My Future Wife

For My Loyal Readers and AM 1500 listeners;

Loyal Readers, do not fret, I know this doesn't make sense, but it is for a radio show i'm doing on Sunday. Please refrain from making any commentary until Monday.

AM 1500 listeners, this is the girl I'm talking about.

Well at Least We're Sexier than Them

And I thought economists were geeks.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/EDUCATION/01/04/largest.prime.number.ap/index.html

What possible practical application does this have?

The Advent of the SUV's Has No Affect on Oil Prices

I'm more and more convinced that the defining characteristic or trait of a liberal or leftists is that they disregard the truth to believe in whatever they want.

If it sounds good, shifts blame from me, and advances my cause, then screw whatever the truth is.

Alas, we here at Captain Capitalism know that the closer you follow and act on the truth (and implement fiscal and monetary policies that are based in facts) the more successful a person, a life and a country you will be (as Evo Morales and the people of Bolivia are soon to find out in reverse).

So when I read this;

in The Economist, it made me think, "gee, with all the other cars, factories, power plants, etc. that use and consume oil for its energy, do SUV's really have that much of an effect on gas prices?"

Now it becomes tricky because there isn't any data out there that breaks down how much gas was used to fill up SUV's versus cars. And I could go out and look at all the cars produced versus all the SUV"s produced, then also account for all the used cars, and then extrapolate an estimate of how much gas was being used by SUV's versus cars, but that would be too combersome and inaccurate.

Besides, it turned out to be unecessary. Because sometimes other related data will give you your answer. And I found my answer at the Department of Energy. Here, they list total crude oil and petroleum products used in the US going back to 1981. They break this down then between airplane fuel, power plants, heating oil, etc., including total motor gasoline consumption.

I calculated the percent of total crude oil and petroleum products that was used in motor gasoline comsumption, thinking that if SUV's really were to blame for higher oil prices, then we'd see an upward trend, showing that as SUV's guzzled more and more gas, then motor gasoline would consume a higher and higher percentage of our total petroleum consumption.

Well, here you go.

It seems that the advent of SUV's has had no discernable effect on the demand for oil relative to other users of oil. Motor gasoline still consumes roughly 43% of all petroleum, just as it has the past 20 years. Of course, cars have become more fuel efficient, and one could make a good argument that SUV's counter this, but the net effect is nothing. SUV's haven't bolstered oil prices as much as stabilized them.

Real GDP Per Capita

JTapp, our young Lieutenant friend in our southern climes who defends the US with his mechanical abilities has impressed me for within one week of me discovering a web site, he discovered it as well.

http://www.eh.net/

And so while I normally just cite the website or source of my data, this web site is actually cool enough that it warrants being referenced.

However, my original intention of going to this site was to look up another curiosity of mine and that is how the primary and best measure of standards of living has fared over the course of time; Real GDP Per Capita.

Of course communist weaklings, incapable of living and supporting themselves in the real world will advance their ulterior motive and call RGDP per capita a flawed measure of standards of living and will instead insist on using crap measures such as "the Human Development Index."

But they are public sector and non-profit wimps, and therefore rather than using their HDI which has been with us a whole whopping 5 or 10 years, we will use the adult measure of RGDP per Capita which has been with us (in one way or another) since the beginning of the country;


The chart itself is very interesting, note the dramatic drop and then recovery in the Great Depression and WWII. But what I was more curious about was whether we as a country have been improving our standards of living at a faster or slower rate compared to other generations. Thus I calculated the annual change in RGDP per Capita since the beginning of the country;


Of course, the length of the data and inherent volatility of economics allows for no discernable trend, so I did a rolling 20 year average.


This is where it gets interesting. Notice that for most of the country's existence RGDP per capita grew at about 1.5% or so on the average. Then the Great Depression hit, naturally bringing down standards of living. A rapid increase in RGDP per capita occured when we recovered from the Great Depression. This extremely high growth rate was due to the fact we were coming from such a lowered standard of living that growth rates mathematically were high and the economic boom that WWII brought about. What gets particularly interesting is when RGDP per capita just tanks in the 1950's.


This at first didn't make any sense to me. The 1950's were booming. Economic growth had not been rivalled like that ever in the history of the US. Why were standards of living dropping?

