A Cow-Based Economics Lesson

SOCIALISM

You have 2 cows.

You give one to your neighbor.

COMMUNISM

You have 2 cows.

The State takes both and gives you some milk.

FASCISM

You have 2 cows.

The State takes both and sells you some milk.

NAZISM

You have 2 cows.

The State takes both and shoots you.

BUREAUCRATISM

You have 2 cows.

The State takes both, shoots one, milks the other, and then throws the milk away.

TRADITIONAL CAPITALISM

You have two cows.

You sell one and buy a bull.

Your herd multiplies, and the economy grows.

You sell them and retire on the income.

ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND (VENTURE) CAPITALISM

You have two cows.

You sell three of them to your publicly listed company, using letters of credit opened by your brother-in-law at the bank, then execute a debt/equity swap with an associated general offer so that you get all four cows back, with a tax exemption for five cows.

The milk rights of the six cows are transferred via an intermediary to a Cayman Island Company secretly owned by the majority shareholder who sells the rights to all seven cows back to your listed company.

The annual report says the company owns eight cows, with an option on one more.

You sell one cow to buy a new president of the United States , leaving you with nine cows.

No balance sheet provided with the release.

The public then buys your bull.

SURREALISM

You have two giraffes.

The government requires you to take harmonica lessons.

AN AMERICAN CORPORATION

You have two cows.

You sell one, and force the other to produce the milk of four cows.

Later, you hire a consultant to analyze why the cow has dropped dead.

A FRENCH CORPORATION

You have two cows.

You go on strike, organize a riot, and block the roads, because you

want three cows.

A JAPANESE CORPORATION

You have two cows.

You redesign them so they are one-tenth the size of an ordinary cow and produce twenty times the milk.

You then create a clever cow cartoon image called a Cowkimona and market it worldwide.

AN ITALIAN CORPORATION

You have two cows, but you don't know where they are.

You decide to have lunch.

A SWISS CORPORATION

You have 5000 cows. None of them belong to you.

You charge the owners for storing them.

A CHINESE CORPORATION

You have two cows.

You have 300 people milking them.

You claim that you have full employment, and high bovine productivity.

You arrest the newsman who reported the real situation.

AN INDIAN CORPORATION

You have two cows.

You worship them.

A BRITISH CORPORATION

You have two cows.

Both are mad.

AN IRAQI CORPORATION

Everyone thinks you have lots of cows.

You tell them that you have none.

No-one believes you, so they bomb the crap out of you and invade your country.

You still have no cows, but at least you are now a Democracy.

AN AUSTRALIAN CORPORATION

You have two cows.

Business seems pretty good.

You close the office and go for a few beers to celebrate.

A NEW ZEALAND CORPORATION

You have two cows.

The one on the left looks very attractive.

Who Owes Who?

I think my representatives here in Texas might potentially be idiots.

"As legislators, we owe it to our constituents and to all people in Texas to raise as much revenue as possible." (Elliott Naishtat, D-Austin)

Right. Which, of course, means that...

“What I am proposing without raising taxes or creating new taxes is collecting existing taxes that are rightly owed to the state.”

The measure on the table is imposing sales tax upon online purchases. Exactly how such a tax would be levied, with popular sites like eBay or Amazon, that are not only interstate but international in scope, I'm not sure. I suppose eBay and Amazon will just have to...register with the state of Texas?

But, of course, our legislators owe it to us to pry as much of our money away from us as possible. And of course, after that, the obvious conclusion is that we owe them money.

Such is the circular propagation of the governmental system.

Economic Woes

The economy is still failing- at least, if you measure the success or failure of that sector by unemployment rates, which still stand at over 9 percent. This rate is increasing amongst high-tech skilled workers, who are getting laid off due to lack of work- and then their jobs are being given to younger people fresh out of college. Exacerbating the problem is the fact that many of these jobs are now being sent overseas, where there is a burgeoning job market for these kinds of talents, and where workers will do the same work for less than Americans.

As we know, high-tech positions and workers aren't the only ones being hurt by this recession, but I think there is some credibility to the argument that they are sometimes hurt more than less skilled laborers. If an electrician gets laid off, he can get a job somewhere else relatively easy, even if it isn't electrical. But if there is a drop from somewhere like Hewlett-Packard as a computer engineer to fast food...well, that just isn't good.

But you know, don't worry. Our fearless leader has a plan. He's calling for $50 billion to be put into a new infrastructure fund and for there to be a push to upgrade the roads and railroads of America, thereby creating jobs.

