Located here.
Chicks of course still dig motorcycles.
Tuesday, April 07, 2009
Monday, April 06, 2009
Parks for Kids
Let me tell you about "Super Sucker."
Super Sucker was a game me and my siblings came up with that we'd play in the basement of the house during winter. The game entailed grabbing toilet plungers and one of them 50 cent el cheapo balls you can pick up at the grocery store. My brother and sister and I would then don capes made from whatever cloth material we could find and the goal would be kind of a tag like game where we'd whack the ball with the toilet plungers at each other. It was a great game because you could hit that ball as hard as possible at your siblings, beaning them right in the head. We'd run around with our capes flying with no particular rules or structure to the game aside from hitting that ball with the plunger as hard as possible. And when not in possession of the ball, we'd taunt our sibling who had the ball by plunging the plunger on the cement floor of the basement - "PA-THWOP PA-THWOP PA-THWOP." Occasionally we'd hit a line drive right at the drier which would make a loud reverberating "BAUWAWAWAMMMMM" sound, reliably followed by our step dad yelling from upstairs to keep it quiet. That basement, despite it being January, got so hot we were dripping sweat.
Another game we'd play was "Hit." Jayme our neighbor would come over and ask me and my brother if we'd want to play "Hit." All Hit was, was a simplified version of baseball as there was not always enough kids to play baseball in the neighborhood. There would be the hitter and two fielders as the hitter would self-pitch the ball to himself and crank it out as far as it could go. We then upgraded to "Super Hit" where we replaced the baseball with a golf ball and summarily pissed off the neighbors as golf balls have a tendency to fly a little farther and hit cars more frequently than baseballs off an aluminum bat.
A friend of mine played "Hogan's Heroes," a game where his dad would come out, armed only with a flash light and the kids would then have to somehow sneak past him, crossing from the neighbor's yard to the east to the neighbor's yard to the west. If the dad spotted them with the flashlight "Colonel Klink" caught them and would have to be sent back to Stalag 13...only to try to escape again!
The common trait in all these games is that all of them required very little, if not, nothing in terms of capital investment. Super sucker required 3 toilet plungers (our step dad, upon finding out we were using the REAL toilet plunger said, "Oh, for Christ's sake, you're playing with used one!!!????" which capitulated him to buy 3 brand spanking new plungers, oh they were shinny), "Hit" required a bat, a ball and some gloves, and "Hogan's Heroes" required a flashlight. And though, there was not a lot of capital investment in these games, these games were the funnest and most memorable games of our childhoods.
No doubt we all had these games. Some a bit more conventional than others. Sure, "Kick the Can" was a popular one or "Bloody Murderer" was another, neither quite as fun as "Super Sucker," but regardless, all these games were the best freaking games on the face of the planet and all you really required was other people and a mere nano-ounce (pun duly noted) of creativity.
Which brings me to my point today; "Parks for Kids"
Well, it's not really "Parks for Kids" because I can't remember the precise title they gave themselves, but I heard a public service announcement on the now dying AM 1500 that there's this political group or campaign "trying to fight the obesity epidemic" and they want you to donate money or vote for more funding for parks for kids.
And the reason I bring this up is because this is a huge testament to just how pathetic we've become as a society that we now have to have government financed parks to help facilitate "fun" for kids.
It also starkly reminds me of just how quickly people forget what it was like to be a kid. I don't know about you, but truthfully, I never stopped being Calvin from Calvin and Hobbes. I still like to go sledding. I still would SO play a game of Super Sucker. I like watching my Saturday morning cartoons. And I still demand to play video games. About the only REAL difference between my life as a child and my life now is that I smoke and drink and chase after skirts. Alas it seems this fun has to be ordained or organized by government and MUST take place in a "park."
In any case, the larger point is the hypocrisy or inanity in demanding we "pay" for more "parks" to help fight the obesity epidemic.
For one, if you looked at where kids expend the most calories of energy it isn't at the park. It's in their neighborhood where they run and jump and play games like "Hogan's Heroes" or "Hit."
Two, "parks" are SOOOO typical of public schools where the government tries to convince kids with lame and ineffectual campaigns that no kid really believes;
"Hey Kids, it's "cool" to play on the play ground and in the park. Pete the Park Puma says "roar! playing in parks is fun!"
Smoking it's the same thing;
"Hey kids, Phillip the Frog says 'Don't smoke. Ribbit. Smoking is dumb!"
Alas, just like every other government campaign, it isn't working. I see TONS of parks, TONS of baseball diamonds, tons of beautiful volleyball sand courts, all empty, all abandoned. And the only reason I don't avail myself of those empty baseball diamonds is because I can't get enough of my lame ass adult friends to play kickball with me.
