Sunday, February 22, 2009

Percent of Students that Major in Engineering or the Sciences

Part of a larger study to ascertain which countries may have a brighter and better future than the US, I found data that allowed me to calculate what percent of students were majoring in engineering or the sciences. The point being of course that "sociology" majors or "journalism" majors don't really advance society or technology at all and are basically hobbies rich, spoiled suburbanite Americans like to major in thinking somehow they'll produce the wealth necessary to support themselves throughout their lives (which they won't).

Alas a good metric to gauge the future productivity of a nation is to measure what percent of the students major in something worthwhile, and thus these statistics from the OECD (2006)

As one would have previously guessed Asian nations score rather high with Korea having over a third of their students majoring in engineering or the sciences. The Scandinavian countries fair rather well, except Iceland which may go a long way in explaining why their country collapsed and others haven't (engineers tend to have enough math skills to know you can't spend more than you earn). Mexico beats out Canada by a wide margin, but Canada is not as bad as the US where only 15% of our students major in something worthwhile.

It's not that difficult to understand that if your country majors in worthless subjects then your future productivity is going to suffer, but the problem you run into is where capitalism has produced so much wealth in the past it affords the masses the LUXURY of majoring in a hobby and not a career.

Alas, fluffy el crapo degrees will be with us for a long time.

Friday, February 20, 2009

Why Obama is a One Termer

Along the lines of the ignorance piece I wrote a while ago, I think the term "trillion" actually may have woken some of the people in the US up to just how severe a problem the US faces and just how much their ignorance is about to cost the US.

Again, the vast majority of my 20 something friends at my bar believe Obama is their savior and will solve this problem. But it is an interesting expression to see on their faces when their savior promises $1.2 trillion of their money to bail out the deadbeats of the US.

You see, TRILLION, kind of registers with the kids. They, despite their public school upbringing, realize that a TRILLION dollars is a lot of money. And even they ask the simple question;

"Well, how are we going to pay for it?"

And thus the thought process that goes down deep into the rabbit hole begins and thus the zygote of a conservative is born.

They are at least smart enough to know that we don't have the money now. And despite failing Econ 101, they know that we're going to have to borrow it. And despite having no knowledge of social security finances, they realize that ultimately it isn't going to be their Baby Boomer parents paying for it. It's going to be THEY who are paying for it.

Thus the expression on their faces.

Like I said before, you can't argue with the ignorant. All you can do is watch them get what they've always wanted and realize just what a hellish nightmare they got themselves into.

The more and more I see what Obama is doing and the more and more I see the young, stupid, ignorant people of this country realize they just got saddled with a $1.2 trillion debt, the more and more I realize Obama is a one termer.

The Price of My Research

As I mentioned before, I was working on a project to calculate and assess which countries would be the "best" countries to move to should the US collapse. Several of you expressed interest in the research, but as also mentioned before I would be charging for it.

Understand this is not because I wish to fleece any one individual, but once research is published it more or less can be copied and sent elsewhere and soon it's effectively free. Additionally, given the most likely corporate users of this information would be banks and financial institutions (banks and financial institutions that got us into this mess and are now taking my tax dollars), I feel an appropriate fee would be $1500 for my report.

Accusing Men of Immaturity Because They Don't Wish to Marry

I tire of these stories because the question of "where have the good men gone" has been answered time and time again, it's just I presume the women don't like the answer they're getting and therefore keep asking it hoping somehow they will get an answer they like (even though it won't be true).

So in a spirit of kind-heartedness I will help out the lost WSJ reporter and hopefully end this needless discussion once and for all (which I probably won't because it won't be the "correct" answer women are looking for.)

Here is an excerpt from the article;



I shall make it bullet-pointy to be succinct and save us time (though, there are a lot of bullet points to make)

