This is not meant to be a crass subject, but because of the nature of the subject, I am giving you fair warning.
The short version is this;
Since Britain has made it possible for women to sue sperm donors for child support (surprise, surprise) the supply of sperm has run out forcing women to look for donors via a brand-new black market. Ah, the undefiable laws of economics.
The official version is this.
The very crass interpretation and hat tip (don't tell me I didn't warn you) is this.
Thursday, September 30, 2010
The Economics of Courtship - Part 1 - The Two Tiered Market
I've decided that much of romance, courting, marriage, blah blah blah, seems to confuse a lot of people on both sides of the dating game. And I'm only half-jesting when I say this, but just some basic economics goes a long way in explaining the different phenomena we see in the courting/dating world. And it is because of this, I've decided to write a yet-to-be-determined number of pieces of the economics of courtship in that I've already come up with three and thought it might be worth writing about.
Today's topic is the "Two Tiered Market."
I cannot claim to have been the original observer of this phenomenon, it may have been Roissy, but it I think it was somebody perhaps a little less visceral (if anybody knows, please send the link my way), regardless, it was the observation that women in their late 20's to about their 40's believe or associate sex with marriage. Or, more specifically, that if they have sex with a man, they believe that is a representation or a proxy for his level of interest in marriage.
Now, again, when we delve into the courting world there are no databases, there are no records kept and so it largely goes based on anecdotal evidence and experience, but I would say not ALL women obviously fall for this, but some certainly do. So as a favor to them, not to mention codify this theory, permit me you this graph (I love that phrase);
What we have here is a classical supply and demand chart of two markets; the sexual market and the marriage market.
In the first market we have the demand for sex (presumably from men) and the supply of sex (presumably women) - (the roles actually do not matter as to who is the buyer and who is the supplier, you could switch them if you wanted, as long as you are consistent amongst both markets, you will get the same results). In general, men demand sex more than women. Yes, horribly politically incorrect of me, I know. Send the Speech-Police's best sniper after me, in the mean time it does not change the fact that it is true, so my death will avail nothing and no one. In any case, demand is high and relatively inelastic.
Also, in general, women in their late 20's to 40's are more or less over that initial fear or discomfort with sex. They are more comfortable with it, they certainly aren't just going to go willy nilly offering it all over the place, but their supply curve is what I would consider normal (yes, send in the Politically Correct Assassins).
The point where the two meet is the equilibrium point, where if you were paying atttention in high school economics, is the "price" you pay for sex - denoted by P,s. In this metaphorical example it would be dinners men must take women out on, gas, psychological issues, the time dedicated to it, etc. etc.
Now notice the line, P,s, goes across to the other market, the marriage market.
The reason it does this is SOME women think that because a man has sex, that he is now interested in marriage. When in reality they are TWO SEPARATE AND DISTINCTLY DIFFERENT MARKETS. TWO SEPARATE AND DISTINCTLY DIFFERENT "GOODS AND SERVICES" AS THE ECONOMIC TERM IS.
However, in assuming sex=marriage, this brings about an economic phenomenon known as a "price floor." Meaning you cannot charge BELOW a certain price, or "below the floor." This is why P,s is carried over to the marriage market on that green line.
In the marriage market, women also supply marriage. For the ages of late 20's to 40's, women, in general, are more than willing to supply a LOT of marriage. But with this sex-induced psychological floor, they are led to believe that demand is much higher than it actually is (see line D,m to realize that men of equivalent marrying age do not demand marriage ANYWHERE NEAR as much as they demand sex, resulting in a free market price of marriage that is very low, P,m).
Now, because there is an effective price floor, this results in a price that is "too high." At that lofty price very few men are willing to demand or pay for a marriage. Whereas at that very high price, women are MORE THAN WILLING to supply it. This results in what economists call a "surplus"-denoted by the gray "Surplus, m."
A surplus of what? A surplus of women in the marriage market.
This is why I fear for (and have genuine pity for) women who mistake sex for marriage or at least perhaps more realistically, love and affection that may lead to marriage. It may not be seen too frequently in the late 20's as most men at that age are still willing to get married, but no doubt you know of some guy in his 40's who is dating some woman who "just won't commit."
Well, there you go, in economic-charty-goodness no less.
And that's, frankly that. I have nothing more to really add to it, because, well , it's economics. It's kind of cut and dry.
Today's topic is the "Two Tiered Market."
I cannot claim to have been the original observer of this phenomenon, it may have been Roissy, but it I think it was somebody perhaps a little less visceral (if anybody knows, please send the link my way), regardless, it was the observation that women in their late 20's to about their 40's believe or associate sex with marriage. Or, more specifically, that if they have sex with a man, they believe that is a representation or a proxy for his level of interest in marriage.
Now, again, when we delve into the courting world there are no databases, there are no records kept and so it largely goes based on anecdotal evidence and experience, but I would say not ALL women obviously fall for this, but some certainly do. So as a favor to them, not to mention codify this theory, permit me you this graph (I love that phrase);
What we have here is a classical supply and demand chart of two markets; the sexual market and the marriage market.
In the first market we have the demand for sex (presumably from men) and the supply of sex (presumably women) - (the roles actually do not matter as to who is the buyer and who is the supplier, you could switch them if you wanted, as long as you are consistent amongst both markets, you will get the same results). In general, men demand sex more than women. Yes, horribly politically incorrect of me, I know. Send the Speech-Police's best sniper after me, in the mean time it does not change the fact that it is true, so my death will avail nothing and no one. In any case, demand is high and relatively inelastic.
Also, in general, women in their late 20's to 40's are more or less over that initial fear or discomfort with sex. They are more comfortable with it, they certainly aren't just going to go willy nilly offering it all over the place, but their supply curve is what I would consider normal (yes, send in the Politically Correct Assassins).
The point where the two meet is the equilibrium point, where if you were paying atttention in high school economics, is the "price" you pay for sex - denoted by P,s. In this metaphorical example it would be dinners men must take women out on, gas, psychological issues, the time dedicated to it, etc. etc.
Now notice the line, P,s, goes across to the other market, the marriage market.
The reason it does this is SOME women think that because a man has sex, that he is now interested in marriage. When in reality they are TWO SEPARATE AND DISTINCTLY DIFFERENT MARKETS. TWO SEPARATE AND DISTINCTLY DIFFERENT "GOODS AND SERVICES" AS THE ECONOMIC TERM IS.
However, in assuming sex=marriage, this brings about an economic phenomenon known as a "price floor." Meaning you cannot charge BELOW a certain price, or "below the floor." This is why P,s is carried over to the marriage market on that green line.
In the marriage market, women also supply marriage. For the ages of late 20's to 40's, women, in general, are more than willing to supply a LOT of marriage. But with this sex-induced psychological floor, they are led to believe that demand is much higher than it actually is (see line D,m to realize that men of equivalent marrying age do not demand marriage ANYWHERE NEAR as much as they demand sex, resulting in a free market price of marriage that is very low, P,m).
Now, because there is an effective price floor, this results in a price that is "too high." At that lofty price very few men are willing to demand or pay for a marriage. Whereas at that very high price, women are MORE THAN WILLING to supply it. This results in what economists call a "surplus"-denoted by the gray "Surplus, m."
A surplus of what? A surplus of women in the marriage market.
This is why I fear for (and have genuine pity for) women who mistake sex for marriage or at least perhaps more realistically, love and affection that may lead to marriage. It may not be seen too frequently in the late 20's as most men at that age are still willing to get married, but no doubt you know of some guy in his 40's who is dating some woman who "just won't commit."
Well, there you go, in economic-charty-goodness no less.
And that's, frankly that. I have nothing more to really add to it, because, well , it's economics. It's kind of cut and dry.
Masters in Tulip Arranging
This is a phenomenon that I call the "Engineer/Social Worker" phenomenon. You have a husband, who makes $70,000 as an engineer or a computer geek or what have you, but then a (typically) liberal, independent woman who as a part time social worker or women's studies major makes $20,000 per year at some government-make-work job. However, she spends $40,000 per year on stuff, thereby necessitating a subsidy from her husband, yet at the same time will no doubt claim she is independent, when mathematically and factually she's not.
I know people like this and there's a LOT of them. Maybe not the majority of the population, but definitely a lot of sheepish, sensitive 90's men with masters in computer engineering that are just thankful to have a female in their lives and turn a blind eyes to the economic realities of independence. The wife usually runs roughshod over him and after they get married, we never see our buddy again. Usually it's by accident 4 years later when the beaten, wearied-eye man is hauling three kids around and has lost that wild mustang look in his eye.
Oh well, not every guy can be a P-51 Mustang. You need tankers and haulers too.
ht to Fraulein Elizabeth
I know people like this and there's a LOT of them. Maybe not the majority of the population, but definitely a lot of sheepish, sensitive 90's men with masters in computer engineering that are just thankful to have a female in their lives and turn a blind eyes to the economic realities of independence. The wife usually runs roughshod over him and after they get married, we never see our buddy again. Usually it's by accident 4 years later when the beaten, wearied-eye man is hauling three kids around and has lost that wild mustang look in his eye.
Oh well, not every guy can be a P-51 Mustang. You need tankers and haulers too.
ht to Fraulein Elizabeth
Looking for a Bubble
Cripes.
OK, let me explain this to you in normal everyday terms.
You are the father or mother of little Jimmy.
Jimmy has been a problem child ever since he went into school.
You get a report from Jimmy's teacher and she says;
"Little Jimmy showed some improvement today. He beat up LESS kids than he did last week. THis is an improving trend! Additionally, you know that D- he received on his test last week? Well, I made a grading error and it's actually just a regular D!"
You then reward Jimmy with ice cream for not beating up as many kids and getting a slightly better grade than previously thought.
It's the same thing here;
"We're not cutting as many jobs"
AND
"Instead of a sclerotic growth rate of 1.6%, we are now BOOMING with a revised growth rate of 1.7%."
And what's the Dow Jones doing? Up 50 points so far.
If I recall correctly, after Bush cut taxes back during his first term to fight off the then-Dotcom recession, GDP boomed at 6% one quarter and there was something like 300,000 jobs created.