But, three, is this outright lie there isn't enough parks. Come on, I see parks all over the place. What kid doesn't have a park within walking distance (and by walking distance I mean that in 1983 terms meaning 5 miles), besides which WHAT KID PLAYS IN A PARK?
And this gets to the heart of the hypocrisy.
NO KID PLAYS IN A PARK.
Kids play with other kids and will make their environment, no matter what it is, the park. They will create and concoct various and unlimited games in whatever environment they have. And when the government or some nerdy, hypocritical non-profit organization, headed up by adults who forgot what it was like to be a kid, give them these sterile, fake, fabricated areas called "parks" no kid is going to use them.
Alas, this drive to "create more parks" is really one of two things;
1. A crusade to give worthless adults something to do with their worthless lives to make them feel like they're making a difference even though they're not.
2. Another excuse to extract money from the productive members of society to the non-productive. Lord know where the "donations" go. To help some middle aged woman repay her student loans for her psychology degree? To some guy who, despite being 48 still wears a pony tail and sits on the "parks and recreation board" because he couldn't land a real job and still lives off his parents' inheritance? Whatever the case, the children (as is typically the case...ahem...cough cough...TEACHERS UNION) are never considered.
In the meantime kids, do what Uncle Cappy Cap says and go buy yourselves some toilet plungers or have dad go buy himself a flashlight.
Super Sucker was a game me and my siblings came up with that we'd play in the basement of the house during winter. The game entailed grabbing toilet plungers and one of them 50 cent el cheapo balls you can pick up at the grocery store. My brother and sister and I would then don capes made from whatever cloth material we could find and the goal would be kind of a tag like game where we'd whack the ball with the toilet plungers at each other. It was a great game because you could hit that ball as hard as possible at your siblings, beaning them right in the head. We'd run around with our capes flying with no particular rules or structure to the game aside from hitting that ball with the plunger as hard as possible. And when not in possession of the ball, we'd taunt our sibling who had the ball by plunging the plunger on the cement floor of the basement - "PA-THWOP PA-THWOP PA-THWOP." Occasionally we'd hit a line drive right at the drier which would make a loud reverberating "BAUWAWAWAMMMMM" sound, reliably followed by our step dad yelling from upstairs to keep it quiet. That basement, despite it being January, got so hot we were dripping sweat.
Another game we'd play was "Hit." Jayme our neighbor would come over and ask me and my brother if we'd want to play "Hit." All Hit was, was a simplified version of baseball as there was not always enough kids to play baseball in the neighborhood. There would be the hitter and two fielders as the hitter would self-pitch the ball to himself and crank it out as far as it could go. We then upgraded to "Super Hit" where we replaced the baseball with a golf ball and summarily pissed off the neighbors as golf balls have a tendency to fly a little farther and hit cars more frequently than baseballs off an aluminum bat.
A friend of mine played "Hogan's Heroes," a game where his dad would come out, armed only with a flash light and the kids would then have to somehow sneak past him, crossing from the neighbor's yard to the east to the neighbor's yard to the west. If the dad spotted them with the flashlight "Colonel Klink" caught them and would have to be sent back to Stalag 13...only to try to escape again!
The common trait in all these games is that all of them required very little, if not, nothing in terms of capital investment. Super sucker required 3 toilet plungers (our step dad, upon finding out we were using the REAL toilet plunger said, "Oh, for Christ's sake, you're playing with used one!!!????" which capitulated him to buy 3 brand spanking new plungers, oh they were shinny), "Hit" required a bat, a ball and some gloves, and "Hogan's Heroes" required a flashlight. And though, there was not a lot of capital investment in these games, these games were the funnest and most memorable games of our childhoods.
No doubt we all had these games. Some a bit more conventional than others. Sure, "Kick the Can" was a popular one or "Bloody Murderer" was another, neither quite as fun as "Super Sucker," but regardless, all these games were the best freaking games on the face of the planet and all you really required was other people and a mere nano-ounce (pun duly noted) of creativity.
Which brings me to my point today; "Parks for Kids"
Well, it's not really "Parks for Kids" because I can't remember the precise title they gave themselves, but I heard a public service announcement on the now dying AM 1500 that there's this political group or campaign "trying to fight the obesity epidemic" and they want you to donate money or vote for more funding for parks for kids.
And the reason I bring this up is because this is a huge testament to just how pathetic we've become as a society that we now have to have government financed parks to help facilitate "fun" for kids.
It also starkly reminds me of just how quickly people forget what it was like to be a kid. I don't know about you, but truthfully, I never stopped being Calvin from Calvin and Hobbes. I still like to go sledding. I still would SO play a game of Super Sucker. I like watching my Saturday morning cartoons. And I still demand to play video games. About the only REAL difference between my life as a child and my life now is that I smoke and drink and chase after skirts. Alas it seems this fun has to be ordained or organized by government and MUST take place in a "park."