  • One, the now never ending common refrain that women now earn the majority of degrees. For the 348th-freaking time it's because you major in easier/worthless subjects. THat's why you earn the majority of degrees, but still make only 76% of what men do. Ironically the reporter has her "masters in English" because even though you've been speaking it for your entire life, you still need to get an advanced degree in it so you speak it "real good."
  • She highlights women's advances in education as proof they are "more mature." Which is the largest erroneous premise of the article. Women are not more mature than men. Just because men play video games and drink and fart and belch, does not mean we are less mature. Maybe by the "female" definition we are, but if we'd follow that we'd all be a bunch of betas no girl would want to date. Being mature is supporting ourselves - not rushing out to propose to a girl and start making babies. Just because we can support ourselves on less money than you can, does not make us less mature. Matter of fact, it makes us MORE mature because we are being fiscally responsible living in dumps we can afford instead of insisting on living in Uptown and buying fancy clothes and cars and appletini's we can't afford.
  • Did you hear of this "divorce fad" going around? Apparently it was started by the baby boomers and CONTINUES TODAY. Not to mention a lot of the 20 something men who aren't "mature" enough to get married tomorrow REMEMBER THEIR PARENTS GETTING DIVORCED AND ARE A LITTLE GUN SHY
  • Did you hear about this "divorce fad" going around? Apparently the rate of divorce didn't drop with Gen X or Gen Y either.
  • Did you hear of this "divorce fad" going around? Apparently men get to pay out the majority of the time be it alimony or child support.
  • Did you hear about this "divorce fad" going around? Apparently 65% of the time it's women who initiate divorce.
  • Feminism and feminists are not sexy. When you say, "well I consider myself a feminist, but don't mind staying at home and being a good wife" all the guy heard was "well I consider myself a feminist blah blah blah blah blah." The term has been tainted by its "profession" to represent something that is not pro-woman at all. DO NOT CLAIM TO BE ONE. It will send the men running.
  • Kids cost around $500,000 each to raise. given employment prospects we can't afford that. Much rather buy a boat or frankly work all that much less.
  • Hey, you hear about this federal budget deficit and debt? Apparently we elected this guy "Barack Obama" and a bunch of democrats into office who are now mortgaging the future. This means our expenses in the future will be higher. Well, of course us "foolish, immature, pooping, farting boys" were too "immature" to vote for him like you wise women, but then again we're too busy flinging poo at each other to ponder the future macro-economic ramifications of a collapsing dollar.
  • Hey, you hear about this social security medicare thing? Apparently enough "smart wise women" disproportionately kept voting for democrats to essentially have those immature 20 something men pay for the livelihood for these aging people. This added expense on our futures make's it that much harder economically to commit to a wife and children.
  • Hey, you hear about this "welfare state" "medicaid" thing? Apparently enough "smart wise women" disproportionately over the years voted in enough democrats to essentially replace the role of fathers with government programs making fathers not only unnecessary, but an increasingly risky and unrewarding proposition, not to mention, making it easier for women to just up and leave their husbands, because well, "they needed to find themselves" and the government will take care of the kids while they go pursue their EPL fantasy.
  • Hey, if I'm not going to be a father, then what incentive to I have to "grow up?"
  • Hey, did you hear about this "welfare state" thing? Apparently because we've now outsourced bringing up children to the government and have to create government jobs for all the "sociology majors" and "education majors"and "communications majors" our tax bill will go through the roof. Oh! Wait!!! No it doesn't! I forgot! I'm a guy! I can live on very little, work a crappy job, work part time, live in a crappy apartment with my buds and STILL have enough disposable income to play video games and buy booze.
  • Sex in the City? Not sexy. Tell them you watch "Hogan's Heroes" instead.
Then we have much more succinct, non-socio-political explanations;
  • The drama and BS men have to suffer from 14-25ish or so drives them into the arms of X-Box 360, the chums and booze.
  • The risk/return of known factors such as friendship, a cheap living, fishing, booze, video games, and just the plan damn freedom that comes with it, HEAVILY outweighs any potential returns we'd get from spending time pursuing women.
  • There is no risk of having a dog, a gaming console, friends or a poker game. There is a risk of having a wife and a child.
  • Girls, in general, are completely unaware of the fact that men are 1/2 the equation. No consideration is given as to what men might want in a relationship (read her article again)
  • In general, men and their traditional roles have become deprecated and are no longer needed for society. Therefore some may commit suicide, but most will opt to enjoy a simpler, easier self-serving life while we're here.
So to summarize all the bullet points:

In short you have made a life of bachelortude and singledom more attractive an option (economically, socially and romantically) than marrying you.

You may not "like" that answer. It may even make you angry. But it is the truth.

So can we now please stop it with the "where have all the good men gone" schtick?

Thank you, and as always, enjoy the decline.

Thursday, February 19, 2009

Happy Birthday to Me!

Tis my birthday today and I fully intend to spend it playing video games, working out and achieving pretty much nothing. That is my gift to me.

