I wrote about Toxic Wives in the past, but referred to it as "Trophy Wife Economics."
Freaking hilarious to see not just the greedy scum bag business"men" who couldn't make a dime in profit, but to see their gold-digging wives actually having to face the prospects of finding (dun dun dunnnnnn)
A JOB!
NOOOO!!!!!!
Lesson to be learned;
Always lease a depreciating asset. Never buy.
Saturday, November 29, 2008
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
X-Box Sucks
If you are not a game aficionado, that's alright. All you have to do to be one is repeat after me;
X-Box sucks.
See, now you know pretty much what every other gaming aficionado knows.
Long story short, if you are thinking about buying X-Box for your kids or for that matter any Microsoft product, forget it. The problems are not worth it. The thing overheats, the thing freezes up and then when you get it repaired, THRICE, and call up Microsoft again, "Oh, well it's no longer under warranty so that will cost you $99.00."
So, let me save all of you economists out there a little bit of your finite lives.
It's not worth the time, let alone the money you will have to spend constantly resuscitating your X-Box 360. It's not worth the time having to mail the thing into Microsoft, let alone the hours you're going to spend on the customer service line. Just do yourself a big fat favor and get a Playstation or a Nintendo.
So if that helps anybody make their decision for what to get for Christmas, god bless 'em.
In the meantime I'm getting myself a Mac from hence forth and never a PC.
Oh, and to Sarah, the Microsoft customer "support" person, be happy in knowing I've cost Microsoft way more than the $99 you wanted to charge me to repair something that should have been working properly in the first place.
Enjoy being in a distant 3rd place when the next gaming console generation comes out.
X-Box sucks.
See, now you know pretty much what every other gaming aficionado knows.
Long story short, if you are thinking about buying X-Box for your kids or for that matter any Microsoft product, forget it. The problems are not worth it. The thing overheats, the thing freezes up and then when you get it repaired, THRICE, and call up Microsoft again, "Oh, well it's no longer under warranty so that will cost you $99.00."
So, let me save all of you economists out there a little bit of your finite lives.
It's not worth the time, let alone the money you will have to spend constantly resuscitating your X-Box 360. It's not worth the time having to mail the thing into Microsoft, let alone the hours you're going to spend on the customer service line. Just do yourself a big fat favor and get a Playstation or a Nintendo.
So if that helps anybody make their decision for what to get for Christmas, god bless 'em.
In the meantime I'm getting myself a Mac from hence forth and never a PC.
Oh, and to Sarah, the Microsoft customer "support" person, be happy in knowing I've cost Microsoft way more than the $99 you wanted to charge me to repair something that should have been working properly in the first place.
Enjoy being in a distant 3rd place when the next gaming console generation comes out.
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
And These People Have the Right to Vote
I'm angered that my vote is somehow canceled by theirs.
ht to Kate again (she's got some good stuff!)
A Distubing Trend
I know, I know. We're not socialist.
I know, I know. The democrats are not for socialism.
And I know, I know, the republicans cannot gear up the gall to call them that.
But if you look at government spending as a percent of the economy, you'll realize that (bar times of war) the overall trend in government spending has been to go up.
The problem is this chart only shows FEDERAL government spending and does not include state and local spending as well. If these are considered, overall government spending is at about 37%.
So the question I post to all you aspiring, junior, deputy, official and otherwise economists out there is, fine, we may not be socialist now, but if the democrats and Obama were to have their way (which they will) will you admit we WILL be a socialist nation?
This debate rages between me and my Obama supporting friends. That I am a "fool" a "moron" to suggest we're going to become a "socialist" nation. You fool, you do not know of what you speak. To which I respond "yes, the one economist in the group does not know what he's talking about. Oh sure, the sax player and the admin assistant and the lifetime student in journalism, they know what they're talking about when it comes to taxes and fiscal policy, but I am the moron of the group when it comes to these things." But that doesn't change the fact at what point, what level of government spending is a country deemed a socialist nation?
It's an important question to ask because if the republicans are "going to get tough" like they say they are, are they going to gear up the gall to call the democrats what they technically and economically would be considered; socialists?
This would be a brilliant PR campaign. They wouldn't be lying. They would be calling the democrats what they are. And (for once) they could make a clear, distinguishable difference between them and the democrats (not to mention a track record that will be against everything Obama does from hence forth and will come in handy come 2012).
Of course, relying of the current strategerists in the republican party to realize and recommend this would be like them fielding a candidate like Reagan again. But one can hope.
I know, I know. The democrats are not for socialism.
And I know, I know, the republicans cannot gear up the gall to call them that.
But if you look at government spending as a percent of the economy, you'll realize that (bar times of war) the overall trend in government spending has been to go up.
The problem is this chart only shows FEDERAL government spending and does not include state and local spending as well. If these are considered, overall government spending is at about 37%.
So the question I post to all you aspiring, junior, deputy, official and otherwise economists out there is, fine, we may not be socialist now, but if the democrats and Obama were to have their way (which they will) will you admit we WILL be a socialist nation?
This debate rages between me and my Obama supporting friends. That I am a "fool" a "moron" to suggest we're going to become a "socialist" nation. You fool, you do not know of what you speak. To which I respond "yes, the one economist in the group does not know what he's talking about. Oh sure, the sax player and the admin assistant and the lifetime student in journalism, they know what they're talking about when it comes to taxes and fiscal policy, but I am the moron of the group when it comes to these things." But that doesn't change the fact at what point, what level of government spending is a country deemed a socialist nation?
It's an important question to ask because if the republicans are "going to get tough" like they say they are, are they going to gear up the gall to call the democrats what they technically and economically would be considered; socialists?
This would be a brilliant PR campaign. They wouldn't be lying. They would be calling the democrats what they are. And (for once) they could make a clear, distinguishable difference between them and the democrats (not to mention a track record that will be against everything Obama does from hence forth and will come in handy come 2012).
Of course, relying of the current strategerists in the republican party to realize and recommend this would be like them fielding a candidate like Reagan again. But one can hope.
Monday, November 24, 2008
How the Current Account Deficit Explains What's at the Core of the Current Financial Crisis
I like to make things simple. And the reason I like to make things simple is not because I'm trying to dumb them down or provide a simplistic explanation of things, but ultimately when boiled down, things really are that simple. And this current financial crisis is no different.
Talk about mortgage brokers, SWAPs, bailouts all you want, what is ultimately driving this crisis is the fact that Americans are not producing enough to warrant the prices of our assets. Housing, stocks, you name it, all derive their value from the profits or income that can be produced from them. And if there is no profits or income, then there is no value in those assets.
For example, housing. Housing rose to unrealistic heights based on temporary and flighty demand as sub prime slime who could not afford those houses long term, flooded the market only to go bankrupt 3 years later. The problem is rents, the thing that ultimately gives property its value, did not go up. This is why a bubble formed and you are now experiencing dropping property prices. The markets finally realized that housing cannot "always go up" unless there is a corresponding increase in the rents, which never happened, ergo why Case Shiller is showing plummeting housing prices.
Stocks are another perfect example. The stock market, for decades, has been flooded by basically Baby Boomer and Gen X retirement money based on the principle that we should religiously and always invest in the stock market for our retirement. The problem is we are no longer investing in the stock market for the profits the firms generate, but rather because we were told by the government to use them as a retirement vehicle. Now, as corporations report horrendous corporate earnings, not to mention practically all of the financial services industry is filing for bankruptcy or a taxpayer bailout, the market is realizing that the ultimate driver of value of stocks (PROFITS) are non-existent, and ergo, why should those stocks have any value.
The problem, however, is that while the stock market and housing market are certainly very important to the economy, it does not address the overall economy. ie-the American people. How much "wealth" or "production" do we produce as an economy. And not only how much do we produce, but how much do we spend. ie- are we net producers or are we net parasites?
Take a guess which one we are.
The metric by which this is measured is the current account balance. It shows, simply, how much more or less do we produce versus consume. It basically looks at the national accounts, measures how much we made, and then how much we spent. And for the past 20 years, we have been spending more than we made.
Going from just a 0% of GDP balance in 1991, we have persistently and continually spent more than we made in this country, more recently spending 5% more each year than we made.
Now, I know that it is blasphemy to criticize or critique the Neo-American past-time of spending more than we make. That it is a crime punishable by death to suggest people be responsible and live within their means. But that still doesn't change the fact that Americans have essentially been becoming progressively "economically lazier" as time has gone on. We work less, spend more, and don't give a damn about how to pay for it, let alone ever have the intention to pay for it.
It is this that is causing asset prices all over the place to collapse. Stocks, housing, the dollar, as nobody, Americans or foreigners, are willing to invest their money in assets that are ultimately reliant upon Americans to churn profits out of them. We're too busy watching American Idol. We're too busy campaigning for Barack Obama. We're too busy majoring in sociology to hopefully become a "community organizer." None of which produce one ounce of GDP, income, or profits.
Meanwhile, I suggest you take a look and see what the Chinese, Arabs and Russians are majoring in, in college. And then take a look at their current account balances.
Talk about mortgage brokers, SWAPs, bailouts all you want, what is ultimately driving this crisis is the fact that Americans are not producing enough to warrant the prices of our assets. Housing, stocks, you name it, all derive their value from the profits or income that can be produced from them. And if there is no profits or income, then there is no value in those assets.
For example, housing. Housing rose to unrealistic heights based on temporary and flighty demand as sub prime slime who could not afford those houses long term, flooded the market only to go bankrupt 3 years later. The problem is rents, the thing that ultimately gives property its value, did not go up. This is why a bubble formed and you are now experiencing dropping property prices. The markets finally realized that housing cannot "always go up" unless there is a corresponding increase in the rents, which never happened, ergo why Case Shiller is showing plummeting housing prices.
Stocks are another perfect example. The stock market, for decades, has been flooded by basically Baby Boomer and Gen X retirement money based on the principle that we should religiously and always invest in the stock market for our retirement. The problem is we are no longer investing in the stock market for the profits the firms generate, but rather because we were told by the government to use them as a retirement vehicle. Now, as corporations report horrendous corporate earnings, not to mention practically all of the financial services industry is filing for bankruptcy or a taxpayer bailout, the market is realizing that the ultimate driver of value of stocks (PROFITS) are non-existent, and ergo, why should those stocks have any value.
The problem, however, is that while the stock market and housing market are certainly very important to the economy, it does not address the overall economy. ie-the American people. How much "wealth" or "production" do we produce as an economy. And not only how much do we produce, but how much do we spend. ie- are we net producers or are we net parasites?
Take a guess which one we are.
The metric by which this is measured is the current account balance. It shows, simply, how much more or less do we produce versus consume. It basically looks at the national accounts, measures how much we made, and then how much we spent. And for the past 20 years, we have been spending more than we made.
Going from just a 0% of GDP balance in 1991, we have persistently and continually spent more than we made in this country, more recently spending 5% more each year than we made.
Now, I know that it is blasphemy to criticize or critique the Neo-American past-time of spending more than we make. That it is a crime punishable by death to suggest people be responsible and live within their means. But that still doesn't change the fact that Americans have essentially been becoming progressively "economically lazier" as time has gone on. We work less, spend more, and don't give a damn about how to pay for it, let alone ever have the intention to pay for it.
It is this that is causing asset prices all over the place to collapse. Stocks, housing, the dollar, as nobody, Americans or foreigners, are willing to invest their money in assets that are ultimately reliant upon Americans to churn profits out of them. We're too busy watching American Idol. We're too busy campaigning for Barack Obama. We're too busy majoring in sociology to hopefully become a "community organizer." None of which produce one ounce of GDP, income, or profits.
Meanwhile, I suggest you take a look and see what the Chinese, Arabs and Russians are majoring in, in college. And then take a look at their current account balances.
Sunday, November 23, 2008
Hours Worked Per Year
The Baby Boomer phenomenon is not just a US creation. Most western nations have a Baby Boomer generation and thusly are faced with the same legacy issues in terms of social pensions (social security) and health care (medicare).
What's scary though is that instead of working more to pay for what is guaranteed to be 7 years of financial famine, the western world seems to be working less.
Additional nots is that Korea is doing quite well, though still declining and the world's "best" country according to the UN and other self-back-patters, Norway, works the least of us all (then again they do have oil).
What's scary though is that instead of working more to pay for what is guaranteed to be 7 years of financial famine, the western world seems to be working less.
Additional nots is that Korea is doing quite well, though still declining and the world's "best" country according to the UN and other self-back-patters, Norway, works the least of us all (then again they do have oil).
Saturday, November 22, 2008
Arianna Huffington Post
I'm going to explain this to you all so you understand.
Posers like Arianna Huffington have to rely on people aside from themselves to make themselves relevant.
Arianna, if memory serves me correctly, was married to a REPUBLICAN politician and then upon divorce all of the sudden decided to become a raging liberal. Was this because she genuinely believed in socialism?
No, of course not.
It was merely expedient and self-serving to her. She could find a career in socialism even though she genuinely may not have believed in it.