But, oh, that's right. Those jobs don't count. Because it's Bush!
You are free to continue enjoying the decline!
OK, let me explain this to you in normal everyday terms.
You are the father or mother of little Jimmy.
Jimmy has been a problem child ever since he went into school.
You get a report from Jimmy's teacher and she says;
"Little Jimmy showed some improvement today. He beat up LESS kids than he did last week. THis is an improving trend! Additionally, you know that D- he received on his test last week? Well, I made a grading error and it's actually just a regular D!"
You then reward Jimmy with ice cream for not beating up as many kids and getting a slightly better grade than previously thought.
It's the same thing here;
"We're not cutting as many jobs"
AND
"Instead of a sclerotic growth rate of 1.6%, we are now BOOMING with a revised growth rate of 1.7%."
And what's the Dow Jones doing? Up 50 points so far.
If I recall correctly, after Bush cut taxes back during his first term to fight off the then-Dotcom recession, GDP boomed at 6% one quarter and there was something like 300,000 jobs created.
But, oh, that's right. Those jobs don't count. Because it's Bush!
You are free to continue enjoying the decline!
Don't Give Me This "Tax Credit" BS
Let me explain here and now the condescending and insulting nature of "tax credits" and why you should be insulted by the term.
Originally, those evil white males of 1770's yore, set out to make a rare and original society wherein the people governed themselves. Those evil bastards, how dare they.
This meant those in the government were not the ones in charge, but rather it was the people who voted them in to take care of various public service affairs so that the rest of society may go on and pursue life, liberty and happiness.
But if one were to really take themselves out of the political mire and muck and look at the US today, you would see not a government serving the people and letting them go about their own affairs, but a very intrusive government that "ordains" or "blesses" or "determines" who should do what and why and when and where and how.
But what is most insulting of all of these and really angers me is this condescending tone democrats have about "giving business tax CREDITS to set up shop here and there."
The reason it angers me so is that it shows you the reality of the situation. It is no longer the people or the private sector that is determining their own destinies. It is the government that "grants" you the privilege, nay, the "honor" of having a little bit of extra bread by "charitably" granting you a "credit." Originally, it was the government that we "credited" by paying taxes into the coffers to manage the public administration affairs. And when it came to conducting business or private affairs, the government was to largely butt out and get back to building roads and defending us against foreign invaders. But no, now it is US that is at the behest of the "almighty government" to the point we actually accept "credits" as a little doggy treat for behaving "correctly."
Understand, the whole idea of a "credit" implies, by default that the government is the authority and you are the peasant. That the government is the one in charge, with the wisdom and will determine if you've been a good boy or a bad boy and will reward you with "credits" and "breaks" and "incentives."
Did you hire minorities?
Good wittle boy. You get a scooby snack tax credit!
Did you buy a new green, efficient furnace?
Oooo! Whoz da wittle American? Whoz da wittle American? Yez zats you. Yez zats you! You get a wittle tax cwedit!"
Did you recycle?
Awww! Da wittle, WITTLE Amerwican. Look at da cuuuuute wittle American. Yes youz a good recycler aren't you? Herez a wittle tax credit.
Just recently such a vomit-inducing incident occurred when both democrats AND republicans in Minnesota tried vainly to bribe Ford into not shutting down it's St. Paul Ranger plant.
"Oooo! Gee Whillikers Mr. Pawlenty and Socialist Minnesota State Legislature! You'll grant us dumb corporate car-manufacturing yokels a tax "break?" Why gee whillikers massa, that sure is gracious of you."
Thankfully Ford (as it did with the bailout money) passed and maintained some level of dignity and morality.
Regardless, the larger point I'm trying to make is that (like many of my points) NOBODY ELSE IS MAKING IT!
Good Christ, people? When the hell did we let the government get so powerful and big that it could take the tone of "granting" us a charity such as a "tax credit?" Since when did we take the position of "beggar" and be honored to have ANYTHING "credited" to us? Since when did the government become the sole authority and judge as to what is good or bad and could reward it with "credits" which is simply the opposite side of the coin of taxing it to punish it?
Of course I know the answer. Several generations have failed to install the idea of individualism in their offspring and the success of the US has spoiled most people to become complacent about important issues like (oh I don't know) FREEDOM AND INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY, to the point we forfeit it up to charlatans and soothe sayers.
But, then my ole blood pressure gets up. I realize the US is not 300 million Cappy Caps running around. It's more like 1 million Cappy Caps and 299 million "American Idol" watchers. And then I realize you can't change it. Just work less and not slave yourself away to pay taxes so other people can live off of you. Besides, if you work so little, you might just get rewarded with a "tax credit."
Originally, those evil white males of 1770's yore, set out to make a rare and original society wherein the people governed themselves. Those evil bastards, how dare they.
This meant those in the government were not the ones in charge, but rather it was the people who voted them in to take care of various public service affairs so that the rest of society may go on and pursue life, liberty and happiness.
But if one were to really take themselves out of the political mire and muck and look at the US today, you would see not a government serving the people and letting them go about their own affairs, but a very intrusive government that "ordains" or "blesses" or "determines" who should do what and why and when and where and how.
But what is most insulting of all of these and really angers me is this condescending tone democrats have about "giving business tax CREDITS to set up shop here and there."
The reason it angers me so is that it shows you the reality of the situation. It is no longer the people or the private sector that is determining their own destinies. It is the government that "grants" you the privilege, nay, the "honor" of having a little bit of extra bread by "charitably" granting you a "credit." Originally, it was the government that we "credited" by paying taxes into the coffers to manage the public administration affairs. And when it came to conducting business or private affairs, the government was to largely butt out and get back to building roads and defending us against foreign invaders. But no, now it is US that is at the behest of the "almighty government" to the point we actually accept "credits" as a little doggy treat for behaving "correctly."
Understand, the whole idea of a "credit" implies, by default that the government is the authority and you are the peasant. That the government is the one in charge, with the wisdom and will determine if you've been a good boy or a bad boy and will reward you with "credits" and "breaks" and "incentives."
Did you hire minorities?
Good wittle boy. You get a scooby snack tax credit!
Did you buy a new green, efficient furnace?
Oooo! Whoz da wittle American? Whoz da wittle American? Yez zats you. Yez zats you! You get a wittle tax cwedit!"
Did you recycle?
Awww! Da wittle, WITTLE Amerwican. Look at da cuuuuute wittle American. Yes youz a good recycler aren't you? Herez a wittle tax credit.
Just recently such a vomit-inducing incident occurred when both democrats AND republicans in Minnesota tried vainly to bribe Ford into not shutting down it's St. Paul Ranger plant.
"Oooo! Gee Whillikers Mr. Pawlenty and Socialist Minnesota State Legislature! You'll grant us dumb corporate car-manufacturing yokels a tax "break?" Why gee whillikers massa, that sure is gracious of you."
Thankfully Ford (as it did with the bailout money) passed and maintained some level of dignity and morality.
Regardless, the larger point I'm trying to make is that (like many of my points) NOBODY ELSE IS MAKING IT!
Good Christ, people? When the hell did we let the government get so powerful and big that it could take the tone of "granting" us a charity such as a "tax credit?" Since when did we take the position of "beggar" and be honored to have ANYTHING "credited" to us? Since when did the government become the sole authority and judge as to what is good or bad and could reward it with "credits" which is simply the opposite side of the coin of taxing it to punish it?
Of course I know the answer. Several generations have failed to install the idea of individualism in their offspring and the success of the US has spoiled most people to become complacent about important issues like (oh I don't know) FREEDOM AND INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY, to the point we forfeit it up to charlatans and soothe sayers.
But, then my ole blood pressure gets up. I realize the US is not 300 million Cappy Caps running around. It's more like 1 million Cappy Caps and 299 million "American Idol" watchers. And then I realize you can't change it. Just work less and not slave yourself away to pay taxes so other people can live off of you. Besides, if you work so little, you might just get rewarded with a "tax credit."
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
I No Longer Care About GPA's
I graduated 5th in my class at the U of MN - Carlson School of Management.
Two A-'s, the rest were A's.
The students ranked 1-4 were all bought and paid for by their parents and took a year longer than me to graduate. I also worked full time.
I will never do that again and let that be a lesson to you kids out there - GPA's don't matter.
It is an issue of marginal benefit. Without trying your Captain is getting solid B's, low A's in his classes in computer networking. To eek out all A's I would have to nearly double my study time and life is frankly too short (actually it was the observation your Captain had that he got a B+ on his latest test and it didn't bother him, whereas 13 years ago it would have enraged me that prompted this post).
Since many of you are in college and in your youth, I suggest drinking more and partying more and studying less. The straight A's ain't worth it. Go do fun stuff, maintain a B average, and enjoy your life. Study, but take an intermittent break to chase girls or something (they won't let you catch them, but it's a fun game to play anyway). Besides, it ain't like there are any jobs out there for you anyway, and by now nepotism and cronyism has so corrupted the labor market, if you don't know anybody, then forget it. Life's too short.
Two A-'s, the rest were A's.
The students ranked 1-4 were all bought and paid for by their parents and took a year longer than me to graduate. I also worked full time.
I will never do that again and let that be a lesson to you kids out there - GPA's don't matter.
It is an issue of marginal benefit. Without trying your Captain is getting solid B's, low A's in his classes in computer networking. To eek out all A's I would have to nearly double my study time and life is frankly too short (actually it was the observation your Captain had that he got a B+ on his latest test and it didn't bother him, whereas 13 years ago it would have enraged me that prompted this post).
Since many of you are in college and in your youth, I suggest drinking more and partying more and studying less. The straight A's ain't worth it. Go do fun stuff, maintain a B average, and enjoy your life. Study, but take an intermittent break to chase girls or something (they won't let you catch them, but it's a fun game to play anyway). Besides, it ain't like there are any jobs out there for you anyway, and by now nepotism and cronyism has so corrupted the labor market, if you don't know anybody, then forget it. Life's too short.
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Sunday, September 26, 2010
What Did I Tell You About Credit Unions?
