deliver unto me, a truly free market.

i'll keep this short. and to the point.

when you say the banks, unfairly getting bailed out is an example of free markets failing, you are misunderstanding what a free market is. in a free market, the banks would have been allowed to fail. individual investors would have been protected to a certain extent by the FDIC until it ran out of money, and large institutional investors would have lost a ton, as they were insured by AIG. oh, is that why they got soooo much money. why they went from being unknown to the individual investor to being front page news. yes.

in a free market, the government would not have stepped in and given tax dollars to the entities of their choosing. the anointed. on a side note, were our currency backed by gold, the government could not have done this. because they'd have to go GET more gold first. when economists say, lets return to a gold standard, it is not because they are living in the past. or because the have huge personal reserves of gold, it is because gold cannot be created out of thin air. you cannot arbitrarily inflate the money supply and give the new money to the anointed of your choosing. it is a check on power.

but pause for a second and think about that power. the power to create money. where there was none. and give it to whomever, individual entity or corporate entity, you choose. powerful stuff there. of COURSE we'll never go back to a gold standard. power of this nature does not willingly contract.

so, anyhow, i understand your outrage at the bailouts. and the fact that our intelligence is insulted daily by politicians saying they are trying to protect the average american only makes it worse. the average american does not get $50 million dollar bonuses. the average american probably did not get a bonus last year, if they were even still employed. the average american gets thrown a bone to keep them content while on the backend is getting charged for the privelage of recieving this bone.

so i understand the outrage. i feel it too. however, attacking policies that were not at fault, is not productive. the free market did not fail you, because the free market, in this case, never really existed. capitalism did not fail you, because capitalism would have let the bankrupt companies die their natural deaths if no buyer stepped up.

we the people, Inc. stepped up. and in my opinion that is the failure. the failure was in the fact that some entities were deemed worthy of being saved, while others, mainly individual families, were not deemed worthy. and that is not how a free market operates. i will not throw out a term here like fascism, or third way economics, mainly because there isn't strong consensus about what that means, so a label will distract from the actual definition. the point is, the free market did not speak. the free market did not decide. the free market was circumvented because the powers that be decided that it should be so. were they right? were they wrong? history will have it's opinion. and i'm not issuing judgement here. i'm just stating, what went down, was not free market economics. not by a long shot. nor was it capitalism.

micheal moore, you are a filmmaker, not an economist. in the words of the Rock, know your role...actually, it's more important that we, those on the hook for the debts of we the people, inc. know his role and look at him as an entertainer, not an educator. a movie based on true economic theory would have been boring. and wouldn't have made him a millionaire once again. micheal moore operates in a free market. in a capitalist enterprise where the owners get to enjoy the profits of their labors. one in which we, the market, get to decide whether or not we support his product. where there are no subsidies granting it to those that cannot afford it on their own. his is an enterprise where a business failure is just that. nothing political. no spin saying the world as we know it will come to an end, should micheal moore inc, not be able to pay it's bills. his is a free market enterprise. albeit one with a steep barrier to entry. those that he criticizes are not. he's a man that knows how to fill the seats. hollywood at its capitalist finest.

and it seems to work out quite smashingly for him. he can bite the hand that feeds him and still get fed. because people like his product. and people hate his product, yet still willingly pay to see it, so that they can trash it later. viva free fucking markets.

on another day, maybe i'll make his actual argument for him and discuss the balance between for profit, not for profit, and gov' run. but that won't be short.

compared to a 1000 page book on economic theory, this was.

on keeping baby costs down.

so this is my trademark sage advice on parenting. because like with everything in my life, after just 6 months, i am now an expert. certified.

ha. actually, my advice is actually to tell you you don't need most of the crap the experts say you do. do what is healthy and makes sense. if you stroll thru babies-r-us, there are about 10,000 products that you MUST have or else your little one will be a deprived child.

