"I Read The Economist"

As older readers know I once religiously subscribed to and supported The Economist.

That is until they endorsed Barack Obama.

It was such an appalling display of a once great magazine aiming to boost their subscribership by sacrificing their standards so they could appeal to a fad and a brainwashed mass that I ended my then 11 year subscription to the magazine. It called into question the entire purpose and integrity of The Economist. Why would anybody, who was at least intellectually honest and cared about economic reality, subscribe to what had ultimately and quickly become tripe?

Well, if you look at an old post I had, it once again shows you the ole Captain might know what he's talking about.

The Economist is nothing but a biased, albeit, highly dressed up, left wing rag. Their readership is not about advancing economies and increasing standards of living and helping out humanity, it's about purchasing "The Economist" so they can say to their other UN diplomats and dignitaries that "they read "The Economist"" and sound intelligent. It's for liberal arts students to avoid real debate and say, "they read the economist" which then makes them the smartest person in the room. It's for middle aged people who decide to "upgrade" from the local paper and buck for a promotion when their manager realizes "Hey, he's reading THe Economist!"

Understand The Economist is NOT a legitimate publication. It is simply a "badge of honor" somebody can buy to make themselves sound intellectual. It's like buying a degree from a degree mill. You are better served reading various independent blogs and getting your economic data from economic databases than you are reading The Economist because "The Economist" (despite its name) isn't anything approaching what a real economist would do.

To remind you of this, I need not do anything else than post this chart;



Thus is the typical "Economist" subscriber and why you might as well not even bother ever subscribing to it. Because if you couldn't predict Obama would be bad for the US, then what kind of "economist" were you?

Answer - a shill

Recession Medicine

Left Wing Labor Economics

Because to them 0 jobs that pay $100,000 a year is better than 75 jobs that pay $25,000 per year.

Because There's No Faith in the Future

I love this chart.


You couldn't have a bigger stimulus than this to prompt investment and economic growth. Interest rates have never been lower (since the Fed started tracking 30 year mortgage rates) and housing prices are a mere fraction of what they were a year ago.

The problem is why isn't this translating into economic growth or at least a stabilizing factor in the housing market? I'll give you the answer;

There's no real hope.

You see, in order for a person to take on a large purchase such as a house and a large responsibility such as a 30 year mortgage, they have to have faith that their investment is going to pay off in the end. Not that the house is going to go up in value, but that it doesn't tank in value either. You throw in property taxes that continually go up, property maintenance, insurance, etc., you can see why people are a bit leery of buying a house. It's a liability, not an asset.

Go on the investment side and you see another angle. Banks won't even loan money out in the first place. Why? Because they're not certain about the economic future of the nation. Still stinging from the housing collapse (not to mention this newest "signing scandal"), they are reluctant to loan money out for housing. Anybody try to refinance their homes recently at these historically low interest rate? I'm sure some of you have only to be denied because you;

1. Were self-employed.
2. Had a decrease in your income
3. Wore blue socks on Tuesdays

Running scared from the housing crisis, banks are now perhaps OVERLY cautious and are just keeping their capital ratios close to their hearts.

Then there's the business side of things. Well if home buyers can't get financed, then certainly businesses and entrepreneurs will!

Heh, heh. Sadly they see no reason to invest because once again, there does not seem to be any genuine hope or faith in the future economy. They might go and invest in China. They might go and invest in Chile. They might go and invest in Brazil. But why invest in Japan-Circa-1990-Part II?

You see, you can have all the "stimulus" you want and pretty words from Barry and low interest rates, but without faith in the future of the economy, nobody is going to avail themselves of these opportunities because the prospects of an adequate ROI doesn't warrant it. Matter of fact, if the cost of debt capital is 3.5%, that implies investors and businesses don't even expect that paltry of an amount in today's economic climate.

At this point I would normally go on about how eliminating the corporate tax rate and making it constitutionally PERMANENT would flood the economy with real investment and hope for the future. But of course this is like shouting into the hurricane. My readers understand the reason for such a policy, but it is the masses of idiotic Americans who have been brainwashed to loathe those "evil" corporations.

And so I merely just point out the economic humor and irony of seeing interest rates so low, yet no growth and then laugh at the people who wonder why there isn't any economic growth, who in the same breathe blame the "corporations" for all their problems and want nothing more than to "make them pay their fair share" (all while wondering why their 401k isn't going up).

Enjoy the decline!

Keep Dodging Those Bullets, Men

Keep dodging them bullets.