However, when the female members of my crew asked me what I wanted for my birthday I sat and thought about it and said, "You know, I would love a calendar of you girls. I want you girls (there's about 7 of them) to put together a calendar of yourselves for me, but posing in somewhat risque and provocative poses."

There was hemming

hawing

blushing

laughing

and just outright refusal

Which hurt the poor Captain's feelings because apparently NOOOOBODY loves the Captain. Captain's best female friends, who presumably in being his friends would have his best interests at heart, but oh, no. No, no slightly sexy calendar for the Captain.

So, if I can't get my female friends to put together a nice little calendar for me, perhaps I can get my readers to at least send me photos of yourselves (not sexy photos, just normal photos).

Again, much as I like the blog, it is a bit impersonal when all you get are posts, but you don't get to see who it is. Dennis Prager also does this as he insists that if you are going to send him mail, send him a photo of yourself. It makes it much more personal.

My inevitable goal would to create a collage of all the Cappy Cap readers out there and then put it above my desk. That would be a really cool and great birthday present! And if any of the female fans of Cappy Cap were to perhaps send the poor Ole' Captain some rather racy photos, who is going to complain?

In any case e-mail your mugshots to;

CAPTcapitalism@yahoo.com

Go, do it now! Now! Quick! Go! Do!

(Notice it's CAPTcapitalism, not CAPTAINcapitalism. It will go to another guy and he will wonder why the hell he's getting all these weird photos of people.)

PS - I like dogs, if you have a picture of you with your dog that would be really cool!

Wednesday, February 18, 2009

Oh You Idiot

Yes, just "print off more money."

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say;

Contracting GDP

+ Mucho more money

= Much more inflation

Tuesday, February 17, 2009

Maybe You Should Move to Canada

I put together a study.

And the purpose of the study was to calculate which countries would be the best to move to as the US becomes "progressively" more sucky (pun intended). However unlike most of my other research, I opted not to publish my findings in that, frankly, I get sick and tired of doing brilliant work and not getting paid for it, so if anybody wants the results they get to pay.

That being said, to help out those of you in America who are becoming "progressively" more worried the US is a sinking ship, never fear, there is an alternative; Canada.

Yes, Canada, the "socialist, semi-skilled at hockey" country to our north. The one we mock for being a European socialist state in the western hemisphere. The whipping boy and butt end of many jokes for generations of Americans.

Yeah, that country, the one that's about to kick our ass.

Laugh as you might, but though it is not the "ideal" country, it does rank in the top 25% of countries I calculated as superior alternatives to the United States. And by superior, I mean superior.

First allow me to post some statistics and then go over them briefly;


First you have the corporate tax rate. Oh sure, not a big advantage, but a large enough advantage it behooves the question, why havn't American firms been fleeing north to set up corporate HQ's? I mean if they're going to endure constant negative media coverage, an ignorant villianization of their existence, why suffer a 39.5% tax rate when you can suffer a mere 33.5% tax rate.

Oh, and did I mention they have nationalized health care? That may not seem like an advantage to us die hard capitalists, but for a corporation that would cut IMMEASURABLY MUCHO on their labor costs as they no longer have to pay health care insurance. So lower corporate taxes, plus savings of roughly 1/3 on labor, all the while still having the benefits of a modern, English speaking economy geographically close to their market. Please, somebody tell me why corporations haven't fled to Canada yet?

Second, corruption. I opined earlier that the US' corruption index would collapse under all the corruption, sleaze and parasitic scum buckets ranging from everybody like big fish like Bernie Madoff to the millions of smaller scumbucket fish like the investment banking, blue blood, bulge bracket nepotist and cronyists who got their jobs because of daddy and not because of skill, but forget that. Even ignoring that likely collapse, Canada is already significantly less corrupt. 8.7 vs. a 7.2. Why deal with a bunch of criminals in institutions such as the government, corporations, your employer or your educational institution when you can have significantly less crime in the institutions of Canada? It's not like we're Somalia, but give it time.

Third, government deficits as a % of GDP. Never mind that the OECD data I pulled for the US is already outdated as Obama just sign the "F#ck America over" bill which puts the real government deficit closer to 10% GDP. Let's just "hope" it stays at the previously OECD projected 5.2%. Whether it's 5.2% or 10%, it's a many-multiple of the insignificant .5% deficit the Canadians are racking up.

