The Times When Republicans Were

It was on my flight out to scenic San Francisco that I had the time to catch up on the three neglected issues of my favorite periodical. And whilst reading the back issues I happened upon this hilarious picture which reminded me why I’m no big fan of George Bush.

For if George Bush was a true Republican, then he’d be more fiscally conservative. Alas he is not. For aside from the war (which I’m for) he’s still managed to blow wads of taxpayer’s money on frivolous social programs/causes, including the $50 billion education bill, another $15 billion for fighting AIDS in Africa, and let’s not forget that minor little $800 billion (AND RISING) boondoggle on Medicare (yes, all frivolous, don’t get into it with me).

All of this (and more) has increased government spending as a percent of our economy from 18% to 19.5% (as of 2003). This may not seem like a lot, but keep in mind this is while the economy was growing by leaps and bounds. i.e.-government spending under GW has increased faster than the economy has been growing. The result? GW has only been outspent by LBJ and his idiot-mollifying, vote-bribing policy called “The Great Society.”

Joy.

But this behooves the question that has been plaguing me for some time; “why does the left hate GW so much, and herald Bill Clinton as their god, when the opposite should be true?”

Alas, perhaps I am foolish in assuming democrats do as they “should” or adhere to some sort of logic…alas, perhaps I may also be foolish in thinking that people in general look at these charts.

I Left Nothing in San Francisco

Somebody might have left their heart in San Francisco, but I even had reservations about going to the bathroom in San Francisco and thus leaving anything there.

Outside a trip to Yosemite National Park and visiting some obscure relatives in the hinterland of California, the majority of my trip was spent with my sister and her new boyfriend in scenic San Francisco. The highlight of the trip was a visit to one of the 5 remaining Federal Reserve Banks I had yet to visit and a salsa club on the south side of town where the skill level and friendliness level of the local ladies outranked the ladies of Minneapolis.

Regardless, I am back and after catching up on e-mails and work, will start to give you your semi-weekly/daily/random fix of economics.

HAR 

College Campuses? Cripes.

I ranted once about how Academia (among other non-profit institutions) attracted the left because unlike the real world (AKA, the "private sector") you didn't have to produce anything of worth, nor compete, nor have any real skills. Actually, it's probably best you don't because it seems as far as I can tell, Academia's primary purpose is not to educate, but employ those who would otherwise be unemployable.

Thus, when I saw this on Market Power (hail another economist!), I had to post it here as well.

http://www.leadershipinstitute.org/04RESOURCES/Flynn-BlueCampuses.htm

Coase Colored Glasse

Ye, another link for thee to digest. But this is no ordinary regular economist link to digest, but an environmental economics link to digest.

Understand I was never a big fan of environmental economics. I always thought trying to value things like "scenery" and "pollution" was similar to trying to program a model that predicts the minds of women; rather impossible. But hey, that's why we economists insist on using all the letters in the Greek alphabet when developing our formulas. They may be worthless, but, hey, they're pretty and sure impress the heck out of actuaries!

So freshen up on the positive and negative externalities of blogging and pay a visit to Coase Colored Glasses.

Of Producers and Parasites

I found this chart reading an article about the flat tax, and while it's original purpose was to demonstrate that even under a flat tax New Zealand's rich would still be paying the lion's share of the taxes, I noticed that the poor got one heck of a deal (either way) in that they contributed nowhere near the amount of resources they consumed.



Would be curious if anybody has/knows of similar data for the US or other OECD countries.

505025

Every spring and fall a local WWII historical society hosts a hangar dance as a fund raiser. They deck out an old hangar with WWII memorabilia, bring some old WWII planes like the B-25 and P-51 out on the tarmac, and encourage people to show up in vintage attire. Fortunately for me I have an old Army Air Corps uniform and when donned with my bomber jacket I look the part rather well. Add to all of this about 700 people, the majority of which are in uniform and era clothing, and an 18 piece big band, and you have what I deem to be the closest re-enactment we can achieve today of what was the pinnacle of American culture for a glorious, but all too brief four hours.

But I take what brief American-glory-day hours I can get, and this past weekend presented such an opportunity, for there was such a hangar dance at scenic Fleming Field.

