Friday, October 31, 2014

Economics Proves Women Do Not Like Sex as Much as Men

Aaron's Church of Debauchery and Awesomeness
The Black Man's Guide Out of Poverty
Why security guard is the greatest job in the world
Cappy's failed radio show "Ask Whitey"
Stop being a lazy ass and stop looking for short cuts in life
How economics proves women DO NOT like sex just as much as men
Troll of the Weak has a "Masters in Statistics" but doesn't know how to use it

and MORE

in this episode of The Clarey Podcast. 

Related to the show for reference:



And Happy Halloween from the Captain!

Friday Screeds

No, you don't love your kids.  You love you.

The importance of a well-oiled machine.

But he at least these men know they have male privilege.

And yet ANOTHER damn fine podcast from The Black Brigade!

How gun fights really go down, by Terrence Popp

MGTOWgate, AKA "Sorry Ladies, MGTOW Isn't Binary"

There's Gamergate, Elevatorgate, Atheism+, and to continue the overuse of the word "gate," let's just call this observation I've had "MGTOWgate."

Of course there really isn't a "MGTOWgate" in the normal sense of the suffix, however I have noticed something similar happening to various MGTOW sites that parallel the concern troll attacks of the aforementioned "gate-scandals."  Specifically, a spurt of feminists and some non-feminists writing about MGTOW's and the MGTOW movement, even claiming there's a WGTOW movement.

Regardless of their individuality, their central "thesis" or argument is one of questioning the veracity and commitment of MGTOW's.  That men can't and therefore never really do "give up women completely."  Sure enough they point to the MGTOW's that have women in their lives, admit they do find women attractive, occasionally "crack" and ask a girl out, etc.  And sure enough they say, "LOOK!  LOOK!  SEE!!! THEY'RE NOT GOING THEIR OWN WAY!"  And with 100% predictability call hypocrisy on the movement, hoping to convince others it's fraudulent. 

There's just one problem ladies.

MGTOW isn't binary.  It's a spectrum

What I mean by that is that if you go your own way you don't COMPLETELY eliminate women out of your life.  It's not like one day you're chasing after women non-stop and then the next quit cold turkey ne'er to see the tatas of a woman again.  You simply re-prioritize your priorities where women are no longer a...well...priority.  ie. - they're not COMPLETELY off the list, they're just knocked down the list some.

The result is something more of a scale or a spectrum.  Yes you do have men who have truly given up on women and really don't have them in any capacity in their lives.  But the majority of them (I would surmise and have observed) are not going to pass up an easy fling, a true love of their life, or a date that happens naturally and with little effort.  The real issue is the effort men put into the pursuit of women and that is where most critics (authentic or not) in "MGTOWgate" are operating on a flawed premise.

To provide you with empirical evidence of MGTOW's being a scale and not an binary designation, consider three bits of data.

The first one is an informal survey I did with readers about what percent of their free time they spent pursuing women at 5 year intervals across their lives.  My theory was that as men got older, they tired of the chase, not to mention learned they were led on about the quality of women available in the population, thus becoming disincentived.  My hunch proved true as men spent a peak of 25% their free time at the age of 25 chasing girls and in 3 decades time spent only 2%

The second thing is the decline in the rate (or increase in the age of) marriage.  People can blame it on the recession.  People can blame it on student loans.  People can blame it on whatever they want.  The truth is since it is men that do 100% of the proposing the demand for marriage has dropped and men have statistically and empirically gone their own way at least partially.

And the third bit of data is a little anecdote from last night when I went swing dancing for the first time in nearly 6 months.  10 years ago you would have seen me and my crew out at least three nights a week asking no less than 15 girls each to dance.  Nearly half of those women would be asked out.  And as statistics would have it, it was very common several girls would be asked out by multiple guys in my crew the same night.

But not last night.

It was just me and one other buddy of mine.

I mustered up the strength to ask three girls to dance and had the intention of asking out none.

My buddy looked around, but was not inspired enough by any gal to ask them to dance (and he's single!).

He hasn't sworn off women.  And I certainly haven't either.  But the effective reality women get to face is that it's MGTOW none the less.  Interest in women was 10% of what it used to be as we were more interested in our smart phones and grabbing dinner later that night than dancing or dating.