Fourth, and what does the fiscal recklessness that causes deficits culminate into? Why the national debt.

Yes, the national debt!

"Sick and tired of having to pay for what you want to consume? Why then just borrow it from future generations by saddling (and screwing them over) with the national debt. All you have to do is vote for socialists who couldn't balance their check books as mommy and daddy paid for their philosophy degree in college, who inevitably ended up in politics, because, well, that's where true scum bags with no skill end up. Slavery isn't dead! It's just deferred! Vote for the national debt!"

Apparently the Canadians (and I know, this sounds crazy) don't hate their children nor their grandchildren. Apparently they seem to have this thing called "fiscal austerity" or "fiscal discipline." Because they've ran smaller deficits, they naturally have smaller debts. Their national debt is only 22% GDP while ours is 52% (oh, and yeah, that doesn't include the debt the genius "stimulus" package just saddled us with).

So you can either forever serve in servitude to pay for the "Great Society" and social security and medicare (because that form of slavery is OK), or you can move and not be so indebted.

Fifth (or as Dave Chappelle says, "fif") corroborating their fiscal austerity and their remarkable ability to maintain the simple 3rd grade level concept of spending within their means, it is not just the government that seems to balance the books, but the people in general. The current account deficit, though a deficit, is only 1.8% of GDP compared to the US' 4.4% (again, Obama, socialists, stimulus, not adjusted, more like 10% GDP, etc. etc., never mind). Yes, not a surplus, but 1.8% versus what in reality will be closer to 11% in the US, where would you rather be.

And finally, six, that whole thing about "Canadians are taxed WAY more than the US!"

Oh really?

You see the ideal measure of the tax rate is government spending as a percent of GDP. In that revenues don't really matter since spending, not matter if you pay for it with borrowed money or current tax revenues has to be repaid with future taxes. I've mentioned this before, but for all practical purposes, the US and Canada have the same effective tax rates, both roughly 39%. At least in Canada you get "free" health care (and I know how weak that argument is, but just to goad the left).

Now there are many more measures in my little study, and these are just some of the main ones, but the question is the same I posed about Iceland. Why doesn't the Harper government just take advantage of the economic crisis in the US and simply pilfer and poach the most productive citizens from the US?

It's not like those hard working people who toiled and strived and saved every penny to pay their mortgage dutifully and on time have any more allegiance to the US. Certainly not after we've just bailed out every sub prime dead beat, and sub prime bank/banker that caused the crash. It's not like the responsible, productive citizens in the US are looking forward to financing the $1.2 trillion in future spending Obama used as a payoff to bribe all the masses into voting for him or bailing out the Peggy Josephs of the world. They're have to be treated just like any other human being and any other consumer; They're looking for a fair and just place to live where they can excel and keep the majority of what they've earned. And if Harper was smart, or heck, just all Canadians were smart, they'd realize the world's most productive talent is looking elsewhere. They'd realize a country is only as great as its people. They'd realize that if they could snatch away all the productive and creative labor in the US, they would have an economic engine that would not only transfer the REAL economic productivity from the US, but would basically inoculate themselves from any depression the US might have. Additionally the conservatives would bolster their ranks as the new immigrants would most certainly vote conservative, basically reproducing the opposite of what leftists in the US do as they try desperately to give illegal aliens the right to vote here in the US.

In any case, I know this is outlandish, it's crazy, and nobody is going to listen to it. But when your GDP is contracting by 12% because you're too closely tied to this Titanic known as the US, then you might just think about poaching some of that there talent from the US, and the talent from the US might just think about jumping onto another ship....despite the severe lack of any real good hockey teams.

;P

Wizard of Idma

Had this forwarded to me and it's a cute little joke.


However, what I like about it is how it is so simplistic, yet fully explains why communism or socialism fails in the long run. Understand that the left likes to make things so complicated or seem so difficult or complex that "you really just don't get it do you? That's alright, it's difficult to understand, don't worry about it, that's why we have government officials working on it." When in reality, no, it is that simple and can be simply explained away. If people are paid not to work, then why would they? And if nobody's working, then where's all the wealth and goods going to come from? And "is that a bread line I see over there in 1980's Russia?"

Additionally, understand that this cartoon is really nothing more than a "bumper sticker soundbyte."

You see these everyday;

"You can't hug a child with nuclear arms."