I arrived with a cadre of friends and about 20 students as I also teach dance on the side and host field trips to such events. And since most of my friends are just friends, and most of my students are middle aged married folk, I opted to mingle my way into the crowd to see if I could find myself a cute girl or twenty to dance with.

Bethel College, a local uber-religious college where they ban sex, kissing, holding hands and just plain looking at the opposite sex, oddly enough sent no less than 50 female representatives in sort of a "false advertising" sort of way. Of course I didn't know they had such representation until I danced with enough of them to know where they were sitting, who they were talking to, and just how numerous they were. But once ID'd, I knew who not to ask to dance as it would be futile.

This still left of bevy of immaculately dressed women, one of which in particular caught my eye; a 20-something platinum blond with a 1940's turquoise dress gift-wrapping an amazing figure. And knowing that in about an hour they would have all the men in uniform parade around the hangar, and knowing I had not brought a date, I would have to secure myself a girl in vintage attire to be on my arm for this parade. Thus, it was time to turn on the ol' Captain Capitalism charm.

I spent the next hour dancing the plurality of dances with this girl. Putting on some of the more flashy, yet easy to follow moves, thereby impressing her and at the same time making her think somehow she was a great dancer. I'd make some witty commentary about how she looked like Ingird Bergman, and then quote Casablanca. And as it was somewhat of a chilly evening, I employed a rather cunning tactic; when dancing on the tarmac I would have her wear my bomber jacket to keep her warm.

Oh yeah, I was in.

And I was, for when they announced the parade was about to start, she agreed to be on my arm for the parade.

So there we were. Me in my smart uniform, looking as if I had just got off the Memphis Belle. Her, with her nice blue eyes accompanying her turquoise dress, blushing a bit as she was a little embarrassed. All in the shadow of a B-25 bomber and an 18 piece big band playing away. It couldn't have gotten any better.

Which means it only could have gotten worse.

For while we were parading around the hangar and people were cheering us on, we approached a group of Bethel girls that I had recognized from the earlier that evening. They were looking at me and cheering me on giving me the thumbs up. But as I got closer I realized I misread their line of vision by a few arcseconds, for they weren't looking at me and giving me the thumbs up, they were looking at the girl on my arm. And sure enough as we passed, "Wooo! Way to go Jessica!"

Great, I had a Bethel girl on my arm.

"So, you go to Bethel?" I asked.

"Yeah, how'd you know?"

"Oh, just a guess....so hold old are you?"

"I'm 19."

Great, I was dancing with a child this entire time. And a religious nut on top of it.

Now, there is an element of strategy to these hangar dances. For unlike most other dances, the hangar dance attracts people that I deem to be morally similar to myself. In other words, in the past when I have gone out on dates with the girls I've met at the hangar dance, they tend to be of a bit higher quality and caliber. Furthermore, since the hangar dance is held only twice a year, it is somewhat urgent and important that you play your cards right and spend your time wisely. I just blew 2.5 hours on a 4 hour dance that would not be repeating itself for another 6 months.

Grand.

So I did what any other normal red-blooded American male would do, I got myself a beer. The bar was inconveniently placed in a high traffic area, near the band and the dance floor. And immediately after I had finished my drink and turned around, I almost bumped into the most attractive girl in the entire dance.

I hadn't mentioned this girl before, for even though I noticed her very early on in the dance, up until that point in the dance, she was irrelevant. She was WAAAAY TOO ATTRACTIVE to mention. And even though she was one of the very first things I saw, she was soooooo attractive that I wrote her off like a brand new computer under section 179 because she was out of my league.

And now she was right infront of me.

Now, normally I don't bother with chicks out of my league. Which then prompts the typical discussion, "well, some of these girls are so good looking that they intimidate most guys and are actually rarely approached." None of which entered into my mind, because I was busy blurting out, "hey, wanna dance?"

"Yes."

So there I am dancing with the girl who is hands down the most attractive, drop dead gorgeous woman in the entire joint. (Mind you, this isn't my opinion. She just literally was that good looking!) And as I made my way through the dance, spinning her and so forth, I got to appreciate the amount of care and attention she put into her outfit. It was a stunning black ruffled, knee-length vintage dress that she accented with a cropping hat, black fishnets and cute 1940's heels. She had her hair done up in a tight style which displayed her face perfectly. Rarely am I intimidated, but she was so impressive that I was actually a little off in my dancing.