The point is, so sorry ladies.  So so terribly sorry.  MGTOW is not like becoming a born again Christian, quitting drugs cold turkey, or joining AA.  It's not a yes or no, an either or, a 1 or 0.  It's the sad reality that men are making logical and economic choices as to how to spend their finite time, and putting women down further and further in terms of life's priorities when history and empirical data show they don't provide an adequate rate of return.  However, women are rarely kicked off the list completely.  Therefore when you see a MGTOW on a date, getting some play, or has some broad on the back of his motorcycle he isn't a fraud or a hypocrite.  He's a guy who's living his own life on his terms and STILL slaying it with the ladies.

Which is what women have always found attractive in the first place.

Remember MGTOW's.  Life is more more than just getting a motorcycle and "going."  You need to plan for the future.  Consider purchasing "Bachelor Pad Economics."  The financial bible 4 out of 5 MGTOW's swear by!

Thursday, October 30, 2014

The Father Could Not Be Reached for Comment

Again, I'm always concerned about whether the advice I give is dated because its origins come from the 80's and 90's.  Then I see this and that she has two children that will continue to wreak psycho behavior well into the future and I know that the future of my career is secure.  The world will desperately need Asshole Consulting well into the future.

What Corporate Taxes REALLY Are in the US

As you know I tire of debating with people who are not only uninformed, but ideologues who have no problems lying in order to advance their cause.  This is one of the reasons I no longer listen to the news, and instead pull data as my primary source of information and opinion forming.  One such debate was the issue of "what corporations really pay in taxes."

The right screams bloody murder pointing at the stated corporate tax rate of 40%.
The left screams "loopholes," talks about GE and Google's 0% tax rate, and then claim the "effective tax rate" is 12%.

I know both sides of the argument, and know what is the correct approach to it:

"You shouldn't even have a corporate tax you idiots.  You want jobs.  You want to attract investors.  Get rid of this cancer that is holding the US back from its full potential."

Regardless of philosophical arguments about whether there should even be a corporate tax, I decided to look up once and for all the REAL corporate tax rate.  I'm not listening to the right fretting over the statutory 40% rate.  And I'm CERTAINLY NOT listening to some bogus academian study made of whole cloth by biased socialists "professors."  I simply took "Corporate Profits BEFORE Taxes," subtracted "Corporate Profits AFTER Taxes," divided it by the former and calculated the REAL AND TRUTHFUL tax rate the US has had since 1929.

Got it?

Before taxes.  After taxes.  Subtract and divide.

"I get the disks, you drop Walsh."

So here it is ladies and gentlemen.



























So that's it.  That's what all the hubbub is about.  The current effective tax rate is about 22% and has been trending down since the 1930's.

Naturally the left (if they ever read this blog) would seize on this claiming that corporate taxes in the glorious 50's was around 41% and we were booming then.  And naturally the right will seize on this saying 22% is more than the 0% leftists would like everything to think corporations pay.

But I'm going to try to introduce some reality into the situation as to why corporate taxes have been going down so that we MIGHT actually leave a better economy to our future;

Foreign competition.

And we're not talking about foreign competition from manufacturing or other economic competitors.  We're talking about competition from other governments.  Specifically, governments are competing for investors and corporations as they ALL lower their corporate taxes to lure them.




























This is why you have Burger King merging with Tim Horton's.  This is why you have Medtronic leaving for Ireland.  This is why corporations have trillions parked overseas in Bermuda, the Caymans, Singapore and elsewhere.  Because there ARE greener pastures.

I'm not going to call for the argument that the US eliminate its corporate taxes forever.  It will fall on deaf ears of the left that are either too lazy to think this through or are too wedded to their ideology to have an independent thought or intellectual honesty.  It is also an argument that doesn't need to be preached to the right-wing choir.

I will point out however a rare phenomenon that you won't see very often - governments competing.

In this one rare instance, governments are acting like private sector companies and actually serving their customers well.  Governments want money, they want a tax base, they want a booming economy and some of them are waking up to what Hong Kong and Singapore woke up to nearly 50 years ago.  MAKE IT ATTRACTIVE FOR INVESTORS TO MOVE AND INVEST THERE.  Because of this some companies are scoring jobs.  And not just "jobs," higher paying white collar jobs that typically come with relocating a headquarters there.  This, like free markets always do, benefits the customers.  The customers of which are the citizens of the countries lowering corporate taxes.

This is not complicated, complex, high end economics.

This is simple 3rd grade logic.

And the fact the left in this country is blinded with envy and hate of "corporations" to the point they can't see the benefits of getting rid of corporate taxes means half the population we're dealing with are not as smart as 3rd graders.

related

How to Vote in Local Elections

A PSA from Cappy


Wednesday, October 29, 2014

Wednesday Night Linkage

A more thorough and outstanding explanation of GameGate if my original video was too short.