Or

"Clinton lied, no one died"

and other extra-inane comments that earn their inanity in not just being hypocritical about what they're critiquing, but thinking somehow genuinely complex matters like the war on terror can be simplified or settled with a 5 word bumper sticker (usually the more bumper stickers the more moronic the people are).

However, this cartoon, despite being a "bumper sticker soundbyte" does destroy socialism. Not because it's genius (it's simple), but because socialism is so flawed. If an ideology can actually be defeated by a bumper sticker, then what kind of an ideology is it? Of course, when the masses are brainwashed to such a level of ignorance and stupidity, any ideology stands a chance, but that still doesn't change the fact that when something simple like a cartoon or bumper sticker can pose an unassailable argument against an ideology, then it is flawed.

Sunday, February 15, 2009

Ignorance

I go to my bar in my town (yes, I own it all), and at my bar in my town are my friends. Friends I've become acquainted with over the years since I escaped the overly taxed city for the superior suburbs.

Now as the majority of my friends work at my bar, they are a bit younger than me. Typically in their mid to late 20's, I commonly am the butt end of age jokes and am frequently challenged to drinking contests at after bars. However, because I am older and actually bought my house in my town and don't live with my folks or have a heavy subsidy, it is by default that naturally I'm about the only conservative in the group and this has not gone unnoticed.

Alikening me to Alex P. Keaton, my younger friends joshingly picked on me and mocked me for always bringing a laptop into the bar, writing my book at the bar, doing taxes, not getting hammered every night, not buying a fancy car, etc. etc. But above all else, I'm the only one that didn't vote for Obama.

So it happened one night I'm sitting there, a couple of the guys are at the bar, talking to Tim the bartender and the news is on. The news of course is on the dire state of the economy, the failed bailout and failing stimulus package. Rob, a trust fund kid with a heart of gold, but the economic knowledge of a brick turns to me and says, "See what you're president did?"

All of them agreed with Rob, it was George Bush's fault and conservatives fault that this economic crisis happened. It was under GW's watch this occurred and ergo must be his fault.

And it is here that I get so enraged at the egregious level of ignorance in this country that all I can do is futilely look up into the sky, for what is my rage going to do? There is nothing I can do.

So allow me to explain a couple things here so that if you are younger, or perhaps you have to deal with such ignorance, you are well informed about exactly how this economic crisis came about and where to place your blame.

George Bush and the Republicans are not to blame for this economy.

And contrary to what you might think I don't blame the Democrats, Barney Frank or the CRA either (they are if anything partially to blame, but the numbers just don't show that the CRA was the main factor in this housing crash).

It is the (are you ready?)....

AMERICAN PEOPLE WHO ARE TO BLAME

I know for small or younger, undeveloped minds they like things in neat, orderly, simple to understand packages, but the problems of this $14 trillion (soon to be $12 trillion) economy were, for once, not caused by the government. It is the American people and their spoiled-rotteness that are to blame. To believe that they are entitled to spend like the federal government and live beyond their means is what got us into trouble. To borrow more than you are ever capable or working off, and on the order of trillions of dollars is what got us into trouble. It is the simple fact that a critical mass of people simply did not pay back their loans like the promised and that is why we're in the trouble we're in now.

Now I don't know how people get to the conclusion that it was the "Republicans" fault or the "democrats" fault, but for God's sake, if the economy is that important to you and the future of the nation is that important to you, and that you hated George Bush so much that you volunteered your time to the Obama campaign, could you at least get off your fat, intellectually lazy ass and, I don't know, STUDY THE FREAKING SH!T?! Like instead of just going with your feelings and not bothering to expend one calorie of energy on thought or research, maybe think about it a bit and read up on it? I don't know, maybe even (gasp) LOOK UP SOME STATISTICS!???

And it is here where I have the problem with ignorance. It's not assailable. It's not changeable. It's not within my power, no matter how superiorly informed and educated I may be about the topic, to change these peoples minds or to get them to think. Ignorance is this amazingly destructive and destroying disease that is immune any logic or sanity. And pound away all you want at a skull that is ignorant, you're not getting through. That skull has decided what the reality of the situation is and no amount of "facts" or "reality" will change it. You're just a "meanie republican." You're just "oh, that crazy ole economist who brings his laptop into the bar." Never mind you wrote the damn book on the topic, never mind you predicted this was coming, never mind you worked in the industry and have the experience and knowledge to explain it all in detail, no, you're that "nerdy Alex P. Keaton." It would be like me explaining to them how to be a bartender when I've never tended a bar in my life. It's the same having a 24 year old waiter, who never went to college, filed for bankruptcy explain economics to me. It's amazing how ignorance impairs.