Only $50 billion, huh?
I swear I should be called the "Trillion Dollar Kid."
Because if anybody had listened to me, none of this would have happened.
I swear I should be called the "Trillion Dollar Kid."
Because if anybody had listened to me, none of this would have happened.
Saturday, September 25, 2010
The Matt McNeil Show
I tune into 950 AM because it is the local affiliate remnants of the "Air America" thing.
The reason I tune in is because after a while of listening to Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage, you can almost finish their sentences for them. Whereas I'm finding it a very addictive and forbidden habit to tune into liberal talk radio. Not for anything insightful that they might say, but because I have this morbid curiosity to see their rationalization and logic (or lack thereof).
Of course, this results in an odd listening pattern.
I listen.
they try to make a point.
it's either factually wrong, the premises they're using are flawed, it's intellectually dishonest or it's just outlandish.
This then rises my blood-pressure up to a level where I have to turn it off because there's no point.
I tune back into conservative talk
Realize they're just now discovering things and making observations I made years ago
I switch back to liberal talk radio for more
repeat.
Inevitably, it boils down to boredom, I want to listen to something new, but I can only listen to stuff I know is factually wrong and "stage-one" thinking for so long.
For example Mike Malloy. He's purely angry. Just a nazi. He has no problems calling for the execution of Republicans. Everything is Bush's fault. And it's all explained in a complex conspiracy theory you just don't have the brains to understand, because, well, you didn't have a trust fund to finance a liberal arts degree in philosophy.
Ed Schulz is even worse. Mike Malloy will actually get a rise out of you. There's at least some entertainment in that. But Ed Schulz. Cripes. Nothing but repeating the same damn thing over and over again. His refrain?
"The little guy?"
Who's keeping him down?
"The man."
The man is who?
"Corporations."
Solution
"Governmetn legislation for the little guy."
Not on iota of economic though about maybe going beyond the "rich get richer, poor get poorer" and (oh heck, I don't know) LOOKING FREAKING STUFF UP BEFORE YOU FORM AN OPINION?
What's worse is his callers. GOOD LORD. Think of the people who are actually intellectual stimulated by his one-trick-pony droning to the point of calling in. And guess what they say,
"Yeah, you know, it's the corporations holding down the little guy. When does the average working Joe get a fair shake in this country?"
Stephanie Miller. Eh. More like a morning comedy show where it would be quite entertaining if the premises they were operating by we actually true. For example;
Stephanie Miller - "Well, Sarah Palin's at it again."
Moron Producer Guy #1 - "What, she thinks she can still see Russia from her house?"
All - Laughter
Stephanie Miller - "No, she's out there again, pushing for those nazi tea partiers."
Moron Producer Guy #2 - "Heh, those tea partiers. They'll follow anyone to protest anything. They must be a bunch of bored trophy wives!"
All - Laughter
It's more or less the same thing and it isn't a surprise Air America went down, but it still provides for a REALLY interesting (and scary) insight into the psychology or just the sheer lack of knowledge and information these people have.
However, there is one show. Don't know if it's new, but I was tuning in, and I liked it. Still disagreed, but I liked it because the host was above all things, honest. Matt McNeil is a local guy, and the reason I say he's honest is because it isn't a platform for a burnt out baby boomer hippie to relive the 60's like Mike Malloy.
It isn't a funny laugh show where you mock people of the other political team and make intellectually dishonest comparisons and pass that on as a Dennis Prager-level piece of thoughtful radio like Stephanie Miller.
And is isn't just a boring, droning mouth piece for the unions or CNN miserably failing to become the left's Rush Limbaugh, as Ed Schulz.
It's this guy, out here in Minnesota, who genuinely cares about the country who happens to be liberal. His logic makes sense. His moral compass I would say is sound (for example he genuinely cares about kids getting a good education) and you could have an adult conversation with him, whereas with a Mike Malloy you no doubt would be called a nazi and be a member of a conspiracy to bring down the average man.
There's just one problem.
Like most honorable, well-intentioned liberals, he just isn't informed.
I called into the show because I've been trying to ask various liberals (talk show hosts primarily, but any liberal that would answer my question) various questions as to the specifics of what they would like to achieve or bring about in the US. The particular topic he was on was education. I thought it would not be too much of a tangent to get his opinion on how much would be enough to satisfy the left's ideal education system.
His answer was, "I don't know specifically how much in terms of money, but I would like it that my kid would have paper and pencils. That we could have programs like music and art." He went onto list some other things, but that's precisely it.
He listed things as a proxy or substitute for actual dollar amounts.
As I don't have children, I'm not concerned with "things." I'm concerned with the bottom line of my property tax bill wherein I subsidize (quite charitably I might add) the education of other people's children. And here was the gap.
I know how much is spent on the schools. I've looked up per pupil spending, put it terms of gross state product, looked at the budget. I know the factual, specific data that tells us how much we spend.
He was more concerned about the outcome of all that spending. ie-the quality of the spending. And that is how he measures whether or not we spend "enough."
The problem is that spending does not correlate with performance when it comes to education. How do I know this? Because I (again) looked it up and ran a correlation between spending per pupil and standardized test scores.
Sadly what Matt doesn't realize is that he still has to spend money and pay property taxes too. And simply getting more money won't solve the problem. It's an issue of efficiency. Elk River has 6 football coaches for ONE high school. I question whether a schools need a brand new, fully equipped theater or if it could maybe just get by with using the gym as a theater as well. We could go on and cite various examples of spending in the schools that isn't efficient, but you get my point.
This issue here I'm trying to make isn't one of public school finances and efficiency. It's the point that the only difference between Matt (a liberal talk show host) and myself (an evil, right wing hate monger that eats kittens for breakfast) is one of knowledge. Knowing something rather than feeling or theorizing (no matter how logical) about something results in the correct answer because it is known. It is based in fact. And if you're going to look at government policy, at whatever level, the only way it will be effective and of a benefit to the people is if it is also based in fact, not feelings or dreams or hope or change or nice wordy words coming from a politician's mouth.
The reason I tune in is because after a while of listening to Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage, you can almost finish their sentences for them. Whereas I'm finding it a very addictive and forbidden habit to tune into liberal talk radio. Not for anything insightful that they might say, but because I have this morbid curiosity to see their rationalization and logic (or lack thereof).
Of course, this results in an odd listening pattern.
I listen.
they try to make a point.
it's either factually wrong, the premises they're using are flawed, it's intellectually dishonest or it's just outlandish.
This then rises my blood-pressure up to a level where I have to turn it off because there's no point.
I tune back into conservative talk
Realize they're just now discovering things and making observations I made years ago
I switch back to liberal talk radio for more
repeat.
Inevitably, it boils down to boredom, I want to listen to something new, but I can only listen to stuff I know is factually wrong and "stage-one" thinking for so long.
For example Mike Malloy. He's purely angry. Just a nazi. He has no problems calling for the execution of Republicans. Everything is Bush's fault. And it's all explained in a complex conspiracy theory you just don't have the brains to understand, because, well, you didn't have a trust fund to finance a liberal arts degree in philosophy.
Ed Schulz is even worse. Mike Malloy will actually get a rise out of you. There's at least some entertainment in that. But Ed Schulz. Cripes. Nothing but repeating the same damn thing over and over again. His refrain?
"The little guy?"
Who's keeping him down?
"The man."
The man is who?
"Corporations."
Solution
"Governmetn legislation for the little guy."
Not on iota of economic though about maybe going beyond the "rich get richer, poor get poorer" and (oh heck, I don't know) LOOKING FREAKING STUFF UP BEFORE YOU FORM AN OPINION?
What's worse is his callers. GOOD LORD. Think of the people who are actually intellectual stimulated by his one-trick-pony droning to the point of calling in. And guess what they say,
"Yeah, you know, it's the corporations holding down the little guy. When does the average working Joe get a fair shake in this country?"
Stephanie Miller. Eh. More like a morning comedy show where it would be quite entertaining if the premises they were operating by we actually true. For example;
Stephanie Miller - "Well, Sarah Palin's at it again."
Moron Producer Guy #1 - "What, she thinks she can still see Russia from her house?"
All - Laughter
Stephanie Miller - "No, she's out there again, pushing for those nazi tea partiers."
Moron Producer Guy #2 - "Heh, those tea partiers. They'll follow anyone to protest anything. They must be a bunch of bored trophy wives!"
All - Laughter
It's more or less the same thing and it isn't a surprise Air America went down, but it still provides for a REALLY interesting (and scary) insight into the psychology or just the sheer lack of knowledge and information these people have.
However, there is one show. Don't know if it's new, but I was tuning in, and I liked it. Still disagreed, but I liked it because the host was above all things, honest. Matt McNeil is a local guy, and the reason I say he's honest is because it isn't a platform for a burnt out baby boomer hippie to relive the 60's like Mike Malloy.
It isn't a funny laugh show where you mock people of the other political team and make intellectually dishonest comparisons and pass that on as a Dennis Prager-level piece of thoughtful radio like Stephanie Miller.
And is isn't just a boring, droning mouth piece for the unions or CNN miserably failing to become the left's Rush Limbaugh, as Ed Schulz.
It's this guy, out here in Minnesota, who genuinely cares about the country who happens to be liberal. His logic makes sense. His moral compass I would say is sound (for example he genuinely cares about kids getting a good education) and you could have an adult conversation with him, whereas with a Mike Malloy you no doubt would be called a nazi and be a member of a conspiracy to bring down the average man.
There's just one problem.
Like most honorable, well-intentioned liberals, he just isn't informed.
I called into the show because I've been trying to ask various liberals (talk show hosts primarily, but any liberal that would answer my question) various questions as to the specifics of what they would like to achieve or bring about in the US. The particular topic he was on was education. I thought it would not be too much of a tangent to get his opinion on how much would be enough to satisfy the left's ideal education system.
His answer was, "I don't know specifically how much in terms of money, but I would like it that my kid would have paper and pencils. That we could have programs like music and art." He went onto list some other things, but that's precisely it.
He listed things as a proxy or substitute for actual dollar amounts.