actually, they don't need much. put the baby in your bed. give them a boob from time to time and wipe the poo off of them. anything else is extra and can be looked at as such. do they need a boppy? no. it saves your back, but a blanket works just a well. do they need a special infant bassinet stroller that they will grow out of at 6 months. gosh no. get a normal one that reclines so that they can lay flat? but what about gazing into their eyes as we stroll. look at the road. trust me, you'll have endless time to gaze at your bebe. if you want to get one, great. good for you. but i'm just saying, don't put it into the necessity category and go brizoke for it. i will not bail you out.

what about outfits? oh gosh, by they time you've gotten around to washing the first ones, they've grown out of them. don't splurge now. get one nice thing for photos and the rest should be inexpensive and minimal. because in 4 weeks, it won't fit. yes, it's that fast.

what about strollers. i need 5. one for each stage. do your research. get one. i got the baby jogger citi mini. i LOVE it. i chose it over the bouge-a-boo. because i'm not spending a G on a stroller. i have gucci bags to buy.

what about toys? ya. get some. but kids don't really need that much stuff.

and my FAVORITE. what about "your baby can read". i MUST have that. i MUST give my child all the advantages possible. shrug-a-roo. i say, find out what phonics is. google it. and then make some flash cards. most of your child's brilliance is determined by genetics anyhow. hopefully you didn't mate with that hot-as-hell-dumb-as-bricks. dude. no DVD set can overcome that. ya. i said it. but the point is, you don't need a $300 system to teach your kid how to read. my mom was broke, so she made her own dick and jane books. and i was reading at 2. same for other early readers i know. yes, a reading system is nice. but you don't NEED to spend $300 to get the same results.

so that is all. there is so much pressure to get all of these things. that don't really matter. and will be used for such a short time. if you're flush with cash, great. but if not, the point is, don't beat your self up about not being able to get something. normally there is a much less expensive solution. but it's not being marketed to you. so ignore the peanut gallery and do what works for you.

that is all.

a monday rant

i wish i were one of those types that bounded out of bed on mondays ready for the week. but i'm not. i lament my weekend lost. or is it my youth lost.

anyhoo. since it's monday, and i'm cranky feel free to stop reading now.

so my annoyance for the day is all the products to improve women. as if perfection needed improving upon. i would feel different if men were equally harassed. but they are not. as an example, just to be moisturized to a socially acceptable level, i spend about $50/month on lotions. while my fiance, i doubt even owns one bottle. no i'm lying. he has one bottle. that he refers to when i ask him why he doesn't moisturize. you're going to get wrinkes you know. but he doesn't care. because he's a man, and men have the luxury of aging. RANT. BITCH. MOAN. anyhow, back to this one bottle. it's kiels. which you can only get at nordies, or at the kiels store in valley fair. i know he's not at either of these places. ha. as-if. so I KNOW the bottle of kiels is the SAME bottle he's had for the last 2 years that i know of. probably longer since i'm sure it was bought for him by some ex-girlfriend. so, what is my solution to this inequality? make him metro? well. if it weren't so much constant nagging i would. and THAT, a page later is the gripe. men have all these companies, with their marketing departments, nagging us women for them, making us feel we must buy all this shit. in order to be desirable. to make us soft and lovely and sexy.

and it does make us soft and lovely and sexy. and i say its worth the money. it's civilized. but can we get some insecurity equality? can i see non-stop ads targeting men and __their__ stinks and scales? can they at least not revel in it? can they en masse, develop ego complexes about said stinks? and then, once that is accomplished, i want to see you sell them some BS self help/empowerment books to let them go back to being *okay* with the perfection in the imperfection.

that is all. that is my rant.

make me happy. sell some ball-wrinkle cream for $100/oz. and make it lemon-spring-blossom scented.

to walk away...

oh there are so many things i want to blog about today. i could blog about kanye taking the mic from taylor swift, but i have nothing new to add to that discussion. i could talk about the 4th, debatable F, but i'm not in the mood for that, so i'll save that for later, or i could again talk about obamacare, and how it's strange that there was a huge march against it, but i haven't seen any mainstream news coverage of it. the streets were full. that's news. but i'll save that for a day when i have more energy. for today, i'll talk about underwater mortgages, bitchass HOAs and walking away. not just any mortgage. mine.