Alas, as I've said before, there's nothing one can do aside from two things to fight ignorance. One is simply not to fight it. Just let their ignorance lead them down a path not founded in reality and they'll soon have a rude awakening as to why they're still a bartender or a waitress at 50 (this is not to wish ill will upon my friends, but rather to ensure they have a more productive life than that by warning them not to take that path) or worse they'll live in a socialist nation. The other is to bet them. I personally like this approach because it immediate forces the ignorant to think because now you've demanded they risk money on their beliefs or philosophies. They actually stand to lose something and can no longer treat things like economics, politics or whatever as an indifferent hobby. They have to (I don't know) treat it like a great and important responsibility as if they were a citizen in a democracy?

Regardless, the moral of the story is you can't get excited or angered over people's ignorance. It isn't worth the blood pressure. Nothing you can say or do is going to undo years of brainwashing by the public schools and the media's highlighting of Barack Obama's pecks. 23 year old female psychology majors will always pick Obama's pecks over your chart that correlates government spending as a percent of GDP vs. RGDP growth, no matter how right your chart may be.

So capitalists, conservatives, libertarians and other varied sorts of free marketers, just sit back and relax and let the liberals have their day. There's nothing you can do about it, and about the best thing to do would be for us to just quit so that when this all comes crashing down and results in a collapsed, desperate nation we can show the masses our clean hands and say, "See, we told you so and we have nothing to do with it."

In the meantime, if anybody blames Bush or the Republicans for this debacle, just show them the video below;



But, don't say I didn't warn you about the knee jerk reaction "Well that comes from Fox News, so that's biased and doesn't mean anything."

Uncle Jay Explains the Stimulus

Wow, Jay bars no holds against Obama.

Don't Trade With E-Trade

I like to dispense advice that helps people.

A lot of it goes unheeded. Things like;

"We should not make any more real estate loans."

Or

"X-Box Sucks"

Or

"Iceland should become a tax haven if it wants to get out of its economic crisis."

But while I cannot get entire governments or entire banking corporations to do what I say, perhaps I can get a couple individuals to save themselves the pain and agony of dealing with ETrade.

I had a small online account with E-Trade. Waiting patiently, biding my time for the bottom to hit, I was in no rush to trade and had a little cash built up.

I went online to see how the few stocks I had in the account were doing and saw a $40 "fee."

Apparently I'm not the only one this has happened to. Students of mine have also complained about this where if you don't trade once a month or something, you get charged a fee.

I called up the customer service guy, read him the riot act and closed my account.

And though I am not Drudge Report or anything like that, perhaps Etrade and other financial servicing firms out there who have decided to pad their wallets with hidden "fees" will think twice before screwing individuals over.

Who knows, they may even embrace a business model that SERVES THE CUSTOMER!

Ho ho! Now I'm getting loopy. A US finance firm that doesn't screw over the public.

Friday, February 13, 2009

Kindle

I have what I estimate to be three readers who are rather adamant about my book be available on kindle. However, happy day fellow Kindle readers;


If you really want it on Kindle, now you can click on the link and let Amazon know!

As for the rest of you who were going to help me beat Pelosi in book sales, come on, let's get crackin'!

French Maid, Naughty Nurse, Dirty Librarian/Teacher, Catholic School Girl, Corporate Exec, Beer Frau Outfits

It is good to clean.

And because I am without a day time job, I decided to embark on a huge cleaning project. And not one of them cleaning projects where you clean the house, I'm talking one of those massive and thorough cleaning projects where you open up all those old boxes that have never been opened over the past three moves and organize all the crap that's in them while you scan cards and photos on top of the dusting and the Windexing and the laundry. One of "those" cleanings.

But an often unrealized benefit to this massive cleaning is that when you unpack these boxes you see all the mementos and keepsakes from as far back as a decade ago. You get to see where you were back 10 years ago, and even more importantly perhaps, through letters and e-mails what you were thinking.