As I don't have children, I'm not concerned with "things." I'm concerned with the bottom line of my property tax bill wherein I subsidize (quite charitably I might add) the education of other people's children. And here was the gap.
I know how much is spent on the schools. I've looked up per pupil spending, put it terms of gross state product, looked at the budget. I know the factual, specific data that tells us how much we spend.
He was more concerned about the outcome of all that spending. ie-the quality of the spending. And that is how he measures whether or not we spend "enough."
The problem is that spending does not correlate with performance when it comes to education. How do I know this? Because I (again) looked it up and ran a correlation between spending per pupil and standardized test scores.
Sadly what Matt doesn't realize is that he still has to spend money and pay property taxes too. And simply getting more money won't solve the problem. It's an issue of efficiency. Elk River has 6 football coaches for ONE high school. I question whether a schools need a brand new, fully equipped theater or if it could maybe just get by with using the gym as a theater as well. We could go on and cite various examples of spending in the schools that isn't efficient, but you get my point.
This issue here I'm trying to make isn't one of public school finances and efficiency. It's the point that the only difference between Matt (a liberal talk show host) and myself (an evil, right wing hate monger that eats kittens for breakfast) is one of knowledge. Knowing something rather than feeling or theorizing (no matter how logical) about something results in the correct answer because it is known. It is based in fact. And if you're going to look at government policy, at whatever level, the only way it will be effective and of a benefit to the people is if it is also based in fact, not feelings or dreams or hope or change or nice wordy words coming from a politician's mouth.
Friday, September 24, 2010
Do You See What I See?
OK, the guy on the top is from Fox.
The guys on the bottom are from CNN and NBC.
WHAT DO YOU NOTICE ABOUT THEM?
It is an observation I have made for many years and it is an INCREDIBLY politically incorrect observation, but (as most politically incorrect things are) it's 100% true.
Do you see what I see?
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
Chicks Dig Guns
I was dating a girl a while ago. Typical late 20 something girl who towed the liberal line and said all the right things and thought the right way. She came into my house for the first time and saw my pistol which I keep on my desk next to my computer. I was in the kitchen when she said in a shocked voice,
"Is this your gun!?"
"Yep." I said.
"Is it real?"
"Yep." I said.
"Well why do you have it?"
"In case I need to shoot the bad guys."
"Well, I'm not comfortable with guns."
"Then don't pick it up. Besides which you don't have to worry about anything. You're not one of the bad guys."
"Well I just don't understand why you would need a gun though."
"As I said before, it's in case I need to shoot the bad guys."
"Well what kind of bad guys are here? I mean have you ever had to use it?"
"Almost once, but otherwise no, thankfully."
The conversation continued on and it was typically typical of somebody who's never thought about guns and just regurgitates the line they're fed vs. somebody who likes to ensure his life and freedom is guaranteed by a little more than some piece of paper located in Washington, D.C. The typical naivete of a person who never suffered strife and was not capable of realizing the merits of owning a gun for protective purposes AND had also never studied history, arguing against somebody who had the slightest bit of common sense and was fully aware of history.
I had finished pouring myself a martini when I walked back into my office and saw her holding the gun. She was holding it in extreme fear, but obviously curiosity had gotten the better of her.
I extended my hand, signaling her to give it to me. Like carrying a bubonic-plague-infested dead mouse by its tail, she handed it over. I dropped the magazine out of the handle, doubled checked to make sure the chamber was empty, flipped it around in palm of my hand so the handle was facing her saying, "Here, knock yourself out. It can't hurt you now."
"It won't go off?"
I shook the magazine in my hand as I turned my attention back to my martini, "Not without this."
And in what had to be no more than 30 seconds, she said, "this is pretty cool! I should get a gun!"
I was rolling my eyes over as I was sipping my martini.
First let me state that chicks like guns.
I don't care who they are. What they tell you. What they say they think they say they believe they think they say.
Chicks
like
guns.
You put one in their hand, get them used to it, and even if they're a peacenik they all of the sudden are no longer irrationally afraid of this piece of metal. And not only are they no longer afraid, they want to try and shoot one. Makes for a great date, or just a good time with friends of the female persuasion, or anybody of any persuasion. I have never known anybody NOT to like firing guns.
Second, it shows you just how shallow some people's political and ideological beliefs are. It would be like going to an atheist, who after 5 minutes of arguing with you about how Christianity is stupid, all of the sudden after holding a bible for 30 seconds wants to go to church. Of course, guns are way more fun than bibles, but you get my point.
Finally, she couldn't help but look in the mirror because of how the gun looked. Do not be confused. A man with a gun is more attractive than a man with out one. Just look at any action flick movie poster and sure enough the hero is carrying a gun. Doesn't have to be a huge M-60 Rambo gun, but James Bond with his little pea-shooter is enough. Why do they put it there? Because Hollywood marketers know a guy with a gun who has to go hunt down the bad guy/s is more attractive than a peacenik who tries to go and talk to the bad guys into hopefully seeing his side of the situation and resolving the conflict peacefully with a little help from the UN and Jimmy Carter.
Therefore Cappy Capites of both the male and female persuasion, IF YOU DON'T HAVE KIDS and DON'T HAVE KIDS WALKING INTO YOUR HOUSE ON A REGULAR BASIS, may I suggest leaving a semi-automatic pistol in a very Peter Gunn sort of way hanging about your abode?
I know gun safety nuts will go into hyperdrive and say, "how dare you leave a loaded gun in your house laying around for untrained people to accidentally grab, pull back the hammer and then accidentally pull the trigger!"
Set that legitimate criticism aside. I'm making a point aside that.
A pistol, laying on your desk or on in the holster hung up on the door is akin to leaving something unique about you that women do indeed notice and will probably find attractive. For example, a nice pair of jeans hanging over the chair (ex-girlfriend told me about that one). A tie hanging on the doorknob. A martini glass on the coffee table. A motorcycle jacket over the chair. A Ty Wilson painting on the wall. A friend of mine even suggested an issue of Playboy laying about (which suggests a bit of bravado and confidence on your part, on account you are not worried about being perceived as a perve). A gun achieves the same, but because of its lefty-MSM-induced "forbidden nature" it's even more so. You are a bad boy. You have a gun. Something that can take a man's life away (or if you're good enough, multiple people).
Combine these bad boy aspects society places on guns with the natural, biological, darwinian implications of gun ownership and you are showing the girl that you take survival, protection and providership seriously. No man (or woman) is going to hurt you or your family. You are not messing around. By leaving that piece of metal on your desk you are not only a bad boy, but a bad boy that will fight. And it is this, no matter what they might say otherwise, is ultimately sexy.
Yes, slightly dangerous, but oh, wait, dangerous is also sexy too.
So to re"Cap" (har har har!)
Gun = bad boy + defender/protector + dangerous + forbidden = Sexy.
Am I wrong here? The formula missing something?
"Is this your gun!?"
"Yep." I said.
"Is it real?"
"Yep." I said.
"Well why do you have it?"
"In case I need to shoot the bad guys."
"Well, I'm not comfortable with guns."
"Then don't pick it up. Besides which you don't have to worry about anything. You're not one of the bad guys."
"Well I just don't understand why you would need a gun though."
"As I said before, it's in case I need to shoot the bad guys."
"Well what kind of bad guys are here? I mean have you ever had to use it?"
"Almost once, but otherwise no, thankfully."
The conversation continued on and it was typically typical of somebody who's never thought about guns and just regurgitates the line they're fed vs. somebody who likes to ensure his life and freedom is guaranteed by a little more than some piece of paper located in Washington, D.C. The typical naivete of a person who never suffered strife and was not capable of realizing the merits of owning a gun for protective purposes AND had also never studied history, arguing against somebody who had the slightest bit of common sense and was fully aware of history.
I had finished pouring myself a martini when I walked back into my office and saw her holding the gun. She was holding it in extreme fear, but obviously curiosity had gotten the better of her.
I extended my hand, signaling her to give it to me. Like carrying a bubonic-plague-infested dead mouse by its tail, she handed it over. I dropped the magazine out of the handle, doubled checked to make sure the chamber was empty, flipped it around in palm of my hand so the handle was facing her saying, "Here, knock yourself out. It can't hurt you now."
"It won't go off?"
I shook the magazine in my hand as I turned my attention back to my martini, "Not without this."
And in what had to be no more than 30 seconds, she said, "this is pretty cool! I should get a gun!"
I was rolling my eyes over as I was sipping my martini.
First let me state that chicks like guns.
I don't care who they are. What they tell you. What they say they think they say they believe they think they say.
Chicks
like
guns.
You put one in their hand, get them used to it, and even if they're a peacenik they all of the sudden are no longer irrationally afraid of this piece of metal. And not only are they no longer afraid, they want to try and shoot one. Makes for a great date, or just a good time with friends of the female persuasion, or anybody of any persuasion. I have never known anybody NOT to like firing guns.
Second, it shows you just how shallow some people's political and ideological beliefs are. It would be like going to an atheist, who after 5 minutes of arguing with you about how Christianity is stupid, all of the sudden after holding a bible for 30 seconds wants to go to church. Of course, guns are way more fun than bibles, but you get my point.
Finally, she couldn't help but look in the mirror because of how the gun looked. Do not be confused. A man with a gun is more attractive than a man with out one. Just look at any action flick movie poster and sure enough the hero is carrying a gun. Doesn't have to be a huge M-60 Rambo gun, but James Bond with his little pea-shooter is enough. Why do they put it there? Because Hollywood marketers know a guy with a gun who has to go hunt down the bad guy/s is more attractive than a peacenik who tries to go and talk to the bad guys into hopefully seeing his side of the situation and resolving the conflict peacefully with a little help from the UN and Jimmy Carter.
Therefore Cappy Capites of both the male and female persuasion, IF YOU DON'T HAVE KIDS and DON'T HAVE KIDS WALKING INTO YOUR HOUSE ON A REGULAR BASIS, may I suggest leaving a semi-automatic pistol in a very Peter Gunn sort of way hanging about your abode?