The irony, feminist Lindy West writes for....are you ready....GQ of all places.  Some how I don't think "Gentleman's Quarterly" is really about gentlemen any more.   That's alright GQ.  We bloggers will gladly take the manly man market away from you.

My position on charity summarized neatly here.

Reason #981 why I will never hire somebody from the Ivy League.

The World Needs More Assholes

Remember, real consultants will lie to you.
Assholes tell you the truth.

If you got a problem in life, or just a question you want a second opinion on, visit the ole Captain's consulting division:

Asshole Consulting.

Obama and the Magic Gini

If you don't know what the Gini Coefficient is, that's alright.  It just means you have a life.  But for the sake of efficiency, the Gini coefficient is a number between 0 and 1.  A country with a Gini coefficient of 0 means all income is distributed equally.  And a country with a Gini coefficient of 1 means one person makes all the money.  This measure was created to show just how skewed income distribution was and, truthfully, to make disparity income distributions "evil" or "bad" in the eyes of a naive public.

Sadly, despite Obama's ideologue-strength desire to redistribute income, he's only managed to (in the classic sense) make the rich get richer while the poor gets poorer.  The Gini coefficient has been going up as it always has.




Technically that bold faced lie (the richer get richer and the poor gets poorer) is a lie.  Both rich and poor are getting richer over time.  It's just that the rich get richer faster because they have the majority of monies and can therefore capitalize on early investments in successful ventures.  But still, as a relative measure, the poor continue to lose "relative" ground to the rich.  And if you couldn't get an American-hating communist like Obama to lower the Gini coefficient, you're not going to find anyone to do it.

Tuesday, October 28, 2014

Dear China, Here's Where Your Money Went

In a previous post I calculated the statistical causes of the US federal deficit and debt.  It was to answer the debate, once and for all, whether it was military spending or social spending that was the primary cause of our financial woes.  When the statistics were tallied it turned out nearly 2/3rds of the deficit/debt was caused by social spending and only 25% military spending.

However, while this addresses the budgetary issues facing the country (which will be summarily ignored), it does nothing to address the counterparty to this deficit spending.  Namely, our creditors. Specifically China.

The whole idea of "lending" money is that you do so expecting to not only get your principal back, but some interest income as well.  And the way your debtor will pay you back is by taking the proceeds from the loan and investing it in a venture that will generate a rate of return in excess of the interest rate being charged.

However, let's focus on the key word of that sentence - "invest."

To sane people or people who care about getting their money back the quality of the loan is based on the quality of the investment that money is used to finance.  Therefore it behooves the lender to analyze where the proceeds of the loan are going to go.  This was my primary job during my 15 year tenure in banking.  My job was to take loan applications, analyze their creditworthiness and determine whether they proceeds would not only be invested wisely, but generate a rate of return that would satisfy the debt obligations.

Out of the thousands of loans I analyzed a majority of them were bad investments.  Another real-estate development in an already-oversaturated market.  A loan to my boss' buddies with no collateral.  Sports bars for ex-jocks going through midlife crises.  And horse hobby farms for the trophy wives of insolvent faux "businessmen."  There was even the famous "cereal bar" where our money would be used to purchase milk (which does not make a good form of collateral).  But out of all these horrendous and idiotic investments, they are nowhere near as bad as the US government bonds you Chinese got suckered into buying.  And the reason is simple:

The majority of the money you lent us was not invested.  It was merely pissed away.

Consider a statistical break down of where your money was "invested" here in the US.

The Military 26%
















One of the largest components of the US budget, your money was used to buy weapons and pay soldiers.  Sadly, the military is not an investment.  Matter of fact, it's quite the opposite.  The military is PURPOSELY designed to destroy things.  Not build them.  You will not get a return on your investment from the US military.

Social Security/Medicare 33% combined















The reason I combined these two is because of the delicious irony of how your money was "invested."  Social Security is paid to people who are retired or are disabled.  In other words, they don't work.  You are merely paying these people to live with no expectation of a return on your investment.  Worse still (and doubly ironic) is Medicare is basically paying to keep old people alive who are about to die anyway.  Instead of investing in the "youth" who might have the capacity to earn the money to pay you back, you are investing in old people who not only DON'T work, but will die soon.