I uncovered one such letter. A letter I had literally forgotten about, but once I started reading it, I remember specifically why I had saved it. I wanted to keep proof or evidence as to my sanity when it came to my decision about dealing a young lass from about 5 years ago or so. For you see I, as I'm sure many of you are, am quite hard on myself and unless I save documents, letters, notes, my brain has a tendency to blame myself as history goes on. But knowing this, I specifically saved this letter so if my future self ever started doubting himself this would starkly remind him he was in the right.

I'm not going to post the whole letter here, just an excerpt, because I think as Valentine's Day is tomorrow an important lesson can be learned. And that is a lesson in how the golden rule applies to relationships. The excerpt is as follows;

Of course, right now, every guy is saying "Sounds like heaven to me!"

Child free.

Retired early.

Sipping martinis

Playing X-box

In a warm climate

Whilst being served by your gorgeous, scantily clad wife.

It really doesn't get any better than that.

However, as you notice, the lass who wrote this found this revolting, oppressive even.

Now here is where I think a fair amount of women (and a couple of guys too) can learn a lesson in love, though, no doubt some women out there already know where I'm going with this;

There is a man in a relationship. It ain't all about you. And that man is just as much part of the relationship as you are.

Of course we consciously or "factually" know this, but I wonder whether some women out there intuitively know this. Of course you're not going to be scantily clad 24/7. Of course you're not going to be serving martinis to your husband/boyfriend 24/7. But why wouldn't you want to do this occasionally, let alone find it repulsive and oppressive?

It is here the golden rule must be applied. Do unto others as you'd have them to you. And though I am just a lowly captain, it seems to me that the point of being in a relationship is to make that other person happy.

For example, your beloved Captain may be courting a young lass as we speak. The Captain does not like cleaning. The Captain does not like laundry. The Captain does not like going grocery shopping (this the Captain REALLY doesn't like because it takes so damn long to find tomatillos, and he could have just as easily gone to Chipolte in 1/10th the time to get food, but no she wanted tomatillos).

HOWEVER

Because the Captain's lass is working during the day time, has a busy schedule and (pay attention now) BECAUSE THE CAPTAIN LIKES HER he does not find it degrading, oppressive or beneath him to do the laundry. Or to do the dishes. Or to clean for her. It makes him happy knowing he's eased her life a bit. The Captain also works out and stays in shape, not a particularly exciting thing running on a tread mill and lifting weights, but presumably the girl doesn't want to date some fat, slobby schlep.

Now while men cleaning is not the same as a woman in a French maid outfit, they are two sides of the same coin. It doesn't matter whether you "like" dressing up for your husband, it doesn't matter if you "like" to cook a good meal, it doesn't matter if you "like" the act of fixing him a drink, all that matters is if you like him. And if you like him these "chores" are just part of the relationship just as a man SHOULD be cleaning up occasionally or fixing you dinner (or in the case of an utter lack of cooking talent, taking you out for dinner).

Ergo, ladies, women, and economists of the female persuasion, lend me your ears!

Just buy the damn outfit.

It's Valentine's Day and as any happily married woman will tell you the outfits score BIG points.

Now since the dawn of time men have been debating which are the best outfits. And after many years of studying, research, calculations, and field tests we have conclusive proof which are indeed the best outfits. They are as follows and ranked accordingly;

1st - French Maid
2nd - Naughty Nurse
3rd - Dirty Librarian/Teacher
4th - Catholic School Girl
5th - Corporate Executive
6th - Beer Frau (preferably with beer)

If you don these outfits come tomorrow, it cannot but help your relationship forever.

However, there is one final benefit to sexy little outfits and making your man happy, and I've alluded to this before. You are actually doing some community service in that you are doing your part to help stimulate the economy. I don't care what Barack Obama says about his $900 stimulus package, a legion of American women in French Maid outfits would stimulate the economy 10 times more. And I mean that sincerely, I really am not joking, it would.

So yes, do it for your boyfriend. Do it for your husband. And do it for your relationship. But also, be a patriot. Do it for America!

Kim Jong Il E-Harmony



In response to the end;

Don't worry, Obama will fix it.

ht

Thursday, February 12, 2009

Explaining Video Games to Women

Yep, that about sums it up.

All hypersensitive complaints about me being sexist and a misogynist will be summarily ignored.

Wednesday, February 11, 2009

How to Solve Iceland's Problem

Here's a funny story.

Your captain, out of a combination of sheer curiosity, boredom and outlandish hope, sent an e-mail to the commerce department of the Icelandic government asking if they'd be interested in a quick fix for their economy.