So, my mortgage is underwater. listen to the county of alameda and what they want me to pay in taxes and it's $100,000 underwater. listen to independent appraisers with no incentive to overinflate the value, and it's just over $200,000 underwater. or just over 50%.

okay, that's fine. as i said in an earlier post, equity, gained or lost, is not real until you sell. at least by the accounting rules that i have to play by. so because i'm gainfully employed and have cash reserves, there is no urgent financial pressure to make any moves. i'm not on the brink of foreclosure.

however, i do have a bitchass HOA. one that likes to mail out nasty grams about fees and shit. one that likes to raise fees but not fix shit. hello perpetually borken gate. what is the point of having a gate, if it's stuck open half of the time. but back to their fees. they throw out $100 fees left and right, and say they are due immediatley. with no due process. even the government isn't on that much of a power trip. you at least have about 3 months to pay your tickets and there is a process by which you can appeal said ticket. so should i get a fine from the HOA, i'll be sure to tell them to go f- themselves. oh wait, they tried that and i told them i'd see them in court. fee magically disappeared.

so anyhow, their latest act of bitchassness is to require that we put stickers on our back windows, to identify our cars, so that they know if someone is committing a parking infraction. last i checked, i PAID for my parking spots. i will let you know if someone is in one of them. i don't need you hiring security to verify stall numbers with stickers. security i have to pay for via the ever rising HOA dues. and i don't put stickers on my beemer unless there is huge incentive for ME. providing you another way to bother me is not incentive.

so anyhow, i have an underwater no-recourse mortgage. a bitchass HOA, cash on hand, a husband (in a family way, but not a legal way your debt is my debt way) with perfect credit, and enough knowledge to get my name on the next title but not the mortgage. because with a default i can't for a few years. but i can pay him directly. or something, since he's in favor of me walking away, i'm sure we can work something out.

so what does that mean? it's the perfect storm for walking away.

i've gone from that not being an option to considering it. why? because of the HOA and the stress they cause from their constant threats and nasty grams.

and this my friends, is why i say save your money and always have cash. no matter what your credit score, boatloads of cash will solve all problems.

that is all. time to go back to getting my f-u-money.

The 3 Fs

it seems like in the women's mags, there is no shortage of advice on things you need to avoid. behaviors you need to change. if you want to keep your man.

check out the latest list of the verboden

ugh, too much work. too many rules. and it's wrong. being all nice and walking on egg shells is not the way to a mans heart. it's much easier. i wish i could take credit for these rules. but i can't they pretty much come from dr. laura. what? really? yes. dr. laura. if you can execute on these three rules, you can pretty much do whatever you want on the forbidden list. because men are not women. they don't want to be manipulated. they want you to:

Feed them.
F#@k them.
and stay Fly.

that's it. cook a steak. ride the pony. and be pleasing to the eye. you do this, and you can get away with most of the infractions on that list. you do #3 and reward him with #2 and he may even ENJOY you doing said infractions.

1 out of 3 won't cut it. 2 out of three will get you pretty far. you can talk some shit. but all three is the trifecta and earns you a perpetual get out of jail free card.

enjoy your pass to be a bitch.

in defense of the "average american"

disclaimer.

when it comes to healthcare, i am not the average american. i work for a large company with reserves in the Bs, that has huge incentive to provide highly competitive benefits. that incentive is the competition. they don't want me to go there for a matter of a few hundred dollars. so i have a very high degree of certainty that should a public option for healthcare pass, that will save my company money (costs less to contribute to this than to provide insurance through aetna), they won't do it. not because they love me so much. not because they care about me so much. mainly because unless ALL tech companies did this, there would be a mass exodus to the competition.

so my disclaimer it thus. should heathcare legislation pass, unless i mess up the good thing i have going at work, i'll still be able to see my harvard trained doctors and pay them whatever they want with my current insurance. most people have never been on public medical assistance, so they have never heard, "we don't accept medical coupons". but ask the poor. i've been the poor. it happens. so in a mixed system, private and public like we already have, there will be rationing, just not for the rich. those that have, will just probably pay more for priority service. don't believe me? think about "first class seating" on an airline. and actually, it already happens. if you don't believe me, you are either not rich, or going to the wrong providers. imagine a waiting room full of yuppies. no teenage mothers. no mediCal. they exist. i'm not telling you where. they would revoke my membership. just kidding. or am i?