Just like Hillary Clinton, former college Republican, didn't believe in socialism either.
Her husband cheats on her, and unlike her intellectually honest feminist brethren, she sticks with the infidel none the less for political purposes even though deep down in side I'm willing to bet she damn well knows capitalism is the only way to go. Ergo, this the point I'm trying to make; these people are posers.
You must understand that not only do these people have no substance on their own, but therefore must parasite off of others. Their primary motivation is nothing as noble as "informing the people" or "advancing the rights of women" as much as it is "putting money in Arianna's/Hillary's pocket book" under the guise of "women's rights" or "social justice." And in this regard I truly pity their followers.
Did you really believe all the BS on the Huffington Post? Did you believe the founder had some kind of intellectual, ideological strain in common with you?
You fools!
You're just as dupable as Republicans who believed Bush would be a conservative.
You have to understand the Arianna Huffington is basically an old hag version of Paris Hilton.
No intelligence.
No ability.
No substance.
But, boy does she like other people's money...because...well...she certainly can't make any of her own.
She is a fraud and a fake.
And, as free markets are prone to do, they have proven it.
She now has to rely upon charity and handouts because she is not genuine, she is not real, she is a charlatan. She has to rely upon handouts, just like the scum bag wall street investment banker brigade has to rely upon tax dollars to bail her out.
Now I don't expect things like free markets and competition to permeate the minds of leftists any time soon. Nor could I ever hope to dream of leftists seeing the merits and benefits of such ideals.
All I'm pointing out is that your "queen bee" needs a subsidy because she couldn't cut it on her own. And maybe, just maybe, politics aside, you might want to consider why that is.
Posers like Arianna Huffington have to rely on people aside from themselves to make themselves relevant.
Arianna, if memory serves me correctly, was married to a REPUBLICAN politician and then upon divorce all of the sudden decided to become a raging liberal. Was this because she genuinely believed in socialism?
No, of course not.
It was merely expedient and self-serving to her. She could find a career in socialism even though she genuinely may not have believed in it.
Just like Hillary Clinton, former college Republican, didn't believe in socialism either.
Her husband cheats on her, and unlike her intellectually honest feminist brethren, she sticks with the infidel none the less for political purposes even though deep down in side I'm willing to bet she damn well knows capitalism is the only way to go. Ergo, this the point I'm trying to make; these people are posers.
You must understand that not only do these people have no substance on their own, but therefore must parasite off of others. Their primary motivation is nothing as noble as "informing the people" or "advancing the rights of women" as much as it is "putting money in Arianna's/Hillary's pocket book" under the guise of "women's rights" or "social justice." And in this regard I truly pity their followers.
Did you really believe all the BS on the Huffington Post? Did you believe the founder had some kind of intellectual, ideological strain in common with you?
You fools!
You're just as dupable as Republicans who believed Bush would be a conservative.
You have to understand the Arianna Huffington is basically an old hag version of Paris Hilton.
No intelligence.
No ability.
No substance.
But, boy does she like other people's money...because...well...she certainly can't make any of her own.
She is a fraud and a fake.
And, as free markets are prone to do, they have proven it.
She now has to rely upon charity and handouts because she is not genuine, she is not real, she is a charlatan. She has to rely upon handouts, just like the scum bag wall street investment banker brigade has to rely upon tax dollars to bail her out.
Now I don't expect things like free markets and competition to permeate the minds of leftists any time soon. Nor could I ever hope to dream of leftists seeing the merits and benefits of such ideals.
All I'm pointing out is that your "queen bee" needs a subsidy because she couldn't cut it on her own. And maybe, just maybe, politics aside, you might want to consider why that is.
Friday, November 21, 2008
Christmas Shopping Advice from The Captain
Christmas shopping season is upon us and as this is where most of us will not only spend the most amount of money in the year, but also receive the most amount in gifts, I thought it would be wise to give all of you in a public service sort of way some economic pointers to help maximize your utility when it comes to your Christmas shopping.
1. SHOP NOW! This is the last weekend before Black Friday. If you wait until the day after Thanksgiving, you are guaranteed to spend more than 3 times the amount in lines, traffic, not to mention increase your risk of a heart attack by 58%. If you go this weekend you will be able to walk in the malls, void of slow old people blocking your way or little children you constantly have to avoid tripping over or SUV driving soccer moms who decide to stop in the middle of intersections as they consult their maps/Tom Toms and then SLOOOOOOWLY turn out of that intersection. It would even be in your economic interests to take a day off from work to get your Christmas shopping done.
2. Given the economic crisis occurring and the practical guarantee we're going to go into recession, think about sentimental gifts made with your very own hands. For example, men, a poem is a incredibly rare (and incredibly cheap) gift to give to your beloved. Even your cold hearted, evil meanie captain wrote poetry in his youth. Regardless, the point is a poem goes much further than flowers, chocolates or other consumables and will give your beloved timeless warm fuzzies. Ladies, you too can partake in the frugal Christmas by giving your beloved, ahem, "gift" certificates. Gift certificates to things like being served a martini by a girl in a French maid outfit. Or perhaps being served a cigar...in a French maid outfit. Heck, basically just walk around in a French maid outfit and you can barely fail.
3. Parents, LISTEN TO ME! When I am king I will make it a crime, punishable by death if you buy your children clothes for Christmas. I don't know how many billions of dollars are wasted, every Christmas when parents buy their poor kids a sweater, a shirt or something no kid in the history of Christmas ever wanted. You see, as a parent your responsibility is to clothe your kid anyway. So don't cop out on this and use Christmas as an excuse to do what you are legally obliged to do. Christmas is for Kids. And kids want toys. Now keep in mind you don't have to buy a LOT of toys. Buying just one big one is enough (like a Wii...boy a Wii sure would be great! Even adults like Wii's! Especially video game playing economists! Yep, they SUUUUUURE love Wii's!). In buying one big gift you not only probably save money over buying them multiple little ones, but also save yourself time. You can also knock out multiple kids in one shot, video game consoles are great for this as you buy one for your children, not one specific kid.
4. Cash is king. Let me point out something about older folk and how they are wise. When you get older and become a grandparent, why do you think they give the kids money? Because it never fails. See, wisdom comes with age and older folk know that instead of having to shop in the first place, just go to the bank, get a $20 or a $10, put it in an envelop and by golly, you are guaranteed to make the kid happy. I remember having my radio show and I put the question out there, what do think kids prefer to get; cash or a random gift. I bet my producer it would be cash. Sure enough we had this sweet little 5 year old girl call in (her dad called in, but put her on the phone because she had an opinion and wanted to share it) and sure as all get out she preferred cash. Cash is a beautiful gift in that it not only saves you time, but it is the most efficient gift in that 100% of it goes to what the person wants. So if you don't know what the person wants, don't spend hours trying to figure it out, you don't have time for that. Give them the gift of cash (or a gift card if you want to get all "sentimental.")
5. Jewelry. Oh yes, you didn't see that one coming did you, men? How could our Captain, our cold hearted, indifferent about women, Captain suggest such a thing? What did we do to deserve this? Well hold on there now, there's rhyme and reason. First, jewelry functionally is worthless. But if you yourself have a very capitalistic wife, she will understand that part of any well-balanced portfolio is a little bit of exposure to commodities or precious metals. Now you can't give a barrel of oil as a gift, but you can buy gold or platinum in the form of jewelry. If you have a particularly understanding wife, she will agree that the jewelry is there first and foremost as a hedge against economic collapse and should the economy collapse, the jewelry must be hocked and melted down. You don't have to buy a lot, you don't have to buy anything fancy, but instead of investing in boring ol' commodities through your brokerage, why not have it beautifully adorned on your beautiful wife's face, all the while knowing, "Yeah, I'm insured against economic Armageddon."
6. And finally, what says I love more than a book about the housing crash? Sure you could get your beloved jewelry or diamonds. Sure you could get your father a tie. And sure, you could get your little ones toys. But will their lives really be complete without knowing fully what happened to the housing and financial markets? Do you think the kids will REALLY enjoy playing Wii when in the back of their minds at night they ask themselves "how did house price to rents ratios get so high?" And while your wife will be reading the poem you wrote her as you adorn her with the new necklace you bought her, can you both really enjoy the moment as deep down inside both of you are yearning to understand the relationship between monthly housing starts and unemployment? Make your Christmas complete (and avoid lines). Order "Behind the Housing Crash."
1. SHOP NOW! This is the last weekend before Black Friday. If you wait until the day after Thanksgiving, you are guaranteed to spend more than 3 times the amount in lines, traffic, not to mention increase your risk of a heart attack by 58%. If you go this weekend you will be able to walk in the malls, void of slow old people blocking your way or little children you constantly have to avoid tripping over or SUV driving soccer moms who decide to stop in the middle of intersections as they consult their maps/Tom Toms and then SLOOOOOOWLY turn out of that intersection. It would even be in your economic interests to take a day off from work to get your Christmas shopping done.
2. Given the economic crisis occurring and the practical guarantee we're going to go into recession, think about sentimental gifts made with your very own hands. For example, men, a poem is a incredibly rare (and incredibly cheap) gift to give to your beloved. Even your cold hearted, evil meanie captain wrote poetry in his youth. Regardless, the point is a poem goes much further than flowers, chocolates or other consumables and will give your beloved timeless warm fuzzies. Ladies, you too can partake in the frugal Christmas by giving your beloved, ahem, "gift" certificates. Gift certificates to things like being served a martini by a girl in a French maid outfit. Or perhaps being served a cigar...in a French maid outfit. Heck, basically just walk around in a French maid outfit and you can barely fail.
3. Parents, LISTEN TO ME! When I am king I will make it a crime, punishable by death if you buy your children clothes for Christmas. I don't know how many billions of dollars are wasted, every Christmas when parents buy their poor kids a sweater, a shirt or something no kid in the history of Christmas ever wanted. You see, as a parent your responsibility is to clothe your kid anyway. So don't cop out on this and use Christmas as an excuse to do what you are legally obliged to do. Christmas is for Kids. And kids want toys. Now keep in mind you don't have to buy a LOT of toys. Buying just one big one is enough (like a Wii...boy a Wii sure would be great! Even adults like Wii's! Especially video game playing economists! Yep, they SUUUUUURE love Wii's!). In buying one big gift you not only probably save money over buying them multiple little ones, but also save yourself time. You can also knock out multiple kids in one shot, video game consoles are great for this as you buy one for your children, not one specific kid.
4. Cash is king. Let me point out something about older folk and how they are wise. When you get older and become a grandparent, why do you think they give the kids money? Because it never fails. See, wisdom comes with age and older folk know that instead of having to shop in the first place, just go to the bank, get a $20 or a $10, put it in an envelop and by golly, you are guaranteed to make the kid happy. I remember having my radio show and I put the question out there, what do think kids prefer to get; cash or a random gift. I bet my producer it would be cash. Sure enough we had this sweet little 5 year old girl call in (her dad called in, but put her on the phone because she had an opinion and wanted to share it) and sure as all get out she preferred cash. Cash is a beautiful gift in that it not only saves you time, but it is the most efficient gift in that 100% of it goes to what the person wants. So if you don't know what the person wants, don't spend hours trying to figure it out, you don't have time for that. Give them the gift of cash (or a gift card if you want to get all "sentimental.")
5. Jewelry. Oh yes, you didn't see that one coming did you, men? How could our Captain, our cold hearted, indifferent about women, Captain suggest such a thing? What did we do to deserve this? Well hold on there now, there's rhyme and reason. First, jewelry functionally is worthless. But if you yourself have a very capitalistic wife, she will understand that part of any well-balanced portfolio is a little bit of exposure to commodities or precious metals. Now you can't give a barrel of oil as a gift, but you can buy gold or platinum in the form of jewelry. If you have a particularly understanding wife, she will agree that the jewelry is there first and foremost as a hedge against economic collapse and should the economy collapse, the jewelry must be hocked and melted down. You don't have to buy a lot, you don't have to buy anything fancy, but instead of investing in boring ol' commodities through your brokerage, why not have it beautifully adorned on your beautiful wife's face, all the while knowing, "Yeah, I'm insured against economic Armageddon."
6. And finally, what says I love more than a book about the housing crash? Sure you could get your beloved jewelry or diamonds. Sure you could get your father a tie. And sure, you could get your little ones toys. But will their lives really be complete without knowing fully what happened to the housing and financial markets? Do you think the kids will REALLY enjoy playing Wii when in the back of their minds at night they ask themselves "how did house price to rents ratios get so high?" And while your wife will be reading the poem you wrote her as you adorn her with the new necklace you bought her, can you both really enjoy the moment as deep down inside both of you are yearning to understand the relationship between monthly housing starts and unemployment? Make your Christmas complete (and avoid lines). Order "Behind the Housing Crash."
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Horses are Evil
What did I tell you about horses???!!!!
There is something there, I'm telling ya. Don't know what it is, but I damn well know now to steer clear of women with horses.
There is something there, I'm telling ya. Don't know what it is, but I damn well know now to steer clear of women with horses.