In any case, the larger point is the hypocrisy or inanity in demanding we "pay" for more "parks" to help fight the obesity epidemic.
For one, if you looked at where kids expend the most calories of energy it isn't at the park. It's in their neighborhood where they run and jump and play games like "Hogan's Heroes" or "Hit."
Two, "parks" are SOOOO typical of public schools where the government tries to convince kids with lame and ineffectual campaigns that no kid really believes;
"Hey Kids, it's "cool" to play on the play ground and in the park. Pete the Park Puma says "roar! playing in parks is fun!"
Smoking it's the same thing;
"Hey kids, Phillip the Frog says 'Don't smoke. Ribbit. Smoking is dumb!"
Alas, just like every other government campaign, it isn't working. I see TONS of parks, TONS of baseball diamonds, tons of beautiful volleyball sand courts, all empty, all abandoned. And the only reason I don't avail myself of those empty baseball diamonds is because I can't get enough of my lame ass adult friends to play kickball with me.
But, three, is this outright lie there isn't enough parks. Come on, I see parks all over the place. What kid doesn't have a park within walking distance (and by walking distance I mean that in 1983 terms meaning 5 miles), besides which WHAT KID PLAYS IN A PARK?
And this gets to the heart of the hypocrisy.
NO KID PLAYS IN A PARK.
Kids play with other kids and will make their environment, no matter what it is, the park. They will create and concoct various and unlimited games in whatever environment they have. And when the government or some nerdy, hypocritical non-profit organization, headed up by adults who forgot what it was like to be a kid, give them these sterile, fake, fabricated areas called "parks" no kid is going to use them.
Alas, this drive to "create more parks" is really one of two things;
1. A crusade to give worthless adults something to do with their worthless lives to make them feel like they're making a difference even though they're not.
2. Another excuse to extract money from the productive members of society to the non-productive. Lord know where the "donations" go. To help some middle aged woman repay her student loans for her psychology degree? To some guy who, despite being 48 still wears a pony tail and sits on the "parks and recreation board" because he couldn't land a real job and still lives off his parents' inheritance? Whatever the case, the children (as is typically the case...ahem...cough cough...TEACHERS UNION) are never considered.
In the meantime kids, do what Uncle Cappy Cap says and go buy yourselves some toilet plungers or have dad go buy himself a flashlight.
Entrant #6 & #7 - Captain Capitalism's 2009 Annual Chart Contest
Two from the good Major;
Remember to enter yourself too! All charts are welcome! E-mail them to CAPTcapitalism@yahoo.com
Remember to enter yourself too! All charts are welcome! E-mail them to CAPTcapitalism@yahoo.com
KEEP HER!
This is precious.
Spoiled brat Canadian "journalist" betrays the world that gave her every convenience in life and becomes a terrorist BECAUSE IT'S A GOOD STORY!!!!
The terrorists then kidnap her and demand a ransom.
HA HA HA!
Well sweetheart, you just enjoy that "fascinating" culture you were so eager to join.
Who wants to bet there are major issues she has with daddy?
Spoiled brat Canadian "journalist" betrays the world that gave her every convenience in life and becomes a terrorist BECAUSE IT'S A GOOD STORY!!!!
The terrorists then kidnap her and demand a ransom.
HA HA HA!
Well sweetheart, you just enjoy that "fascinating" culture you were so eager to join.
Who wants to bet there are major issues she has with daddy?
Single Moms
OK, look, I mean this sincerely ladies. I'm telling you this to help you. I know in today's world unless it is a positive criticism, then it's just a mean, hate-filled insult that is meant to oppress you. But if you could set aside the brainwashing we all got in the public school system in the 90's, I think we can all graduate to adult here and speak frankly, and thus, most helpfully. I am 33. I teach dance classes. This exposes me to a wide array of women, who I won't deny, are sometimes single, looking and quite attractive. Even if there isn't a young woman roughly my age, there is no shortage of the 40-50 something crowd that is seemingly hell bent on setting me up with a girl. But the problem is 8 out of 10 times the girl they're trying to set me up with already has kids.
And what is surprising is not so much that they have kids, but that those who are trying to do the setting upping, think the fact a woman has kids is irrelevant to whether a man is attractive to another woman or not. So let me put this to rest so that not only you know what course of action to take, but so you understand why men behave the way they do and don't waste any more of your time. Having a child is not a plus in the dating world. It's as simple as that. Does NOT help your market value. You have already made the equation infinitely more complicated than it would have been had you not had the child. And given the volume of people trying to set me up with single mothers, I think it's about time I explain it to you what odds you are going against.
