Showing posts with label Economics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Economics. Show all posts

Thursday, September 10, 2009

$20 makes a point



If I wasn't already married....


Found via Rob Allen.

Tuesday, July 28, 2009

Stock tip:

Don't buy into JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, or Morgan Stanley. They hold the vast majority of the derivatives that did so much to tank the market. If unicornfart-based legislation doesn't fix the market(Tip #2: It can't.), these companies will have major problems. The kind of major problems that lead to total buyouts and liquidation.

H/T SurvivalBlog.

Friday, July 10, 2009

Economic Basics

If you keep a plant closed, don't be surprised when the plant goes out of business. Modern unions kill business and these employees got exactly what they were asking for.

Minimum Wage

The laws of economics don't change by decree.
People often think of the minimum wage as a restriction on employers — that they cannot pay less than a certain number for a job. But it is also equally a restriction on job seekers — my son cannot legally offer to take a job for less than $7.25, even though he would probably gladly do so. For teenagers, just gaining the experience of working and building basic skills (like showing up on time, following procedures, interacting with customers and fellow employees) has enormous value, such that even a nominal payment of a few dollars an hour would more than compensate him for his labor.

Tuesday, July 7, 2009

Wednesday, June 24, 2009

Bad budget

Banning beer at the games is a surefire way to get more people to attend and spend money, alleviating the budget problems.

Right?

Playing to the chumps

"If private insurers say that the marketplace provides the best quality health care ... then why is it that the government, which they say can't run anything, suddenly is going to drive them out of business?"

Idiocy. The government gets to subsidize healthcare to drop the front-end costs so far below the profit line for private and pseudo-private agencies that there will be no way to compete. He knows this, he's just hoping the public doesn't.

Besides, I thought the headline last week was that the private insurance companies were on board?

Friday, June 19, 2009

Clearly

U.S. government bonds found in the false bottom of a suitcase carried by two Japanese travelers attempting to cross into Switzerland are fake, a Treasury spokesman said.

“They’re clearly fakes,” Stephen Meyerhardt, a spokesman for the U.S. Bureau of the Public Debt in Washington, said yesterday.


Really, If they are "clearly fakes", why did it take a week to figure it out?

Tuesday, June 16, 2009

Budgeting 101

via SayUncle.

This year, your mom gave you $100 per year with which to rent movies. Which of the following is a budget cut?

a - Next year, you get $90.

b - You tell your mom the cost of movies went up, so you’ll need $110. She gives you $100.

Monday, June 8, 2009

Redefinition of terms






Quit calling it stimulus! It's just government spending. A turd by any other name smells the same.




President* promised Monday to deliver more than 600,000 jobs through his $787 billion stimulus plan this summer, with federal agencies pumping billions.

Friday, May 8, 2009

Friday, May 1, 2009

Minnesota Socialism

Minnesota Poll: Don't tax me, tax my neighbor

That kind of says it all.

If you tax the productive members of society to fund the unproductive, you are encouraging the people who generate wealth to stop driving our economy and start draining it. It really is that simple. You encourage productivity by letting people keep their money. You encourage sloth by giving people money to stay home and watch Springer.

The comments are full of jealous socialists pining for the easy life, without having the drive to earn it.

Monday, April 20, 2009

Bad Math

If I bounce an insane number of checks, then cut 0.0001% of that non sufficient funds from my future budget, will my bank consider me fiscally responsible?
President* Obama on Monday plans to gather his Cabinet for the first time as president and challenge it to cut $100 million in the next 90 days, two senior administration officials said.
More important, will the incredibly biased media outlets report it as a good thing?
In the context of the federal budget, $100 million in savings is a small amount, but the White House wants to demonstrate fiscal responsibility.

Friday, April 17, 2009

CNN's bias on display

If you are covering news, and start debating and insulting the subject of the news, you are not a "reporter". That is called manufacturing the news and letting your bias hang our for everyone to see.


Is there anyone who can honestly claim that CNN is not biased? Peaceful, non-vulgar protests-protected by the first amendment-are somehow "not family viewing", but jokes about "tea-bagging" are? Idiots.

Tea Party Pic


From The Smallest Minority.

How Can You Tell You're at a "Grassroots" Protest?

1). Almost all the protest signs are hand-lettered.

2). There isn't a tour bus to be found

3). Nobody is wearing a Ché shirt.