The "Depression" Index
A thing the media likes to do is measure the occurrence of one word or another to see if it's likely to come true. The most common example of this is the "Recession Index" where the word recession tends to predict actual recessions. However, what is interesting is "depression" is being cited more in the media ("media" consisting of The New York Times, the WSJ and the London Times) than even during the Great Depression.
This is just one of what is now an increasing number of charts showing various things out of whack MORE than they were right before the Great Depression.
P/E Ratios.
Total debt.
Housing prices to rents, etc.
All currently at higher levels (or at least before the stock and housing markets started to tank anyway) than what they were before the Great Depression.
To this day what I cannot understand is with these figures how it took Wall Street, economists and various other finance professionals to take until 200-freaking-8 to predict a recession. I was almost angry that the economy didn't go into a recession in the first half of 2008, let alone 2007 which is when I was predicting the economy would (arguably as early as 2006, but I'd have to check my posts).
Regardless, nobody listens to poor Cappy. And only if Wall Street did, would they, along with the rest of America be avoiding this current financial crisis.
This is just one of what is now an increasing number of charts showing various things out of whack MORE than they were right before the Great Depression.
P/E Ratios.
Total debt.
Housing prices to rents, etc.
All currently at higher levels (or at least before the stock and housing markets started to tank anyway) than what they were before the Great Depression.
To this day what I cannot understand is with these figures how it took Wall Street, economists and various other finance professionals to take until 200-freaking-8 to predict a recession. I was almost angry that the economy didn't go into a recession in the first half of 2008, let alone 2007 which is when I was predicting the economy would (arguably as early as 2006, but I'd have to check my posts).
Regardless, nobody listens to poor Cappy. And only if Wall Street did, would they, along with the rest of America be avoiding this current financial crisis.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Lamest... Christmas... Present.... Ever
Ug.
The people who actually buy this thing and give it to somebody as a gift are those people who hand out fruit and apples to kids on Halloween.
I can only see buying this as a means to insult a liberal friend and make them eat their own medicine.
In the meantime, do your children, friends and family a favor and don't buy them that "green card."
Buy them this instead.
(Because what kid doesn't love a book on economics?)
The people who actually buy this thing and give it to somebody as a gift are those people who hand out fruit and apples to kids on Halloween.
I can only see buying this as a means to insult a liberal friend and make them eat their own medicine.
In the meantime, do your children, friends and family a favor and don't buy them that "green card."
Buy them this instead.
(Because what kid doesn't love a book on economics?)
How Horses are to Blame for the Housing Crash
In my days in banking if there was one thing that went hand in hand with rich men applying for loans, it was horses.
If you had a shady real estate developer, there was a horse.
If you had some rich doctor or lawyer, there was a horse.
If you had some trust fund baby now slowing watching his parent's fortune erode, there was a horse.
And the reason there was a horse was not because they came riding into town on one, or were racing them, but their wives, without fail bought them.
This manifested itself on the personal financial documents of the people applying for loans. Typically what you'd see was a rich man making all the money (or at least borrowing all the money) and the wife, who was literally doing nothing, running some token business on some money her husband gave her to keep her out of his hair (I affectionately referred to this as "KHOMA" money - Keep Her Off My Ass - in m book). So what you'd see is the husband listing an AGI (adjusted gross income) of say $560,000 and the wife showing a perpetual loss on "Frieda's Farms" or "Heather's Horses" or some such dumb name on their schedule C.
Now while for the most part, if the husband was bringing in a decent amount of cash, I could see it definitely being worth dropping a couple grand on some horses to keep the wife out of his hair so he could effectively run the real business while she lost a grand or two on her horse hobby and play "Make Believe Businessman." But what was scary was just how many times I saw the horses (combined with other consumer spending on the part of the wife) that actually crippled and threatened the man's financial solvency.
One guy was an overweight guy and without a doubt had essentially bought his wife because he was too physically unattractive to find one. Naturally the wife, along with children, would rack up credit card bills that would wipe out what he earned, almost penny for penny. And of course
the single largest expenditure was her "horse business." So when he came in for a loan for his wife's "horse" business I was curious and started asking questions;
"So does she breed the horses?"
"Uh no."
"So she races them then?"
"Uh no."
"So she uses them to teach riding?"
"Uh no."
"Well, what does she do with them?"
"Well, she rides them and maintains them."
Meanwhile he wanted us to lend against this never-profitable operation.
Another hilarious instance was when one guy actually wanted to use his wife's horses as collateral. That if he defaulted on his business loan, then we could go and repossess the horses and sell them to recoup the money.
Well "yip yip yip yip yahoo."
Just what banks and bankers wanted to do.
Repossess on a "horse," feed it, store it, and then try to sell it.
What is sad though is that because horses were so prevalent when it came to dealing with the upper classes, they inevitably became collateral for more real estate deals than most people realize. Through the personal guarantee of the borrower, sometimes they would put up "All Business Assets" as collateral for the loan. And not just all business assets, but all personal assets as well. And though horses were never intended to be the primary form of collateral, invariably they did boost personal financial statements enough to make it look like the borrowers were solvent enough to guarantee the loan.
Alas, big dumb animals were tangentially backing up various real estate and other business deals.
Ultimately what I found is that horses are more or less a tell tale sign you're dealing with a "Bon Fire of the Vanities" type couple. The wife typically cares more about the horses than her husband. The husband is feverishly working to support his wife's spending habits and keep her loyal to him. And both are so vain about their appearances that every bit of asset and property is borrowed against and leveraged to the hilt.
But what gets me about the horses is "why horses?"
What is the freaking pull?
I suppose I could be asking the same question on any kind of frivolous consumer spending such as;
"Why shoes?"
"Why purses?"
"Why a boat you'll never use?"
But there is something about horses and trophy wives that I can't put my finger on, but I know is there.
Alas, perhaps the aspiring, junior, deputy, official or otherwise economists can tender some theories.
If you had a shady real estate developer, there was a horse.
If you had some rich doctor or lawyer, there was a horse.
If you had some trust fund baby now slowing watching his parent's fortune erode, there was a horse.
And the reason there was a horse was not because they came riding into town on one, or were racing them, but their wives, without fail bought them.
This manifested itself on the personal financial documents of the people applying for loans. Typically what you'd see was a rich man making all the money (or at least borrowing all the money) and the wife, who was literally doing nothing, running some token business on some money her husband gave her to keep her out of his hair (I affectionately referred to this as "KHOMA" money - Keep Her Off My Ass - in m book). So what you'd see is the husband listing an AGI (adjusted gross income) of say $560,000 and the wife showing a perpetual loss on "Frieda's Farms" or "Heather's Horses" or some such dumb name on their schedule C.
Now while for the most part, if the husband was bringing in a decent amount of cash, I could see it definitely being worth dropping a couple grand on some horses to keep the wife out of his hair so he could effectively run the real business while she lost a grand or two on her horse hobby and play "Make Believe Businessman." But what was scary was just how many times I saw the horses (combined with other consumer spending on the part of the wife) that actually crippled and threatened the man's financial solvency.
One guy was an overweight guy and without a doubt had essentially bought his wife because he was too physically unattractive to find one. Naturally the wife, along with children, would rack up credit card bills that would wipe out what he earned, almost penny for penny. And of course
the single largest expenditure was her "horse business." So when he came in for a loan for his wife's "horse" business I was curious and started asking questions;
"So does she breed the horses?"
"Uh no."
"So she races them then?"
"Uh no."
"So she uses them to teach riding?"
"Uh no."
"Well, what does she do with them?"
"Well, she rides them and maintains them."
Meanwhile he wanted us to lend against this never-profitable operation.
Another hilarious instance was when one guy actually wanted to use his wife's horses as collateral. That if he defaulted on his business loan, then we could go and repossess the horses and sell them to recoup the money.
Well "yip yip yip yip yahoo."
Just what banks and bankers wanted to do.
Repossess on a "horse," feed it, store it, and then try to sell it.
What is sad though is that because horses were so prevalent when it came to dealing with the upper classes, they inevitably became collateral for more real estate deals than most people realize. Through the personal guarantee of the borrower, sometimes they would put up "All Business Assets" as collateral for the loan. And not just all business assets, but all personal assets as well. And though horses were never intended to be the primary form of collateral, invariably they did boost personal financial statements enough to make it look like the borrowers were solvent enough to guarantee the loan.
Alas, big dumb animals were tangentially backing up various real estate and other business deals.
Ultimately what I found is that horses are more or less a tell tale sign you're dealing with a "Bon Fire of the Vanities" type couple. The wife typically cares more about the horses than her husband. The husband is feverishly working to support his wife's spending habits and keep her loyal to him. And both are so vain about their appearances that every bit of asset and property is borrowed against and leveraged to the hilt.
But what gets me about the horses is "why horses?"
What is the freaking pull?
I suppose I could be asking the same question on any kind of frivolous consumer spending such as;
"Why shoes?"
"Why purses?"
"Why a boat you'll never use?"
But there is something about horses and trophy wives that I can't put my finger on, but I know is there.
Alas, perhaps the aspiring, junior, deputy, official or otherwise economists can tender some theories.
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
War Deaths < Battle Deaths
I love when I get people who cite the 4,000 people who have died in the Iraq war and point to that as some kind of atrocity and that we should tuck tail and run. These are deaths in single BATTLES. Not wars;
Just providing a little needed perspective.
Just providing a little needed perspective.
I Guess I Wasn't "Off"
I woke up this morning at 1030 AM with no particular obligation.
And the reason I have no particular obligation is because I do not have children. If you don't have children you don't have obligation.
Additionally I have lived very frugally driving nothing by my 1990 Chevy and my 1996 VW. I only bought rental property to ensure I do not bear the full costs of my mortgage. I do not splurge on large ticket items, and though I do permit myself to indulge in a cigar and some finer booze, in the grand scheme of things I probably spend less money than people below the poverty line.
Ergo, my only real obligation today is to teach dance class later on tonight.
In between now and then I plan on using that time to work out, smoke a cigar, write this little post here, go running with a blue eyed babe and perhaps picking up the Captain's Bachelor Pad a bit (only on account my X-Box 360 is on the fritz, in which case I would have played some gamage for a couple hours before class).
Ergo, it's a great life. It's a wonderful life. It's a life most people wish they had. And even though the country is turning to a more socialist bent, in the grand scheme of things, I am still happy and content.
The same cannot be said for Lori Gottlieb.
Lori is a single mother, 30's I presume, and this recently-sent-to-me article confirms that I am indeed onto something and not just blowing smoke or running a self-pity run. The market for honorable, good and decent men is drying up faster than credit did during the housing/financial crash. I will say it again, as I have predicted other crashes before and then maybe someday, somebody, people will listen to the poor ole Captain, but men are exiting the market. They are leaving the game. The market is on the precipice of a crash.
This is sad as the timing of it could not be worse for women. As men have started their exodus, it is NOW (?) when they're in the 30's, perhaps with a couple kids, women start to realize that some semblance of attention has to be paid to what men want? You mean you can't just burden the guy with demands of having 4 children, the means to finance them and afford some discretionary income on top of it? You mean you just don't go to the grocery store and pick out your guy? You mean the guy also picks out you?
For Lori Gottlieb and her previous similarly-minded followers, it's kind of realizing in late 2007 that, "Wait, you mean property values don't always go up? I can't always take out money from my home equity line? You mean rents ultimately drive housing prices?" And thus the crash ensues.
However, I don't see it getting better, let alone a bottom to this particular market crash. The reason I say this is based on my past couple of posts and discussing with those of you who have participated, I see people are operating from the premise that it is presumed men want what Ms. Gottlieb wants; Marriage.
And here's where the bad news, gets worse;
The premise is false for a lot of guys.
Men are leaving the market. And this is the overall point I'm trying to make. They're gone. They're out of the club. They've left the party. The cats are out of the bag. The cows are out of the barn and making a run for the border. Elvis has LEFT the building. Which means they no longer care to get married. If they still did, the cats would still be in the bag, the cows in the barn, Elvis in the building, and the men in the market. I listed my itinerary at the top not to brag, but to show you that the alternative to a married life is not dreary, and dull, and lonely or lifeless. The bachelor life is actually quite easy in that men don't really need a fancy SUV to pick up the non-existent children. The bachelor life is affordable in that we throw in a pizza, maybe go out on happy hour to avail ourselves of some great-price apps, or perhaps we go out and treat ourselves to a fine dinner with our buds (and may I point out only have to pay for one dinner).
It is this that the Lori Gottlieb's of the world have to realize. They're not competing against other women for a dwindling supply of men. They competing against the bachelor lifestyle. They're battling the gravitational forces of a content, happy, and above all, a financial secure bachelor lifestyle. Void of divorce, void of having to support a family, void of any responsibility aside from oneself. It is an incomprehensible amount of freedom for a man to pursue and do whatever he wants, and in the literal sense allows them to be man-children (except now we have lot's of great new toys!)
Now I know those of you out there who are trying to help the good ol' Captain. I know those of you out there, and I agree with you, that there are good people out there. I know that.