First off, no man really wants to bring up another man's child/ren. You see, it really isn't all about you and your child. I know you think it should be, AND IT SHOULD BECAUSE THE CHILD COMES FIRST (any real man will concede to that), but you see men are just as human as your child. No more, no less. And in being so, if the guy has any self-respect, no guy is really going to consider courting you seriously if you insist he plays second fiddle. I know it's shocking, but men expected to be treated equally too. Secondly, all the men that have been going out and studying and working a hard career and building a name for themselves are not going to go out and look for a single mom. Sorry, it's true. We want a woman that doesn't have kids. We want our honeymoon period where it's just us and the wife. No kids, no nobody, just us and our beloved. Of course that's impossible when you already have kids. I say this not to slam you but to make you realize that the men when they marry a woman really do love that woman to the extent they want to spend their time with them.
Thirdly, and this is what you have to realize because i am really trying to help you, you do not come in with a great resume when you have children, are single, which implies a failed marriaged. ie-you ended up in divorce. Criticize me as you may, it doesn't change the fact that in the back of every man's mind you date he will never get over the fact that you were married at one time, but in the end it didn't work out and you ended up in divorce. Not that you were with another man, but that you divorced him, which means you could just as easily divorce him. And quite frankly ladies, divorce costs men more than it does women. And with a pre-established track record, we are somewhat reluctant to engage in a relationship.
So here's the deal ladies. If you want to date a man, or if you are a woman that is trying to set up another woman to date a man, you have to understand that if you have kids, it is a huge disadvantage. And you can't bark orders or concoct a list of demands and require all men fit that category if you have kids, because they won't. Not because they can't , but because they don't want to. There are many other options out there such as dating a younger woman, going overseas or (as I'm sensing a trend), just stop dating altogether. So if you are single mom and you want to start dating men, then I'd strongly recommend letting the man know that you would view him as an equal and keep the kid praise to a minimum. Not that men are jealous of the children, nor that you shouldn't praise your children, but men are not going to play ball unless they're #1 in your life too. Your children, precious as they are, do not deserve any more attention that what would presumably be the love of your life till death do you part. Think about that the next time you you'd like a date with another fellow human being.
And what is surprising is not so much that they have kids, but that those who are trying to do the setting upping, think the fact a woman has kids is irrelevant to whether a man is attractive to another woman or not. So let me put this to rest so that not only you know what course of action to take, but so you understand why men behave the way they do and don't waste any more of your time. Having a child is not a plus in the dating world. It's as simple as that. Does NOT help your market value. You have already made the equation infinitely more complicated than it would have been had you not had the child. And given the volume of people trying to set me up with single mothers, I think it's about time I explain it to you what odds you are going against.
First off, no man really wants to bring up another man's child/ren. You see, it really isn't all about you and your child. I know you think it should be, AND IT SHOULD BECAUSE THE CHILD COMES FIRST (any real man will concede to that), but you see men are just as human as your child. No more, no less. And in being so, if the guy has any self-respect, no guy is really going to consider courting you seriously if you insist he plays second fiddle. I know it's shocking, but men expected to be treated equally too. Secondly, all the men that have been going out and studying and working a hard career and building a name for themselves are not going to go out and look for a single mom. Sorry, it's true. We want a woman that doesn't have kids. We want our honeymoon period where it's just us and the wife. No kids, no nobody, just us and our beloved. Of course that's impossible when you already have kids. I say this not to slam you but to make you realize that the men when they marry a woman really do love that woman to the extent they want to spend their time with them.
Thirdly, and this is what you have to realize because i am really trying to help you, you do not come in with a great resume when you have children, are single, which implies a failed marriaged. ie-you ended up in divorce. Criticize me as you may, it doesn't change the fact that in the back of every man's mind you date he will never get over the fact that you were married at one time, but in the end it didn't work out and you ended up in divorce. Not that you were with another man, but that you divorced him, which means you could just as easily divorce him. And quite frankly ladies, divorce costs men more than it does women. And with a pre-established track record, we are somewhat reluctant to engage in a relationship.
So here's the deal ladies. If you want to date a man, or if you are a woman that is trying to set up another woman to date a man, you have to understand that if you have kids, it is a huge disadvantage. And you can't bark orders or concoct a list of demands and require all men fit that category if you have kids, because they won't. Not because they can't , but because they don't want to. There are many other options out there such as dating a younger woman, going overseas or (as I'm sensing a trend), just stop dating altogether. So if you are single mom and you want to start dating men, then I'd strongly recommend letting the man know that you would view him as an equal and keep the kid praise to a minimum. Not that men are jealous of the children, nor that you shouldn't praise your children, but men are not going to play ball unless they're #1 in your life too. Your children, precious as they are, do not deserve any more attention that what would presumably be the love of your life till death do you part. Think about that the next time you you'd like a date with another fellow human being.