I know gun safety nuts will go into hyperdrive and say, "how dare you leave a loaded gun in your house laying around for untrained people to accidentally grab, pull back the hammer and then accidentally pull the trigger!"
Set that legitimate criticism aside. I'm making a point aside that.
A pistol, laying on your desk or on in the holster hung up on the door is akin to leaving something unique about you that women do indeed notice and will probably find attractive. For example, a nice pair of jeans hanging over the chair (ex-girlfriend told me about that one). A tie hanging on the doorknob. A martini glass on the coffee table. A motorcycle jacket over the chair. A Ty Wilson painting on the wall. A friend of mine even suggested an issue of Playboy laying about (which suggests a bit of bravado and confidence on your part, on account you are not worried about being perceived as a perve). A gun achieves the same, but because of its lefty-MSM-induced "forbidden nature" it's even more so. You are a bad boy. You have a gun. Something that can take a man's life away (or if you're good enough, multiple people).
Combine these bad boy aspects society places on guns with the natural, biological, darwinian implications of gun ownership and you are showing the girl that you take survival, protection and providership seriously. No man (or woman) is going to hurt you or your family. You are not messing around. By leaving that piece of metal on your desk you are not only a bad boy, but a bad boy that will fight. And it is this, no matter what they might say otherwise, is ultimately sexy.
Yes, slightly dangerous, but oh, wait, dangerous is also sexy too.
So to re"Cap" (har har har!)
Gun = bad boy + defender/protector + dangerous + forbidden = Sexy.
Am I wrong here? The formula missing something?
Sunday, September 19, 2010
Saturday, September 18, 2010
New "Sparkly" Currency to Jump Start the Economy
Only a moron, with absolutely NO CONCEPT OF ECONOMICS would think issuing a new currency because it is flashy would "jumpstart the economy."
And is it any surprise the currency design they highlight has the two presidents who utterly FAILED to "jump start the economy?"
C
R
I
P
E
S
And is it any surprise the currency design they highlight has the two presidents who utterly FAILED to "jump start the economy?"
C
R
I
P
E
S
Friday, September 17, 2010
Fools
I swear, these econometricians are brainwashed to never see the forest from the trees which only makes Black Swans a common species.
Ever consider the dire and daunting entitlement program problems the country has? That ever factor into your little freaking economics model?
Honest to god, I just need about 1 billion of me cloned and I could take care of the rest.
Ever consider the dire and daunting entitlement program problems the country has? That ever factor into your little freaking economics model?
Honest to god, I just need about 1 billion of me cloned and I could take care of the rest.
Thursday, September 16, 2010
Pulling an Ireland
I must type quickly for the Rupmleminze has entered my mouth and has about 10 minutes before it enters the blood stream and therefore turns my mind into that of a normally observant economist and not the brilliant (and charming) economist I am whilst sober.
I was listening to talk radio and the whole commotion today is about whether or not to let the Bush tax cuts expire.
Which is like arguing about whether or not we should re-arrange the deck chairs on the Titanic because it's so cute and so short-falling of what it utterly needed to get this economy out of recession.
What is needed to get this economy out of a recession is something much more revolutionary, albeit much simpler - pulling an Ireland.
Now many people ask, "Captain, what is "pulling and Ireland?"
Well I shall tell you.
Ireland before it had its economic boom was not too unlike the United States today - a socialist nation, burdened by slow economic growth, huge deficits and debt, and no real hope or future to look forward to.
Then in the early 90's Ireland decided to do something revolutionary;
Cut government spending.
Cut taxes
And become a tax haven by lowering corporate taxes to 12%.
Over the 15 years Ireland's standard of living went from roughly 70% that of the European average to 120% (if I recall my figures correctly) and started to rival the US (and guess who's going to come out of the recession sooner!)
Now admittedly, IReland is suffering from an economic crisis more severe than the US, but that is more due to their idiotic bankers and banking system which made Lehman Brothers look conservative, but neither here nor there, Ireland's economic lot improved.
And the reason why Ireland was able to shrug off the economic malaise was because instead of looking to the government to solve the problems that ailed it, it left it up to the people to solve. It GREW ITSELF out of it's problems.
I remember the Reagan years where the deficit and debt were HUGE issues. A $200 billion deficit was HUGE. Well Pelosi and Obama propose new "stimulus measures" on that amount every other week. That $200 billion today looks like chump change.
The reason why is the economy BOOMED and grew itself out of its debt woes.
Now what's funny (and this is what makes me the genius economist that I am) is that the US doesn't have a choice....Well it' DOES have a choice, but if they want to get out of this recession, it only has one REAL choice.
Choice #1 - Continue the way Japan did since 1990 and wonder why we limp along at 1-2% RGDP growth.
CHoice #2 - Pull and Ireland, slash taxes, get the economy BOOMING to the point it not only dwarfs out current debt and deficit problems, but makes social security and medicare look like chump change.
In other words, implement policies that get the average income per capita of the nation up to $150,000 per year (which I believe is possible-laugh as you may) and we can afford all these cute little entitlements with spare change.
Now the myopic idiots BOTH in WAshington and on talk radio somehow think lowering taxes will increase the debt (and what I find utterly hypocritical is they act like pissing away money on the stimulus doesn't!), but forget the Laffer Curve, forget supply side economics, I'm going to explain to all you idiots in Washington in REAL simple terms that everybody can understand why lowering taxes is the way to go -
North Korea
Venezuela
Cuba
You see, let's break it down really simple and imagine taxes are a linear, single variable. If you increase taxes, tax revenues go up. If you lower them, tax revenues go down. So according to this simple linear philosophy, North Korea, CUba, Venezuela and any other communist country should have AMPLE government revenues to pay for all their little socialist services. Because their tax rates are effectively 100%. Right? So they should have TONS, AMPLE amounts of government revenue to afford their socialist services. Matter of fact, they should SHAME the US by the sheer amount of money they blow on services.
But what's funny is if you look at their budgets (if you can find them) they spend NOWHERE NEAR THE AMOUNT THE US DOES ON SOCIAL SERVICES.
Well, now, how can this be?
Well, the reason why is that no matter how you try to think otherwise and no matter what you tell people, in the end the government inevitably and invariably derives its revenue from production in the private sector. And if there is no production in the private sector (like say in Cuba, North Korea and Venezuela) there's nothing to tax and therefore no tax revenue.
Ergo, even though philosophically they are considered "caring socialist nations" in the end, they effectively spend a pittance on social programs compared to their (decaying and dying) capitalist counterparts simply because the money (or production) isn't there. ie-they fail in their socialist cause because they destroy the goose that lays the golden egg.
Now why this is so hard to understand, I don't know. The simple fact that the government by default is a parasitic organization that lives off the private sector (the host) means if you had wise government you would know that your gravy train, your blood, comes from a booming private sector. Ergo, implement policies to boost it.
Ireland inevitably figured it out.
Our forefathers certainly did.
And even those stubborn Russians abandoned their childish Marxist religion.
But no, you idiots in WAshington cannot appreciate the simplicity of pulling an Ireland. And the idiotic American public, with a severe and unforgivable level of ignorance elected arguably the most inept, childish, incompetent charlatan in the history of the US.
Of course, perhaps I hit it on the head. To you people who are so adamantly against lowering taxes and thinks the economy's salvation lies within the government, perhaps I give you too much credit. Perhaps deep down inside you know the government can't solve the problem but are inhibited by your zealous religion. Perhaps you know the world is round and the Earth is not the center of the solar system but you cannot abandon your religion. Perhaps you are no more of an intellectual than all those "southern, bible belt Christians." Because you don't care to bother looking up the "truth" as much as you care about being married to your equally worthless religion of leftism and socialism. Because I'm sorry, could you please explain to me how socialism materially differs from a religion? Last I recall, no empirical proof is cited by its followers, just like most religions. Perhaps i could have a bumper sticker that says, "Obama, Protect me from Your Followers?"
Regardless, enjoy the decline! Hallelujah Socialist Brothers and Sisters! Enjoy the decline!
I shall enjoy now a very secular and second Rumpleminze.
I was listening to talk radio and the whole commotion today is about whether or not to let the Bush tax cuts expire.
Which is like arguing about whether or not we should re-arrange the deck chairs on the Titanic because it's so cute and so short-falling of what it utterly needed to get this economy out of recession.
What is needed to get this economy out of a recession is something much more revolutionary, albeit much simpler - pulling an Ireland.
Now many people ask, "Captain, what is "pulling and Ireland?"
Well I shall tell you.
Ireland before it had its economic boom was not too unlike the United States today - a socialist nation, burdened by slow economic growth, huge deficits and debt, and no real hope or future to look forward to.
Then in the early 90's Ireland decided to do something revolutionary;
Cut government spending.
Cut taxes
And become a tax haven by lowering corporate taxes to 12%.
Over the 15 years Ireland's standard of living went from roughly 70% that of the European average to 120% (if I recall my figures correctly) and started to rival the US (and guess who's going to come out of the recession sooner!)
Now admittedly, IReland is suffering from an economic crisis more severe than the US, but that is more due to their idiotic bankers and banking system which made Lehman Brothers look conservative, but neither here nor there, Ireland's economic lot improved.
And the reason why Ireland was able to shrug off the economic malaise was because instead of looking to the government to solve the problems that ailed it, it left it up to the people to solve. It GREW ITSELF out of it's problems.
I remember the Reagan years where the deficit and debt were HUGE issues. A $200 billion deficit was HUGE. Well Pelosi and Obama propose new "stimulus measures" on that amount every other week. That $200 billion today looks like chump change.
The reason why is the economy BOOMED and grew itself out of its debt woes.
Now what's funny (and this is what makes me the genius economist that I am) is that the US doesn't have a choice....Well it' DOES have a choice, but if they want to get out of this recession, it only has one REAL choice.
Choice #1 - Continue the way Japan did since 1990 and wonder why we limp along at 1-2% RGDP growth.
CHoice #2 - Pull and Ireland, slash taxes, get the economy BOOMING to the point it not only dwarfs out current debt and deficit problems, but makes social security and medicare look like chump change.