However, my point is not a personal one, and certainly not one that applies to everybody. It is a generational and generalized one in that this is a trend. An economic observation that has ramifications for society at large. And all I am trying to point out is that when I see these "where is my knight in shining armor" stories, I find it necessary to point out a rapidly increasing percentage of the knights have hung up their armor and are now playing Call of Duty 4.
The question is whether the majority of love/marriage-lorn 30 something women realize that too.
And the reason I have no particular obligation is because I do not have children. If you don't have children you don't have obligation.
Additionally I have lived very frugally driving nothing by my 1990 Chevy and my 1996 VW. I only bought rental property to ensure I do not bear the full costs of my mortgage. I do not splurge on large ticket items, and though I do permit myself to indulge in a cigar and some finer booze, in the grand scheme of things I probably spend less money than people below the poverty line.
Ergo, my only real obligation today is to teach dance class later on tonight.
In between now and then I plan on using that time to work out, smoke a cigar, write this little post here, go running with a blue eyed babe and perhaps picking up the Captain's Bachelor Pad a bit (only on account my X-Box 360 is on the fritz, in which case I would have played some gamage for a couple hours before class).
Ergo, it's a great life. It's a wonderful life. It's a life most people wish they had. And even though the country is turning to a more socialist bent, in the grand scheme of things, I am still happy and content.
The same cannot be said for Lori Gottlieb.
Lori is a single mother, 30's I presume, and this recently-sent-to-me article confirms that I am indeed onto something and not just blowing smoke or running a self-pity run. The market for honorable, good and decent men is drying up faster than credit did during the housing/financial crash. I will say it again, as I have predicted other crashes before and then maybe someday, somebody, people will listen to the poor ole Captain, but men are exiting the market. They are leaving the game. The market is on the precipice of a crash.
This is sad as the timing of it could not be worse for women. As men have started their exodus, it is NOW (?) when they're in the 30's, perhaps with a couple kids, women start to realize that some semblance of attention has to be paid to what men want? You mean you can't just burden the guy with demands of having 4 children, the means to finance them and afford some discretionary income on top of it? You mean you just don't go to the grocery store and pick out your guy? You mean the guy also picks out you?
For Lori Gottlieb and her previous similarly-minded followers, it's kind of realizing in late 2007 that, "Wait, you mean property values don't always go up? I can't always take out money from my home equity line? You mean rents ultimately drive housing prices?" And thus the crash ensues.
However, I don't see it getting better, let alone a bottom to this particular market crash. The reason I say this is based on my past couple of posts and discussing with those of you who have participated, I see people are operating from the premise that it is presumed men want what Ms. Gottlieb wants; Marriage.
And here's where the bad news, gets worse;
The premise is false for a lot of guys.
Men are leaving the market. And this is the overall point I'm trying to make. They're gone. They're out of the club. They've left the party. The cats are out of the bag. The cows are out of the barn and making a run for the border. Elvis has LEFT the building. Which means they no longer care to get married. If they still did, the cats would still be in the bag, the cows in the barn, Elvis in the building, and the men in the market. I listed my itinerary at the top not to brag, but to show you that the alternative to a married life is not dreary, and dull, and lonely or lifeless. The bachelor life is actually quite easy in that men don't really need a fancy SUV to pick up the non-existent children. The bachelor life is affordable in that we throw in a pizza, maybe go out on happy hour to avail ourselves of some great-price apps, or perhaps we go out and treat ourselves to a fine dinner with our buds (and may I point out only have to pay for one dinner).
It is this that the Lori Gottlieb's of the world have to realize. They're not competing against other women for a dwindling supply of men. They competing against the bachelor lifestyle. They're battling the gravitational forces of a content, happy, and above all, a financial secure bachelor lifestyle. Void of divorce, void of having to support a family, void of any responsibility aside from oneself. It is an incomprehensible amount of freedom for a man to pursue and do whatever he wants, and in the literal sense allows them to be man-children (except now we have lot's of great new toys!)
Now I know those of you out there who are trying to help the good ol' Captain. I know those of you out there, and I agree with you, that there are good people out there. I know that.
However, my point is not a personal one, and certainly not one that applies to everybody. It is a generational and generalized one in that this is a trend. An economic observation that has ramifications for society at large. And all I am trying to point out is that when I see these "where is my knight in shining armor" stories, I find it necessary to point out a rapidly increasing percentage of the knights have hung up their armor and are now playing Call of Duty 4.
The question is whether the majority of love/marriage-lorn 30 something women realize that too.
Monday, November 17, 2008
The Economics of Conventional Courtship
There is a somewhat steaming debate occurring that I wasn't aware of, and I didn't realize that I hit that much of a nerve, but it is over more or less this idea of men (for lack of a better description) dropping out of the race or the "game" of dating. I'm not talking nerds or guys who got their first kiss when they were 30. I'm talking a trend I see of more and more "normal" guys just exiting the market and choosing not to marry let alone date.
This is just a comment I made to a poster which I wasn't intending on posting here, but after second thought, deemed it worthy of its own post.
Do realize that I do not tolerate any hatred or male-bashing. You either accept this is happening or at least is the opinion of thousands of men or not. And if you don't and start up with the victimization of sexism and misogyny BS your hours wasted on writing a response will be rejected;
...Having said that caveat, perhaps the best way to describe it is this;
The basic fundamentals, the basic laws and principles on which human attraction and courtship have been based, have been violated in that I think arguably for the first time, there is a progressively larger and larger percentage of the male population that no longer cares to pursue romantic or sexual interests. Be it because the proposition of chasing women in today's world is no longer appealing or that the alternatives of X-Box 360, cigars, cars, riches and never being poor due to too many "capitas" in "income per capita," are all that much more attractive, the basic rules of the game have changed with no real emotion or passion or desire having anything to do with it.
Men simply quit or are quitting in greater numbers. It's, again cold as this may sound, an economic decision.
The ramifications of this for conventional American courtship are quite earth shaking in that it more or less obsoletes it. If one of the sexes no longer cares to pursue the other, then the game is literally over. No more bar scene. No more marriage. No more children. No more family. No more divorce. None of it.
This is even more earth shaking when you think of the sociological/demographic ramifications. Declining birth rates is just one bit of evidence I think that eludes to this. Divorce rates would be another. But the consequences I would contend reach as far as the ultimate end of a generation/nation/culture/society as we know it. America will cease to exist in it's previous Cary Grant/John Wayne/Clint Eastwood form and turn into something we haven't seen yet nor can I fathom.
So for all the Megans and romantics out there, you have to understand, this isn't a choice, let alone anything anybody particularly likes. It's just what it is and people are responding to it. And not until the environment changes do I see a stop of the flood of men out of the market and back into traditional roles of father/husband, provider/bread winner.
The economics of it just isn't there.
This is just a comment I made to a poster which I wasn't intending on posting here, but after second thought, deemed it worthy of its own post.
Do realize that I do not tolerate any hatred or male-bashing. You either accept this is happening or at least is the opinion of thousands of men or not. And if you don't and start up with the victimization of sexism and misogyny BS your hours wasted on writing a response will be rejected;
...Having said that caveat, perhaps the best way to describe it is this;
The basic fundamentals, the basic laws and principles on which human attraction and courtship have been based, have been violated in that I think arguably for the first time, there is a progressively larger and larger percentage of the male population that no longer cares to pursue romantic or sexual interests. Be it because the proposition of chasing women in today's world is no longer appealing or that the alternatives of X-Box 360, cigars, cars, riches and never being poor due to too many "capitas" in "income per capita," are all that much more attractive, the basic rules of the game have changed with no real emotion or passion or desire having anything to do with it.
Men simply quit or are quitting in greater numbers. It's, again cold as this may sound, an economic decision.
The ramifications of this for conventional American courtship are quite earth shaking in that it more or less obsoletes it. If one of the sexes no longer cares to pursue the other, then the game is literally over. No more bar scene. No more marriage. No more children. No more family. No more divorce. None of it.
This is even more earth shaking when you think of the sociological/demographic ramifications. Declining birth rates is just one bit of evidence I think that eludes to this. Divorce rates would be another. But the consequences I would contend reach as far as the ultimate end of a generation/nation/culture/society as we know it. America will cease to exist in it's previous Cary Grant/John Wayne/Clint Eastwood form and turn into something we haven't seen yet nor can I fathom.
So for all the Megans and romantics out there, you have to understand, this isn't a choice, let alone anything anybody particularly likes. It's just what it is and people are responding to it. And not until the environment changes do I see a stop of the flood of men out of the market and back into traditional roles of father/husband, provider/bread winner.
The economics of it just isn't there.
A Tale of Two Cities in Education
On my latest economic project to predict where your money is safest from the now closing clutches of socialism in the US, I came across some education statistics at the OECD. Now of course we know that education is broken here in the US with no hope whatsoever of it ever being repaired as education is primarily used as a means to employ people and not educate children, and dare you ever suggest or demand some semblance of improvement or efficiency or fiscal austerity, you are immediately branded as hating children. Regardless, it doesn't change the fact that in the end our children, despite the US being a first would country, are woefully and inadequately educated when compared to our international peers.
But what stood out to me the most was another country; Korea. Korea is one of the highest scoring countries on the PISA tests (the international standardized test scores put out by the OECD). But it's not so much that Korea scored well, but two other things that stood out.
One, they spend barely half the amount per student we do in the US (again confirming something we've always known; that more money does not equal better students, just richer teacher union members)
Two, and perhaps even more interesting, is that in Korea the teachers spend the least amount of time actually teaching their kids. Again, just half the amount of time as what is spent here in the US;
It was this statistic, that got me thinking and more or less corroborated something I already knew;
The problem of poor education results in America is not so much the teachers, as much as it is the parents.
Oooooo! He didn't just say that, did he?
Yes, he did.
You see, culture plays an immense role in these figures on many different levels. First, if the children are only being taught with half the time as in the US, it suggests to me Korean parents are quite adamant AND A PRESENT FORCE in the education of their children. They make sure they do their studies, finish their homework, attend school and behave. Based on my experiences substitute teaching as well as seeing my generation starting to have kids, I realized an unacceptably high percentage of American parents treat the schools as a massive baby sitting program where they can dump off the kids and outsource the education to the public schools and take no further interest in their childrens' education. They think that there's no parental responsibility in their childrens' education aside from hounding them occasionally about doing their homework. Ergo, mom and dad make sure junior gets C's and D's, and doesn't really bother sitting the kid down and explaining to him the importance of not only doing well, but behaving as well.
Second, by the sheer level of efficiency where Koreans can outscore their American counterparts with HALF the budget and HALF the teaching time, suggests to me there are very little "problem students" in the class. ie-the kids show up and they actually are there to study and take their education seriously. The teacher does not have to constantly discipline, stop lecture, stop writing, etc. to deal with class clowns, disobedient children and other interruptions that not only take away from the serious students' education, but takes more time and resources to accomplish the same amount of teaching. In other words, in Korea the children go to school, in America they go to a large day care facility with the half-hearted guise of it being a school or a place of learning and treat it as such.
Of course, I could be wrong. There could be other factors as I am not an expert on the Korean education system. All I know is that as a single guy with no kids, but still having to pay property taxes to fund the schools, I'm getting mighty sick and tired of being asked for more money for what without fail always guarantees to be more failure and a slightly larger day care operation. And perhaps if spending more results in no better or worse results, then maybe we should cut the public schools' budgets in half and start to emulate a more Korean style of education.
But what stood out to me the most was another country; Korea. Korea is one of the highest scoring countries on the PISA tests (the international standardized test scores put out by the OECD). But it's not so much that Korea scored well, but two other things that stood out.
One, they spend barely half the amount per student we do in the US (again confirming something we've always known; that more money does not equal better students, just richer teacher union members)
Two, and perhaps even more interesting, is that in Korea the teachers spend the least amount of time actually teaching their kids. Again, just half the amount of time as what is spent here in the US;
It was this statistic, that got me thinking and more or less corroborated something I already knew;
The problem of poor education results in America is not so much the teachers, as much as it is the parents.
Oooooo! He didn't just say that, did he?
Yes, he did.
You see, culture plays an immense role in these figures on many different levels. First, if the children are only being taught with half the time as in the US, it suggests to me Korean parents are quite adamant AND A PRESENT FORCE in the education of their children. They make sure they do their studies, finish their homework, attend school and behave. Based on my experiences substitute teaching as well as seeing my generation starting to have kids, I realized an unacceptably high percentage of American parents treat the schools as a massive baby sitting program where they can dump off the kids and outsource the education to the public schools and take no further interest in their childrens' education. They think that there's no parental responsibility in their childrens' education aside from hounding them occasionally about doing their homework. Ergo, mom and dad make sure junior gets C's and D's, and doesn't really bother sitting the kid down and explaining to him the importance of not only doing well, but behaving as well.