so anyhow, i'm not that worried about if i will be able to see the doctor because i'm willing and able to pay in insurance, cash, gold, silver, diamonds, gucci bags or california IOUs. what u want. i got u... i'm arguing now for those that work for small business. because you my friends, will be fucked. i don't normally really cuss on my blog. but i'm making a point, so i decided not to bleep it.

so, again i'm not saying i want anyone to go without insurance. quite the opposite. i'm just saying, lets get reform right. in a fiscally sound way. no wishful thinking. no fanciful imagining that costs will disappear because doctors will all of a sudden get more efficient. if there were money to be made that way, they would have done it to accomodate more PAYING customers. can i get an amen bain and co? or government offices will get more efficient. what's this? we can't audit the fed? no fancy consultants hired to squash the fraud in all public assistance programs. the government has no interest in becoming more efficient. it wins no votes. those against programs normally hate them no matter how efficient. those that love them, again love them no matter how inefficient. votes are won and lost on ideals, not results.

anyhow, back to story. so we've heard the sob stories of the poor person that was bankrupted because they got cancer. 1:1,000,000. so let's now talk about 1:100. the server at your restaurant.

so, lets say you work in a restaurant. i've worked in one. wages are not the cash cow there. it's tips. many times your paycheck ends up being the size of a day or two's worth of tips, mainly because if you work a dinner shift, you can get clocked out after the rush is over. so it's not always a 40hr week. anyhow. so the point is, we know restaurants have high revenue, but what is not generally known is that they have very slim profit margins (or is it? it might be general knowledge). so imagine if now, labor overhead doubled. which is a reasonable assumption since wages are low. the margins cannot absorb this new expense, so your favorite restaurant is going to pass that cost along to you or go out of business. some will try to pass the cost along and then go out of business. that means now Mr. 1:100 is both without a job, and without insurance.

or take the small business that already provides health insurance, but isn't sitting on billions. the business who's profit margins are slim. the business who is on the verge. judging by all of the vacancy signs in retail buildings, this is more than a few. anyhow. so now they can reduce costs by contributing to the government plan instead of bearing the full cost. this is preferable to bankruptcy. So there goes your ability to keep your current insurance. now mr 1:100 has lost his current insurance.


i'm sure i'll keep mine, or my husband will keep his. so i'm not lobbying for me. this is where i use my blog because i give a shit about you. but not in the way you think. i give a shit about transparency. i just want you to get what you think you're voting for. in this case, call me a skeptic, but the numbers don't lead me to believe that you will. i think you will get less. and then be taxed for it. and told to just wait, while the kinks are worked out of the system. and you not dying in the meanwhile is touted as proof of success.

that is all. vote wisely my friends.

retirement is in sight!

holy @#$%. i'm proud to announce, that after two years, my google ads have netted .....

drum role plizease.

$18.45.

whoot there it is.

go shory it's my birthday.

oh wait. what? cut the fireworks. i read that wrong. the decimal must be in the wrong place. and it's definitely missing some 0s. i've been doing free promos for your service and all i get for it is $18 bucks. that i can't even collect because you don't pay out until $100. no wonder the googleplex prints money. suckers site owners, actually get a 0% cut in this rev share. i'm sure there's some provision, where i can call, or write in or stand on the street in mountain view cry enough to get my $20. and i'm sure it's the only thing over there that is not online. but i'm lazy. and it's only $20. it's so much easier to just blog about it.

support my laziness. click an ad so i can get past the $100 threshold. it actually would only take about 200 clicks. and i'm sure i've violated something in the terms of use by disclosing that and now owe google a bizillion dollars. well, i'll pay them when it gets to a mega-bizillion. well, how about this. i'll leave your ads up until the debt is settled.

later.

obama's education speech

so some people are upset about obama addressing the nation's children. and they take issue with the fact that it is in a closed environment, where parents don't have the option to "turn the tv off" if they don't like the content.

