Upstairs - but no Downstairs...

Back in the 1970's, when the rest of us were watching "Upstairs, Downstairs"...

it appears that George W. Bush was only watching "Upstairs,"...

Now George is travelling the country, touting his "ownership society". After a few years of investing in high-class stocks and bonds, he says, we will all be part of the ownership society. We'll have a nest-egg to leave to our children, who will be even richer!
To date, none dare call it what it is - the biggest Ponzi scheme in history. When we sell off our nest-egg for money to buy our food, pay our rent, and, most of all, pay our medicare premiums(!), who is going to redeem our bonds, buy our stocks? Why, our children! How much will they pay for these things? The more you make from your "personal account", the more they will pay to buy from you. Except for the brokers who skim their take from all this activity, who is going to make anything from the whole transaction?

When all is said and done, wealth is still created by work. Work in the classic physical science sense of expenditure of energy over distance, and also in the economic sense of making (or growing, or raising, or providing) something that has value for another. In short - someone has to do the work!
Thus, if there is no ",Downstairs" to perform work for "Upstairs," there won't be any wealth for anyone...

Try telling that to George...
This is in line with the misperception that I see voiced (see ... voiced...? Oh, well...) by some in the news. You know, when they insist that "our schools should teach everyone computer science." Donno about you, but I don't want a computer scientist to repair my car. Or my roof. Or grow my food. And I am a computer scientist!

Very Interesting!

You may call me naive but...
Isn't raising interest rates to counter inflation a little bit like fighting for peace or, ummm, fornicating for chastity?
"I want to keep prices down, so I'm going to increase the price of the Ultimate Commodity - money!"
Huh?
I understand the stated underlying principle is that increasing the cost of money - the cost of borrowing, that is - will supposedly dampen demand for 'consumer goods'.
Good Idea; Too Bad It's Wrong!
Raising interest rates to reduce demand would do very nicely in that mythical market: You know, the one where the marketplace is always right; everything is bought and sold at a price agreeable to both participants; supply meets demand; stocks always reflect the true value of corporations, etc. The very definition of a capitalist economy.
We don't have a capitalist economy though. Haven't for a long time now. What we have today is a consumerist economy. In this economy consumption, therefore spending, is driven primarily by two factors; need, and desire. In this economy increasing the cost of borrowing has very little to do with driving consumption. Raising the price of food, for instance, does nothing to reduce peoples' need for food. Raising the price of a luxury SUV does very little to reduce peoples' desire for one. Cost is at most a secondary factor here. Demand is largely inelastic. Expectation trumps reality.
What raising interest rates - will - do is to keep people (and institutions, and governments) buying, not selling, bonds. Despite the vice president's saying that US government bonds "aren't worth the paper they're printed on", they do represent an island of predictability in a sea of uncertainty. So far.

At the moment, what Alan Greenspan is doing is walking a tightrope (and doing it very well, thank you) of increasing interest rates in step with inflation, so as to make it appear that he is countering inflation, while disguising the inflationary influence his rate increases have on the economy.
The President thanks you, Alan Greenspan.

Brain-Dead Congress

Good morning Dear Reader!
I was going to say something about our idiot-child congress and their obsessive infatuation with 'roid-riddled baseballers, but...
All it would have amounted to would have been a few hundred words best summed up as: Who Cares!
Instead, there's this...
The president, George W. Bush, talks big about The Sanctity Of Marriage.
But!
When it comes right down to it, George believes his judgement regarding Terri Schiavo (a woman whom he has never met, either before or after her brain death) is superior to that of her husband. Also superior to her doctor's judgement, and the judgement of the courts in his own brother's state (well, perhaps he has reason for that)...
Now, George has long since taken over the High and the Low Justice throughout the world; arresting and imprisoning people from various countries without allowing them recourse to courts of law. In some cases torturing and killing them. Not with his own hands, mind; rather using his employees in the CIA and the DOD as surrogates.
It's okay though - each and every such person is an evildoer, or at least a potential evildoer, and deserves his fate. Besides, George is following the instructions of his Father to destroy them all. Not his father; his Father.
Moving ahead; George is now assuming the Droit de Seigneur; the right to dispose of his subjects in any way he sees fit. Some might say this is all an attempt to divert attention from the deadly morass of Iraq. I favor the idea that it's an attempt to displace discussions of the brain-dead congress with discussions of the now (through no fault of her own) needlessly notorious brain-dead Terri Schiavo. In any event, let us hope George doesn't decide to exercise this droit in the more classical sense - it would make Lady Laura awfully angry.
It might make George's Dominatrix, Madam Condi, pretty happy, though.