Second, by the sheer level of efficiency where Koreans can outscore their American counterparts with HALF the budget and HALF the teaching time, suggests to me there are very little "problem students" in the class. ie-the kids show up and they actually are there to study and take their education seriously. The teacher does not have to constantly discipline, stop lecture, stop writing, etc. to deal with class clowns, disobedient children and other interruptions that not only take away from the serious students' education, but takes more time and resources to accomplish the same amount of teaching. In other words, in Korea the children go to school, in America they go to a large day care facility with the half-hearted guise of it being a school or a place of learning and treat it as such.
Of course, I could be wrong. There could be other factors as I am not an expert on the Korean education system. All I know is that as a single guy with no kids, but still having to pay property taxes to fund the schools, I'm getting mighty sick and tired of being asked for more money for what without fail always guarantees to be more failure and a slightly larger day care operation. And perhaps if spending more results in no better or worse results, then maybe we should cut the public schools' budgets in half and start to emulate a more Korean style of education.
Pricing Themselves Out of the Market
#1. It's a lengthy article.
#2. I DID NOT WRITE THE ARTICLE. A woman did. So don't go biting my head off.
#3. Notice the economic themes of things like "opportunity cost" and people pricing themselves out of the market.
#4. The question I tender to all of you, does an American man today have any option but to be a man child?
You may read it here.
#2. I DID NOT WRITE THE ARTICLE. A woman did. So don't go biting my head off.
#3. Notice the economic themes of things like "opportunity cost" and people pricing themselves out of the market.
#4. The question I tender to all of you, does an American man today have any option but to be a man child?
You may read it here.
Sunday, November 16, 2008
Peter Schiff
So here's my question to all the big time head honchos at all the banks;
Are you going to hire this guy (and guys like him) or are your egos so shattered and completely devastated you don't have the temerity or cajones to do so?
Are you going to hire this guy (and guys like him) or are your egos so shattered and completely devastated you don't have the temerity or cajones to do so?
Saturday, November 15, 2008
Die Hard Celebrates It's 20th Year Anniversary
That's right folks. If you want to feel old AND be part of Gen X, Die Hard turned 20 years old this year.
It was 1988, I was in the 8th grade, and there I saw what was hands down the best movie I had ever seen and is still to this day. I had never had a "hero" I much looked up to like my Dad's generation had Buck Jones or Roy Rogers. That is until my generation got John McClane. And did we get a hero. A normal guy like Indiana Jones who could take a beating and kill terrorists and above all in what was becoming a progressively politically correct country.
I even dressed up as him for Halloween my sophomore year in high school (notice all the things that were permissible back then which would have landed me in jail today)
Regardless, a very Cappy Cap salute to John McClane and Die Hard's 20th Anniversary.
It was 1988, I was in the 8th grade, and there I saw what was hands down the best movie I had ever seen and is still to this day. I had never had a "hero" I much looked up to like my Dad's generation had Buck Jones or Roy Rogers. That is until my generation got John McClane. And did we get a hero. A normal guy like Indiana Jones who could take a beating and kill terrorists and above all in what was becoming a progressively politically correct country.
I even dressed up as him for Halloween my sophomore year in high school (notice all the things that were permissible back then which would have landed me in jail today)
Regardless, a very Cappy Cap salute to John McClane and Die Hard's 20th Anniversary.
Friday, November 14, 2008
How Sub Prime Deadbeats are Like Hitler
Absolutely, the funniest thing, I have seen in a long time.
(and another reason to mayhaps buy my book I might add? ;)
Many thanks to William.
Thursday, November 13, 2008
My "You Need a Better Car" Story
It was requested I post another personal story about the Captain's previous escapades through life so here is another.
I was about 30 or 31 or so and back then I still had some youthful naivety about me and was thus still on the market, "playing the game" looking to date girls. I had my radio show at the time and invariably because I was a young and dapper radio show host who happened to moonlight as a dance instructor, the topic of lining me up with some attractive young listener of the female persuasion would continually recur.
Sure enough a caller called in saying she had the most perfect girl in the world for me that I should date her. I was reluctant as because what you learn in the radio world is that the sexiness of a woman's voice is inversely related to her actual sexiness, but this girl assured me her friend was beautiful, not fat and still on top of all that had a great personality.
I was reluctant so I told her to shoot me an e-mail and we'd discuss further. I received her e-mail within 5 minutes of the show ending, behooving me to respond and consider her friend. I said I would agree, but I wanted to see a NORMAL, FULL BODY LENGTH picture, nothing that was touched up, or an insane close up of what would be a pretty face on an enormously large girl. I wanted proof she was an attractive girl.
Sure enough, the next day I received the picture.
Stunning, cute redhead. Slim, and in very good shape. Long flowing hair. Her friend was not lying, she was quite attractive.
So I agreed that I would meet her friend and go out with her and sure enough within a couple days I had a lunch date set at Benihanna's.
We met and she was just as her pictures suggested, a very attractive woman. She worked in real estate, and at the time I was in banking, and so we had a very high end intelligent conversation about the real estate market, housing and the crash that was slowly starting to materialize. She was impressed with all my various activities and I was very impressed with her entrepreneurialism. The date lasted two hours, we more or less closed the place down for lunch, before I decided that it was getting pretty late and I'd have to return to work. We left with me fully expecting a second date.
Of course I wasn't fresh off the assembly line. I knew that the date in my opinion could have gone great, while she could perhaps have had a horrendous time, so I didn't bank on anything. That is until her friend e-mailed me complimenting me on my behavior and witicisms and conversation skills. Apparently I had impressed her friend and I should certainly ask her out on a second date, except there was just this one major thing I would have to do;
I really ought to get a nicer car.
I was then lectured by her friend that, yes, while she knew I was proud of my frugality and spending within my means, I was 30 and therefore had to drive a nicer car. Too old and experienced to be insulted or shocked, I kind of laughed inside and looked up into the sky as if I was saying to the old man upstairs, "Are you freaking kidding me?"
So I asked her, "Well, what's wrong with my VW?"
Granted it wasn't a high end Jetta or a new model, but it wasn't a bad car either. It was at the time 7 years old, in good shape, it was kept clean and ran just fine. And out of all three of my cars, it was the nicer one.
"Well, it's not like you're 25 anymore. You really need to get a nicer car. My friend kind of noticed and mentioned it. It's really something that could turn into a deal breaker."
Again, too experienced and old to really be shocked or to really care, I resigned myself to defeat and said, "Well does she still want to go out with me then or what?"
"Sure! You should call her and ask her out!"
Which I promptly did.
Now a lot of you who know me are asking yourselves, "What they hell, Captain? Why were you going to go out with this girl again after she proved herself to be so shallow? She mentioned your CAR wasn't nice enough?! Are you just trying to aim for some play? What gives?"
But have faith in your beloved Captain, have faith.
For while I had no intention of ever having a future with this girl, I decided to at least have a little fun with her.
I scheduled a date, told her I would pick her up and drove to my buddy's place to trade my Chevy in for her BMW for the evening.
I showed up in this high end BMW, pulled up to the girl's house. Walked up, rang the doorbell and as she came down, escorted to towards the Beamer.
She was looking around trying to find my presumed P.O.S. VW and when she finally realized I was making a bee- line for the Beamer she said, "Wait, is THIS your car?"
I said, "Yeah."
She said, "Well, wait, when did you get this?!"
"Today," I said. "Your friend said that you didn't like my other car so I decided to buy this one."
She was a little shocked to say the least. She couldn't understand somebody just "up and buying a Beamer" because she mentioned to her friend the guy she went on a date with had an unacceptable car.
We went on our second date and I didn't bother calling her back. Last she saw of me was me driving off in my buddy's BMW. But it teaches all of us a lesson;
It's not just stories about women who put more value on fake things like cars and clothes. These women exist. And sadly, they're passing up on some of the best men in the world because of their shallowness.
I was about 30 or 31 or so and back then I still had some youthful naivety about me and was thus still on the market, "playing the game" looking to date girls. I had my radio show at the time and invariably because I was a young and dapper radio show host who happened to moonlight as a dance instructor, the topic of lining me up with some attractive young listener of the female persuasion would continually recur.
Sure enough a caller called in saying she had the most perfect girl in the world for me that I should date her. I was reluctant as because what you learn in the radio world is that the sexiness of a woman's voice is inversely related to her actual sexiness, but this girl assured me her friend was beautiful, not fat and still on top of all that had a great personality.
I was reluctant so I told her to shoot me an e-mail and we'd discuss further. I received her e-mail within 5 minutes of the show ending, behooving me to respond and consider her friend. I said I would agree, but I wanted to see a NORMAL, FULL BODY LENGTH picture, nothing that was touched up, or an insane close up of what would be a pretty face on an enormously large girl. I wanted proof she was an attractive girl.
Sure enough, the next day I received the picture.
Stunning, cute redhead. Slim, and in very good shape. Long flowing hair. Her friend was not lying, she was quite attractive.
So I agreed that I would meet her friend and go out with her and sure enough within a couple days I had a lunch date set at Benihanna's.
We met and she was just as her pictures suggested, a very attractive woman. She worked in real estate, and at the time I was in banking, and so we had a very high end intelligent conversation about the real estate market, housing and the crash that was slowly starting to materialize. She was impressed with all my various activities and I was very impressed with her entrepreneurialism. The date lasted two hours, we more or less closed the place down for lunch, before I decided that it was getting pretty late and I'd have to return to work. We left with me fully expecting a second date.
Of course I wasn't fresh off the assembly line. I knew that the date in my opinion could have gone great, while she could perhaps have had a horrendous time, so I didn't bank on anything. That is until her friend e-mailed me complimenting me on my behavior and witicisms and conversation skills. Apparently I had impressed her friend and I should certainly ask her out on a second date, except there was just this one major thing I would have to do;
I really ought to get a nicer car.
I was then lectured by her friend that, yes, while she knew I was proud of my frugality and spending within my means, I was 30 and therefore had to drive a nicer car. Too old and experienced to be insulted or shocked, I kind of laughed inside and looked up into the sky as if I was saying to the old man upstairs, "Are you freaking kidding me?"
So I asked her, "Well, what's wrong with my VW?"
Granted it wasn't a high end Jetta or a new model, but it wasn't a bad car either. It was at the time 7 years old, in good shape, it was kept clean and ran just fine. And out of all three of my cars, it was the nicer one.
"Well, it's not like you're 25 anymore. You really need to get a nicer car. My friend kind of noticed and mentioned it. It's really something that could turn into a deal breaker."
Again, too experienced and old to really be shocked or to really care, I resigned myself to defeat and said, "Well does she still want to go out with me then or what?"
"Sure! You should call her and ask her out!"
Which I promptly did.
Now a lot of you who know me are asking yourselves, "What they hell, Captain? Why were you going to go out with this girl again after she proved herself to be so shallow? She mentioned your CAR wasn't nice enough?! Are you just trying to aim for some play? What gives?"
But have faith in your beloved Captain, have faith.
For while I had no intention of ever having a future with this girl, I decided to at least have a little fun with her.
I scheduled a date, told her I would pick her up and drove to my buddy's place to trade my Chevy in for her BMW for the evening.
I showed up in this high end BMW, pulled up to the girl's house. Walked up, rang the doorbell and as she came down, escorted to towards the Beamer.
She was looking around trying to find my presumed P.O.S. VW and when she finally realized I was making a bee- line for the Beamer she said, "Wait, is THIS your car?"
I said, "Yeah."
She said, "Well, wait, when did you get this?!"
"Today," I said. "Your friend said that you didn't like my other car so I decided to buy this one."
She was a little shocked to say the least. She couldn't understand somebody just "up and buying a Beamer" because she mentioned to her friend the guy she went on a date with had an unacceptable car.
We went on our second date and I didn't bother calling her back. Last she saw of me was me driving off in my buddy's BMW. But it teaches all of us a lesson;
It's not just stories about women who put more value on fake things like cars and clothes. These women exist. And sadly, they're passing up on some of the best men in the world because of their shallowness.
I'll Throw My Hat Into the Ring
Kate over at Small Dead Animals had this linked and thought though I am not the Canadian powerhouse she is, I might see if I could all the Cappy Cap readers to get me an honorable mention.
You can nominate here.
Requests for the Captain
Hi All,
I know a lot of you have been requesting data or just my advice and I apologize, but I've been really busy.
I can't promise anything because sometimes the data searching is prohibitive to my schedule (I'm in the middle of dance class season right now (SO SIGN UP FOR A DANCE CLASS IF YOU'RE IN THE TC METRO), but if you e-mail me at CAPTcapitalism@yahoo.com that will remain more fresh in my mind and I'll be able to respond. No promises though!
Cpt.
PS-Oh, and e-mail me photos of all you readers out there! Would be nice to have a little photo book of all the different Captain Capitalismites out there!
I know a lot of you have been requesting data or just my advice and I apologize, but I've been really busy.
I can't promise anything because sometimes the data searching is prohibitive to my schedule (I'm in the middle of dance class season right now (SO SIGN UP FOR A DANCE CLASS IF YOU'RE IN THE TC METRO), but if you e-mail me at CAPTcapitalism@yahoo.com that will remain more fresh in my mind and I'll be able to respond. No promises though!