i have read the speech, and i agree with it, and in my opinion, he is giving very sound, practical advice. a tried and true path to success. work hard, develop your talents, don't be discouraged by failure, it's just an opportunity to get better.

very solid advice.

but i do understand why some parents would object to any OPINION being forced on their kids. i understand. indoctrination when it's an idea you oppose is kinda scary. if you think about it.

but alas, that already happens in schools. your kids are already subjected to many opinions stated as opinions and opinions masquerading as facts every day. and in many cases, going against the defacto truth is not acceptable. if you don't believe me, have your kid turn in an expertly penned essay stating why the founding fathers were wrong. or whatever, just take any contrary opinion but present the facts in a logical way, and come to a well stated conclusion that is supported by the premises. chances are, the essay will not be graded on the soundness of the argument, it will be graded on the content. have another student turn in some barley literate garbage simply parroting back what they have heard and they might win an award.

so, while i do see their point, that opinions forced upon children by "authority figures" can be worrisome. i fully support this speech (but not heathcare reform) because at least, in our media driven culture encouraging exchanging personal dignity for fast and fleeting fame, it's nice to hear someone promoting methods for lasting success.

and as always, i offer my sage advice (tongue firmly in cheek), your kids are bombarded with messages every day. some you'll agree with, some you won't. some you can control, some you can't. it's up to you to talk to you kids. and help them to think. and understand. and to come to their own conclusions about life, because they will anyhow. so at best, you can guide them in this process and make it happen earlier, so that when they are young, and impressionable, they are less susceptible to bullshit. because we all know, opinions are like a@@holes. everyone has one. and it was one of my teachers that gave me that gem.

but back to the point. in regards to the speech, go obama!

but that doesn't meant i support heathcare reform. nice ideals, and a really pretty picture but from my POV, as a payer, and not a recipient of said benefits, fiscally unsound.

other people's business - again

so once again, i'm going to comment on someone else's business.

this time, it's the Duggers. the family with 19 kids.

i say, who cares. they aren't asking you for your money, time or help, so who cares what they do.

this is in response to a blog post i read that criticized them for not adopting other people's kids instead of having their own.

why should they do that? if it's in your heart to adopt great, but since when was someone else's child your responsiblity? oh wait, in the US it actually is via social services. so whether it's right or wrong that we are taxed to pay for other people's kids isn't the point of this post. kids are actually the ONE place where you can get my heart to bleed a little bit. but the point is, this family is totally self sufficient and the kids all seem very happy and grounded. the girls seem to have total respect for themselves and their bodies. holy f- give that woman a medal of honor. you raised what 12 girls that aren't dreaming of getting a man's attention on the stripper exercise pole. your whole family seems to be mature and responsible. bravo. AND you walk your faith w/out thumping the bible at those that don't. again, bravo. give them an emmy.

so i say, if you must say unadopted kids are a problem, them point the finger at the parents that are looking to pass the outcome of their choices off on someone else. adoption is great, don't get me wrong, but if there is a problem, it's not the parents who are making stable choices and personal sacrifices that enable them to raise their own children.

lets stop coddling the irresponsible at the expense of the responsible.

a ciascuno il suo to each their own

auto makers fail.

so while the automakers didn't get the same levels of subsidies that the banks got, they still were deemed to valuable and important to fail. or rather, there were too many voters that would have lost their jobs, so congress spent our money paying them to in turn get paid by staying in office.

too cynical?

anyhoo...here's a list of 10 american car companies that have failed. and proof that after failure, the american auto business does go on.

as if it wouldn't. we're suburban sprawl. maybe we don't need 2 cars per household, but most people out side of san francisco and NY couldn't even get to work without a car. but anyhow the point is, there is huge demand for cars, so its ridiculous to even propose that no new company would form to fill this demand. but with a business structure that was profitable. or at least not paid for by unwilling taxpayers. but if i do have to pay, can i get a CEO to beg me PERSONALLY for my money. i would enjoy that very much.

f.u. bailout beggers. were i a judge i would condemn you to a life of driving your own cars while you go by each tax payers house thanking them for their forced generosity.