I thanked her for the dance, still under the impression I was not in her league and the dance was charity, but as the night went on, I noticed she was standing by herself, on the edge of the dance floor more often than not. And whilst enroute to the bathroom, something made me change my path and I asked her to dance again. This time smiles were exchanged, banter was engaged in, and another dance promised. This led to more dances which led to more conversation which led to more smiles, and soon flirting (which Bethel College also bans).

By the end of the night I had danced with this girl more than anybody else. And after we had finished our 6th dance, I asked her, "Hey, you going to dance next week by the same band?"

She said, "I don't know, I just heard about it tonight."

"Well, I know a guy who might be interested in taking you."

"Really? I might know a girl who might be interested."

"Really, well, how about I give you my number and you can give it to the girl. And you give me your number and I'll give it to the guy. And then maybe we can go on a double date."

"Maybe."

"And then in the unlikely event that they stand us up, perhaps we can go to the dance together, you know, as back up."

And with a little smirk and a sexy squint she said, "Maybe."

And so I sashayed to the bar to jot down my number, returned for one final dance, gave her my number and said, "it was a pleasure." She reached out and touched my arm and said, "likewise." I headed home and fell asleep.

Now what does all of this have to do with 505025?

505025 is a theory I concocted back in my college days, that most of my male friends appreciate and deem one of my better theories. And it basically states;

"50% No x's 50% Show = 25% Go."

And it was the theory running through my head while I drove back to my humble abode that night, for during college my friends and I noticed that while a fair amount of girls would say yes to a date, a disturbingly high percentage of them would cancel or stand you up. Thus, on the onset, there is a 50% chance the girl will say no. But even if she says "yes" that doesn't mean she's actually going to show. i.e.- there is only a 50% chance of her showing up on the date, and thus an overall initial chance of a 25% chance of actually going on a date.

Now, empirically, the theory is more something like "30% No x's 25% Show = 17.5% Go" as sadly the majority of girls would say yes, but unfortunately, the majority of them would bail before the date (thereby unnecessarily raising your hopes, and crushing them later). And while I'd like to think that the banter, conversation, interaction and flirting I had with this knock out 40's babe was unique and special, sadly I had been in the position before where I was just as supremely confident and the random fates of chaos dealt me a different hand. Of course, I also subscribe to Oddball's theory from Kelley's Heroes, which advocates positive waves, but the economist in me really has a hankering for empirical and historical data.

Regardless, what does this tell us about economics? Nothing, directly anyway. But I guarantee you there is a lesson in economics to be learned here. For while it may not be obvious now, it will become very apparent in a future post.

But for those of you who insist on getting your daily economic fix, here's an interesting chart continuing with the theme and hailing back from the days of WWII.

Things that Make You Say "Hmmmm...."

Just found this interesting. Like when Johnny Depp in "Pirates of the Carribean" found out there was a curse he said, "So there is a curse. That's interesting."

Old Versus New Europe, Taxes and Growth

To dull the relentless assault of pain and agony that we call “life” I employ a wide sort of medicines and remedies. Sometimes I submerse myself in work, making sure the finances are all secure and that future sources of revenue are certain. More recently since February I have worked out, running and lifting weights to kill the time during slow season (and may I say with a little pride, added to my peck-age and bicep-age). And then there is always video games; ahhhh yes, video games, where you can go to a foreign, make-believe world and fool yourself into thinking that somehow you’re actually doing something for society like killing Nazi’s or shooting aliens. But last night I opted for booze, which I have laid off recently, and made up for last night.

The problem is when I drink I typically do it at a bar. And when at the bar I usually bring some work to do or something to read. Of course work and reading do not mix well with booze, so it has been on more than one occasion that I had a poor recollection of the articles I’ve read and had to double check my work from the night before.

But drunk as I was, even a liberal high on pot, heroin, Windex, and a Krugman article combined would have been able to draw the connection between two charts I saw.



And since this post has been made on a Thursday morning, I’m going to assume most of you are at work and reasonably sober, and therefore can make the connection yourself.

HAR!!!