Cpt.
PS-Oh, and e-mail me photos of all you readers out there! Would be nice to have a little photo book of all the different Captain Capitalismites out there!
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Companies Receiving Bailout Money II
OK, many thanks to the intrepid Cappy Cap readers for I have received two links that are keeping tabs on which companies are receiving the bailout money;
1. Propublica
2. Bailoutsleuth
Remember, congress didn't listen to the people, and frankly, never will. Of course, that doesn't mean you're powerless. It's time to start voting with your dollars. You can take back your money and effectively mute the bailout by refusing to do business with these institutions or demanding a rebate or discount for the amount you're owed.
When these figures become more finalized I will be calculating what each taxpayer is owed and therefore what specific amount every taxpaying American should request from these firms.
In the meantime BUY MY BOOK!
It basically rips apart all the scumbags who caused this debacle and really is a great book if you just want a good solid tutorial on how this debacle came about.
1. Propublica
2. Bailoutsleuth
Remember, congress didn't listen to the people, and frankly, never will. Of course, that doesn't mean you're powerless. It's time to start voting with your dollars. You can take back your money and effectively mute the bailout by refusing to do business with these institutions or demanding a rebate or discount for the amount you're owed.
When these figures become more finalized I will be calculating what each taxpayer is owed and therefore what specific amount every taxpaying American should request from these firms.
In the meantime BUY MY BOOK!
It basically rips apart all the scumbags who caused this debacle and really is a great book if you just want a good solid tutorial on how this debacle came about.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
List of Companies Receiving Aid from the Bail Out
A question put out to all the aspiring, deputy, junior, official or otherwise economists;
Does anybody know where I can find a list of all the companies receiving or applying for the $700 billion bailout money?
I'm quite adamant about upon finding out who those companies are, calculating the amount they owe every taxpayer and when using their services, demanding that amount back from them in the form of a discount or cash up front.
Does anybody know where I can find a list of all the companies receiving or applying for the $700 billion bailout money?
I'm quite adamant about upon finding out who those companies are, calculating the amount they owe every taxpayer and when using their services, demanding that amount back from them in the form of a discount or cash up front.
How Mexico Can Benefit from the US' Weakness
Silently, quietly, Mexico is starting to look like a rapidly developing nation that has promise and potential (notice I said POTENTIAL, not HOPE). GDP is growing at a faster rate than the US. Work ethic seems to be more embedded in the culture than their American counterparts,
but above all else they have both lower corporate
and overall taxes.
And while they certainly have some corruption issues, they are rapidly forming the perfect cocktail to start to catch up to their Gringo counterparts.
However, let me also add two items into the mix, so that if President Calderon is listening, he may avail himself and the Mexican people of some great economic opportunities and not have to suffer the same economic fate as the US;
1. With Barack Obama and the socialists now about to take over the US, the rich, the productive and the entrepreneurial classes of the US are going to be looking elsewhere to invest. The US has higher corporate taxes rates (which are bound to go up) and higher overall taxes (which are bound to go up) not to mention socially, it's just going to be a hellish time to be a productive citizen in the US. Mexico because of its lower tax structure can profit from this by doing some kind of promotion or advertising in publications like the Wall Street Journal and poach not only investment from the US, but entire corporate headquarters. Ford very recently decided to put its aptly named Fiesta plant in Mexico, I can foresee this happening 20 fold with other firms as well.
2. Mexico, is frankly, warmer than the United States. It could just be me in that I live in Minnesota and it's November already, but when I think about where I want to live, an igloo in Brainerd, Minnesota versus and nice small little hacienda on the ocean, the hacienda wins. This is a big draw for the richer classes, not to mention middle and poorer classes because who wants to deal with shoveling snow all this time when you can sit and soak up some rays, or heck, just not have to worry about a heating bill?
The only real problem Mexico faces is its corruption and crime issues. If these can be resolved or at least contained, and the government can guarantee it doesn't pull off an Argentina circa 1999 or 2008, it will attract capital more so than ever before as the potential for capital flight out of the US has never been so great.
It's simply a matter of whether Mexico wants to reach up and institute the policies to pluck this low hanging fruit.
but above all else they have both lower corporate
and overall taxes.
And while they certainly have some corruption issues, they are rapidly forming the perfect cocktail to start to catch up to their Gringo counterparts.
However, let me also add two items into the mix, so that if President Calderon is listening, he may avail himself and the Mexican people of some great economic opportunities and not have to suffer the same economic fate as the US;
1. With Barack Obama and the socialists now about to take over the US, the rich, the productive and the entrepreneurial classes of the US are going to be looking elsewhere to invest. The US has higher corporate taxes rates (which are bound to go up) and higher overall taxes (which are bound to go up) not to mention socially, it's just going to be a hellish time to be a productive citizen in the US. Mexico because of its lower tax structure can profit from this by doing some kind of promotion or advertising in publications like the Wall Street Journal and poach not only investment from the US, but entire corporate headquarters. Ford very recently decided to put its aptly named Fiesta plant in Mexico, I can foresee this happening 20 fold with other firms as well.
2. Mexico, is frankly, warmer than the United States. It could just be me in that I live in Minnesota and it's November already, but when I think about where I want to live, an igloo in Brainerd, Minnesota versus and nice small little hacienda on the ocean, the hacienda wins. This is a big draw for the richer classes, not to mention middle and poorer classes because who wants to deal with shoveling snow all this time when you can sit and soak up some rays, or heck, just not have to worry about a heating bill?
The only real problem Mexico faces is its corruption and crime issues. If these can be resolved or at least contained, and the government can guarantee it doesn't pull off an Argentina circa 1999 or 2008, it will attract capital more so than ever before as the potential for capital flight out of the US has never been so great.
It's simply a matter of whether Mexico wants to reach up and institute the policies to pluck this low hanging fruit.
Hope, Change and a Tanking 401k
You mean socialism and communism are BAD for stock prices?
Ever since Barack Obama was elected, stocks have lost over 10% in just 5 days, proving once again my complex analysis of Barack Obama's economic plan was correct.
Aren't free markets a bitch?
Ever since Barack Obama was elected, stocks have lost over 10% in just 5 days, proving once again my complex analysis of Barack Obama's economic plan was correct.
Aren't free markets a bitch?
Monday, November 10, 2008
The Captain Will Have His First Book Signing
Though I know most of you are at least an inconvenient 1,000 miles or more away, if you happen to be in the Twin Cities area tomorrow I will be having my first book signing!
Located at the Panera Bread at the Knollwood Mall in the scenic suburb of Hopkins.
330-530PM.
So if you want to stop in and say hello, or perhaps just avoid shipping fees and get a book, please feel free to stop in!
Located at the Panera Bread at the Knollwood Mall in the scenic suburb of Hopkins.
330-530PM.
So if you want to stop in and say hello, or perhaps just avoid shipping fees and get a book, please feel free to stop in!
Rule #1: Do NOT Turn Men Down for Dancing
In addition to my dance classes, as my goal is to get my students to dance, I host "field trips" wherein I take my students out to various bistros, ballrooms and jazz clubs, thereby allowing them the chance to practice the moves I taught them...and grant me an excuse to write off my booze for the evening. This last Saturday I went to a Latin joint for my Latin and Salsa dance students, and though lightly attended, we all had a good time.
However, while sipping away at my Rumpleminze and talking with some of my students, I witnessed out of the corner of my eye a phenomenon that is all too common and must be eradicated immediately. An immigrant invariably of Hispanic descent, was sheepishly standing by a support column, visually trying to assess his chances of getting a group of girls sitting at a table to his right to dance with him. Inevitably he got enough courage to approach the table and as far as I could tell, didn't identify any one particular girl he'd like to dance with, but more or less just threw the option out on the table to see if ANYBODY would dance with him.
Unfortunately I knew what was coming for I had been there a million times before.
The girls looked at each other, pointed at one another, giggled and then tried to foist the "chore" of dancing with this man on their friends, all the while utterly insulting him there as he waited patiently for a grown up to arise from the group and say, "yes I would like to dance."
He had more patience than I did, as he sat there a painful 30 seconds while the little girls giggled amongst themselves and pointed at one another, but inevitably he turned away and left the girls to themselves.
Now ladies, I know it is not fashionable to provide women advice on...well...anything. And I know that because of the political climate in the US anything meant as constructive criticism is construed as misogyny. But, out of the benefit of advancing society and perhaps finding you a future love, tough. This is for your own good.
First, this is the primary reason you "can't find a man." Oh sure, you'll let Chip McWinthrop buy you a drink at the local sports bar on daddy's dime, you'll sign up for utterly pointless online dating services such as Match and E-Harmony, but when Pablo comes up to you and asks you to dance, oh, no. That's just outlandish now isn't it?! Let me explain to you how you are shooting yourselves in the foot. It doesn't get any more Cary Grant than a man who not only has the gall to approach a table of girls, but has the skill to back it up on the dance floor. A man that knows how to dance is like an automatic screener. If he has taken the time to learn a skill such as dance, chances are he is a bit more refined, intelligent, not a drug dealer, not living at home or whatever else was your ex-boyfriend in the past.
Second, I don't give a damn if you do or do not know how to dance. Sit there and wish all you want, you will never look like Ginger Rogers sitting, sipping your cosmopolitans and opining about how you'd LIKE to dance watching Dancing with the Stars, unless you get off your ass and dance. That's why men "LEAD" in dancing. About your only responsibility in dancing is to not fall down, otherwise a good lead will be able to make you look like a million bucks on the floor. Of course you can continue to sit there and look like a dime-a-dozen with your eleven other friends sipping your mojitos, but that's just me.
Third, out of pure simple courtesy, you needn't dance with us, but by god, if you dare do the giggly girl sh!t, pointing at each other saying, "no you dance with him! No YOU dance with him! Hee hee hee!! No, she really wants to dance with you!" while a true gentleman is standing in your presence, you earn the right to be perpetually single for the rest of your days. Be true grown up women, and afford these men the simplest of etiquette. This has not only happened to me, and "Pablo," but practically every male friend I know. And you know what the consequences are? When you finally do decide you're ready to dance or perhaps go to a fancy place and meet a refined Antonio Banderas, too bad. All the good guys quit and either don't show up or don't bother expending the calories of energy to go up and ask you to dance anymore. This is of no concern when you're 25 as 25 year old men still have it in them. But if you're 35 and you're constantly wondering "where are all the good 30 something/40 something/50 something men?" Yeah, that WAS us. We're enjoying some X-Box 360 and a scotch with our buddies over a poker game...might even invite Pablo.
Fourth. Understood. You just want to enjoy some jazz. You just want to listen to some serious Latin. You just want to hang out with your girlfriends and be left alone. Fine, we get that and can appreciate that. Then don't sit near the dance floor, while dolled up in some kind of alluring dancing attire as you gyrate to the music in your seat looking like a puppy dog begging for a bit of ice cream to fall off your cone. And for the love of Pete, don't take the token dance lesson at the beginning of the evening. It's called false advertising. Not that the men are stalking, but they do pay attention to who is taking the lessons or is exuding the body language that they'd like to dance. This way (well, in theory anyway) we only ask the girls who want to dance to dance and leave the others be in peace.
Fifth, it is a dance. That is all it is. Oh sure, we might angle to ask you out later, based on how much you try to commandeer the lead away from us. We wouldn't have asked you to dance if we didn't find you at least a little bit attractive, but it's not a proposal of marriage. It's not an indecent proposal. It's not even a date or even a compliment on your hair. It's a dance. It's about 3-5 minutes of moving around on the floor. Heck, the music is so loud, it's impossible to get to know you. So don't worry, we have no "aims" on you. We (shocking as it may be) just genuinely want to dance.
Sixth, take it from me. I've been teaching dance 10 years. And when it comes to dance ladies, the men ARE GONE when you get older. The vast majority of people in my dance classes without partners are women. The men just don't dance, especially the older they get. I have had classes so lopsided that there were 6 women for every man. And beg and plead as much as I do with my male friends to show up and pinch hit, very few of them do. Ergo, if you ever want to be the girl that is the center of attention on the dance floor, or (the ultimate coup de tat) be that girl who steals all the attention at the reception away from the bride and onto you, then by all that is Metal-Gear-Solid-sacred you do not turn down a man who is asking you to dance.
However, while sipping away at my Rumpleminze and talking with some of my students, I witnessed out of the corner of my eye a phenomenon that is all too common and must be eradicated immediately. An immigrant invariably of Hispanic descent, was sheepishly standing by a support column, visually trying to assess his chances of getting a group of girls sitting at a table to his right to dance with him. Inevitably he got enough courage to approach the table and as far as I could tell, didn't identify any one particular girl he'd like to dance with, but more or less just threw the option out on the table to see if ANYBODY would dance with him.
Unfortunately I knew what was coming for I had been there a million times before.