The answer can be found by looking at the "Pre-Great Depression" average growth rate in RGDP per capita and the "Post- WWII" average growth rate in RGDP per capita.


Note that after WWII the standards of living had been increasing at a consistent rate higher than ever before. Traditionally US RGDP per capita grew at about 1.5% per year on the average. After WWII the average was 2%, a full half a percentage point higher.

Savvy liberals and socialists desperate for data that "proves" their economic system works will immediately point out that before WWII and the Great Depression taxes were a mere fraction of what they are today. That after we implemented welfare, social security, and the bevy of other socialist programs standards of living increased at a faster rate, ergo, socialism rules.

Silly socialists.

For you see, there is a different variable that is at play here. And when I say "variable" I should really say "virus" or "sickness" or "epidemic." A plague that has thwarted mankind's attempt to increase their standards of living. A curse that explains the precipitous and contradictory drop in the RGDP per capita growth rate despite a booming economy in the 50's and explains why standards of living are growing faster than they ever have before in the history of the US;

Children.

Yes, children. The agricultural economic equivalent to locust. The more children you have, the more capita you have to divide that RGDP by. It should not be a shock that Ethiopia, Somalia and other sh!tholes in the world that have incomes per capita of $500 per year coincidentally have fertility rates of 6-7 children per woman. It should also not shock you that when the Baby Boom took place, standards of living tanked.

The reverse holds true as well as evidenced by the historically low birth rates in the 1970's to today. The less kids you have, the more RGDP you get to keep for yourself (or for you Jensenite I-bankers out there, the more shares of stock you issue, the more diluted your earnings become). Of course, this sadly points out something we already know; we don't owe our higher standards of living to working harder or smarter or advances in technology. And we certainly don't owe it to the volumes of sociology majors and communcations majors we're producing. We owe it because we're smart enough to make sure the denominator in RGDP per capita stays low.

The "Why" is Irrelevant...and Probably Stupid

OK, I'm putting an end to this.

Young aspiring male economist romanciers, I am going to educate you on a lesson that is arguably the most important lesson I ever figured out in courting the ladies. It is a lesson that is going to make your courting life a HELL of a lot easier. And I am being 100% totally serious when I say it is a VITAL lesson to learn for I have seen many a-aspiring male economist romanciers go through unneeded and undeserved pain and strife.

Read these comics in order;

http://sinfest.net/d/20020105.html

http://sinfest.net/d/20020109.html

http://sinfest.net/d/20020111.html

OK so this has happened to all of us and recently happened to a friend of mine (which triggered this post). Not to say that we've all had a date go "Oh my God, Dawson Creek is on" and then split on the date. But we all have been in the situation where we;

1. Land a date
2. Get excited about the date
3. And then either the date bails on us at the last minute or is no longer interested after the first date.

The problem is what happens after the girl bails on us or rejects us.

Note how Slick (the kid in the comic) responds in the last strip. He's kicking a can saying, "If I only...If I just....Maybe if I...."

And there's the problem right there.

It is this instantaneous, knee-jerk reaction that when a girl bails on us, men immediately and by default look at ourselves and say,

"Gosh, what did I do. Maybe if I did this, or maybe if I did that. What did I say? How could I improve."

And I too was in your situation as a young 24 year old when a girl cancelled on me on the last minute. And whilst racking my brain and replaying the events in order to find out what it was that I did wrong that caused her to bail, it then suddenly dawned on me;

WAIT A MINUTE, WHO SAID IT WAS MY FAULT?????

This revolutionary thinking totally changed the premise by actually admitting that maybe, maybe the problem wasn't the guy, but rather the girl. That maybe, it's just possible, that a man can play all of his cards right and the girl might be the one to fumble the ball.

Look at our young friend, Slick. How could an objective observer possibly blame Slick for the failure of the date?

So here's the rule gentlemen, it doesn't matter why the girl bails. The "why" is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is what "is." If the girl bails on you, don't rack your brain trying to find out why, you can't! The only thing you can do is accept what "is."