I'm not a big supporter of Bush, but this is a good guffaw.

http://www.cartoonistgroup.com/store/add.php?iid=10347

When One Follows the Advice of Women

After much beratement and criticism (from no less than 2,200 readers! – Many, many sincere thanks for all the press JMPP and Marginalrevolution!) as to how I fumbled the ball with this economist babe by not asking for her number, I took it upon myself to remedy the situation and implement some of the advice and strategies different people suggested and see if they worked. And I figured whose advice better to follow than the experts on courtship, dating and romance; women.

The most common criticism I received from women centered around one general theme;

That I did not show initiative/aggression/courage, thereby failing to prove to her I was a skilled hunter and courageous defender, capable of providing for her and our would be children and defending them from the roving bands of wild rabid mammoth that frequently roam the Minnesota plains here.

Thus I formulated a cunning plan.

My cunning plan was this;

1. Take initiative and look up the offices of where she said she worked.

2. Be aggressive and courageous and buy her a simple single flower with a polite note attached asking if she was ever going to take me up on the offer of dancing and dining (and that my poor economist heart was broken, sniff sniff)

3. Show that I had interest by dropping it off at the front desk of her workplace enroute to my favorite lake for my daily run.

By logical reasoning, this would no doubt display that I was aggressive, courageous, had interest and much initiative. And how could it possibly fail? For this plan was designed to do exactly what all the women here have been advocating me to do.

Which reminded me of a theory I concocted back in my college days;

“When you devise a plan and are so confident in it that you ask yourself the question, how can it possibly fail?…you will soon find out.”

Key to this plan was to just drop off the flower with the receptionist in a clandestine operation sort of way and get out of there, ensuring that I would not be seen as the stalker type. This would allow her to throw the flower away and not have to respond unless she really wanted to.

And since I was enroute to a run and had no intention of meeting her I was dressed in my running gear; cut off sweat pants, my Boston Red Sox hat and a Mr. Bubble T-shirt I got from sending in the $4.95 with proof of purchase of Mr. Bubble Bubble Bath. Damn did I look sexy.

So I park the car, feed the meter, run to the skyscraper, hit the elevators, go to the correct floor, follow the signs to the suite number, and noticed it’s not that big of an office. Just a simple door with a buzzer. So I clicked the buzzer, waited and who do you suppose answers the door.

Oh joy. It’s the economist babe.

So much for the covertness of this clandestine operation.

Trying to put on my best smile given I was wearing my fetching Mr. Bubble-T-Shirt, I gave her the flower and the note and said, “hi!”

Her face was pure panic. I could have just as well handed her an ebola-infested live tarantula.

Obviously scared, she said, “how did you know where I worked?”

Realizing that she now viewed me as your friendly neighborhood stalker-man, I tried to calm her down by reminding her that, “You told me you worked here.”

Realizing my cunning plan was an utter failure and that she was actually scared by my appearance, I wanted to get hell out of there fast as possible so as not to worry her anymore. Maintaining my smile I said, “well I gotta go. Hope you like the flower,” did an about face, bouncily jogged to the elevator and made way to my favorite lake for my daily run.

Now I enjoy my daily run for it’s just over 6 miles long and it gives me a fair amount of time to ponder and reflect about life’s daily occurrences. And during this particular daily run, I drew several important lessons from this whole ordeal that I think all men should heed and follow;

1. It is infinitely better to be viewed as an unaggressive, unmotivated man who has not the courage to ask you for your number than to be viewed as a stalker. i.e.- Ball in Court Theory is a great theory!

2. Today it is no longer socially acceptable to give a girl flowers unless you know her, otherwise you run the risk of being misperceived as a stalker, see lesson 1. Ergo, no more flowers for the ladies (Besides they cost $2.95, that’s like almost a shot of whiskey!)

3. Women do not appreciate the Mr. Bubble line of designer T-Shirts.

4. Appreciate Adam Smith’s theory of specialization and stick with what you’re good at.

5. Baghdad Bob’s intelligence on Iraqi and US troop movements during the invasion is supremely superior to women’s intelligence on themselves. i.e.- Don’t listen to women’s advice about women.

Alas, it seems to me I shall stick with my time-tested, well-devised and energy-saving strategy of letting them come to me.