The girls looked at each other, pointed at one another, giggled and then tried to foist the "chore" of dancing with this man on their friends, all the while utterly insulting him there as he waited patiently for a grown up to arise from the group and say, "yes I would like to dance."
He had more patience than I did, as he sat there a painful 30 seconds while the little girls giggled amongst themselves and pointed at one another, but inevitably he turned away and left the girls to themselves.
Now ladies, I know it is not fashionable to provide women advice on...well...anything. And I know that because of the political climate in the US anything meant as constructive criticism is construed as misogyny. But, out of the benefit of advancing society and perhaps finding you a future love, tough. This is for your own good.
First, this is the primary reason you "can't find a man." Oh sure, you'll let Chip McWinthrop buy you a drink at the local sports bar on daddy's dime, you'll sign up for utterly pointless online dating services such as Match and E-Harmony, but when Pablo comes up to you and asks you to dance, oh, no. That's just outlandish now isn't it?! Let me explain to you how you are shooting yourselves in the foot. It doesn't get any more Cary Grant than a man who not only has the gall to approach a table of girls, but has the skill to back it up on the dance floor. A man that knows how to dance is like an automatic screener. If he has taken the time to learn a skill such as dance, chances are he is a bit more refined, intelligent, not a drug dealer, not living at home or whatever else was your ex-boyfriend in the past.
Second, I don't give a damn if you do or do not know how to dance. Sit there and wish all you want, you will never look like Ginger Rogers sitting, sipping your cosmopolitans and opining about how you'd LIKE to dance watching Dancing with the Stars, unless you get off your ass and dance. That's why men "LEAD" in dancing. About your only responsibility in dancing is to not fall down, otherwise a good lead will be able to make you look like a million bucks on the floor. Of course you can continue to sit there and look like a dime-a-dozen with your eleven other friends sipping your mojitos, but that's just me.
Third, out of pure simple courtesy, you needn't dance with us, but by god, if you dare do the giggly girl sh!t, pointing at each other saying, "no you dance with him! No YOU dance with him! Hee hee hee!! No, she really wants to dance with you!" while a true gentleman is standing in your presence, you earn the right to be perpetually single for the rest of your days. Be true grown up women, and afford these men the simplest of etiquette. This has not only happened to me, and "Pablo," but practically every male friend I know. And you know what the consequences are? When you finally do decide you're ready to dance or perhaps go to a fancy place and meet a refined Antonio Banderas, too bad. All the good guys quit and either don't show up or don't bother expending the calories of energy to go up and ask you to dance anymore. This is of no concern when you're 25 as 25 year old men still have it in them. But if you're 35 and you're constantly wondering "where are all the good 30 something/40 something/50 something men?" Yeah, that WAS us. We're enjoying some X-Box 360 and a scotch with our buddies over a poker game...might even invite Pablo.
Fourth. Understood. You just want to enjoy some jazz. You just want to listen to some serious Latin. You just want to hang out with your girlfriends and be left alone. Fine, we get that and can appreciate that. Then don't sit near the dance floor, while dolled up in some kind of alluring dancing attire as you gyrate to the music in your seat looking like a puppy dog begging for a bit of ice cream to fall off your cone. And for the love of Pete, don't take the token dance lesson at the beginning of the evening. It's called false advertising. Not that the men are stalking, but they do pay attention to who is taking the lessons or is exuding the body language that they'd like to dance. This way (well, in theory anyway) we only ask the girls who want to dance to dance and leave the others be in peace.
Fifth, it is a dance. That is all it is. Oh sure, we might angle to ask you out later, based on how much you try to commandeer the lead away from us. We wouldn't have asked you to dance if we didn't find you at least a little bit attractive, but it's not a proposal of marriage. It's not an indecent proposal. It's not even a date or even a compliment on your hair. It's a dance. It's about 3-5 minutes of moving around on the floor. Heck, the music is so loud, it's impossible to get to know you. So don't worry, we have no "aims" on you. We (shocking as it may be) just genuinely want to dance.
Sixth, take it from me. I've been teaching dance 10 years. And when it comes to dance ladies, the men ARE GONE when you get older. The vast majority of people in my dance classes without partners are women. The men just don't dance, especially the older they get. I have had classes so lopsided that there were 6 women for every man. And beg and plead as much as I do with my male friends to show up and pinch hit, very few of them do. Ergo, if you ever want to be the girl that is the center of attention on the dance floor, or (the ultimate coup de tat) be that girl who steals all the attention at the reception away from the bride and onto you, then by all that is Metal-Gear-Solid-sacred you do not turn down a man who is asking you to dance.
Sunday, November 09, 2008
Time to Play: "If the Shoe Was On the Other Foot"
Yes, the game everybody loves to play in America;
IF THE SHOE WAS ON THE OTHER FOOT!
The game where if the shoe was on the other foot, there'd be outrage, but since it's not, there isn't!
IF THE SHOE WAS ON THE OTHER FOOT!
The game where if the shoe was on the other foot, there'd be outrage, but since it's not, there isn't!
Where Should I Invest My Money Under Barack
For those of you who were interested, here's my interview on The Marty Andrade Show on election night. It ended up becoming more a discussion on which countries to invest your money in under a Barack administration as it was more or less a foregone conclusion Obama was going to win.
Saturday, November 08, 2008
Obama's Effect on the Stock Market
There was much speculation and discussion about whether or not the market had "priced" an Obama and socialist party victory into stock prices. And up on Obama winning the market promptly tanked 4% the very next day (and the day after). Of course there are those out there who contend that the market tanking had nothing to do with Obama and his propensity to increase corporate taxes, but I was sent an outstanding chart by a reader from George named Geoff.
The chart above shows Obama's Intrade closing value versus the S&P 500. Obama's trade value was inverted so as to show the relationship between stock market values and his likelihood of being elected.
The correlation is quite strong coming in above a .9 correlation coefficient. Of course I will readily admit that there was most certainly other things going on in the market that had nothing to do with Barack that drove the price of stocks down while Barack's Intrade value was going up. However, I am willing to bet the free pony Obama has promised me that even after adjusting for these figures the market was trading down based on the fact Obama would increase taxes on not just corporations but people as well.
You have to understand right now that I am more or less just preaching to the choir, as I've found to try to talk rationally or logically with Obama supporters is quite pointless as no matter how much data or logic you throw at them, you still get "hope and change and, uh, you know stuff." So now, all I'm doing is just creating and empirical record so that when there are bread lines I can show those people in the breadlines some neat charts from 3 years ago that explain why they're waiting in line for bread in the first place.
The chart above shows Obama's Intrade closing value versus the S&P 500. Obama's trade value was inverted so as to show the relationship between stock market values and his likelihood of being elected.
The correlation is quite strong coming in above a .9 correlation coefficient. Of course I will readily admit that there was most certainly other things going on in the market that had nothing to do with Barack that drove the price of stocks down while Barack's Intrade value was going up. However, I am willing to bet the free pony Obama has promised me that even after adjusting for these figures the market was trading down based on the fact Obama would increase taxes on not just corporations but people as well.
You have to understand right now that I am more or less just preaching to the choir, as I've found to try to talk rationally or logically with Obama supporters is quite pointless as no matter how much data or logic you throw at them, you still get "hope and change and, uh, you know stuff." So now, all I'm doing is just creating and empirical record so that when there are bread lines I can show those people in the breadlines some neat charts from 3 years ago that explain why they're waiting in line for bread in the first place.
Can't You Just Let 4th Graders Be Kids?
When I am king, I will make it illegal for teachers to teach or discuss politics with children until they are seniors in high school. This just shows you how some teachers literally put themselves, the teachers union and their paychecks ahead of the kids and have no problems pimping out their ideology instead of teaching the children skills that will help them in life;
Can you socialists just let kids be kids? Can you?
My god, the brainwashed kid trying to give an answer why he likes Obama? He can't answer why he likes him! He's just trying to placate the teacher!...Of course, I don't get all that much of a different response from full grown adult Obama supporters, but, eh, hope, change, puppies and ponies. What do I care?
Can you socialists just let kids be kids? Can you?
My god, the brainwashed kid trying to give an answer why he likes Obama? He can't answer why he likes him! He's just trying to placate the teacher!...Of course, I don't get all that much of a different response from full grown adult Obama supporters, but, eh, hope, change, puppies and ponies. What do I care?
Friday, November 07, 2008
Go! Quick! Do It Now!!!!
So it's snowing a little bit here in Minnesota, but nothing compared to the three feet of snow they received in my favorite town in the world, Rapid City, South Dakota. And I figure since it's the weekend and the snow is here and only more is on the way, wouldn't it be nice to stoke up a nice warm fire, have some Rumpleminze infused hot coffee, and then snuggle up on your favorite comfy couch and read a book?
Of course, which book should you read? There are many to choose from.
But how about a heart warming tale of a renegade banking analyst who fought, vainly, but valiantly against the entrenched forces of corrupt management to fend off the inevitable collapse of the housing market? An epic saga of a dashing (and handsome!) hero who through hard work, diligent research, and a little bit of X-Box 360 gamage was able to foretell the crash in housing prices and the effect it would have on the economy. A childhood bedtime story written so well, it has been known to cure children of measles and bronchitis without the aid of antibiotics.
Fortunately such a book exists and was conveniently written by me!
"Behind the Housing Crash" is guaranteed to give you warm fuzzies as the full forces of winter are upon us. You'll cuddle up with your beloved and regale yourself with stories of bribed appraisers, pathetic, crying middle aged men, IRS raids and more!
You'll laugh.
You'll cry.
You'll cheer.
And you'll (more than likely) yell.
But most importantly, you'll be supremely educated about the housing market...and your child cured of the measles.
But you better buy quick, and do it now. The snow is upon us. So go here, order it! Now! Do it NOW!!! Otherwise you'll be snowbound at home, cuddled up around a fire with Rumpleminze and a child with measles and no book to read!
Of course, which book should you read? There are many to choose from.
But how about a heart warming tale of a renegade banking analyst who fought, vainly, but valiantly against the entrenched forces of corrupt management to fend off the inevitable collapse of the housing market? An epic saga of a dashing (and handsome!) hero who through hard work, diligent research, and a little bit of X-Box 360 gamage was able to foretell the crash in housing prices and the effect it would have on the economy. A childhood bedtime story written so well, it has been known to cure children of measles and bronchitis without the aid of antibiotics.
Fortunately such a book exists and was conveniently written by me!
"Behind the Housing Crash" is guaranteed to give you warm fuzzies as the full forces of winter are upon us. You'll cuddle up with your beloved and regale yourself with stories of bribed appraisers, pathetic, crying middle aged men, IRS raids and more!
You'll laugh.
You'll cry.
You'll cheer.
And you'll (more than likely) yell.
But most importantly, you'll be supremely educated about the housing market...and your child cured of the measles.
But you better buy quick, and do it now. The snow is upon us. So go here, order it! Now! Do it NOW!!! Otherwise you'll be snowbound at home, cuddled up around a fire with Rumpleminze and a child with measles and no book to read!
Thursday, November 06, 2008
Wednesday, November 05, 2008
This is Why You Can't Trust the Media
They're a bunch of losers, the losers from high school who couldn't unhinge a bra, let alone have the skill to do it with one hand, and need I mention their inability to ever get into AP calculus?
And now, the only thing they can do, is abuse their power/position to feign some farce of being some kind of unbiased institution with the genuine interest of the truth and the health of the country at heart, when in reality they are nothing but shills and socialism whores willing to pimp themselves out.
And they wonder why subscriptions are tanking.
And now, the only thing they can do, is abuse their power/position to feign some farce of being some kind of unbiased institution with the genuine interest of the truth and the health of the country at heart, when in reality they are nothing but shills and socialism whores willing to pimp themselves out.
And they wonder why subscriptions are tanking.
Obama's Effect on the Stock Market
Already there is trouble in paradise.
Millions of people voted for Barack Obama no doubt because of the economy and the HOPE he would change it. Of course, now the market is reacting to the practical guarantee corporate taxes are going up which drives down not only stock prices, but the balances of Barack Obama supporter's 401k's.
Ah, is there any sweeter poetic justice when people shoot themselves in the foot?
Millions of people voted for Barack Obama no doubt because of the economy and the HOPE he would change it. Of course, now the market is reacting to the practical guarantee corporate taxes are going up which drives down not only stock prices, but the balances of Barack Obama supporter's 401k's.
Ah, is there any sweeter poetic justice when people shoot themselves in the foot?
A Prom Night of Barack Obama Excuses
As expected, Barack Obama was elected and the republicans are now paying for their idiocy in moving to the center (and still receiving no additional votes for it). However, going forward, one has got to realize just how big of shoes Barack has made for himself to fill.
He has, more than any other politician in the world, promised everything to every one. Sociology majors who worked on his campaign will now think that “community organizer” is going to be a $60,000 per year job with benefits. The likes of Peggy Johnson will now think they don’t have to pay for their own gas of their own mortgage. The black community I speculate because of the Messiah-like nature of Obama, is expecting that by July of 2009 they will magically achieve standards of living on par with their white counterparts. The stock market is going to rally, social security and medicare (which I noticed were never mentioned in the campaign) will somehow magically take care of themselves. Guilty white liberals can finally assuage themselves of their misplaced guilt. And everybody will get a pony.