Mean Duration of Unemployment
Yes, unemployment is up to 8.5% (and WILL break 10%).
Yes, this is going to be one heck of a recession and I'm sticking with my prediction that it will be worse than the Volker Recession, but not as bad as the Great Depression.
But there is another scarier aspect to this recession and that is the duration of unemployment - ie - how long the average person is out of work. And what is particularly disturbing is not so much the actual length (which is almost at an all time high) but rather the trend in how long people stay unemployed. It's going up.
Now there are many plausible explanations, but let me be that rugged, renegade economist who just shoots from the hip and tells you why without bothering to waste his time running correlation coefficients and R-squares and testing for statistical significance and makes off with the scantily-clad girl on his motorcycle while the rest of the quants and policy wonks tweak their outliers and models and tisk tisk me for being so brash;
1. Americans are getting lazier. Again, unlike the republicans blaming the CRA for the economic problems we face today and unlike the democrats blaming "evil corporate America" for all our economic woes, I'm blaming the American people because, in short this whole economic debacle was caused by the simple fact Americans were too lazy to work for what they purchased. You compare the average guy during WWII, fresh back from Europe, HAPPY to have the opportunity to major in engineering and HAPPY to be alive to his modern day "Sam" equivalent that wants everything paid for, well geez, do I really need to statistically prove this? I'm getting on my motorcycle with Bambi the Economist Sex Goddess. Of course this is closely related to...
2. Unemployment benefits. Well, when you pay people for not working, guess what they do? They tend not to work! What's the rush to go back into the job market if everything is going to be paid for. 1/10 on food stamps. Financial help for bailing dead beats out of their mortgages. Free tuition. Energy assistance. Heck, the Captain has a hard time finding reason or rationale in working as does seemingly everybody else. It's called rational behavior.
3. Not so much a reason, but more an observation, the economy is becoming more rigid. If you look at GDP growth it's becoming less and less volatile over time. However, the long term growth has also been decreasing. This is because we Americans cannot suffer 2 successive quarters of economic growth. We will do everything in our power, including undermining our overall, long term economic growth capacity to keep us from going into recession. We'll sell our children and eat horse meat before suffering (GASP) 2 successive quarters of economic decline. Oh sure, over the long run, we will be poorer than otherwise, but hey, we're Americans, we like stability, not success.
The problem, however, in exchanging growth for stability, is that the real world, the real economy doesn't work that way. If you let resources go where they may, freely, yes that free flow of funds will result in more chaotic markets, but you will have resources move faster and more efficiently to their optimal economic purpose resulting in higher economic growth. And yes, if resources are allowed to move freely, you will have sharper and more dramatic increases in unemployment. However, as resources are moved to their optimal purpose stints in unemployment will be shorter (could you imagine how quickly this recession would be over if we just let the damn banks fail and not bothered with this bailout BS?)
But I know, I know. This is not what America wants. They wanted safety, not success. Stability, not excellence. They wanted to be taken care of and didn't care if they were better off in the long run, as long as they were promised a long run. Japan circa 1990's, here we come.
Yes, this is going to be one heck of a recession and I'm sticking with my prediction that it will be worse than the Volker Recession, but not as bad as the Great Depression.
But there is another scarier aspect to this recession and that is the duration of unemployment - ie - how long the average person is out of work. And what is particularly disturbing is not so much the actual length (which is almost at an all time high) but rather the trend in how long people stay unemployed. It's going up.
Now there are many plausible explanations, but let me be that rugged, renegade economist who just shoots from the hip and tells you why without bothering to waste his time running correlation coefficients and R-squares and testing for statistical significance and makes off with the scantily-clad girl on his motorcycle while the rest of the quants and policy wonks tweak their outliers and models and tisk tisk me for being so brash;
1. Americans are getting lazier. Again, unlike the republicans blaming the CRA for the economic problems we face today and unlike the democrats blaming "evil corporate America" for all our economic woes, I'm blaming the American people because, in short this whole economic debacle was caused by the simple fact Americans were too lazy to work for what they purchased. You compare the average guy during WWII, fresh back from Europe, HAPPY to have the opportunity to major in engineering and HAPPY to be alive to his modern day "Sam" equivalent that wants everything paid for, well geez, do I really need to statistically prove this? I'm getting on my motorcycle with Bambi the Economist Sex Goddess. Of course this is closely related to...