What's even funnier is my idea would have worked.

And I don't mean that in a cocky, arrogant way. I meant that in a sincere way. One year and the Icelandic government's and Icelandic peoples' problems would be a thing of the past. The solution was so simple it was brilliant.

But like many other ideas I've had, they made so much sense and were so simple that when they were pitched to such brainwashed, automatonic dolts in management they were deemed too revolutionary, too simple and too outlandish (of course such "crazy" ideas including things like scanning documents in instead of spending hours filing the physical worthless paper, suggesting there was a Dotcom Bubble and maybe, just maybe we might want to do absorption studies for real estate, but again, "crazy" "outlandish" "unconventional.")

So I was always faced with a paradox. When it inevitably came to me leaving a firm (either willingly or forcefully) when they did an exit interview and asked why I was leaving, I wondered to myself, should I;

"A - Tell them why they're a bunch of effing retards, show them their weaknesses and explain to them how they could improve their efficiency and productivity

or

B - Shut up and be quiet in the fear that if I did tell them what was wrong and why I was leaving, there would be that infinitesimally small chance they'd actually listen and implement the changes, effectively getting hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of consulting without actually having to pay for it."

What I inevitably found out is that the skull of management is so thick you could with a sun powered LCD projector burn a power point presentation into their brains and they still wouldn't get it. The legions of management are so numb to new and revolutionary thought, they are condemned to obsolescence and being replaced by new start up firms (see Napster).

With that in mind I've decided to explain my solution to the Icelandic financial crisis not in the hopes anybody over there would listen (because they won't), but to have on record some dumb "crazy" economist had an idea that would have saved those poor Icelanders decades, if not scores of economic pain and suffering.

The idea, as I said was simple;

Lower your corporate and personal income taxes to zero and become a tax haven.

The low taxes, along with a geographic location between the United States and Europe would attract billions, if not trillions in new investment, capital and corporate headquarters resulting in an economic boom. Not to mention Iceland could pilfer the talents of all the advanced countries in the world who are basically being held hostage paying 50% taxes in their current countries. Poaching the productive talents from the other nations would only increase the future productive capacity of Iceland and make the current financial woes of 200,000 people look petty by comparison.

But like I said, such brilliance will only fall on deaf ears.

And the Names Are??????

I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess their names are more of the Mohammed strain than the Bruce strain.

Oh, and what's this? Green policies costing lives? Well, that's only because nature is more important than human lives. If you don't understand that, well then you're an ignorant, racist, mother earth-hater.

Update, just a matter of time.

I Project Unemployment to Break 10%

Figured it was time to refresh a favorite chart of mine which previous quants and economists berated me about, claiming it had no predictive value and that chart is housing starts versus unemployment.


Again, I like this chart because housing starts predict unemployment. So when housing starts tank, unemployment usually peaks 6-18 months later. A banker buddy of mine was asking me when I think unemployment will peak and I said, "Well, based on this chart we have at least another 6 months to go. If you notice the peak of unemployment happens 6-18 months AFTER housing starts BOTTOM OUT. We haven't bottomed out yet."

Now, given the severity of the financial problems the US is having, not to mention everybody has chartered the government with the job of getting the country out of recession, and the fact housing has tank to its LOWEST POINT ON RECORD and HASN"T STOPPED TANKING YET, I'm going to project unemployment will continue to skyrocket EASILY surpassing 10%.

The recession is just starting people. And with the spendulus, get ready for it to drag on and on and on and on, just like those good ol' New Deal Days!

Oh, but I'm sure we're OK with that. We got ourselves one good looking president and have assuaged ourselves of white guilt! I'm sure that's worth destroying the US economy!

The Only Good Che

Is a dead Che.


Happy day!

Tuesday, February 10, 2009

Movies that Most Frequently Use the F Word

So I am currently watching Midnight Run, which is my second favorite movie of all time. Great movie. If you have not seen it, you cannot get into heaven, because those are the rules. So get cracking.

Regardless, it stars Robert DeNiro and the F word comes up, oh, about every 3 seconds.

So I thought this has got to be the most Fword-induced movie in the history of man.

Typity type on the internet and low and behold....it isn't.

F Word Usage in Movies

Matter of fact, it's rather lowly ranked.

Surprisingly, the movie with the most frequent use of the F word is the movie "Fuck."