But the problem is all of his promises (or perhaps better stated – people’s expectations of him) are undeliverable as they are outside his control (if not insane to even expect in the first place). Sociology majors will never make $60,000 because the realities of the labor market prevent it. Peggy Johnson will still have to pay for her gas no matter what Obama’s charming eyes and pointless platitudes may have told her. The black community’s success is largely within their control and no matter what Obama says or does, I don’t think he will be able to deliver to them economic equality before their patience with him runs out. White liberals will never be “forgiven” by the likes of the Black Panthers, Rev. Wright and other racists, not to mention race pimps whose careers depend on perpetuating racism. And, perhaps most importantly, the economy is not going to recover as quickly as spoiled-brat Americans are accustomed to. Quite the contrary, it’s going to go into a long and harsh recession, people are going to get laid off and this says absolutely NOTHING about the economic-time-bomb known social security and medicare.
i.e. – It kind of reminds me of my senior prom where I graduated in this small, pathetic, Wisconsin town. Where the prom was the PEAK, the PINNACLE of the majority of these students’ lives. Very few were going to go onto college, very few were going to do anything in their lives. There was no hope. But, there they were, partying it up, as if life was going to continue on like that forever. And they were in for just of a rude awakening as the currently ecstatic Obama supporters are today. Quite frankly, it's all downhill from here.
Ergo, since Obama CAN’T make all these insane people’s dreams come true, and quite the contrary, the economic realities of the nation are going to turn them into nightmares, it is a practical guarantee Obama will have to start blaming other people and things and come up with excuses as to why sociology majors aren’t making $60,000 and not every girl has a pony in the back yard. Therefore, I present to you;
CAPTAIN CAPITALISM’S PREDICTIONS OF OBAMA EXCUSES;
1. I inherited a recessionary economy – This is true. Obama did inherit this economy. This will be his most truthful and honest excuse. However, he will blame it on “Bush” or “Republican” or “capitalist” policies. This is where he will be an outright liar as it was concepts like “not paying back what you owe,” “borrowing more than you can afford,” and ultimately “being irresponsible and letting other people pay for it” which are socialist in nature that are to blame for the current mess we’ve gotten ourselves into. i.e. – he will not have the gall to blame the American people for his mistakes, he will take the politically self-serving route and blame the republicans.
2. Racism still exists and is keeping minorities down. – Racism is not going away folks. The victim mentality and the race pimping industry is too big. Forget this country fought a civil war to free slaves. Forget the fact this is the first western nation to elect a minority to its primo position. And forget that it’s things like teen pregnancy, poor graduation rates/schools, absentee parents, lack of college and a broken down family that oppresses blacks and other minorities more than racism ever could. There’s no money in that. Racism will have to still be around to explain why Obama’s policies have failed to lift the black community out of poverty, and instead of growing some cajones, breaking taboos, and genuinely helping out the black community, Obama will tell them what they want to hear to stay in power…and sadly, the black community will still be no better off.
3. Obstructionist Republicans in congress – Obama is a socialist. Again, let us not try to pathetically argue against this point. The problem is Obama also got elected by what is largely ignorance. I don’t know how many friends I have, after showing them the chart showing US government spending being on par with NORWAY who tell me “Obama isn’t going to make this a socialist nation.” Regardless, inevitably these people will wake up. Not to mention 48% of the population in the US is not ignorant, know simple basic economics and did indeed vote against socialism. They won’t go quietly into the night. So what will happen (I’m predicting) is a similar repeat of the 1994 congress where Clinton and the Republicans were basically at a stand still and nothing got done (THANK GOD!) To the dismay of Pelosi, Reid and Obama, the remaining Republicans are not just going to allow them to ram socialism down the throat of America . Obama supporters will ask “what’s the hold up?” to which Obama will respond “obstructionist Republicans.”
4. Big Oil/Corporate America/Wall Street – Whether gas prices go back up, health care goes up, the economy stays in recession, unemployment skyrockets, it will not be the fact the population is becoming less and less productive thereby necessitating more dollars to buy that same gallon of gas, no, it’s because Corporate America or Big Oil are keeping you down. This will not only rationalize why Obama will increase corporate taxes by 50%, but allow him, again, to avoid putting blame where it is rightly deserved (the lazy American public) and place it on a boogey man everyone loves to hate. Taxes will increase, corporations will invest less or move offshore, jobs will be lost and Obama will again blame corporate America for having the audacity to leave. Ignorant masses too stupid to realize the downward spiral this will create will cheer as Obama increases corporate taxes, but in the very next sentence viscerally scream at corporations for daring to leave for greener pastures.
There will be other excuses, but these are just the ones off the top of my head.
Tuesday, November 04, 2008
News Flash!: US No Longer Racist
That's right. From here on out, knowingly or not, the race pimps can no longer claim this is a racist nation.
We are the first to elect a black candidate president/premier of our nation.
My question is when are those racist, fascist Europeans going to quit being so damn racist and get with the program and elect a minority to their #1 position.
;P
We are the first to elect a black candidate president/premier of our nation.
My question is when are those racist, fascist Europeans going to quit being so damn racist and get with the program and elect a minority to their #1 position.
;P
Farewell to The "Economist"
Yeah, when a publication titled "The Economist" starts to advocate socialism, you know it isn't going to be worth $130 a year to subscribe to.
Monday, November 03, 2008
Norway is More Capitalist than the US
I often say things and they're so outlandish that people immediately dismiss me and couldn't care less.
Things like;
"There's a Dotcom bubble."
Or
"There's a housing bubble."
Or
"There's a problem with Asian currencies."
Of course if you say enough outlandish things and they come true you start to get some credibility and so allow me another outlandish "crazy" prediction.
Norway will become more capitalist than the US in a very short period of time.
The reason I say this is simply, because it's true (remember, I have no opinions or skin in any game, I'm just concerned about fact). And the fact is Norway is progressively becoming more and more capitalist while the US is becoming more and more socialist.
Now I have a group of friends, who despite knowing me for all these years, still dismiss me as some "crazy" capitalist-fascist-economist who just "doesn't get it" and does this economics shtick as some kind of attention-getter. As if this were a gimmick to attract attention. But, as is always the case, I have data to prove it and will instead tender it to my reading public.
Government expenditures as a percent of GDP is hands down the authoritative, single statistic to measure of "capitalist" or "socialist" a nation is. The higher this number, the more socialist a country is as the government accounts for a higher and higher portion of economic activity. Now some will contend it should be government REVENUE as a % GDP, but if you think about it, it should be expenditures in that if you run a deficit, it's only future taxation that will not only finance, but pay for those expenditures. Ergo, spending as a % of GDP is the true measure vs. revenue.
Regardless, I was shocked to find out that pretty much right now, the presumed "capitalist" US and the presumed "socialist" Norway, spend practically the same percentage of GDP on the public sector.
Of course this will wreak all sorts of identity crisis havoc upon ideologues;
1. The left's star child is trending DOWNWARD in it's taxation that it now has comparable tax rates to the US. HOW could this possibly happen? Additionally, will they still support Norway as it (presumably) continues its trend BELOW US tax rates? Will they still cheer Norway as a "socialist utopia" when in fact it is more capitalistic than the US?
2. Will not the US lose it's reputation of being an evil bastion of capitalism and earn a reputation more inline with it's socialist taxation levels? Not to mention, if it's already on a Norwegian level of taxation, won't Obama push it beyond that? And ergo, will not the leftist forces start cheering for the (GASP) US o' A?
and of course;
3. Will the left ever admit Norway more or less owes its premiere position in standards of living due to that accursed commodity known as OIL? Or since it's in state ownership, then it's all good (like Hugo Chavez, Amadijonmustard of Iran and other similarily minded-American-haters?)
Besides the hyperbole, I would be really curious to hear from any Norwegians about this. These numbers are not bunk, Norway is seriously about to become more capitalist than the US (not to mention Canada).
Anybody from Norway have any commentary on this?
Post script - there has been much discussion about oil and so forth and how it affects Norway. I, with great intelligence and foresight, wrote this quote some time ago.
Things like;
"There's a Dotcom bubble."
Or
"There's a housing bubble."
Or
"There's a problem with Asian currencies."
Of course if you say enough outlandish things and they come true you start to get some credibility and so allow me another outlandish "crazy" prediction.
Norway will become more capitalist than the US in a very short period of time.
The reason I say this is simply, because it's true (remember, I have no opinions or skin in any game, I'm just concerned about fact). And the fact is Norway is progressively becoming more and more capitalist while the US is becoming more and more socialist.
Now I have a group of friends, who despite knowing me for all these years, still dismiss me as some "crazy" capitalist-fascist-economist who just "doesn't get it" and does this economics shtick as some kind of attention-getter. As if this were a gimmick to attract attention. But, as is always the case, I have data to prove it and will instead tender it to my reading public.
Government expenditures as a percent of GDP is hands down the authoritative, single statistic to measure of "capitalist" or "socialist" a nation is. The higher this number, the more socialist a country is as the government accounts for a higher and higher portion of economic activity. Now some will contend it should be government REVENUE as a % GDP, but if you think about it, it should be expenditures in that if you run a deficit, it's only future taxation that will not only finance, but pay for those expenditures. Ergo, spending as a % of GDP is the true measure vs. revenue.
Regardless, I was shocked to find out that pretty much right now, the presumed "capitalist" US and the presumed "socialist" Norway, spend practically the same percentage of GDP on the public sector.
Of course this will wreak all sorts of identity crisis havoc upon ideologues;
1. The left's star child is trending DOWNWARD in it's taxation that it now has comparable tax rates to the US. HOW could this possibly happen? Additionally, will they still support Norway as it (presumably) continues its trend BELOW US tax rates? Will they still cheer Norway as a "socialist utopia" when in fact it is more capitalistic than the US?
2. Will not the US lose it's reputation of being an evil bastion of capitalism and earn a reputation more inline with it's socialist taxation levels? Not to mention, if it's already on a Norwegian level of taxation, won't Obama push it beyond that? And ergo, will not the leftist forces start cheering for the (GASP) US o' A?
and of course;
3. Will the left ever admit Norway more or less owes its premiere position in standards of living due to that accursed commodity known as OIL? Or since it's in state ownership, then it's all good (like Hugo Chavez, Amadijonmustard of Iran and other similarily minded-American-haters?)
Besides the hyperbole, I would be really curious to hear from any Norwegians about this. These numbers are not bunk, Norway is seriously about to become more capitalist than the US (not to mention Canada).
Anybody from Norway have any commentary on this?
Post script - there has been much discussion about oil and so forth and how it affects Norway. I, with great intelligence and foresight, wrote this quote some time ago.
US vs. OECD Corporate Tax Rates
I've embarked on a study where to invest my money should the democrats and Obama take command of the government. And of the many variables I'm looking at, corporate taxes are one of them.
But one of the rarer known things among the US public is that, bar Japan, the US has the highest corporate tax rates in the developed world. Of course the irony is that the "capitalist" US should have lower corporate tax rates that the "socialist" Europe.
What's interesting about this chart however is that ultimately, what forces governments to spend within their means is not the people all of the sudden getting their heads out of their asses and starting to look at things like the federal budget and social security and voting to reign in the budget. Rather, instead, it's the fact governments tax and regulate to such an extent they create a hostile environment to business to the point business decides to pull up its roots and move elsewhere (Haliburton moving off to Abu Dhabi is a perfect example). In other words, it's the good old fashioned law of capitalism known as competition that still governs and forces economic entities, even as large as the US federal government, to ultimately and inevitably live within their means because there is competition for those corporate tax dollars and smart countries are realizing that if they lower their corporate tax rate they could perhaps poach significant tax revenues from other countries.
Of course, we all hate those evil icky, mean corporations. So thank heavens they're leaving..and given the 'change' that's coming, who can blame them?
But one of the rarer known things among the US public is that, bar Japan, the US has the highest corporate tax rates in the developed world. Of course the irony is that the "capitalist" US should have lower corporate tax rates that the "socialist" Europe.
What's interesting about this chart however is that ultimately, what forces governments to spend within their means is not the people all of the sudden getting their heads out of their asses and starting to look at things like the federal budget and social security and voting to reign in the budget. Rather, instead, it's the fact governments tax and regulate to such an extent they create a hostile environment to business to the point business decides to pull up its roots and move elsewhere (Haliburton moving off to Abu Dhabi is a perfect example). In other words, it's the good old fashioned law of capitalism known as competition that still governs and forces economic entities, even as large as the US federal government, to ultimately and inevitably live within their means because there is competition for those corporate tax dollars and smart countries are realizing that if they lower their corporate tax rate they could perhaps poach significant tax revenues from other countries.
Of course, we all hate those evil icky, mean corporations. So thank heavens they're leaving..and given the 'change' that's coming, who can blame them?