Furthermore, I want you to understand that the "why" is probably and most certainly stupid. The girl gets cold feet. The girl didn't want to go out with you in the first place, but just couldn't hurt your feelings. Dawson's Creek is on. Etc. Whatever the case, I can practically guarantee you that 100% of the time when a girl bails, cancels, etc., her reasoning is flawed and stupid. And that if you were to actually find out the "why" you would probably roll your eyes in disgust.

Alas, the whole benefit of this revelation is that you no longer have to piss away calories of energy, time, effort and thought trying to figure out why. You just accept and move on. Furthermore, there is the confidence that chances are it probably isn't you with the problem, and I am totally serious and I'll say it again, you will find out that, yeah, the VAST majority of the time it's not you, but the girl that has issues.

Of course, this whole theory is contingent on you playing your cards right and making sure you don't have a problem. And that means behaving in a manner or being a person that you are proud of. Being a gentleman. Being polite. Being somebody that you can look at and say, "If a girl turns this type of person down, then obviously she is the one that's ef'd up."

I personally aim my best to mimmick a WWII officer and gentleman. I mean, that's pretty safe. What possible rationale would a woman have to reject a WWII, 1940's, Cary Grantish gentleman? Thus, for me, when the girl can't make it because "her hair isn't dry" (I'm not kidding, I received this excuse MORE THAN ONCE IN 2005!!!!), I can sit back in confidence and say, "you know, I played that one pretty good. I was polite. I wasn't pushy. I was charismatic and funny on the phone. I was borderline Private Ryan with an element of Gregory Peck...this girl has issues."

So do yourselves a favor men, make a resolution for 2006. Resolve that you're not going to rack your brains over things that aren't your fault. Be a gentleman, be a good guy, be an upstanding dude. And if the ladies can't appreciate that, then we know whose fault that is.

Do You Hear That?

It's called "The Winds of Change."

http://upi.com/NewsTrack/view.php?StoryID=20051231-085021-8823r

It Ain't Worth it People

One of the first things I tried to instill in my economics students is this concept of being "finite."

You are going to die. You will end. You get one shot at this and thus;

Time is literally your only asset.

How you choose to spend your time is what will largely determine whether you lead a full and accomplished life...or whether you piss it away watching TV, saying no to dates. saying no to dances, rearing children, not trying new things or staying at home because you're too afraid to go out and live life.

But this is just an inexcusable and pathetic waste of a precious resource;

Interesting Housing Charts

Happened upon these charts whilst looking to buy some property in the Black Hills area. Hard to find Price to Rents data in the more rural parts of South Dakota. Most of them come from Harvard's Joint Center for Housing Studies "State of Housing" Report. The report itself was superb until about half way through it they totally started taking this typical leftist, academian slant, tailoring the report to show how minorities are lagging behind their white counterparts, and woe is them, and oh if we only gave minorities more of a leg up, blah blah blah.

Regardless the charts are good, my favorite of which is at the bottom;

This one is scary as hell.

This doesn't make things look better.
This tells me that morons live on the coast...but if you looked at voting pattern chart of the US, it would tell you the same.

This just tells me there's a lot more people applying for HEL's and ARM's to finance their trailer home or mobile homes.
This tells me I should move my tiny white ass out of this bitch ass cold state and move to Atlanta and find me a southern belle.

Fat Chicks

So tis the holiday season and what gets me is the hypocrisy of the women at my office.

All Fall the top two topics of coversation were;

1. "Oh, My GOD! Did you see what happened on Desperate Housewives?"

2. Points.

Now, at first, when I heard the ladies talking about "Points" I thought there was this outside chance they were referring to the Band of Brothers episode when the troops were determining whether they had earned enough points to go home.

Of course, I was foolish to think that it was anything as historically high-brow or relevant as this.

For it turned out that the "points' they were talking about were Jenny Craig points.

Girl 1 - "Oh my God! did you know how many points are in a Chipolte fajita's shell? 14!"

Girl 2 - "NO!!!!"

Girl 1 - "Yeah!"

Girl 2 - "Like OMG, no way!"

Meanwhile, I'm reading an article about how China finances our current account deficit, thereby keeping interest rates artifically low, thus arguably inflating our property prices, and all I can think is

"somebody get me a muzzle."