2. Unemployment benefits. Well, when you pay people for not working, guess what they do? They tend not to work! What's the rush to go back into the job market if everything is going to be paid for. 1/10 on food stamps. Financial help for bailing dead beats out of their mortgages. Free tuition. Energy assistance. Heck, the Captain has a hard time finding reason or rationale in working as does seemingly everybody else. It's called rational behavior.
3. Not so much a reason, but more an observation, the economy is becoming more rigid. If you look at GDP growth it's becoming less and less volatile over time. However, the long term growth has also been decreasing. This is because we Americans cannot suffer 2 successive quarters of economic growth. We will do everything in our power, including undermining our overall, long term economic growth capacity to keep us from going into recession. We'll sell our children and eat horse meat before suffering (GASP) 2 successive quarters of economic decline. Oh sure, over the long run, we will be poorer than otherwise, but hey, we're Americans, we like stability, not success.
The problem, however, in exchanging growth for stability, is that the real world, the real economy doesn't work that way. If you let resources go where they may, freely, yes that free flow of funds will result in more chaotic markets, but you will have resources move faster and more efficiently to their optimal economic purpose resulting in higher economic growth. And yes, if resources are allowed to move freely, you will have sharper and more dramatic increases in unemployment. However, as resources are moved to their optimal purpose stints in unemployment will be shorter (could you imagine how quickly this recession would be over if we just let the damn banks fail and not bothered with this bailout BS?)
But I know, I know. This is not what America wants. They wanted safety, not success. Stability, not excellence. They wanted to be taken care of and didn't care if they were better off in the long run, as long as they were promised a long run. Japan circa 1990's, here we come.
Saturday, April 04, 2009
Monthly Flows Into Equity Mutual Funds
Ahhh, the hemorrhaging. Monthly flows into (more like OUT OF) equity mutual funds.
Just wait till the Baby Boomers start pulling out of the market for (ha ha ha) "retirement."
Oh, that's right. You think this current little hiccup the economy is having is a "crisis."
Ho ho ho!!!!! Oh, that's rich!
Keep contributing to those 401k's kiddies!
Just wait till the Baby Boomers start pulling out of the market for (ha ha ha) "retirement."
Oh, that's right. You think this current little hiccup the economy is having is a "crisis."
Ho ho ho!!!!! Oh, that's rich!
Keep contributing to those 401k's kiddies!
Sunspots Cause Global Warming
I know this story has been out, but just thought we might want to make a record of it before the feds destroy the story.
Very Good Charts
From a reader, Jeff, these are darn good charts;
http://www.willisms.com/
http://www.optimist123.com/optimist/
http://strata-sphere.com/blog/
http://www.willisms.com/
http://www.optimist123.com/optimist/
http://strata-sphere.com/blog/
Friday, April 03, 2009
Your Weekly Inoculation Against the Recession
Remember, no point in looking for jobs where there ain't any to be found. Might as well kick back, relax and enjoy watching some cartoons from your youth. Besides, it's been proven by Harvard economists that cartoons counter the effects of recession. Additionally, if you are employed, come on, like you have "work" to do. You know you're idle for about 50% of your time, especially if you work in corporate America. So kick back and relax. This is good for ya.
Entrant #5 - Captain Capitalism's 2009 Annual Chart Contest
From Don.
Wish it included 2008, but I am aware the data may not have been compiled as of yet.
Wish it included 2008, but I am aware the data may not have been compiled as of yet.
Thursday, April 02, 2009
Student Loans
Where do I begin with this?
Sam is a recent college graduate who is complaining about having to pay back his college loans. Of course, it is his right to complain, but when you read the article you basically find out that Sam went to a private school he couldn't afford, racked up $115,000 in debt and on top of it majored in a subject that was going to be low paying. Ergo, my thoughts are as follows and I quote;
1. Sam is a freaking moron. WHAT THE EF DID YOU THINK WAS GOING TO HAPPEN SAM????? No doubt you majored in some worthless freaking subject like sociology or art or some other worthless crap AND RACKED UP $115,000 of OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY SAM to pay for it. Did you bother to do some simple math to figure that you wouldn't be able to pay it back? Or was it not even a consideration because you "wanted" to major in crap and therefore all else didn't matter. Which brings me to point 2;
2. Sam is your typical Gen Y greedy, spoiled bitch. How typical of my generation and the (impossible to imagine, but seemingly true) more spoiled Gen Y. "It doesn't matter what reality is, I WANT to major in bunnies and ice cream and cake. AND I WANT YOU TO PAY FOR IT!" Sam thinks he's entitled to a college experience where he gets to strum is acoustic guitar while getting drunk and majoring in a subject that IS A HOBBY and NOT A CAREER CHOICE THAT WILL HELP HIM PAY BACK WHAT HE OWES!