And, from elsewhere:

Friday, April 3, 2009

Economic History

Posted here:
wheatstraw wrote:

Another example of unchecked capitalism was the relaxation of lending standards and questionable banking practices (sub-prime loans, mortgage backed securities, derivatives) that lead to the current banking crisis. The bailout, or "socialization of America", or whatever you want to call it, is simply a response to that unchecked capitalism.


By "unchecked capitalism" you mean when the government comes in and says "give loans to the poor segment of your territory so they can get houses or we'll pull your license", right?

That's like the definition of deregulation: "We're removing 1% of the regulations, to give us better control, so ignore the 30% increase in new regulations so we can call it 'deregulation'.

The last hundred years have been almost constant additions to regulation and 'checks' on capitalism. Blaming the current situation on circumstances we haven't seen in almost a century is silly.

Wednesday, April 1, 2009

History, Economics, and Reality

No, sir*. We are passing through an era of profound irresponsibility, that you hopefully won't be able to extend into eternity. Where did you get the past tense?

"We've passed through an era of profound irresponsibility," Obama said at a joint news conference. "Now, we cannot afford half-measures and we cannot go back to the kind of risk-taking that leads to bubbles that inevitably burst. So we have a choice: We either shape our future or let events shape it for us."


Government policies caused the bubbles, in large part. Don't make it worse, just because you are being willfully ignorant.

Tuesday, March 31, 2009

Monday, March 30, 2009

I'm at a loss...

...on how to begin to address this idiocy.

If you remove the incentive for the best and the brightest to stay, they will go somewhere they will be appreciated(read: properly compensated). This is not a solution to the "problem" of executive pay, and it is certainly not any of the government's business.
What if we had a 95 percent marginal tax rate on income over $10 million? What dire consequences would flow from this? Perhaps a certain outflow of top-flight baseball talent to Japan. But I don’t see this leading to any kind of economic calamity. Producers of certain classes of supply-constrained luxury goods would lose out as their prices go down.

The dolt even recognizes the problem, but refuses to acknowledge that it is a problem. Is this willful stupidity?

Wednesday, March 25, 2009

Derivative markets .... an understandable explanation

Heidi is the proprietor of a bar in Detroit. In order to increase sales, she decides to allow her loyal customers - most of whom are unemployed alcoholics - to drink now but pay later. She keeps track of the drinks consumed on a ledger (thereby granting the customers loans).

Word gets around about Heidi's drink now pay later marketing strategy and as a result, increasing numbers of customers flood into Heidi's bar and soon she has the largest sale volume for any bar in Detroit.

By providing her customers' freedom from immediate payment demands, Heidi gets no resistance when she substantially increases her prices for wine and beer, the most consumed beverages. Her sales volume increases massively.

A young and dynamic vice-president at the local bank recognizes these customer debts as valuable future assets and increases Heidi's borrowing limit.

He sees no reason for undue concern since he has the debts of the alcoholics as collateral. At the bank's corporate headquarters, expert
traders transform these customer loans into DRINKBONDS, ALKIBONDS and PUKEBONDS. These securities are then traded on security markets worldwide. Niave investors don't really understand the securities being sold to them as AAA secured bonds are really the debts of unemployed alcoholics. Never the less, their prices continuously climb, and the securities become the top-selling items for some of the nation's leading brokerage houses.

One day, although the bond prices are still climbing, a risk manager at the bank (subsequently fired due his negativity), decides that the time has come to demand payment on the debts incurred by the drinkers at Heidi's bar.

Heidi demands payment from her alcoholic patrons, but being unemployed they they cannot pay back their drinking debts. Therefore, Heidi cannot fulfill her loan obligations and claims bankruptcy.

DRINKBOND and ALKIBOND drop in price by 90 %. PUKEBOND performs better, stabilizing in price after dropping by 80 %. The decreased bond asset value destroys the banks liquidity and prevents it from issuing new loans.

The suppliers of Heidi's bar, having granted her generous payment extensions and having invested in the securities are faced with writing off her debt and losing over 80% on her bonds. Her wine supplier claims bankruptcy, her beer supplier is taken over by a competitor, who immediately closes the local plant and lays off 50 workers.

The bank and brokerage houses are saved by the Government following dramatic round-the-clock negotiations by leaders from both political parties. The funds required for this bailout are obtained by a tax levied on employed middle-class non-drinkers.

Finally an explanation that is understandable!

Posted by DeanC at MNGunTalk.