For the Cheap Seats

I don't really get worked up anymore because no matter how factual the above information is, the population in general is too damn lazy to;

1. Look up these figures themselves
2. Educate themselves about the finances of the country
3. Bother themselves worrying about the future finances of the country because until the lights go out and there's bread lines, they will maintain the mentality, "we're the US! We always get out of trouble!"

Alas why I fish and play video games.

I Thank Thee, Bernanke

for helping contribute to all my dollar-short positions.

Enjoy the decline!

Hurray for Chile!

I want to thank all the sociology majors, women's studies majors, philosophy majors and communications majors that played an important role in rescuing those poor miners...

oh wait.

ht

Why America Hates Tony Stark

I wish I had more time to delve into this, but since I swore I would go Galt and enjoy life, I cannot. I bought "Red Dead Redemption" and it's a great video game, so here's the quick one-two on this and then it's off to X-Box 360 Land.

You are all familiar with my very scary chart showing the "20 year rolling average" of RGDP growth slowing down from 4.5% in the 40's and 50's to 2.5% today. The consequences of such a deceleration in growth being obvious in that we frankly won't be able to pay for everything we've promised ourselves in the future, not to mention nobody's 401k's and IRA is going to be growing at 12.% a year like they'd hope. However, what is also interesting is the volatility of that economic growth. Like the growth itself the volatility or standard deviation of economic growth over a 20 year average has been decreasing as well.


This is to due to many things which Red Dead Redemption will be preventing me from going into in more detail, but I shall list the primary ones here;

1. An increase in government as a percent of the economy - government does not boom or bust like the economy, it's been slowly and consistently growing which lessens the variance in economic growth.

2. Laws and lawsuits which have no only made things more "fair" but in the process has also slowed economic growth (EEOC compliance, requiring maternity leave, various environmental regulations.

3. Americans have just plain become more cowardly as time has gone on following the mantra "safety at all costs." Nobody takes risks any more, heck most people DEMAND a risk free world forcing their kids to wear helmets all the time, nobody is allowed to get into fights, no kid is allowed to go run around the other kids neighborhood in fear of getting kidnapped and if we have to sacrifice a little economic growth, not to mention brainwash our children into being tepid, meek, emasculated people when they grow up, that's fine.

4. On a somewhat related note, because of this cowardice, you now have a labor force where "conformance over performance" is the norm. Brought up not to think, let alone have any moral caliber about you, people "don't rock the boat" in fear of a law suit or losing their job and will gladly sacrifice the profitability and viability of their employer and just "do what they're told." Innovation is not rewarded, and is if anything a threat against an aging tranche of management whose skills are deteriorating. More value is placed on getting an MBA in that it shows you can jump through a hoop vs. delivering any kind of real leadership or great ideas you might have. And then we all sit there and wonder why all these corporations are losing money and the economy isn't turning around.

Of course the simple solution is "WWTSD?" What would Tony Stark Do?




Well, he'd kick ass, take names, create some great stuff, say to hell with regulations and environmental concerns, PROBABLY BE SO BOLD AS TO KISS A GIRL OR TWO WITH NO REGARD TO THE PROPRIETY OF IT and do what Americans did back in the Rockefeller and Edison days.

But of course that would increase the standard deviation of economic growth, and in today's stability-addicted, safety at all costs economic mind-set of the American people, "I'm sorry Mr. Stark, your business methods are just a bit too abrasive for our tastes. We suggest you find employment elsewhere. We wish you luck in your job search."

Enjoy the decline!

Die WORTHLESS DEGREES! DIE!!!

Heh heh.

But what is richly ironic is if you were to ask those majoring in the "humanities" this question;

"List the top 5 things you want to buy or purchase in the next month"

they would list things that are NOT produced by humanities majors.

I guarantee you that they would list things like;

1. Ipad
2. Iphone
3. XBox
4. Sushi
5. Clothes

What is further ironic, if not hilarious, they would be unable to link this as to why there is no demand for "humanities majors" and why they can't find jobs.

ht

Work Smarter, Not Harder...Or Else

Bucktown and I had been going back and forth about just how much a threat foreign labor (locally here, illegal or not, or labor located overseas) was to US workers. Good intentioned and concerned as he should be, the point I tried to convey to Bucktown (and as I do all aspiring economists), was that competition from foreign labor really doesn’t matter in that the VAST majority of wealth that has been created over human history doesn’t come from working harder, but smarter. ie – Jose may be willing to work 25% longer and for 40% less than John, but what will really make John richer is when John CREATES or INNOVATES a new way of working or building widgets or replacing widgets all together with a new invention.

