For the Cheap Seats

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

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

Alas why I fish and play video games.

I Thank Thee, Bernanke

for helping contribute to all my dollar-short positions.

Enjoy the decline!

Hurray for Chile!

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

oh wait.

ht

Why America Hates Tony Stark

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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




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

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

Enjoy the decline!

Die WORTHLESS DEGREES! DIE!!!

Heh heh.

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

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

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

I guarantee you that they would list things like;

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

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

ht

Work Smarter, Not Harder...Or Else

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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






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

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

The Difference Between GDP and Utility

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

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

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

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

ht

The Affirmative Action President

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

In short it shows the hypocrisy of the left.

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


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

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

Looking for a Bubble

Cripes.



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

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

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

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

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

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

Pour yourself a martini and enjoy the decline.

Franny Armstrong 2

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

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

Immediately the Cappy Capites went out and found out that.

1. Zoology
2. Correct.

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

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

rent
food
clothing
shelter
gas

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

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

Enjoy the Decline!

Heh heh.

So how's the Keynesian stimulus working for ya?

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

Enjoy the decline!

Why Most People Go Galt

As you know I have gone Galt.

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

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

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

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

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

Franny Armstrong

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

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

"What Can the Captain Guess?"

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

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

Am I right?

Missing the Boat

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

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

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

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

He found her.

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

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

Understand, this was the only hiccup.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

She found it not only revolting, but insulting.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Being alpha and being beta ARE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE.

A man CANNOT be both alpha and beta.

You get one or the other.

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

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

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

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

ht to the notifiers of this article.

No Pressure

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

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

Black Markets Form in the Funniest Places

This is not meant to be a crass subject, but because of the nature of the subject, I am giving you fair warning.

The short version is this;

Since Britain has made it possible for women to sue sperm donors for child support (surprise, surprise) the supply of sperm has run out forcing women to look for donors via a brand-new black market. Ah, the undefiable laws of economics.

The official version is this.

The very crass interpretation and hat tip (don't tell me I didn't warn you) is this.

The Economics of Courtship - Part 1 - The Two Tiered Market

I've decided that much of romance, courting, marriage, blah blah blah, seems to confuse a lot of people on both sides of the dating game. And I'm only half-jesting when I say this, but just some basic economics goes a long way in explaining the different phenomena we see in the courting/dating world. And it is because of this, I've decided to write a yet-to-be-determined number of pieces of the economics of courtship in that I've already come up with three and thought it might be worth writing about.

Today's topic is the "Two Tiered Market."

I cannot claim to have been the original observer of this phenomenon, it may have been Roissy, but it I think it was somebody perhaps a little less visceral (if anybody knows, please send the link my way), regardless, it was the observation that women in their late 20's to about their 40's believe or associate sex with marriage. Or, more specifically, that if they have sex with a man, they believe that is a representation or a proxy for his level of interest in marriage.

Now, again, when we delve into the courting world there are no databases, there are no records kept and so it largely goes based on anecdotal evidence and experience, but I would say not ALL women obviously fall for this, but some certainly do. So as a favor to them, not to mention codify this theory, permit me you this graph (I love that phrase);



What we have here is a classical supply and demand chart of two markets; the sexual market and the marriage market.

In the first market we have the demand for sex (presumably from men) and the supply of sex (presumably women) - (the roles actually do not matter as to who is the buyer and who is the supplier, you could switch them if you wanted, as long as you are consistent amongst both markets, you will get the same results). In general, men demand sex more than women. Yes, horribly politically incorrect of me, I know. Send the Speech-Police's best sniper after me, in the mean time it does not change the fact that it is true, so my death will avail nothing and no one. In any case, demand is high and relatively inelastic.

Also, in general, women in their late 20's to 40's are more or less over that initial fear or discomfort with sex. They are more comfortable with it, they certainly aren't just going to go willy nilly offering it all over the place, but their supply curve is what I would consider normal (yes, send in the Politically Correct Assassins).

The point where the two meet is the equilibrium point, where if you were paying atttention in high school economics, is the "price" you pay for sex - denoted by P,s. In this metaphorical example it would be dinners men must take women out on, gas, psychological issues, the time dedicated to it, etc. etc.

Now notice the line, P,s, goes across to the other market, the marriage market.

The reason it does this is SOME women think that because a man has sex, that he is now interested in marriage. When in reality they are TWO SEPARATE AND DISTINCTLY DIFFERENT MARKETS. TWO SEPARATE AND DISTINCTLY DIFFERENT "GOODS AND SERVICES" AS THE ECONOMIC TERM IS.

However, in assuming sex=marriage, this brings about an economic phenomenon known as a "price floor." Meaning you cannot charge BELOW a certain price, or "below the floor." This is why P,s is carried over to the marriage market on that green line.

In the marriage market, women also supply marriage. For the ages of late 20's to 40's, women, in general, are more than willing to supply a LOT of marriage. But with this sex-induced psychological floor, they are led to believe that demand is much higher than it actually is (see line D,m to realize that men of equivalent marrying age do not demand marriage ANYWHERE NEAR as much as they demand sex, resulting in a free market price of marriage that is very low, P,m).

Now, because there is an effective price floor, this results in a price that is "too high." At that lofty price very few men are willing to demand or pay for a marriage. Whereas at that very high price, women are MORE THAN WILLING to supply it. This results in what economists call a "surplus"-denoted by the gray "Surplus, m."

A surplus of what? A surplus of women in the marriage market.

This is why I fear for (and have genuine pity for) women who mistake sex for marriage or at least perhaps more realistically, love and affection that may lead to marriage. It may not be seen too frequently in the late 20's as most men at that age are still willing to get married, but no doubt you know of some guy in his 40's who is dating some woman who "just won't commit."