Income Security 16%














Oh, you know how I said if you invested in the youth you'd at least stand a shot at getting some modicum of return on your investment?  Yeah, well there are some young people out there who could work, but they're lazy and just don't want to.  That or they so spectacularly screwed up their lives by having children they can't afford or some other such life-destroying move that they're too pre-occupied living off of others to be concerned about paying you back.  Besides, this is the dumbest segment of our society and they frankly probably don't know the different between China and Japan.

Health 9%















Remember those lazy people I was telling you about?  Yeah, the ones that don't work?  Well they tend to have children at higher rates than their responsible citizen counterparts, and so they need health care.  You could make the argument that these kids will grow up and maybe get jobs, thereby giving you a slim hope you might recoup a fraction of your investment, but a visit to one of our fine trailer parks, ghettos or barrios will show you the cycle of poverty these unfortunate children are condemned to.

Education 4%














You may have your final hopes pinned on that a small percentage (4%) of your money went into education and training.  This should make people more productive, get them higher paying jobs, and thus provide the tax base to finally pay you guys back.

Sadly, your hopes are misplaced, because unlike our Chinese and Asian counterparts, the majority of American education does NOT go to productive endeavors, but worthless frivolous ones, specifically the humanities and liberal arts.  The result is not only an industry that indoctrinates our youth into socialism and sloth, but gives them no real practical skills that will help generate economic growth.  You won't get your money back here, but at least Tina the Suburbanite Princess got her Masters in Transgendered 13th Century Sculpture Fairy Studies.  Thanks hard working Chinese people!

We could go on, but that accounts for nearly all of the money you've lent us.  And as you noticed none of these things even come close to "investments."

The sad truth is that America did not "invest" the money you lent us. It bribed.  It bribed our parasitic class to vote for democrat politicians, keeping them in power and preventing them from having to work real jobs (perhaps you are aware of our president's complete lack of real-world work?)  Oh sure, our leftist politicians say they're "investing," but that is nothing more than a co-opted word used to hide their true intentions.

The issue is what are you going to do about it?  I personally am shocked China, let alone anybody in the world lends the US government (and by association) our parasitic class money.  What is literally happening is we are essentially enslaving hundreds of millions of Chinese.  We have you work the menial jobs Americans are too lazy to work themselves, while stealing borrowing money to pay for those goods and services.  Thus the welfare mother doesn't work, but she still gets Chang at the Samsung plant to build her a nice new smart phone, bought and paid for with money you gave her via the US federal government.

What the Chinese people and its government have to understand is that it is unlikely you will ever be paid back the money you lent us.  Not because the US government chooses not to pay you back, but because the population of the US is decaying and declining to the point they are incapable of working up the economic growth to pay you back.  I can only hope (and grant permission to anybody who wants to) to translate this into Cantonese and/or Mandarin, and would love to hear arguments why the Chinese people are making such a horrible investment.

This post is now on Reddit.  Land of "This Guys An Idiot Because He Disagrees With Me."  Would be horrible if a Cappylanche were to happen and it gets voted up.

Monday, October 27, 2014

Saturday, October 25, 2014

Gamergate for Non-Virgins

Confused about Gamergate?
Wondering why this is breaking into the MSM?
Should you care?  Should you not care?
Never fear, the Captain explains Gamergate here!


Saturday Linkage

Businesses don't create jobs.  Golddigging wives who ride off of daddy's money, then hubby's political career do.

Dear MSM,  Thanks for your lunch, and yes, I am eating it.

Last Night's Hotel Stand

Remembered in addition to dive bars across the unpopulated American west I also intended to take pictures of my bedstand before going to bed.  This was last nights:


Friday, October 24, 2014

The Black Man's Guide Out of Poverty

I was interviewed by Kerry Lutz recently and made the announcement and title of my next book official.  I'm going to aim to have it done by Christmas selling season, but that's about to start in a week.  Regardless, should be ready before Christmas.

Podcast Episode #68

Cappy exposes the NO CURSING CONSPIRACY!
Review of "Fury"
Explaining the difference between "all" and "some"
Why Wyoming sucks
I'm too damn tired to care about accusations of racism and sexism.
"I'm 67% dead!"
A 17 Year Old Girl "Troll of the Weak"

and MORE

in this episode of The Clarey Podcast.

Thursday, October 23, 2014

California Institute of the Arts

I had an agent send this to me.  He attended the California Institute of the Arts (where these fliers were from) and I think any young man considering this college should rethink given its politically hostile environment towards men and how "rape" is now defined as "regret."

