It is creation and innovation that is the true producers of wealth and it is what America has specialized in since its existence which has given us our (soon-to-be-lost I predict) preeminent position in this world. That and we work more than most people didn’t hurt either.



But to prove the importance of working smarter and not harder, allow me to introduce the concept of “multi-factor productivity” or MFP.

GDP growth is chalked up to increases in the use of capital and labor. When you use more labor and more capital, you’ll get more GDP.

However, when disseminated, changes in labor and capital doesn’t fully explain all the economic growth that occurs. The residual is chalked up to “MFP.”

MFP is basically any efficiencies gained BEYOND using more labor and capital. A smart young operations manager could find a way to reorganize the conveyer belts to produce 10% more widgets without an increased use of labor or capital. A new chemical that costs only $20/ton may replace the need for two chemicals that cost $50/ton. Or a technological invention could completely replace an industry and fundamentally change how it does business; NAPSTER, the assembly line, Windows come to mind. Even The Economist had an article recently showing how e-mail broadband, and PDF files are eliminating the need for bike couriers.

These cumulative increases in efficiency arising from either smarter use of current resources or a completely new innovation/technology is the true engine of economic growth and is why we should be focusing on working smarter…and why we should be pushing engineering and the sciences and funding less sociology, philosophy and hyphenated-studies majors…or at least severely mocking them.

When GDP growth rates are correlated with MFP growth rates, the correlations are impressive thus proving working smarter is an excellent predictor of producing wealth.






(note, I took out Ireland as it was the "outlier," but contest it should stay inbecause of the sophisticated economic argument that the Irish kick ass)

Thus, foreign labor and outsourcing is not a threat to anything but low skilled workers as labor truly is a commodity at the low skilled levels. And while it may be regrettable that some slothful union types are out of a job or are forced to compete, it is the economic reality that if America is to ensure its preeminent position in the world we better get back to doing what we do best; being the inventor of the world.

The Difference Between GDP and Utility

In short, paving a road that doesn't need paving is a pissing away of the taxpayer's dollars. That money could more easily be useful if you just return it to the people. Why?

You'll get the same amount of production which will show up in the all-important GDP figures AND people will actually get a use out of it.

This is the biggest fallacy facing expert economist's today. They're concerned too much about hollow numbers and not about standards of living.

Now, a shinny new nickel to the person who can explain why this won't help the economy, but will improve numbers.

ht

The Affirmative Action President

I love comparing Bush to Obama during their first term, because if you recall correctly BOTH inherited recessions from their predecessors. I also love the comparison because the media would just BASH Bush because the economy was not "recovering quick enough" AND ALWAYS said it was "the worst economy in 50 years."

In short it shows the hypocrisy of the left.

But, this is great because it shows you just how low the bar has been set for Mr. Obama.


Ergo, I believe Mr. Obama should hence forth be called "The Affirmative Action President."

I now patiently await for the media to comply and explain to the masses why Obama has it "tougher" than Bush.

Looking for a Bubble

Cripes.



We lose 95,000 jobs and the stock market goes UP because (get ready for the Ivy League Idiot-speak)...

"it will prompt the Federal Reserve to spur economic growth."

Because as we all know economic growth doesn't come from industrious individuals, innovative creators and inventors, hard work or the desire to pursue life, liberty and happiness.

No, it comes from the "Magical Federal Reserve Fairies" who just waive their magic wands and then POOF! Economic growth!

Why, it's so simple, why didn't we think of this before! The federal reserve will just "spur economic growth!"

Of course, you morons out there who aren't Ivy League economists like Paul Krugman or Wall Street gurus like Dick Fuld are too stupid to understand how this all works. But thankfully you have us in charge to "spur economic growth."

Pour yourself a martini and enjoy the decline.

Franny Armstrong 2

I had taken a huge risk and went out on a limb and predicted according to my crusaderism philosophy that Franny Armstrong;

1. Majored in a worthless subject
2. Never worked a real job in the real world
3. Was from the middle class or richer.

Immediately the Cappy Capites went out and found out that.

1. Zoology
2. Correct.

But her socio economic background was a bit more difficult to peg down.

Understand though, that in order to be a crusader you need to have enough money financing you so you don't have to worry about things like;

rent
food
clothing
shelter
gas

The crusader mentality CANNOT form under an environment where you have to be an adult and support yourself, because in supporting yourself you immediately know how the real world works and are frankly too busy to pursue worthless pursuits like what Franny has done.

