I went to the gym next to the office again this morning and again I ignored the CEO of my company as he was using the elliptical next to me. It was packed again and I reiterate I cannot wait for every ones resolutions to be broken.
Funny, yesterday I was discussing what is going on in the economy with my boss and the kid next to me and I said I think we are in for another lost decade like Japan had in the '90s and we had in the '20s. This morning my boss forwards me a story from FT quoting a well known talking head using that exact phrase.
The thing I think that will be an upside to the coming lost decade is that we will probably find and see some great new voices in the arts. I also noticed the the useless biz channel- that'd be CNBC- is having a special about America's pot economy. It got me thinking about Prohibition which was also in full force in the '20s- our other lost decade. Who's to say that when we exit this one that marijuana isn't legalized and taxed much like alcohol was at the end of the Great Depression. I imagine it will be called the 420 Amendment. As an aside a newsletter I read daily wrote about Humboldt County in California and how it is basically the pot capital of the state.
Granted the '20s preceded the Great Depression but history doesn't necessarily repeat itself so much as it echos. I think it was either Twain or Einstein who said that, can't remember.
One of the most read stories on BBERG today was about a study that shows a possible link between having seven cups of a coffee in a day and being more susceptible to delusions and/or hallucinations. You know at some point some shylock is going to end up using that as a defense for murder or some other heinous crime.
Ok, it took me a bit of turning the wheels but I finally recalled a formula from my microeconomics classes way back when. Y=C+I+G+(X-M). Y is GDP or GNP depending on your age; C is consumption; I is investment; G is government expenditures; X is exports and M is imports. C accounts for roughly 70% of Y. If the paradox of thrift takes hold that is going to be bad. The government is trying to increase G a lot but it will never account for 70% of Y. The dollar is strong and gaining because it is the least offensive smelling piece of crap currency around. That means X-M won't help any. So Y is pretty much going to down until people believe they have saved enough and are willing to start consuming again.
The thing with G going up is that you always have unintended consequences. If you don't believe that will happen Macquarie Island is a perfect example. The Australian government decided feral cats on the island were a huge risk to the endangered seabirds there so undertook a plan to eradicate them. They succeeded but the rabbits and rodents the cats were keeping in control ran rampant and ate all the vegetation doing even more harm to the seabirds. Mr. Barrett will most likely point out the cats, rabbits and rodents were all invasive species- which they were. But, they had been there for over 100 years so at what point does an invasive species end up part of the ecosystem? Regardless, let's just hope what the government is doing now doesn't let the rabbits and rodents run rampant.
My youngest got a iPod chrome for Christmas from his maternal grandfather who happens to be richer than Croesus. I loaded it up for him with some music I thought he'd enjoy. I find out he loves Queen especially Fat Bottomed Girls and sings along to it.
Went to the gym again tonight here at home and did a quick half hour of cardio while the husband lifted. We had dinner and are packing tonight for our three day weekend get away. He had plans for tomorrow night but they changed so now we are going to go see The Unborn- woo hoo. The other movie I can't wait to see is Push mainly because Chris Evans is in it. Ever since he played Johnny Storm and was just standing there in a towel I have had him on my list of people that don't count if you hook up with as adultery.
2 comments:
I don't understand your banking metaphor about invasive species (if that was your point), but you have a good point about 'balance' and at what point is an invasive species a pest vs. a longtime resident.
Most of the time there's this huge surge in invasive populations, and then it evens out over time (equilibrium) as the species eats up all that made it able to overpopulate. And eventually something else figures out how to eat the invasive species too. But at first it is nearly a monocultural situation.
That said, an invasive species is a problem at a particular point in time, thus can still be considered a serious threat to certain industries. Or it impacts the price of something, making it more than just a problem for other species - it makes things at the cash register more pricey.
For example, if the Asian Longhorned Beetle got up to Vermont or wherever there are its favorite food the sugar maple, your Mrs. Butterworths will become expensive as the host trees crumble. And then you'll have to put some lame substitute like fake strawberry jizz on it instead. Or something from The Netherlands that looks like K-Y gel.
But anyway, we have the technology to eradicate invasive species, but it requires a plan, coordination and cooperation. One asshole in the mix and yer screwed. (" I ain't lettin' no gottamed gub'ment chainsaw on mah proprtee!" )
Y=C+I+G+(X-M) = PDOIUJ:LK#@!98- in my head.
My point was there are results no one expects from the actions the government is taking. Throwing all this money out there is like removing the cats to save the seabirds. We don't know what the real end result will be, i.e. are there rabbits and rodents?
Post a Comment