3. Sam, despite being 23, is still a child. To quote him; "Does that mean that I chose to live a life of struggle, wondering how I am going to pay my rent, afford the basics of living and still stay in my chosen career field…all while putting up with high interest rates and an amount of debt that brings me to tears?" Yes Sam, you snivilling little brat, it does. You see, it's called "reality." When you do something stupid, you get to pay the consequences. Oh, but wait, let me guess, you're going to be like all the other sub prime deatbeats out there and corrupt, parasitic bankers out there and DEMAND I bail your worthless, pathetic ass out.
4. Sam is the poster child for "The Mystery." Read the whole thing because it is freaking genius on my part.
5. Sam did not study economics; You see Sam, when little cry babies like you take the money people have lent you and NOT PAY IT BACK, then people are going to be less likely to lend money to students as a whole in the future. This decreases the amount of money supplied which increases its cost, the interest rate. Not only that it makes it harder for REAL students who might major in something that WOULD ACTUALLY HELP ADVANCE THE EFFING COUNTRY get financing for their education. Oh, but then again, it isn't about doing what's right, is it Sam? It's all about your galactically incomprehensible level of ignorance and selfishness.
6. Sam is NOT a REAL man. He is an emasculated childish girl. "brings me to tears?" Oh, somebody make it so I can find this putz in a dark alley. The good news is this coward will never, AND I MEAN NEVER find a hot babe to even glance his way. If he thinks it's tough now, boy, wait till unemployment hits 11%. Sam, just do me a favor, try to keep your tears out of my food when you ask "Do you want fries with that?" That is of course you don't go back to live with your mommy and daddy and have mom tuck you in at night and get you your bottle. Whooozeda mommies wittle boy? Whooozedamommieswittleboy? Yes you are! Yes you are! Youz iz mommies' wittle philosophy major. Yessyouz are! Yesyouzare!!!!
Puke.
7. It is the Sams of the world that will bring about the collapse of America and the fact this even gets play and is treated like a real problem by CNfreakingN only shows you how corrupt, ignorant and brainwashed the masses are and why Sam is NOT just one fruit loop out on the east coast. Oh, sure, I know the Captain isn't a nice man. He's a mean man. An insulting man. A man that hurts people's feelings and displays anger and rage. But let me ask you one question;
Who would you rather have leading the country? The likes of the hate-filled Captain or the Pansified Sams of the world?
ht to GOldwater
Update! - Another snivling whinner.
Entrant #4 to Captain Capitalism's 2009 Annual Chart Competition
I do not believe I posted this before as a chart entrant, but just want to make sure I cover my bases.
Wednesday, April 01, 2009
Enguard, MINX!
Again, because of the horrible economy, I am finding it helpful to not bother working or looking for a job (which isn't there to find anyway) and instead doing what I should have been doing this entire time;
Watching more cartoons! Enguard, minx!
Watching more cartoons! Enguard, minx!
How the Stimulus Will Be Like the Battle of the Bulge
I'm getting the occasional question from my friends about the stimulus and as far as their thinking takes them they cannot but see the stimulus doing at least "something," thereby boosting GDP, lowering unemployment and helping the stock market. Yet at the same time, they intuitively know spending (what are we at now?) $4 trillion to stimulate the economy must have a drawback, if for any other reason if all it takes is stimulus to get the economy going then why don't we "stimulate" ourselves to incomes per capita of $250,000? Ergo let me explain.
Yes, there will be an initial "bump" in economic factors coming from the stimulus if for any other reason it will be on paper. Again, if the government pays one group of unemployed people to dig a ditch $400,000 and another group of unemployed people $400,000 to fill it back up well not only did you lower unemployment, but you've created $800,000 in GDP. Of course, you didn't produce anything of value and have not improved standards of living for the masses, but such minor technicalities does not concern the Obama administration, additionally you should quit being so damn racist for questioning "Him." Regardless, the point is this is only a paper gain, much like the paper gains people had on their houses and Dotcom stocks, they weren't real.
That being said, as we move the beans in this country from one pile to another, this will show up in economic numbers as some kind of production or growth, even though there are no more beans. This "improvement" in these numbers will then help fuel a(nother) sucker's rally in the stock market.
The question though is when does the other shoe drop? When does this charade end?
It doesn't have a definitive end, but rather a long, dragged out end.