Anyway, so the ladies of the office are all on some diet kick. Seems everybody is dieting. And truth be known, there are some ladies who aren't just flabbing their gums. Several ladies have lost significant wieght (one woman 75 pounds, another 35) and thus I tip my hat to them.

But for the remaining 46 of them and all their hyperbole about points and dieting and working out, I can't buy it, for it has happened now on several occasions where they'll talk about how they wish they were skinnier, how they are watching their "points" and how they're working out, and I KID YOU NOT within 30 seconds they're stuffing their face with all the holiday candy and junk food laying around.

Which reminded me of a fancy chart I saw;

Happy Holidays

Would Have Never Guessed

I will tirade later about the year 2005 in retrospect, but this was brought to my attention;

http://www.bestplaces.net./docs/studies/DatingCities.aspx

So when I bitch about Minneapolis being such a crap hole for courting, you know I'm not just complaining.

Oooo! Dat's Gotta Hurt!

OK, so Osama's niece is going to model and show a little skin. And frankly, I won't lie to you, yes, those western infidel men are going to look at her and drool over her, and I'll be the first in line.

That's just gotta piss him off...that's if he wasn't in some rock somewhere where the only communication he has is mule transported paper and he had access to modern day media.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/people/meet-osamas-niece/2005/12/23/1135032164860.html

Failed Economic Genius

So I was cleaning out my inbox when I happened upon this little e-mail I had sent to cute little number in an attempt to get some kisses from her.

Being the economist, I thought it wise to show you
just how important your kisses are to the global
economy, international trade and the fight against
poverty.  For you see, you refusing to sell your
kisses on the international markets would be like the
following countries refusing to offer their
specialized wares/services;

Switzerland, chocolates
Japan, Cars
French, Cowardice
Idaho, Potatoes
Florida, Oranges
Hollywood, Movies
Mexico, Illegal Immigrants
Antarctica, Penguins
Taiwan, Electronics
Italy, Fashion
Chicago, Blues
Australia, Koala's
North Korea, Nuclear Arms
Iran, Terrorism
Saudi, Arabia Oil
Palestine, Suicide Bombers
London, Bad dental services
Germans, Beer
Ireland, drop dead gorgeous men, unrivalled kissing-training
services
Russia, Vodka
Chile, Wine
Iceland...uhh...Ice

This lowers standards of living by requiring other
countries to produce all the goods and services they
wish to consume, regardless of how inefficient they
are at producing it.

Thus, as you can plainly see your kisses are vital to
the economy and advancement of society.  I wish it
were different, but alas one of the key revelations
you have when studying economics is that your personal
desires have no bearing on the natural forces of the
market and economics.  Sorry.

Here's a link to provide you with a basic tutorial in
Ricardian trade theory.

http://internationalecon.com/v1.0/ch40/ch40.html

PURE GENIUS I SAY TO USE RICARDIAN TRADE THEORY TO PICK UP A CHICK!!!

I just can't figure out how it failed!

The Economics of Diamonds

Having trouble trying to find that special gift for that special woman in your life?

http://sinfest.net/d/20001224.html

Somebody explain to me the economic rationale for diamonds? As far as my thinking takes me, it's basically just payment for prostitution. Am I wrong?

When You Meet Her

I fathom when I inevitably meet the legendary redheaded, lingerie wearing, video game playing babe economist it'll go something like this;

http://www.ctrlaltdel-online.com/comic.php?d=20030115

More Proof of a Politically Incorrect Theory

Hell, it's a law.

Leftists are just nowhere near as attractive as us Righties.


Hey, chicas, little less protesting and food stamps and a little more stair master.

Google is Overvalued, Period

So I've now had about 3 seperate people ask me about Google and what I think about Google.

Look, people, did we forget so quickly the lessons learned in 1999?

Right now at Google's share price of $420 it has a market cap of $82 billion. That is worth more than Dell Computers, Goldman Sachs, General Dynamic and Target.

It's a freaking web site people.

What Did I Tell You About China

When a people wishes to work hard to avoid poverty, as opposed to sit on their ass and expect society to provide everything for them whilst they watch Dawson's Creek, WTF did you think was going to happen.