Well, thanks to our European Bureau we find out she is "an upper middle class spoiled brat."

Enjoy the Decline!

Heh heh.

So how's the Keynesian stimulus working for ya?

I would go into a tirade of "I told you so," but the left is so far gone they will actually rationalize this away because (and understand the logic here) it is more important in their minds that they are right than the livelihood and health of their country and fellow countrymen.

Enjoy the decline!

Why Most People Go Galt

As you know I have gone Galt.

I work as little as I can. I am trying to make less than $30,000 per year (not too hard in this economy). And I have gone back to school. I have acquired no assets which can be taxed or taken from me. And in essence have enjoyed a hell of a lot of free time and vacation time.

In short I am out of the game and refuse to contribute anything to society be it either through taxation or production. Admittedly, I am more of the fringe elements in this country, but consider what would happen to society if most productive people had the epiphany I've had and realized their time is worth more than the pittance of money the government will let you have.

But contrast this current state with me in my youth, and it is night and day. Back then I would work my ass off. 80 hour work weeks were regular for me. Overtime pay as well as the added employment security that came with dedicating myself to my employer resulted in a ton of economic production from myself (as well as tens of thousands of additional tax dollars paid to into the government coffers).

What is interesting though is that it is the "overtime" aspect of economic production that is really the only thing that will get an economy booming again. You don't dedicate yourself to overtime unless you view there is a future or a benefit to it (in addition to the over time pay). However, if you are punished because of progressive taxation on your overtime income and you see no economic future, therefore why would you do such a stupid thing as essentially committing yourself to slavery? Over time, which is precisely what the economy needs, does not make any economic sense.

So you understand when I say, "enjoy the decline" I really mean, I want you to ENJOY the free time forced upon you by the decline. Because, well, you don't have any other choice.

Franny Armstrong

Franny, as you may or may not know is the veritable fool that put together that horrendous video for "Campaign 1010" where they're blowing people up.

Now, I did not read the article above, I just looked at her picture and I think it's once again time to play....

"What Can the Captain Guess?"

Given what we know about the disease known as Crusaderism (yes, watch the whole damn thing, just pour yourself a martini first) and young Ms. Franny is obviously infected by it, I shall go out on a limb and predict;

1. She majored in a worthless subject
2. She has little to no real world or private sector experience
3. Her entire career is constituted of activism which is just a euphemism for avoiding real work
4. She is from a family that is not poor, probably well off to the point she could pursue such lofty and arrogant endeavors as to tell the rest of us how to live our lives.

Am I right?

Missing the Boat

And I don't mean recently. I mean like she JUST showed up at the docks two minutes ago, looking at her watch, while the boat left port about 30 years ago, which matter of fact has probably been scrapped at the Bangladeshi boat yards.

There is also an element of "wanting my cake and eating it too" to her thinking (or perhaps, lack thereof.

So, once again, ergo I think it's time for another "Dating Stories of the Captain" so that we all may learn, ESPECIALLY women, and genuinely improve our lives (by avoiding the Captain's mistakes).

Long ago, your Captain was a naive, youthful, idealistic lieutenant. Though battle-hardened and having a few scars to evidence his experience, he was at the perfect balance of maturity and realism countered with a healthy amount of hope, optimism and a belief in the right kind of romance triggered by the right kind of girl.

He found her.

In a dance class of his. Cute as a button. Very smart. But more importantly, there was that chemistry that just doesn't come along that frequently (matter of fact, he hadn't ever experienced anything like up to that point in his life).

You would think that with such chemistry and the stars aligning, etc., that this would be an easy plane to land for the ole Captain. However, there was just one little problem. She was a STRINGENT Christian and I was an agnostic.

Understand, this was the only hiccup.

She was completely enamored with me, and I with her (as proof, look at the economics poem I wrote for her). However, for 6 months she fought every NATURAL, BIOLOGICAL drive and instinct she had to kiss me and go out with me, because of one passage from the bible that has ruined more potential happy couples than anything else - 2nd Corinthinians 6:14

"Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness?"

Translation? If he isn't a Christian, then you CANNOT date him (let alone marry the guy).

It was a sad situation. It was more than one conversation where she would break down crying as she could not reconcile St. Paul's words to the Corinthians with her natural, visceral attraction to me and my agnosticism. And try as I might to point out the idiocy of listening to a doctrine that has been translated over 2,000 years ago across 4 different languages (one of which is dead now) as well as the fact that "what if there's a chance, Christianity might not be the "100% correct religion," she would have no part of it. She had her check list. She was resolute. The Lord would provide.