This isn't bullshit boys.  You need to be VERY WELL AWARE AND WARNED just how much of a risk it is attending colleges like these, especially in California, where they are so far deluded, so far gone, that mere "regret" is grounds for a rape accusation.

Choose schools wisely boys.  You landing in jail or having your tuition confiscated while you're expelled because you had sex with a drunk girl is just not worth it.

Thursday Night Linkage

Stay frosty, boys.  Stay the freak frosty.

Sandman does a GREAT economic analysis of the international prostitution market and what will happen to prices based on whether it is legal in a country or not.

When sports and education mix.

"If they are not loyal to you, then you should not be loyal to them!"

Is the Canadian Parliament a gun free zone?

This, more than any other reason, is why I have given up caring about the future of the US.  And I disproportionately blame young and female voters for constantly and consistently voting more power to the state for it. When you let people who aren't citizen vote, you do not have a country.  You have a resource for the world's parasites to plunder.

The Truth About Executive Compensation

A common whine complaint from unions and the left is about executive compensation.  That these evil, fat cat, mean, rich executives make too much money and if that money were instead to be paid out to the "real" workers in corporations, then all would be well and every child would have a pet unicorn. 

Like many, if not all, arguments of the left it is based in idealism and not reality.  What people want, versus what the labor market can possibly mathematically deliver.  Hope and not reality.

Because of this, their arguments are founded on weak clay foundations, and it doesn't take much research or empiricism to prove them wrong.  So after (literally) 5 minutes of research I was able to pull some quick statistics and facts, do a little bit of 3rd grade math and debunk this leftist pipe-dream of an argument that has been around for decades.

Once again, I'm going to go with the most

EVIL
VILE
DISGUSTING
GREEDY
HORRIBLE

corporation that ever existed - Exxon Mobil.

Executive compensation, which is now required to be filed in the 10K/annual report to the SEC, can more easily be found on Morningstar which does a nice job of presenting it annually.



















As you note, those evil, mean (and no doubt) 100% white male corporate executives at Exxon Mobil make on average $85 million annually in compensation.

Now, what if we were to take all of it and spread it fairly across all the "real" employees at Exxon Mobil?  How much would it help those poor, disadvantaged near-slaves that are being taken advantage of by these evil executives?

Well a little google searching will find that Exxon Mobil employs 75,000 employees.  You do a little 3rd grade math and you come to find out that if we stuck it to those evil, greedy (and don't forget White Male) capitalist pigs, each and EVERY employee would get a raise of  (drum roll please!!!!)....

$1,133.

Giggity freaking giggity.

Now, let's do something I like to do to save time and advance the conversation along - predict the knee-jerk counterarguments from the left.

Did you include stock options? - Yes, the SEC considers stock options, grants, and other forms of non-cash compensation in it's calculations.

Well, that's just Exxon Mobil.  It's probably worse at other companies! - Then you do something for the first time and research something rather than blather.

Still!  That's better than nothing!!!! - Oh shut up.

The whole point is that this myth of if we "just took executive compensation and spread it across the employees, then everybody would have higher standards of living" is precisely that - a myth.  The MATHEMATICAL REALITY IS that there just aren't enough executives out there.  Yes, they make a lot of money, but given the ratio of employees to executives, it's too high to make this dream reality. Worse still for the left, this says nothing about their ultimate goal - taking executive compensation and giving it to EVERYBODY - employees, poor people welfare recipient, students, single mothers, etc. etc.  If you included the millions of dependent parasitic classes, confiscating ALL of Exxon Mobil's executives' compensation would result in an increase of just PENNIES to the average democrat voter.

The truth is that relying on other people and pursuing a life of parasitism will NEVER get you to the standards of living you want.  And wasting your life lobbying, debating, and arguing for other people's money is precious time that could be otherwise spent improving yourself, your skills and your own lot in life, much more so than waiting for the democrat party to eek out an added tax "on the rich."

So argue all you want.
Protest all you want.
Whine all you want.
Stammer your feet and pout.

Even if you got everything you wanted, your life would still suck because (and here's the sad truth) you suck.

So stop sucking at life and do something with it instead of sticking your hand out.

THIS IS What Feminism Looks Like

For all you young naive girls who think feminism is "just the equal treatment of women" its time for you to wake up.

Wednesday, October 22, 2014

Social Security and Medicare Simplified

From our resident artist Jorge (who intends on drawing several more political cartoons)


Why Big Oil Should 86 Their CSR Departments

"and replace them with me."