In other words, implement policies that get the average income per capita of the nation up to $150,000 per year (which I believe is possible-laugh as you may) and we can afford all these cute little entitlements with spare change.
Now the myopic idiots BOTH in WAshington and on talk radio somehow think lowering taxes will increase the debt (and what I find utterly hypocritical is they act like pissing away money on the stimulus doesn't!), but forget the Laffer Curve, forget supply side economics, I'm going to explain to all you idiots in Washington in REAL simple terms that everybody can understand why lowering taxes is the way to go -
North Korea
Venezuela
Cuba
You see, let's break it down really simple and imagine taxes are a linear, single variable. If you increase taxes, tax revenues go up. If you lower them, tax revenues go down. So according to this simple linear philosophy, North Korea, CUba, Venezuela and any other communist country should have AMPLE government revenues to pay for all their little socialist services. Because their tax rates are effectively 100%. Right? So they should have TONS, AMPLE amounts of government revenue to afford their socialist services. Matter of fact, they should SHAME the US by the sheer amount of money they blow on services.
But what's funny is if you look at their budgets (if you can find them) they spend NOWHERE NEAR THE AMOUNT THE US DOES ON SOCIAL SERVICES.
Well, now, how can this be?
Well, the reason why is that no matter how you try to think otherwise and no matter what you tell people, in the end the government inevitably and invariably derives its revenue from production in the private sector. And if there is no production in the private sector (like say in Cuba, North Korea and Venezuela) there's nothing to tax and therefore no tax revenue.
Ergo, even though philosophically they are considered "caring socialist nations" in the end, they effectively spend a pittance on social programs compared to their (decaying and dying) capitalist counterparts simply because the money (or production) isn't there. ie-they fail in their socialist cause because they destroy the goose that lays the golden egg.
Now why this is so hard to understand, I don't know. The simple fact that the government by default is a parasitic organization that lives off the private sector (the host) means if you had wise government you would know that your gravy train, your blood, comes from a booming private sector. Ergo, implement policies to boost it.
Ireland inevitably figured it out.
Our forefathers certainly did.
And even those stubborn Russians abandoned their childish Marxist religion.
But no, you idiots in WAshington cannot appreciate the simplicity of pulling an Ireland. And the idiotic American public, with a severe and unforgivable level of ignorance elected arguably the most inept, childish, incompetent charlatan in the history of the US.
Of course, perhaps I hit it on the head. To you people who are so adamantly against lowering taxes and thinks the economy's salvation lies within the government, perhaps I give you too much credit. Perhaps deep down inside you know the government can't solve the problem but are inhibited by your zealous religion. Perhaps you know the world is round and the Earth is not the center of the solar system but you cannot abandon your religion. Perhaps you are no more of an intellectual than all those "southern, bible belt Christians." Because you don't care to bother looking up the "truth" as much as you care about being married to your equally worthless religion of leftism and socialism. Because I'm sorry, could you please explain to me how socialism materially differs from a religion? Last I recall, no empirical proof is cited by its followers, just like most religions. Perhaps i could have a bumper sticker that says, "Obama, Protect me from Your Followers?"
Regardless, enjoy the decline! Hallelujah Socialist Brothers and Sisters! Enjoy the decline!
I shall enjoy now a very secular and second Rumpleminze.
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Attention Parochial School Principals!
Your Captain, as you know, went to parochial school.
"Parochial school" is a euphemism for Uber Nazi Concentration Kamp fur Kinderdass wir hassen und wollen ganz psychologisch zu zerstören"
Their goal is to force feed little innocent children religion and brainwash them so they never develop independent thinking skills as an adult, thereby guaranteeing future sources of revenue.
Thankfully I had a father who was a pastor, which drove me to the breaking point, and now I pretty much loathe all religion in all of its forms be it Christianity, Islam, Judaism or modern day, up and coming hip religions that the kids just love and swallow whole such as Global Warming, Feminism, Pacifism and their umbrella group, Socialism.
Regardless, I know a problem you principals and staff of parochial schools have is that the kids may actually be bored with the curriculum you are trying to them. I know!? How CAN'T they like a 1,300 page religious tome? And like how can the story of Exodus ever get boring when you tell it over and over and over
and over
and over
and over
and over.
I mean, you never know, the Jew's might not make it out of Egypt by the 19th freaking read of Exodus!
Regardless, I saw something that may make studying the Bible (or any religious doctrine) a bit more interesting. I know I would have paid attention more than I did if I had this.
"Parochial school" is a euphemism for Uber Nazi Concentration Kamp fur Kinderdass wir hassen und wollen ganz psychologisch zu zerstören"
Their goal is to force feed little innocent children religion and brainwash them so they never develop independent thinking skills as an adult, thereby guaranteeing future sources of revenue.
Thankfully I had a father who was a pastor, which drove me to the breaking point, and now I pretty much loathe all religion in all of its forms be it Christianity, Islam, Judaism or modern day, up and coming hip religions that the kids just love and swallow whole such as Global Warming, Feminism, Pacifism and their umbrella group, Socialism.
Regardless, I know a problem you principals and staff of parochial schools have is that the kids may actually be bored with the curriculum you are trying to them. I know!? How CAN'T they like a 1,300 page religious tome? And like how can the story of Exodus ever get boring when you tell it over and over and over
and over
and over
and over
and over.
I mean, you never know, the Jew's might not make it out of Egypt by the 19th freaking read of Exodus!
Regardless, I saw something that may make studying the Bible (or any religious doctrine) a bit more interesting. I know I would have paid attention more than I did if I had this.
When Buyers Flee the Market
In one of my more brilliant (and recent pieces - because of the awesome chart at the end) I a likened the courtship market of people in their 30's much like the housing market. It was a-BOOMIN' and buyers were desperate to buy a house, ANY HOUSE.
And all of the sudden - POOF!
No more buyers.
The buyers, exasperated from the horrors of trying to find a house, having to constantly battle against other buyers, looking at dumps that needed repair and needed tens of thousands of dollars worth of improvements, not to mention the pain of getting financing, just gave up. The houses just weren't worth it. Renting was better. And the goal of living in a McMansion was soon replaced with a much simpler life of renting and NEVER BUYING.
Now, the sellers are desperate. Most bankrupt. And nobody wants their McMansions any more as society and the economy more or less force frugality upon the buyers.
Seems this young lady (or perhaps not so young any more) is starting to notice it on the analogous "seller"side while us "buyers" saw it coming a long time ago.
Here is the ht to a slightly harsher interpretation of this poor woman's situation.
And all of the sudden - POOF!
No more buyers.
The buyers, exasperated from the horrors of trying to find a house, having to constantly battle against other buyers, looking at dumps that needed repair and needed tens of thousands of dollars worth of improvements, not to mention the pain of getting financing, just gave up. The houses just weren't worth it. Renting was better. And the goal of living in a McMansion was soon replaced with a much simpler life of renting and NEVER BUYING.
Now, the sellers are desperate. Most bankrupt. And nobody wants their McMansions any more as society and the economy more or less force frugality upon the buyers.
Seems this young lady (or perhaps not so young any more) is starting to notice it on the analogous "seller"side while us "buyers" saw it coming a long time ago.
Here is the ht to a slightly harsher interpretation of this poor woman's situation.
The Captain Returns to College
A day in the life of the Captain is basically this;
10AM - Wake Up and SSS
1030-1130 - Get my morning power drink, answer e-mails and answer any questions my students have in my online classes (all of you should take)
1130-1145 - Look at Drudge, curse, make a post for you guys.
1145-130PM - Run around Lake Calhouns and the Isles
130-430PM - House work, cutting wood, work out, eat
430-10PM - Leave for dance class early to avoid rush hour, teach and drive back home
10PM -Midnight - Meet with my crew, drink, dance, crash with the lovely Natasha
Midnight - 2AM - internet, watching Hogan's Heroes and Venture Brothers
Now, this is certainly not a bad life. But it leaves one wanting. It certainly is not hard teaching dance classes, and online classes are certainly great, but loafing around going Galt does not fill the soul of a true, productive American man. You feel empty. Ergo why your Captain started his two year degree in computer networking.
Now the merits of computer networking should be obvious;
1. In demand skill that will get you the highest income with the least amount of schooling.
2. No need to go 4 years (most of which would be pissed away on worthless liberal arts pre-req's) to learn a skill that is deployable in 2 years.
3. The finite nature of computer networking makes it much more immune to politics and moronic middle aged bankers. For example if you design the network correctly and it works, it works. There's nothing to complain about. Versus predicting a housing crash 2 years before it happens, trying to tell your baby boomer bosses to not make bad loans, even if you're right, you're still going to be berated, disciplined and yelled at because you got in the way of their big, fat commission check. There is no politics simply because of the nature of computers.
So the Captain goes to his first networking class and what do you suppose the breakdown of the students are?
The sole, lonely Captain and a score of bodacious, hot 20 something babes?
The Captain and an equal mix men and women of his age?
The Captain and a rainbow of diversity where the Captain was the only non-Catholic Irish, quarter-Jew with a smattering of German blood in him, representing the white man?
No, it was the Captain, a score of fat, pasty nerdy white guys between 30-50 and two lonely girls.
And it depressed me. Not because there weren't tons of totally hot and find babes in the class, but because once again the reason women make less than men, the reason for the wage gap was sitting there right in front of me. All the complaining, all the demands for justice, all the whining, and yet there was the proof that women, by and large, are not going to make the right choices to close that gap.
Of course, when I went to the bathroom and walked pasted (what I believe to be) a media arts class, what do you suppose the break down of that was?
Makes me wonder if people really are that stupid or just plain brainwashed.
10AM - Wake Up and SSS
1030-1130 - Get my morning power drink, answer e-mails and answer any questions my students have in my online classes (all of you should take)
1130-1145 - Look at Drudge, curse, make a post for you guys.