It's about time, if you ask me. Some of the stretches of interstate highway I've seen are absolutely disgraceful. (Still better than some stretches of highway between Lusaka and Livingstone in Zambia, Africa, but still pretty bad. ^.^)

This is one measure I think I could potentially agree with President Obama on. Our road and railroad system is due for an overhaul, and this seems like a good idea. It may or may not be wise during a time of economic upheaval as we're in, but at least it's Constitutional. I also think some of the logic behind the plan, that of hoping to prevent earmarks headed for transportation projects, is good. It might make our lawmakers more focused on important things. Or wait...maybe we don't particularly want that.

In any case (and all jokes aside), at least they're still trying. But there's one area that some are saying shouldn't be maintained, and they should stop trying.

That's the housing market. From this article:
"As the economy again sputters and potential buyers flee — July housing sales sank 26 percent from July 2009 — there is a growing sense of exhaustion with government intervention. Some economists and analysts are now urging a dose of shock therapy that would greatly shift the benefits to future homeowners: Let the housing market crash. When prices are lower, these experts argue, buyers will pour in, creating the elusive stability the government has spent billions upon billions trying to achieve."

In the Texas town where I live, house sales are crazy. You drive down a residential street, and you're almost guaranteed to see a house for sale. And these houses aren't selling. They're just sitting there on the market, waiting for someone with enough money to come along.

And as the article above pointed out, despite the billions of dollars the government has pumped into the industry, it hasn't helped. The housing market is still failing. Further, the government insured thousands of loans and credit for mortgages on new houses, and now those people are defaulting, costing us even more money.

Personally, I agree that they should just leave it alone. Experience shows us that oftentimes, when an industry like this goes down, it springs back up soon after. People have to have houses to live in, one way or the other, and they'll continue to buy them, just as they will food or clothes.

The Parent Company Trap

Jon Stewart critiques the folks over on Fox News over their obsessive (or not so much) tracing of "where Rauf's money is coming from."

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
The Parent Company Trap
http://www.thedailyshow.com/
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party

Now let me say- I don't think the majority of people over at Fox News are necessarily stupid. Misguided, perhaps, though no more misguided than the folks over at say, CNN or ABC or CBS or the NYTimes or the Washington Post.

Competing Currencies?

An act proposed by Senator Ron Paul (R-Texas) would "legalize competing currencies."

I agree with Senator Paul on many issues, including his stance on the Federal Reserve. But this time...well, I just don't see how this would do us any good.

For one, it seems unconstitutional to me. Congress is supposed to print money, and regulate it. So Congress needs to take up their duties like they ought, buck up, and be men. Also, I think it would just create a lot more chaos than we have now. What happens if you go into Walmart, and they use Fed bills, but you use a different currency? What then? How do we determine exchange rates? That was one of the reasons the 'money clause' was put into the Constitution. States were making their own money, and it was causing tons of havoc.

I also think with this bill, we're asking for trouble because people will start counterfeiting, further inflating our money supply, and using this bill to justify it. We'll shoot ourselves in the foot with this thing, IMO. Letting people 'mint private money'...um, yeah, we're just asking for trouble. That would cause inflation as well, I would think. With gold, there's also the problem of exchange rates. How do we set a rate? How do we know what a certain bit of gold is worth?

I think a better, more permanent solution would be for a) Congress to do their job and start printing money- US legal tender- as they ought. b) This money should be available for exchange at any bank. This exchange would work by people bringing in their Fed bills and receiving an equal amount of USLT. (An exchange rate would have to be worked out. Right at the beginning, perhaps one for one.) Alternately, we could also just start issuing USLT, and let the Fed bills work their way out of the system, but that might also cause more problems than good

So there's just my thoughts on that. Anyone else?

Americans and Spending

The American people are finally figuring out that you can't just spend as much money as you want.

Too bad the government isn't taking a cue from them.

A Solution to Bankruptcy

"And folks look, AARP knows and the people with me here today know, the president knows, and I know, that the status quo is simply not acceptable,” Biden said at the event on Thursday in Alexandria, Va. “It’s totally unacceptable. And it’s completely unsustainable. Even if we wanted to keep it the way we have it now. It can’t do it financially. We’re going to go bankrupt as a nation,” Biden said. “Now, people when I say that look at me and say, ‘What are you talking about, Joe? You’re telling me we have to go spend money to keep from going bankrupt?’” Biden said. “The answer is yes, that's what I’m telling you.”

Okay. I never knew one could spend as much money as they wanted...and not go bankrupt. Where is the line here? Of course, the fact that America is already bankrupt (and has been, for quite awhile), is something to consider.

But guess what, Vice President Biden? When one is in debt up to their eyeballs, and has absolutely NO money, it isn't wise to keep spending.

I wish it were, though. I mean, just think of what I could buy...and operating on that logic, never have 'no' money left!