the creation of new wealth remains unexplained.

In my opinion, the mystery is compounded by the announcement of economists that 70% or more of our ecnomy is contributed, not by xxx, but by xxx. I can understand how they indirectly contibute by doing work that the direct ones need not doand can do direct work. But how could this make a major contribution?

Failure to explain this most primary of questions, and continua ignoring of it, is a critical ECNOMICS ASTRATEGY.