I'm going to brush up on my Mandarin.

http://www.oecd.org/document/60/0,2340,en_2825_293564_35834236_1_1_1_1,00.html

"SS" is an Appropriate Abbreviation for Social Security

And "Gestapo" or "Nazi" or "Cancer" would be an appropriate surname for AARP as far as I'm concerned.

How the OECD is like Hot Redheaded Economist Babes that Like to Play Halo

So another article in The Economist about how property markets are overvalued. They seem to have one every three issues. However, instead of quoting the regular ol' House Price to Rents or House Price to Income ratios, they took a report from the OECD which (adjusting for other factors) showed how over/underpriced housing was in different countries.


The report in the OECD was a little older and the above figures were updated by The Economist, so I went and looked for the original report.

Now if any of you know about data mining in the OECD you might as well look for a girl with a doctorate in economics who is a Microsoft Certified Halo Champion and dresses up in french maid outfits. Because these French geniuses who compile an amazing amount of economic data are idiots when it comes to organizing it or making it easy for normal people who land a date every once in a while to find it.

Thus, as with many of my trips to the OECD, it's like Best Buy;

No, they didn't have what I was specifically looking for, but I found some other stuff that I liked.

Particularly this report:

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/40/6/35816576.pdf

which has some good sh!t in it and particularly this chart that correlates home purchasing age with average increase in housing prices, suggesting the relationship between the proportion of a country's population that is of home buying age and housing prices.


Now, like Emril, you kick it up a notch and throw in a little dependency ratio action;

and the fact that the Baby Boomers (across Europe and the US) are going to retire, sell their homestead and secondary houses when they go into assistent living/nursing home, thus adding more supply to a housing market, and

BAAAM!(or whatever the hell he says)

I think, I THINK, it may just add some downward pressure on housing prices.

HAR!!!!

I should have posted this on Thanksgiving

http://sinfest.net/d/20050601.html

Teenage Suicide, Don't Do It

So only those of Generation X is going to get that one...because, like everybody knows "Teenage Suicide, Don't Do It" is the number one song on the air.

But for those of you a little older or younger, fret not, for it's not about the movie Heathers. But it is about suicide.

Not that I was in a particularly macabre mood, specifically looking for this data, but it just happened upon me; suicide rates by country.

Now what caught my eye is that the WHO ranked it by the MALE suicide rate, presumably because men commit the vast majority of suicides (you'll have to click on the chart to make it legible).
This alone is evidence to me that women drive men crazy, particularly in the former Soviet Union and socialist, developed European countries.

But curiosity got the best of me and so I re-ranked them based on the FEMALE suicide rate.


Somewhat of a correlation, Russian Federation and former Soveit Bloc countries there. As well as a good showing for the developed world in Europe.

And then curiosity got me again. If I really wanted to know which country the women were driven men the maddest, I should calculate the ratio of male suicides to female suicides, resulting in this;


Seems in Kuwait men and women drive each other equally mad while America's poor ranking further convinces me American women at the behest of Glamour Mag and Women's Studies Departments are the instigators in the majority of cases. But, good lord, stay the hell out of Belize gentlemen.

All this being said, suicide is a serious problem and it should not be made light of.


Dreadful etiquette. I apologize.

Confidence Over Fear

It's seems global growth is contributing more to the increase in industrial metals than fear of the dollar's future is contributing to the use of gold as a safe haven.

Perfect Example of Bias

OK, this article is the perfect example of bias and how the left let's its ideology form its truth instead of the truth forming its ideology.

First, you have this poll "commissioned by WakeUpWalMart.com, a union-funded group"

Stop right there.

It's worthless. You needn't read any further.

It's like saying;

"A poll commissioned by Captain Capitalism to determine who is the world's sexiest man is found that 98% of the people found Captain Capitalism to be the world's sexiest man."

Second, WHO GIVES A DAMN IF 59% OF THE PEOPLE THINK WAL-MART IS BAD FOR AMERICA!

Here's a clue for all you people so concerned about choice and hate Wal-Mart;

THEN DON'T SHOP THERE!!!! You go pay inflated prices to support the Ma and Pa stores. The rest of us will enjoy a higher standard of living.