1145-130PM - Run around Lake Calhouns and the Isles
130-430PM - House work, cutting wood, work out, eat
430-10PM - Leave for dance class early to avoid rush hour, teach and drive back home
10PM -Midnight - Meet with my crew, drink, dance, crash with the lovely Natasha
Midnight - 2AM - internet, watching Hogan's Heroes and Venture Brothers
Now, this is certainly not a bad life. But it leaves one wanting. It certainly is not hard teaching dance classes, and online classes are certainly great, but loafing around going Galt does not fill the soul of a true, productive American man. You feel empty. Ergo why your Captain started his two year degree in computer networking.
Now the merits of computer networking should be obvious;
1. In demand skill that will get you the highest income with the least amount of schooling.
2. No need to go 4 years (most of which would be pissed away on worthless liberal arts pre-req's) to learn a skill that is deployable in 2 years.
3. The finite nature of computer networking makes it much more immune to politics and moronic middle aged bankers. For example if you design the network correctly and it works, it works. There's nothing to complain about. Versus predicting a housing crash 2 years before it happens, trying to tell your baby boomer bosses to not make bad loans, even if you're right, you're still going to be berated, disciplined and yelled at because you got in the way of their big, fat commission check. There is no politics simply because of the nature of computers.
So the Captain goes to his first networking class and what do you suppose the breakdown of the students are?
The sole, lonely Captain and a score of bodacious, hot 20 something babes?
The Captain and an equal mix men and women of his age?
The Captain and a rainbow of diversity where the Captain was the only non-Catholic Irish, quarter-Jew with a smattering of German blood in him, representing the white man?
No, it was the Captain, a score of fat, pasty nerdy white guys between 30-50 and two lonely girls.
And it depressed me. Not because there weren't tons of totally hot and find babes in the class, but because once again the reason women make less than men, the reason for the wage gap was sitting there right in front of me. All the complaining, all the demands for justice, all the whining, and yet there was the proof that women, by and large, are not going to make the right choices to close that gap.
Of course, when I went to the bathroom and walked pasted (what I believe to be) a media arts class, what do you suppose the break down of that was?
Makes me wonder if people really are that stupid or just plain brainwashed.
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
The Solution to Global Warming
To let people work from home.
Oh, wait! NO!
THat would mean treating full grown adults, like....um...adults!
And corporate America, no matter how much better than public sector America, is still pretty effed up and obsessed with petty politics and control instead of genuine progress and profitability.
Ergo, let's nuke the globe and unnecessarily force millions of people to commute billions of hours per year in jammed highways so we can still wield control over them all the while claiming we're "going green" for marketing purposes to eek out that extra .0004% of "idiotic hippie loser brainwashed lefties who believe in global warming because it makes them feel good" in market share.
(PS- I looked into that "working from home thing" being a technological infeasibility given people's work habits and I found out it's a bunch of bull. You CAN set up a remote office and remote access pretty much anywhere on the freaking planet and be pretty secure, ergo, why in EF's NAME are we still commuting and forcing millions of people into cubicles?" - Oh, that's right, we're not American's any more. Anything that is possible is impossible because of political correctness, corporate BS politics and just a general crappy attitude amongst demoralized Americans)
Enjoy the decline!
Oh, wait! NO!
THat would mean treating full grown adults, like....um...adults!
And corporate America, no matter how much better than public sector America, is still pretty effed up and obsessed with petty politics and control instead of genuine progress and profitability.
Ergo, let's nuke the globe and unnecessarily force millions of people to commute billions of hours per year in jammed highways so we can still wield control over them all the while claiming we're "going green" for marketing purposes to eek out that extra .0004% of "idiotic hippie loser brainwashed lefties who believe in global warming because it makes them feel good" in market share.
(PS- I looked into that "working from home thing" being a technological infeasibility given people's work habits and I found out it's a bunch of bull. You CAN set up a remote office and remote access pretty much anywhere on the freaking planet and be pretty secure, ergo, why in EF's NAME are we still commuting and forcing millions of people into cubicles?" - Oh, that's right, we're not American's any more. Anything that is possible is impossible because of political correctness, corporate BS politics and just a general crappy attitude amongst demoralized Americans)
Enjoy the decline!
Ron Thomas is a moron
A 2 year TECH COLLEGE WITH A SPORTS PROGRAM. And you people wonder why your taxes are so high? It's because of worthless overpaid academian bureaucrats like this.
I can only imagine what his pension looks like.
I can only imagine what his pension looks like.
Of More Intellectual Fair
Is it "fare" or "fair?" I don't know.
Regardless, a more thoughtful piece about youngsters realizing they have to work.
Regardless, a more thoughtful piece about youngsters realizing they have to work.
Monday, September 13, 2010
A Farewell to a Pair of Boots
As you know the Captain is an avid hiker, ballroom dancer and runner. You also know he is in Minnesota where it behooves you to have a good pair of work boots pretty much year round. Ergo, you not only end up hiking in the work boots, but you dance in them (you get some strange looks from salsa dancers when you're the only one with steel toed boots on), wear them out regularly, and build up amazing large and toned calf muscles.
However, inevitably, the time comes where you outwork your work boots and it's time to get new ones. And that time for me was today.
The boots had worn out all of their tread. The rubber completely gone in certain areas and now were starting to corrode the actual boot itself. Not to mention Natasha was pointing out the sad state of disrepair my boots were in. This necessitated a trip to Fleet Farm which has Cap-taporrific boots and is where I go to get my boots.
However, I unexpectedly felt a little tug at the heart whereafter purchasing the new boots I immediately went to the trash can, started undoing the laces on the old boots that have served me so well, and started to remember the fine times and achievements I had with my old boots.
No less than 9 peaks.
Multiple hikes across the Badlands.
Scores of miles in the agate beds.
Thousands of miles of day to day walking and hundreds of miles of outdoor winter running.
And days worth of swing, salsa, and ballroom dancing, not to mention instruction as well.
And so it was with a little bittersweetness, I cast the old, trusty pair of boots, that had been on greater adventures than most other normal boots, into the garbage, whilst silently giving them a little internal salute for all their service.
Oh you laugh, but you know you would too.
However, inevitably, the time comes where you outwork your work boots and it's time to get new ones. And that time for me was today.
The boots had worn out all of their tread. The rubber completely gone in certain areas and now were starting to corrode the actual boot itself. Not to mention Natasha was pointing out the sad state of disrepair my boots were in. This necessitated a trip to Fleet Farm which has Cap-taporrific boots and is where I go to get my boots.
However, I unexpectedly felt a little tug at the heart whereafter purchasing the new boots I immediately went to the trash can, started undoing the laces on the old boots that have served me so well, and started to remember the fine times and achievements I had with my old boots.
No less than 9 peaks.
Multiple hikes across the Badlands.
Scores of miles in the agate beds.
Thousands of miles of day to day walking and hundreds of miles of outdoor winter running.
And days worth of swing, salsa, and ballroom dancing, not to mention instruction as well.
And so it was with a little bittersweetness, I cast the old, trusty pair of boots, that had been on greater adventures than most other normal boots, into the garbage, whilst silently giving them a little internal salute for all their service.
Oh you laugh, but you know you would too.
Yet Another Reason
To increase the voting age to 30;
What's sad is it's not a joke. This is really an ad.
What's sad is it's not a joke. This is really an ad.
Master's Degree in Community Organizing for Mexican Solidarity
Where do I start with this?
1. The idiocy of thinking this is some kind of career when it really, IT REALLY is just a masters degree in complaining and extorting money from people.
2. How they claim "neoliberal economics" (free market economics) has "failed" when if you look at the current financial crisis and future ones to come they are largely due to socialist entitlement programs that are unaffordable. But what is really juicy is how they seem to have NO PROBLEM charging very capitalistic prices for their program.
3. If you go to their photos what do you notice about the people? This is a tricky one, but there is a correlation.
4. How the people from the US that would take this course are not going to make one genuine lick of difference or improvement in the lives of Mexicans and are ultimately just using this as a hobby to make themselves feel better and avoid getting a real job.
Normally I would get my blood pressure up about this, but what's great is that programs like this and the people who attend them are so delusional when it comes to the real world and how economics and economies work that they will never, ever get the money from the "social justice" they're seeking simply because if they ever had their ideology realized, there would be no production and therefore no wealth to transfer. Because, what? They're going to produce I-pods and gasoline? The world's GDP under these morons would consist of drum circles, dwindling trust funds, and some home-grown pot (poorly grown I might add).
Enjoy the decline.
ht to CFACT
1. The idiocy of thinking this is some kind of career when it really, IT REALLY is just a masters degree in complaining and extorting money from people.
2. How they claim "neoliberal economics" (free market economics) has "failed" when if you look at the current financial crisis and future ones to come they are largely due to socialist entitlement programs that are unaffordable. But what is really juicy is how they seem to have NO PROBLEM charging very capitalistic prices for their program.
3. If you go to their photos what do you notice about the people? This is a tricky one, but there is a correlation.
4. How the people from the US that would take this course are not going to make one genuine lick of difference or improvement in the lives of Mexicans and are ultimately just using this as a hobby to make themselves feel better and avoid getting a real job.
Normally I would get my blood pressure up about this, but what's great is that programs like this and the people who attend them are so delusional when it comes to the real world and how economics and economies work that they will never, ever get the money from the "social justice" they're seeking simply because if they ever had their ideology realized, there would be no production and therefore no wealth to transfer. Because, what? They're going to produce I-pods and gasoline? The world's GDP under these morons would consist of drum circles, dwindling trust funds, and some home-grown pot (poorly grown I might add).
Enjoy the decline.
ht to CFACT
Sunday, September 12, 2010
Friday, September 10, 2010
Poetic Justice
Seems reality is starting to finally set in on children who major in a hobby, instead of an investment.
I give her a very Nelson-from-the-Simpsons;
"Ha ha!"
But don't worry, kiddies! Obama will take care of it!
I give her a very Nelson-from-the-Simpsons;
"Ha ha!"
But don't worry, kiddies! Obama will take care of it!
Oh! You Mean the Public Sector Gets Its Money from the Private Sector
and there AREN'T limitless resources?
You mean like there's a BUDGET or something?
You mean we CAN'T have 1-1 student to teacher ratios someday?
Enjoy the blood-pressure increasing decline!