Well, there you go, in economic-charty-goodness no less.

And that's, frankly that. I have nothing more to really add to it, because, well , it's economics. It's kind of cut and dry.

Masters in Tulip Arranging

This is a phenomenon that I call the "Engineer/Social Worker" phenomenon. You have a husband, who makes $70,000 as an engineer or a computer geek or what have you, but then a (typically) liberal, independent woman who as a part time social worker or women's studies major makes $20,000 per year at some government-make-work job. However, she spends $40,000 per year on stuff, thereby necessitating a subsidy from her husband, yet at the same time will no doubt claim she is independent, when mathematically and factually she's not.

I know people like this and there's a LOT of them. Maybe not the majority of the population, but definitely a lot of sheepish, sensitive 90's men with masters in computer engineering that are just thankful to have a female in their lives and turn a blind eyes to the economic realities of independence. The wife usually runs roughshod over him and after they get married, we never see our buddy again. Usually it's by accident 4 years later when the beaten, wearied-eye man is hauling three kids around and has lost that wild mustang look in his eye.

Oh well, not every guy can be a P-51 Mustang. You need tankers and haulers too.

ht to Fraulein Elizabeth

Looking for a Bubble

Cripes.

OK, let me explain this to you in normal everyday terms.

You are the father or mother of little Jimmy.

Jimmy has been a problem child ever since he went into school.

You get a report from Jimmy's teacher and she says;

"Little Jimmy showed some improvement today. He beat up LESS kids than he did last week. THis is an improving trend! Additionally, you know that D- he received on his test last week? Well, I made a grading error and it's actually just a regular D!"

You then reward Jimmy with ice cream for not beating up as many kids and getting a slightly better grade than previously thought.

It's the same thing here;

"We're not cutting as many jobs"

AND

"Instead of a sclerotic growth rate of 1.6%, we are now BOOMING with a revised growth rate of 1.7%."

And what's the Dow Jones doing? Up 50 points so far.

If I recall correctly, after Bush cut taxes back during his first term to fight off the then-Dotcom recession, GDP boomed at 6% one quarter and there was something like 300,000 jobs created.

But, oh, that's right. Those jobs don't count. Because it's Bush!

You are free to continue enjoying the decline!

Don't Give Me This "Tax Credit" BS

Let me explain here and now the condescending and insulting nature of "tax credits" and why you should be insulted by the term.

Originally, those evil white males of 1770's yore, set out to make a rare and original society wherein the people governed themselves. Those evil bastards, how dare they.

This meant those in the government were not the ones in charge, but rather it was the people who voted them in to take care of various public service affairs so that the rest of society may go on and pursue life, liberty and happiness.

But if one were to really take themselves out of the political mire and muck and look at the US today, you would see not a government serving the people and letting them go about their own affairs, but a very intrusive government that "ordains" or "blesses" or "determines" who should do what and why and when and where and how.

But what is most insulting of all of these and really angers me is this condescending tone democrats have about "giving business tax CREDITS to set up shop here and there."

The reason it angers me so is that it shows you the reality of the situation. It is no longer the people or the private sector that is determining their own destinies. It is the government that "grants" you the privilege, nay, the "honor" of having a little bit of extra bread by "charitably" granting you a "credit." Originally, it was the government that we "credited" by paying taxes into the coffers to manage the public administration affairs. And when it came to conducting business or private affairs, the government was to largely butt out and get back to building roads and defending us against foreign invaders. But no, now it is US that is at the behest of the "almighty government" to the point we actually accept "credits" as a little doggy treat for behaving "correctly."

Understand, the whole idea of a "credit" implies, by default that the government is the authority and you are the peasant. That the government is the one in charge, with the wisdom and will determine if you've been a good boy or a bad boy and will reward you with "credits" and "breaks" and "incentives."

Did you hire minorities?

Good wittle boy. You get a scooby snack tax credit!

Did you buy a new green, efficient furnace?

Oooo! Whoz da wittle American? Whoz da wittle American? Yez zats you. Yez zats you! You get a wittle tax cwedit!"

Did you recycle?

Awww! Da wittle, WITTLE Amerwican. Look at da cuuuuute wittle American. Yes youz a good recycler aren't you? Herez a wittle tax credit.

Just recently such a vomit-inducing incident occurred when both democrats AND republicans in Minnesota tried vainly to bribe Ford into not shutting down it's St. Paul Ranger plant.

"Oooo! Gee Whillikers Mr. Pawlenty and Socialist Minnesota State Legislature! You'll grant us dumb corporate car-manufacturing yokels a tax "break?" Why gee whillikers massa, that sure is gracious of you."

Thankfully Ford (as it did with the bailout money) passed and maintained some level of dignity and morality.

Regardless, the larger point I'm trying to make is that (like many of my points) NOBODY ELSE IS MAKING IT!

Good Christ, people? When the hell did we let the government get so powerful and big that it could take the tone of "granting" us a charity such as a "tax credit?" Since when did we take the position of "beggar" and be honored to have ANYTHING "credited" to us? Since when did the government become the sole authority and judge as to what is good or bad and could reward it with "credits" which is simply the opposite side of the coin of taxing it to punish it?

Of course I know the answer. Several generations have failed to install the idea of individualism in their offspring and the success of the US has spoiled most people to become complacent about important issues like (oh I don't know) FREEDOM AND INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY, to the point we forfeit it up to charlatans and soothe sayers.

But, then my ole blood pressure gets up. I realize the US is not 300 million Cappy Caps running around. It's more like 1 million Cappy Caps and 299 million "American Idol" watchers. And then I realize you can't change it. Just work less and not slave yourself away to pay taxes so other people can live off of you. Besides, if you work so little, you might just get rewarded with a "tax credit."