The Elusive Libertarian Economist Chick

I'm a lazy procrastinating economist, but have recently made efforts to start linking the various kind hosts who have been kind enough to promote the epic economic adventures of Captain Capitalism.

Ms. Passey is one of them.

Well, it's actually Ms. Mackie Paisley Passey, but that is too long, so I just call her JMPP.

Interestingly enough, she is not only an economist (economist dames are rare enough), but a libertarian as well. This is almost, ALMOST as unique as the dancing, video-game, fossil-hunting economist.

Recently her and her cadre of bloggers seem to be on a movie kick, citing Firefly (a good short-lived TV series), but every once in a while they manage to fit in some economics.

Pay young JMPP a visit sometime.

http://jacquelinepassey.blogs.com/

Ahhh, Real Women

I think these four women did more in their lives to advance not only the cause for women, but advance, improve and defend all that is good and noble in the world than all of the feminists and all of the women’s studies majors have done and ever will do in their pathetic and self-serving lives.

Girls today could learn a lesson or 12 from these dames.

Another Link for the Masses to Digest

Kyle Eubanks. He just started up, but it is scary how much we think alike, and thus he is obviously a genius and worth linking to. His URL could use some simplification though.

http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-RxwD5hglcKPLUB9DWJKQsg--

Ode to Tax Season

Figured I'd have to repost this on Tax Day! Rememeber to forward it to all your friends and have everybody click on links so that I may retire early and never work again.

Some get a refund
Some get to pay in
When the governments take a third

Only liberals find it no sin
As a capitalist
How can I win?

When it is tax season?

If you are leftist
And you hate the rich,
I suggest you keep quiet,
I suggest you not bitch
For the bulk of the work
And taxes they have pitched

For the rich pay the most when it’s tax season.


Where does it go?

Where has it gone?

With corporate taxes so high

You wonder why US companies have said “so long”
You ignorant leftists
Quit it with your wealth redistribution song

For corporations and employers will move to avoid tax season.

Mortgage the future.

Pass on the buck.

Are you in Gen X?
Well I guess that’s tough luck.
For you yongsters will find out shortly that indeed;

When you pay for other people’s Medicare, Medicare, Welfare, Social Security, education and $2 trillion worth of other social spending when it’s tax season!

Wishing you and yours a Very Captain Capitalism Tax Season!

What I Get for Reading The Economist

Understand that one of my favorite things to do is to go to a couple joints here in Minneapolis, find a quite corner, order a glass of wine and read The Economist.

Also, I do a significant amount of latin dancing, and so every time I go out dancing I bring an issue of The Economist with me as there are literally 3 guys for every girl, and thus, instead of being one of the pathetic saps that rushes out to the dance floor, scurrying for a girl, I maintain my cool, by retiring to a quiet table and read The Economist until the next song comes along.

Of course, chicks take notice of this, and while fending off the desperate, broken-English advances of Jose and Juan they see me and say, "My goodness. Who is that secure and sexy man just sitting at the table. And what is that he's reading? OH MY GOD! IT'S THE ECONOMIST! I MUST HAVE HIM!"

And this happens all the time, because, as you know, economists are sexy.

Thus, it was only inevitable my friends would mock and ridicule me for my readership of The Economist, resulting in a friend sending me this comic.

Enjoy.

The Tax Wedge Blues

I like charts.

I mean, I really like charts.

One could go so far as to consider me a connoisseur of charts.

And while, no doubt my charts are the best charts that ever were charted, I have to admit that The Economist comes out with some really kick ass charts that I occasionally liberate from them.

One such chart is the one below; the Worker's Tax Wedge.

What the tax wedge shows us is the percentage of labor costs that are due to taxes. Specifically income taxes plus the social security contributions of BOTH the employer and the employee. In other words, the difference between what the employee takes home and what it costs to employ him.

A rough translation of the figures above would mean Sven in Sweden makes $10 an hour, but only takes $6 home. And Seamus in Ireland who is paid the same $10 an hour wage takes $9.50 home.

Of course this is a rough translation, as it ignores the fact that the employer also has to pay taxes on employing labor, namely in the form of social security contributions (and in other countries, payments into health care programs, etc.) Thus, the higher the tax, the less incentive a company or employer has to set up shop there. Or perhaps looking at it the other way, the more the governments of Sweden, France and Germany demand their employers (and employees) pay in taxes, the more they incentive corporate investment and talented labor to move offshore and flee to the likes of Ireland or the United States.