Language warning:


Looking for Writers

Howdy All,

Alex is looking to hire more writers as the fall semester gets into mid-terms and ultimately finals season.  If you're interested in picking up a little extra cash and would like a job without a commute, contact him below:

Aleksey Bashtavenko
Academic Composition
Owner & Principal Writer
(540) 300-1253
academiccomposition@gmail.com
www.academiccomposition.com
www.linkedin.com/pub/aleksey-bashtavenko/25/7b8/323/
 
Thank you,
 
Cappy 

Tuesday, October 21, 2014

The Deflationary Spiral is a Lie

Rick Newman at Yahoo *COUGH COUGH WHEEZE WHEEZE* "News" wrote a piece recently about the horrors and catastrophes of "deflation."

Yes, this economic scourge is so dangerous, so devastating that people unfortunate enough to experience it suffer:

Higher standards of living
An increase in the value of their money
Increased purchasing power
and
a stable currency

Sarcasm aside, you don't need to be an economist to figure out that the "deflationary spiral" is a Keynesian canard because the WHOLE POINT OF ECONOMICS AND SOCIETAL ADVANCEMENT IS TO MAKE THINGS CHEAPER!  It's the SOLE PURPOSE of economics.  Increasing standards of living through efficiency.  So already you know when somebody warns about the "horrors" of "deflation," you know they're either

1.  An ignorant journalist who doesn't know jack about economics or
2.  A politician or political operative trying to dupe you

(Mr. Newman is the first, despite his degree in economics, which was no doubt dripping with Keynesianism)

However, this simple logic to find out if believers in the Deflationary Spiral are devils or dupes, does not expressly explain or disprove their claims.  That claim being that deflation lowers demand by delaying purchases as people "know" prices are going down and simply postpone those purchases indefinitely into the future.  And while it may seem logical on the face of it, that's all it is - logical.  Not empirical.

First, in order to believe the Deflationary Spiral exists you have to believe that Americans are financially conscious and savvy enough to know about prices, inflation, etc.

ARE YOU KIDDING ME?????

The average American doesn't even know who's in congress or where Canada is, let alone what the CPI is doing!!!!  They are so stupid and so doped up on bread and circus BS that the last thing they're doing is reading Federal Reserve minutes.  They are the most economically ignorant population in the history of humanity (but they're experts in the Kardashians and ESPN post game shows).

Second, since the average American is clueless about finances and economics, they spend money like...well...Americans.  They save practically nothing,



 and (despite enormous debt forgiveness during the financial crisis) have managed to rack up cumulative household debt back above 100% GDP.

Third, Americans lack the capacity for delayed gratification.  In the now now now me me me mine mine mine society, nobody is conscious, let alone psychologically capable of budgeting, conserving or postponing purchases.

And finally, women.  (Yes, sorry, we're going there, because it's germane and true).  Depending on what statistics you want to use, women account for anywhere between 55-80% of all household purchases.  And most of them are on worthless and unneeded trinkets and crap.  I have NEVER, EVER heard a woman utter "deflationary spiral" because it has never occurred to a newly wed wife to postpone purchases of curtains for her new home, a power tripping NYC marketing executive to postpone purchases of her Pravda shoes, or a naive and clueless college student to postpone the purchase of her $200,000 "Masters in Latina Transgendered Anthropologic Poetry Unicorn Studies."

But the ultimate argument against the Deflationary Spiral is simply one of empircism.

It does not exist.

While I know economists, journalists, politicians, and everyday sheeple just like to repeat things they heard in college or the news, it doesn't make them true.  And if you look at spending versus inflation, THERE IS NO RELATIONSHIP.

This chart shows the velocity of money (the rate at which a dollar is spent and re-spent, indicating demand).  It is juxtaposed against inflation.  To the untrained eye you might be tempted to detect a pattern or relationship between the two, and according to the Deflationary Spiral believers as prices go down you should see a decrease in the velocity of money.




















However, THERE IS NO RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE TWO.  When correlated against one another the correlation coefficient is -.04, meaning no relationship at all.
















Naturally, I don't expect my little blog here, let alone this little post to correct the thousands of erroneous pages in economic textbooks.  I don't expect this FACT to change politicians' or journalists' thinking (or incentives).  And I doubt that anybody at the Federal Reserve will remove their lips from Keynes' dead ass long enough to consider this data.  But I do expect my readers and anybody who really cares about politics and economics to know the Deflationary Spiral just doesn't exist.  And that the next time you hear somebody trying to "scare-tactic" you using the "Deflationary Spiral" to know it's a calculated political move to allow for more government debt and printing of money.