Ready for a tin chapeau...

I'm starting to think I'm almost ready for a tinfoil chapeau.
I'm a "consumer of news" - I read newspapers, I listen to news radio, I watch news on teevee. I discuss the news, I write about the news; A news junkie, you might say.
But lately, the news just seems to leave me confused. I can't consume it at all. I can neither chew it nor swallow it. It's either a case of early senility or near-total cognitive dissonance. The latter, I hope. Though perhaps it's time to begin thinking of memory loss as my friend, rescuing me from too much toxic information.
Two weeks ago, I saw that supposedly mythical headline in the paper: Man Bites Dog. Yes. I checked. It wasn't April First. It was a Reuters byline; not a company known for extreme levity. And just today, a report, on page one, no less, about a Cambodian farmer who discovered he has a Holy Cow! (!) A witch saw the cow, fell down, and, upon recovering, told the farmer she saw the spirit of a Holy Cow from Thailand in his Holy Cow. However, and this is the really interesting part, the local governor said the farmer was wrong. "We had a Holy Cow around here just a few years ago - they don't show up again so soon."
What is one to think? Holy Dog, Man Bites Cow, Mad Cows... It's all too much for me.
Then, in what might seem a more normal kind of news, we see that South Korea is threatening action against Japan, because of some little rocky islets unfortunately situated between the two countries. Meanwhile, Japan is theatening action against --- North Korea! Apparently because North Korea is refusing to return the remains of Japanese citizens it abducted some decades ago. Not, mind you, because of the kidnapping; because Korea stubbornly refuses to return the right set of bones. Not wanting to be left out, North Korea is threatening to take action against, you guessed it, South Korea! Seemingly for holding war games. Which could not possibly be (and here I agree) to defend itself against anyone other than North Korea. Unless it's to "take action" against Japan.
A perfect triangle, though not in any sense a love triangle.
The United States, meanwhile, is threatening to take action against pretty much anybody and everybody. Mostly to stop them from doing things the United States already does better than they can do anyway. We hear concerns about China's massive military buildup. They've increased their military budget to thirty billion dollars. I suspect they're actually budgeting in renmimbi; but we'll use dollars for clarity. If clarity in such a thing is possible. At the same time, the US is increasing its military budget by thirty billion dollars.

Speaking of the US congress: What are they up to now? "Congress shall make the laws of the country." So I was taught in school. Just laws to govern a just society, one would presume. Though, historically, when the congress actually did create just laws it was pretty much an accidental confluence of parochial interest and the common welfare. But then I have become pretty cynical about the entire legislative process. Some would say I was born a cynic. Anyway: now the congress has decided it's terribly important to find out every least detail about the use of steroids by professional baseball players. Why? Who cares? What common good is served by this 'investigation'? If someone wants to trade his future health for a few years of enhanced physical performance, who am I to say he can't? Such tradeoffs have always taken place. In a classical simile - it's the choice of Achilles - who chose early death and eternal fame over a long and normal life. Not that I can think of any baseball player who is likely to win fame as eternal as Achilles. Except for the Babe. Ruthian is a word destined to remain in the language (I believe) as long as will Herculean. So why is congress investigating this miniscule issue? Because there is some significance to society? Because they are concerned about the health of baseball players? Because they want to preserve the purity of baseballers as role models? Because it's a tremendous photo opportunity? Gee; tough call.
Then there's the current topper: Tom DeLay talking about saving the 'life' of a brain dead woman. Now, I know some of you will say that Rep. DeLay knows more about brain death than most doctors, but I do not believe he has ever actually experienced it first hand, no matter how his actions seem to indicate that he has. Again, what is the national purpose served by congress butting into medical issues? Do you really trust your congressman more than you trust your doctor? Is that why when you feel sick you call your congressman? Or does your congressman make you feel sick?
Well, that's enough diatribe for one day.
Hope to be posting again soon.