You mean like there's a BUDGET or something?
You mean we CAN'T have 1-1 student to teacher ratios someday?
Enjoy the blood-pressure increasing decline!
Thursday, September 09, 2010
Why Elk River Has High Property Taxes
A story that has been circling the Twin Cities is this "hazing" incident at a local town called Elk River. And true to form the traditional main stream media misses the real story and focuses on something that is largely irrelevant - the hazing.
What they should have focused on, and should at least be in the "Elk River Gazette" or what have you, should be the fact that there was SIX FOOTBALL COACHES for ONE HIGH SCHOOL.
Being intellectually honest, I knew that there was a chance that somehow maybe these were volunteer positions and before I got all angry, I would confirm to see if they are paid.
Well, turns out they are.
All SIX positions are PAID positions.
Now, being honest, the HR director did inform me these salaries were in part subsidized by "booster club" revenues. However, that does not answer the question why you need SIX coaches for ONE FOOTBALL PROGRAM at ONE HIGH SCHOOL, let alone why they're even paid positions at all.
In any case enjoy the sphere throwing while you also enjoy the decline.
What they should have focused on, and should at least be in the "Elk River Gazette" or what have you, should be the fact that there was SIX FOOTBALL COACHES for ONE HIGH SCHOOL.
Being intellectually honest, I knew that there was a chance that somehow maybe these were volunteer positions and before I got all angry, I would confirm to see if they are paid.
Well, turns out they are.
All SIX positions are PAID positions.
Now, being honest, the HR director did inform me these salaries were in part subsidized by "booster club" revenues. However, that does not answer the question why you need SIX coaches for ONE FOOTBALL PROGRAM at ONE HIGH SCHOOL, let alone why they're even paid positions at all.
In any case enjoy the sphere throwing while you also enjoy the decline.
Wednesday, September 08, 2010
Obama's Plan to Accelerate Write Offs
Isn't this the EXACT SAME THING BUSH DID?
Oh wait, it is!
Now what's going to be real fun is to talk to the dwindling supply of Obamanauts and force them to either;
1. Admit Bush was right
or
2. Admit Obama was wrong
which, ultimately in any case leads them to the conclusion that;
they were wrong.
Of course we could follow Cappy Cap's plan to eliminate corporate taxes altogether to get the economy booming, but again, that would just be too damn simple, wouldn't it?
Oh wait, it is!
Now what's going to be real fun is to talk to the dwindling supply of Obamanauts and force them to either;
1. Admit Bush was right
or
2. Admit Obama was wrong
which, ultimately in any case leads them to the conclusion that;
they were wrong.
Of course we could follow Cappy Cap's plan to eliminate corporate taxes altogether to get the economy booming, but again, that would just be too damn simple, wouldn't it?
Monday, September 06, 2010
How Barack Obama is the New Field Marshall Haig
Honest to bleeping Christ.
Because it's only logical when the original trillion dollars failed and then Pelosi's $26 billion failed that somehow this new $50 billion is magical and will succeed.
It reminds me of this skit from Blackadder;
Because it's only logical when the original trillion dollars failed and then Pelosi's $26 billion failed that somehow this new $50 billion is magical and will succeed.
It reminds me of this skit from Blackadder;
Sunday, September 05, 2010
Why Hiring from the Military is Better Than Hiring from Harvard
Not that you wouldn't have gotten that impression comparing Eisenhower vs. Obama.
Which reminds me, I have to really get my game on and do a post I've been meaning to do -
"Why Would Anybody Hire an Ivy Leaguer?"
Which reminds me, I have to really get my game on and do a post I've been meaning to do -
"Why Would Anybody Hire an Ivy Leaguer?"
Friday, September 03, 2010
Before I Forget
A question to all the economists out there.
I was thinking, as I typically do, about the dire situation of America and exactly what measures could be taken to fix it.
To me it's very simple;
Eliminate corporate taxes
Streamline regulation
Have a constitutional amendment that would limit fed, state and local spending and tax collection to a cumulative 15% GDP
and a bunch of other things, but in short unleashing the private sector, the animal spirits and the productive capacity of human nature to grow us out of this recession and dwarf our debt woes.
But then it dawned on me I have another theory - that the individual American, on average, is deteriorating to an entitlement slob and much like a cancer society is decaying as the cancer spreads and corrupts individual cells/people that makes up the whole.
I soon realized these two theories are in conflict with one another, and since I'm not a leftist, I admit I had conflicting theories and wanted to get your opinions on it.
Let us say we DO eliminate corporate taxes, replace income taxes with a sales tax, constitutionally ban governments from taking more than 15%, or whatever your wish list may be.
Has the basic unit of the economy, the individual, been so corrupted that there is no more animal spirits or entrepreneurial gung ho to actually avail themselves of that opportunity?
In other words say we get our wish list. Do you really expect Millineals and Gen X'ers to go and become the next Howard Hughes or TOny Stark?
It's an important question because one of the underlying premises is that there's always this gung ho entrepreneurial class of innovators and capitalists and dreamers and industrialists.
If you look around I see a bunch of Emo Kids and spoiled brats who couldn't run a lemonade stand if they got a Obama stimulus check.
Something to consider that even if we do the right things and implement the right policies, the society itself has become so degraded and decayed, it wouldn't matter.
I was thinking, as I typically do, about the dire situation of America and exactly what measures could be taken to fix it.
To me it's very simple;
Eliminate corporate taxes
Streamline regulation
Have a constitutional amendment that would limit fed, state and local spending and tax collection to a cumulative 15% GDP
and a bunch of other things, but in short unleashing the private sector, the animal spirits and the productive capacity of human nature to grow us out of this recession and dwarf our debt woes.
But then it dawned on me I have another theory - that the individual American, on average, is deteriorating to an entitlement slob and much like a cancer society is decaying as the cancer spreads and corrupts individual cells/people that makes up the whole.
I soon realized these two theories are in conflict with one another, and since I'm not a leftist, I admit I had conflicting theories and wanted to get your opinions on it.
Let us say we DO eliminate corporate taxes, replace income taxes with a sales tax, constitutionally ban governments from taking more than 15%, or whatever your wish list may be.
Has the basic unit of the economy, the individual, been so corrupted that there is no more animal spirits or entrepreneurial gung ho to actually avail themselves of that opportunity?
In other words say we get our wish list. Do you really expect Millineals and Gen X'ers to go and become the next Howard Hughes or TOny Stark?
It's an important question because one of the underlying premises is that there's always this gung ho entrepreneurial class of innovators and capitalists and dreamers and industrialists.
If you look around I see a bunch of Emo Kids and spoiled brats who couldn't run a lemonade stand if they got a Obama stimulus check.
Something to consider that even if we do the right things and implement the right policies, the society itself has become so degraded and decayed, it wouldn't matter.
A Dark Prediction
In short, feminists from the 60's are starting to realize that no matter how much sociological, feminist propaganda they were fed in the 70's, the reality is that men don't want to date them anymore. And instead of accepting this reality and that their time has passed, they are becoming psychotic (your beloved Captain remembers quite starkly an episode where he was punched by a very left-leaning "feminist" after he told her he didn't want to sleep with her anymore)
Regardless, feminism is over simply because it failed in its sole promise;
To make women happy.
Enjoy the decline!
HT
Regardless, feminism is over simply because it failed in its sole promise;
To make women happy.
Enjoy the decline!
HT
Thursday, September 02, 2010
Julia Brownley
I'm going to go out on a limb here and test my Crusaderism Theory and bet that Julia Brownley, who authored legislation in California to ban plastic bottles is a crusader.
For those of you who have yet to watch my brilliant economic piece of "crusaderism," in short it is an explanation that basically explains all leftist AND some right wing politicians and their behavior. It exposes them for who they are - people who have no real world skills or talents or employment prospects and thus go into politics where they feign as if they care about their constituents, but are really there first and foremost for themselves because they want to avoid having a real job.
It's not that you didn't know this already, but it can now officially be defined, identified and be considered a disease or ailment that plagues society, not to mention prevented and legislated against (should the population ever decide to be wise enough to ban crusaders from office).
In any case, I shall predict that Julia Brownley;
1. Has a worthless undergrad degree
2. Has no real world working experience in the private sector or as a productive public sector employee (say like managing a department or working as a garbage man, etc.)
3. Is a democrat (which was in the article, but of course)
4. Comes from AT LEAST upper middle income socio-economically
5. (I'll go on a limb here) and also predict that her daddy or mommy is also in politics. (This one I could be wrong on, it's just a gut feeling).
How'd I do?
For those of you who have yet to watch my brilliant economic piece of "crusaderism," in short it is an explanation that basically explains all leftist AND some right wing politicians and their behavior. It exposes them for who they are - people who have no real world skills or talents or employment prospects and thus go into politics where they feign as if they care about their constituents, but are really there first and foremost for themselves because they want to avoid having a real job.
It's not that you didn't know this already, but it can now officially be defined, identified and be considered a disease or ailment that plagues society, not to mention prevented and legislated against (should the population ever decide to be wise enough to ban crusaders from office).
In any case, I shall predict that Julia Brownley;
1. Has a worthless undergrad degree
2. Has no real world working experience in the private sector or as a productive public sector employee (say like managing a department or working as a garbage man, etc.)
3. Is a democrat (which was in the article, but of course)
4. Comes from AT LEAST upper middle income socio-economically
5. (I'll go on a limb here) and also predict that her daddy or mommy is also in politics. (This one I could be wrong on, it's just a gut feeling).
How'd I do?
"Sports Communications"
From Lt. Latino on the front lines in California.
He duly notes that they fail to mention starting salaries.
I swear, if it keeps going you'll be able to get a doctorate in ice cream tasting.
He duly notes that they fail to mention starting salaries.
I swear, if it keeps going you'll be able to get a doctorate in ice cream tasting.
Wednesday, September 01, 2010
HA HA HA HA HA!!!
I wrote about it before.
Now see what daddy's little girl is doing in today's economy.
I am SO enjoying the decline.
Now see what daddy's little girl is doing in today's economy.
I am SO enjoying the decline.