Third, those out there who THINK Wal-Mart is bad for America, are morons. You're talking auto-union IQ's here where they don't take the time to be intellectually honest and research the basic economic principals of purchasing power and trade. They're sheople just regurgitating the juice fed to them by their leftist overlords and just want to bitch and complain.

One of the best things to happen to the US economy to help raise standards of living for all people, especially the poor. An invention that is on par I'd say with the internet and the left just can't stand it and has to try to besmirch it.

I am finding it harder and harder to believe that the left is misled as much as it is evil.

Going Nuts

I just had to post this.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4489792.stm

Look in the Mirror

For all the China bashers out there about how it's China's fault we have this huge trade deficit, please refer to the actual data before letting your emotions trump your intellect. Hmmm. approaching $1 trillion.

From The Economist

Pity the Man Who Lives in Portland

Mercy.

Portland.

What a crappy city.

10% unemployment. Homeless wandering around. And that free bike program where they tried to emulate Holland I think it was. Yeah, that worked out in stars.

I mean with New York, Los Angeles and Chicago you at least have a megalopolis that provides you with the best the world has to offer.

But Portland? You have all the draw backs of a large city and none of the benefits.

Now, just imagine being a capitalist and living in this socialist enclave.

Such is the sad situation for Captain Arbyte.

Visit him and send him an e-mail some time. I'd hate to see the Oregon weather get to him and have him go into a funk.

Oh, and be sure to mention how much you like his new Babe-Magnet Buick LaCrosse.

Fodder for Socialists

I know why this chart is irrelevant, but it is interesting and when you hear the socialists use their sound byte "evil rich corporate executives" blah blah blah, now you'll know what they're talking about.

Although, I seriously question whether they know what they're talking about.

Private Pension Funding

OK, as much as I complain about the inevitable crash of the US pension system (government and private), it would really suck to be Italy, Germany or France. And they're all bucking Government debt as a % of GDP of 100%+.



Yeah, go socialism.

Go Ahead, Make My Day

from The Economist again.

I would love to see disgruntled North African and Muslim youth just try to pull this schtick here. Heck, I'd love to see disgurntled youth in general try to pull off this stuff here. Because something tells me that despite attempts to have femininity brow beaten into the American Male and to have us brainwashed into sensitive 90's type pansies, I still think we'd just start shooting these scum bags.

Revised Empirical Proof

Many years ago I had taken the 5, 10 and 15 year averages of government spending and receipts as a percent of GDP for all the OECD countries and correlated against their corresponding 5, 10 and 15 year average RGDP growth rates.

It confirmed something that everybody knew;

Countries with lower taxes grow faster than countries with higher taxes.

Correlations came in around -.3.

What got me about this data is that very few Republicans, Libertarians and other varied sorts of capitalists knew of this data and would largely rely on anecdotal evidence to support capitalism as the optimal economic system. Sure, they'd use logic. Or cite the utter and dismal record of communism in the glory days of Stalin, Chairman Mao, or modern day Kim Small Jong Il. But never really went out to see, "well, what tends to happen when countries are taxed at a higher rate."

Anyway, so I updated the figures with the most recent OECD data and, well, yeah, communism still sucks. Sorry dems and libs. When you argue against the truth, well, it's uhh...kind of hard to win.

Conflicted Socialists

OK, so everytime you get into it with a liberal or a socialist, they always, ALWAYS without skipping a beat go running to the Scandinavian countries as proof positive socialism can work.

Now, the vast majority of them (and actually by definition) have never gone to independently confirm this. They only regurgitate what they heard from their professor or the college friends who are being supported by Daddy. Alas, they don't really know why the Scandinavian countries do so well.

Now, out of all of them, Norway does the best, and by large margin. Norway is a rather successful socialist country (although it is not the one I was asking about in a previous post, there is another). And it has made gains against the US recently in the past 4 years to have an identical income per capita.

There's just one problem;

The source of this newfound wealth and economic success is oil.

How conflicted and hypocritical you liberals must feel.

Inquiring Capitalists Want to Know

OK, so I think maybe 1 or 2 liberals or socialists read this blog only to get pissed off because I'm starting to believe more and more liberals just want to be unhappy in their lives.

Regardless, because of the low leftist readership of this blog, this post might need to be forwarded to your leftist friends so I can get a leftist response.