You see, all we're doing today is taking money from the future (via borrowing) and spending it on ourselves today. We're taking money from the future in the hopes of giving ourselves an economic boost now to help make that future more vibrant. However, we are achieving the opposite. In borrowing today, yes, we will get that little paper boost, but that's all we'll get. We won't have a brighter economic future, but rather a more burdensome future. All we've done is loaded future generations with additional debt that will slow down the economy. You have to consider it like the conservation of mass law; mass must be maintained. You can't take mass from one entity, put it somewhere else, and then some how that mass "magically" grows. You still have the same amount of mass. The same with economic growth; we've pilfered economic growth in the future to bring it home here today, and the consequences are going to be quite predictable;
Higher average unemployment in the future
Lower productivity (this is more of a criticism of the generation that voted Obama in than a consequence of the stimulus)
Lower GDP growth
Higher average inflation
Ergo, the best way to describe this is the Battle of the Bulge. Hitler had more or less lost the war. The underlying fundamentals of the war had sealed Germany's fate, but Hitler wanted to do one last "hurrah" and make one final, desperate offensive. The problem was, just like this stimulus, it was bound to fail. Germany did not have the resources nor air superiority to make the Battle of the Bulge succeed, just like American does not have the economic wherewithal and work ethic to make good on all the money we're borrowing from babies' mouths and foreigners.
So enjoy the temporary victory while it lasts. The economic Allies known as "reality" will still run us over.
Yes, there will be an initial "bump" in economic factors coming from the stimulus if for any other reason it will be on paper. Again, if the government pays one group of unemployed people to dig a ditch $400,000 and another group of unemployed people $400,000 to fill it back up well not only did you lower unemployment, but you've created $800,000 in GDP. Of course, you didn't produce anything of value and have not improved standards of living for the masses, but such minor technicalities does not concern the Obama administration, additionally you should quit being so damn racist for questioning "Him." Regardless, the point is this is only a paper gain, much like the paper gains people had on their houses and Dotcom stocks, they weren't real.
That being said, as we move the beans in this country from one pile to another, this will show up in economic numbers as some kind of production or growth, even though there are no more beans. This "improvement" in these numbers will then help fuel a(nother) sucker's rally in the stock market.
The question though is when does the other shoe drop? When does this charade end?
It doesn't have a definitive end, but rather a long, dragged out end.
You see, all we're doing today is taking money from the future (via borrowing) and spending it on ourselves today. We're taking money from the future in the hopes of giving ourselves an economic boost now to help make that future more vibrant. However, we are achieving the opposite. In borrowing today, yes, we will get that little paper boost, but that's all we'll get. We won't have a brighter economic future, but rather a more burdensome future. All we've done is loaded future generations with additional debt that will slow down the economy. You have to consider it like the conservation of mass law; mass must be maintained. You can't take mass from one entity, put it somewhere else, and then some how that mass "magically" grows. You still have the same amount of mass. The same with economic growth; we've pilfered economic growth in the future to bring it home here today, and the consequences are going to be quite predictable;
Higher average unemployment in the future
Lower productivity (this is more of a criticism of the generation that voted Obama in than a consequence of the stimulus)
Lower GDP growth
Higher average inflation
Ergo, the best way to describe this is the Battle of the Bulge. Hitler had more or less lost the war. The underlying fundamentals of the war had sealed Germany's fate, but Hitler wanted to do one last "hurrah" and make one final, desperate offensive. The problem was, just like this stimulus, it was bound to fail. Germany did not have the resources nor air superiority to make the Battle of the Bulge succeed, just like American does not have the economic wherewithal and work ethic to make good on all the money we're borrowing from babies' mouths and foreigners.
So enjoy the temporary victory while it lasts. The economic Allies known as "reality" will still run us over.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Dating in America
Yep, that about sums it up.
Though, Pepe Le Pew would get hit with a sexual harassment suit by today's standards.
Ah, amore! Both that and chivalry are dead.
Give Obama a Grade
Looks like MSNBC has a little poll on Obama's performance.
Take the poll, not that it's going to affect what he does.
Take the poll, not that it's going to affect what he does.
Monday, March 30, 2009
Current Account Deficit as a Percentage of GDP
The US of course has some severe economic problems. But on one of my regular economic statistic check ups I noticed that if you contrast the US versus say, Iceland, we don't look so bad (which is like comparing me versus Michael Moore). We are "only" spending 6% more than we make (and I don't think the OECD has updated their stats, this, considering the Federal Budget for 2009 should be more like 12%). Hairs split aside, Norway which has consistently managed a surplus in the teens is like the Daniel Craig of the current account world (I'm just assuming Daniel Craig because all the girls in the Captain's life swoon when you mention his name).
In any case, I predict we'll see a current account deficit in the upper teens before this is all over. Don't worry ladies, the US will look just like you've wanted him to become economically all these years; Michael Moore.
In any case, I predict we'll see a current account deficit in the upper teens before this is all over. Don't worry ladies, the US will look just like you've wanted him to become economically all these years; Michael Moore.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)