Aside from this very large disagreement, there was only one other disagreement we had. It was nowhere near as major nor deal-breaking, but it did provide me some insight later on in life that explained to me what was really going on;

She found my version of sexuality, intimacy and romance revolting.

I, like any other red-blooded American male, had NO SHAME of admitting that it would be GRAND to come home from a hard day's work and there, unbeknownst to me was my wife/girlfriend/significant other in a French Maid outfit with a martini in one hand, a cigar in the other and Frank Sinatra playing in the background. Not every day of course, but to have a wife like that would be grand.

She found it not only revolting, but insulting.

"Why you would want your wife to degrade herself to such a level is beyond me. I find it to be more like slavery than anything else."

And thus like the author of the article, this girl completely missed the boat.

In the end I realized what was really happening. This girl wanted the best of BOTH worlds.

She wanted an alpha male, which explained her instinctive attraction to me (not to brag, but yeah, I'm pretty alpha). I didn't take crap. I spoke my mind. I would fight. I had passion. I did what I wanted. And I relented for no one and nothing. I supported myself and had never taken charity. I was a real man's man.

However, she also wanted the beta. The man who would collapse and say, "Paris is worth the mass." Who would deny his own beliefs and fake being a Christian. Who would submit to her, albeit intellectually dishonestly. And who would actually forfeit the life long American males' dream of a beautiful wife just simply dressing up all sexy and pampering him once in a while for what I presume would be a sex life solely for the purpose of making more Christians, not (heaven forbid!) for recreational purposes.

It is here that his love-ne'er-meant-to-be and the author of the article fail, and will continue to fail, because they do not understand one very simple rule about men;

Being alpha and being beta ARE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE.

A man CANNOT be both alpha and beta.

You get one or the other.

Now I know some women would prefer one over the other. And naturally you would like some elements of both. BUT YOU CAN ONLY CHOOSE ONE.

The nature of an alpha male is to be the leader. THis is the NATURAL STATE or at least INCLINATION or biological PREDISPOSITION FOR MEN. They are "MEN." They are MANLY. They will go and do manly things and have manly preferences. It is natural and biological and it is NOT OPTIONAL. Boys will be boys, no we don't need no freaking Ritalin. This is normal.

Then there are the beta men. They go against their nature because they think it will some how bring them an advantage. THis is certainly true. Patience, compromising, avoiding conflict are all life-increasing acts in threatening environments. But do not expect them to hold to principle, hold their ground or be MANLY because that results in conflict or a threat. And it doesn't even have to be a life-threatening conflict. Just conflict in general because they almost seem to prefer peace and agreement over their own inner desires. They will constantly ask you for your approval. They will constantly get permission first. They will not be the manly, rugged Steve McQueen character you all want to whisk you away on your motorcycle against your parents' wishes. They will be like Al Gore or Woody Alan.

The larger point is simply this ladies. You do not get your checklist because, frankly, no man in the 3 billion men on the planet meet it. Not because each trait unto itself is outlandish to expect or so rare, but a lot of them ARE mutually exclusive. What you have to ask yourself is do you want an alpha male (like a Ferrari, powerful, but expensive and fuel inefficient) or a beta male (like a PRius, high quality, good gas mileage, reliable, but no power). Because while you can't have the "perfect man," you CAN have a GOOD man (whether he's a beta or an alpha). ie- a good Chevy is better than the non-existent 700 HP V-12 Ferrari that gets 95 MPG with George Clooney in the passenger seat. Besides, last I checked the girl of long ago is still waiting for the strong alpha male, who is yet beta enough to abide by all of her requests. Apparently the Lord is not providing.

ht to the notifiers of this article.

No Pressure

This is not a joke. This was actually put together by the 1010 Campaign. They thought being truthful was not only funny, but would convince people to join them.

Ah, leftist activists and the mindless corporations all to eager to "go green" that finance them.

Black Markets Form in the Funniest Places

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.

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.

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

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!

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."

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.

Because It's No Longer Economic

Heh heh.

Enjoy the decline!

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.

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.

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?

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?

Recession Medicine

Recession Medicine

Recession Medicine

IT's coming!

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

Yet Another Reason

To increase the voting age to 30;



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

Here You Go

If you have the time.

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!

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!

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.

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?

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;

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?"

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.

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

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?

"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.

Norway

Because leftists LOVE Norway!

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.