Unemployment - The Real Story

The word of the day today is unemployed. Some of you, especially during these tricky economic times we're in, might be very familiar with this word. Some of you probably think it has something to do with you. Others of you think it has nothing to do with you, but is all Bush's fault, the bankers fault, congress's fault, Obama's fault, etc., etc. Well none of that is true. The reason you, or any one else is unemployed right now is because of aliens.

No, I'm not talking about the illegal kind that come in from Latin America, Eastern Europe, or Africa. No, REAL aliens. Like the kind that come from the planet Schorgatron-56. They are talking over. So far they have completely infiltrated the tax law industry, the dentist industry, and the American auto industry. And, for over a century now they have been sucking out the brains of our legislative, executive, and judiciary branches of government in the US. 

Why do they do it? Well, doing human jobs is apparently a better time than abducting and probing drunk farmers. And they do it for the same reason you go to Cancun and get wasted. Or go to the beach and have a bonfire and make aborigine chants late at night. It's a cheap thrill. Yes, that's right. Aliens like to have a good time. And, that puts them in good company. In fact, some famous crazy party animals out there who you thought were human are/were actually aliens. Lindsay Lohan - alien. John Belushi - alien. Kevin Bacon - alien. Paris Hilton - three aliens. Nicole Richie - an embryo of an alien.

So what should we do? Nothing. Just let them finish up here and they'll leave. Your boss will be begging for you to come back in no time.

The Whole Grain Conspiracy

There is a common misconception that exists in our society. This misconception has gone too far, pushing some people to the brink of starvation and unemployment. You may have guessed it already. "Hay is for horses."

In fact according to recent Harvard study, hay is not just for horses. Hay is a fabulous source of fiber, is low in cost, and is widely available. For decades the hay industry has been stifled by this harmful myth of hay being 'just for horses.' Many within the industry believe it was an insidious lie promulgated by the makers of oatmeal like Quaker, and Carnation Instant Breakfast. Bill Turley, a hay farmer from western Pennsylvania has been trying to undercover what he calls "the hay hater conspiracy" for years.

 "I'm just trying to make an honest living. I sew my fields, and reap them when they're ready. My hay is some of the finest you can buy, but for some reason people only want to buy it for their horses. Little do they know that sheep, goats, cattle, and even people can eat it too. Why, every morning I wake up to a steamy bowl of haymeal and radish drink. It's delicious. I might look like I'm 35, but I'm 72. It's all because of the hay. But no, those stupid oatmeal quakers have to shrink my market with the whole 'hay is for horses' campaign."

Mr. Turley has brought up his concerns before, even picketing by his town hall with signs strapped to himself and some of his farm animals. The signs are more clever than one might expect from a hay farmer. On his sheep the sign says, "Baaaaai like hay too." On his cows, taking from the Chick-Fil-a commercial campaign, is written "Eat more hay." But, his own sign is more direct with the inscription, "Eat haymeal for breakfast! Screw the Quakers." It might be easy to see why he has lost some supporters. Confused quakers who live next to his farm now refuse to do business with him. When he tried to explain they just threw instant oatmeal in his face.

"It's a tough rode I travel, but I believe deep down that one day hay will take its rightful place on the throne of whole grain foods," said Mr. Turley.

I think we can all agree that Mr. Turley's cause is a noble, but hard one. The misconception is so widespread that even his horses get ornery when he reaches in their feed bags for a handful of hayliciousness, even nipping him and stomping around their corrals in angst. 

Good luck Mr. Turley.

For Real Stimulus

Sometimes when you read this blog you chuckle. Other times I hope you think. Other times I hope you get confused. But today the blog is going to touch on some important stuff that most people should know. I got this article from Investment Business Daily. I think it was published either the fifth or the ninth (sorry, I cannot make out my grandmother's handwriting on the copy she sent me). I am in no way claiming this as my own work, but I am taking the time to re-write it on this blog verbatim for all of your benefit. Read on.

"Economy: Congress is ready to ram through a half-baked stimulus package costing as much as $1 trillion. But if it's stimulus we need, why not make it effective stimulus - tax cuts, say, instead of wasteful spending?

The massive new spending program that is being pushed by the congressional Democrats emboldened by their newly enhanced majorities may come up as soon as Tuesday, when they return from their holiday breaks.

Unfortunately, they've picked the least effective way to give the economy a boost. Those who argue for hundreds of billions of dollars for infrastructure projects and "green jobs" have it all wrong. We've tried those remedies before and found them wanting.

In the 1930s, for instance, we went on an infrastructure binge, building new roads, dams and schools; electrifying the rural south and enlarging our ports, among other major tasks.

Granted, some infrastructure improvement was called for. But all the activity didn't pull the country out of depression - not by a long shot. Unemployment averaged 17% in the '30s, and it wasn't until 1941 - the start of World War II - that GDP returned to its 1929 level.

Japan followed the same Keynesian game after its real estate bust of 1989. To the applause of many American liberals, hundreds of trillions of yen were spent on infrastructure, raising outlays on big projects from 6.5% of GDP in 1990 to 8.3% in 1996 - even more than contemplated under Obama's plan.

That didn't work either. The 1990s were a "lost decade" for Japan's economy, and the country is still stagnating. Its infrastructure boom did have one lasting legacy however: Japan is now the most heavily indebted nation in the OECD.

If President Obama and his fellow Democrats get their way, the U.S. may soon be trudging down the same path. Next year, reckons budget expert Stan Collender, the defecit may hit $1.3 trillion, or 8% of GDP, as Congress tries to spend its way out of recession. That's roughly $13,000 for every taxpayer.

Shouldn't we at least expect some big bang for our bucks? If so, and although it's not popular with his party, Obama might want to re-think his aversion to tax cuts. They'll actually work.

How do we know? Because they have in the past. In the '20s, '60s, '80s and again this decade, new presidents also faced grim economic conditions. Each time, the president - be it Coolidge, Kennedy, Reagan or Bush - cut taxes. And each time the economy boomed.

McKinsey & Co. estimates total losses of $1.4 trillion to $2.2 trillion due to the credit collapse. But this can be reversed by making the underlying assets profitable again. The fastest way to do this is to cut taxes on businesses and entrepreneurs, which will immediately lift the rate of return on assets and thus their value.

This in turn will bring more investment, more hiring and more income - all things that Obama has said he wants.

We're not making this stuff up. According to research cited by former White House economist Greg Mankiw, the economy expands by $1 to $1.40 for every $1 spent by government. But if you cut taxes instead, you really get results.

Mankiw cites a major study of tax cut changes dating back to 1947 showing that each $1 of tax cuts brings $3 in added GDP. This study is particularly significant because one of its authors, Christiana Romer, is Obama's chief economic advisor.

Simply handing blank checks to Congress and the White House, and letting them pass an ill-considered stimulus plan with little transparency and no checks on spending is a very bad idea. 

No stimulus would be better than a bad stimulus. And the only stimulus that's been shown to really work is cutting taxes.