This, in theory, should result in lower economic growth rates for those countries that tax their labor higher. Of course those on the left will never admit such things occur and dismiss such theories as right wing tripe, highlighting Sweden and Norway as examples of socialist success.

But, you guys know me. I'm not much of one for theories. I'm more concerned about data and statistics. Which is why I took the countries in the above chart with the 5 highest tax wedges and compared them to the 5 countries with the lowest tax wedges in regards to economic growth. Specifically their 15 year average GDP growth rates.

Now I know that to be thorough about it, I should really do an average tax wedge over 15 years, run some correlations, etc. etc., but you know something? I'm just too damn lazy. And until somebody from the left cares to do a more thorough job in crunching these numbers to debunk me, I think my case stands.

3 for the Price of 1

Ahh yes, Iowa.

Meat for the Lions

Dear readers, I apologize for the lack of posts, but unfortunately the past several months, particularly the last three weeks have been, quite frankly, the worst days of my life. Not to be sarcastic, nor to collect pity, but just to inform you as to the reason why for the lull in posts.

Anyway, a very brief post as I am working on a much larger post to honor those that have been with me during these darker days.

It's not economics related, but interesting none-the-less. And not to be a Drudge-esque type site, but it's just a link.

http://www.livescience.com/technology/050407_earth_drill.html

Perhaps it is OK to take a break from economics every once in a while.

It’s Not that Complicated People

If you put weight on the end of a see-saw, the other end will go up.

If you let go of a rock atop a cliff, it will fall.

And if you light a match and put it to gasoline, it will ignite.

These common sense things are common sense because they are dictated by physics. Laws that we and everything in the universe must abide by.

And while the study of economics can claim no such simplicity, every once in a while a theory is so proven and so commonsensical that it is for all practical purposes a law and can be treated as such.

What is funny though, is how humans, particularly those of lefter leaning ideologies, refuse to believe these laws and try to some how circumvent them. As if through creative fiscal policy and government programs they can create the scenario of having their economic cake and eating it too. It is quite literally no different than jumping off a cliff and thinking gravity will not apply to you.

But the particular law of economics I have in mind today is one my father would say;

“You don’t work, you don’t eat.”

Or in other words;

“If people don’t work, then there is no production and therefore no wealth.”

You’d think we’d have learned this very important lesson by watching the Soviet Union, Chairman Mao and varied other sorts of communists kill 100 million people and impoverish a billion more. But, ahhh, you so underestimate the ignorance and outright stupidity of the left. For one just has to look at the backlash Gerhard Schroeder suffered from his Hartx IV reforms and to a larger extent the slothful work ethic of Europe in general.

Recently unemployment in Germany reached a post WWII high at 12.6%. Certainly the worst of the European Brady Bunch, but not by much. France and Italy among others are pushing for double digit unemployment as well.

And while the above chart, with its many lines, may be a bit confusing, perhaps this chart from The Economist will make my point a bit clearer.

Again, remember folks, according to the left, our economy was “the worst economy in 50 years” when unemployment was at 6.3%. Yet at the same time they so desperately wish to emulate our European counterparts. Hypocrisy abound.

But what of the second part of the law; there is no wealth. Certainly unemployment itself is bad, but the European model cushions such unemployment and maintains similar standards of living, do they not? Well that could be said for the 16 million Swedes and Norwegians, as for the remaining 500 million Europeans, sadly this is not true. On the average, Europeans have suffered lower standards of living than Americans ever since GDP per capita has been recorded for all said countries. Furthermore, despite having access to the same technology and the $350 billion (translate that into roughly $2 trillion in today’s money) from the Marshall Plan, Europeans, unlike their Japanese counterparts, have failed to catch up. Worse still is the fact that while standards of living have improved, the gap between America and Europe has widened from roughly $5,000 to $8,000.

But then again, don’t listen to me. I’m just some dumb economist who when he’s not staving off the romantic advances of scores of women, he’s just jumping out of trees, running into the bushes and climbing rocks. But you’re going to have a hard time to convince me otherwise that if you pay people not to work (GASP!)

THEY WON’T!