Will somebody on the left tell me which socialist country does better than the US?

I already know the answer, I just want to see if the advocates of socialism do.

PS- Doinkicarus won the best chart competition. I will send the $25 and the sign picture of Captain Capitalism. E-mail me Doink.

For All the Collegiate Capitalists Out There

Far as I can tell right behind Canadians, the second biggest group of readers I have is college students. And being Captain Capitalism I know how important it is to recognize that the market is always right and you should pander to it.

So for all those collegiate aspiring economists out there an interesting post I got from Young Miriam (Young Miriam is a chemistry student (if I remember correctly) and is a Muslim that I wish more Muslims and women would emulate). Anyway, her post below;

http://www.phds.org/rankings/
(If you choose a hard science and input in a 5 for Scholarly quality and then ask it to display things like %female or the like, the red-green corellations are most amusing.)

Diagnose a Blogger

Good Ol' JMPP.

Seems I am now the subject of a psychological study in a crafty idea created by Jacqueline's Ma.

Anyway, for those of you familiar with JMPP, she's back from Costa Rica, has herself a boyfriend and lord knows what else. The girl moves.

So aspiring psychologists and psychiatrists, even though your field is complete BS and if it were up to me we'd tax you guys at 100% and fund social security with it, try your hand at diagnosing bloggers!

My Fondness for Real Majors

As you know I am an avid supporter of people who major in subjects that will get them jobs. And I largely attribute the majority of world's problems to lazy effers that opt to major in sociology, communications and other crap where inevitably they only find employment in the public sector and political life and largely live off of us and ruin our lives.

Thus, I found this chart from The Economist particularly interesting;

Inventory of Houses that Just Don't Want to Sell

Sing along with me now;

"OHHHH the correction is coming.
Your home equity ain't strumming.
All you idiots that took out second home equity loans to buy SUV's
Will have the repo man take that your home and your TV's
Ohhhhhh you stupid Americans."

New Kid on the Block

And he's been taking his vitamins and eating his vegetables...he's also been cutting taxes and transforming a backwater 3rd world nation into what will soon be the world's largest economy.

Based on the past 20 years of economic growth, I estimate in another 6 years or so China will have the world's largest economy.

But we'll have sociology majors and peace study majors and American Idol and Desperate Housewives and the Jenny Craig Point System? Right? I mean at least we'll still have all that!

Then again, that's if you believe the economic figures China is releasing.

The Idiots of Argentina

To reiterate the stupidity of those Argentinian protestors.

And to add to that, I must put in the original a post made regarding this. "Eagle Eye" Seanchile noticed the signs were in Portugese, indicating this is actually Brazil. Good catch. He also pointed out something I forgot about Argentina. His post in below.

I think those are actually Brazilians (the signs are in Portuguese). However, very similar or even identical (Spanish) signs were being hoisted by protestors in Argentina (it's pretty ironic calling Bush a Nazi when YOUR country welcomed a large number of Nazi fugitives after WWII). I definitely agree (with you).

Can Buy Me Love

Ultimately if you push a leftist far enough in their thought, there are several T-intersections their mind will come to;

1. Happiness isn't all about money.
2. GDP or Income per capita isn't an effective measure of standards of living.
3. I just don't believe the data.
4. George Bush sucks.

Well, at least you can knock out two of these 4 mainstay arguments of the left. Many thanks to Sunrunner 4 for this spiffy chart;

The research was done by professor Richard Easterlin of southern California. He seems pretty happy, but that's because he's an economist and we economists always have chicks chasing us.

Two Charts from the U of Berkeley

My Sister is a communist at the U of Berkeley in California where she is pursuing her doctorate in Bio Chemistry and her lab wanted me to throw these two charts up there;
I suppose I am to take from this graph that all Republicans today want slavery as there must be a correlation between voting patterns in 2004 and slave legality in 1862. I guess I'm supposed to also forget the fact that it was the Republican party that waged a civil war to free slaves. But that's just what I'm guessing.

The irony here is that no doubt the majority of Berkeley academians voted down the California proposition last week to require teachers work 5 years before they get tenure. Last I recall California was ranked 46th in the country in terms of education and accounts for a plurality of our population.