Category — Economics

Well, color me surprised.  I never though my blog would last longer than a Virgin Comic.

Back in 2006, I reported that Virgin had opened a joint venture with Gotham Entertainment to take advantage of a growing comic book and graphic novel market.

According to AWN, Virgin Comics produced 17 comic series in two years, as well as 18 trade paperback collections and three hardcover titles. The owner to the rights to these properties is unclear.

Started by Richard Branson, Deepak Chopra and his son Gotham Chopra, the company’s original goal was to create comics inspired by Indian and Hindu mythology for license out to film and merchandise companies to build global franchises.  Great idea!

As part of their work, Deepak Chopra wrote a biography of Buddha in comic form.  Bad idea!

AWN also reports:

Virgin also created a Director’s Cut line, featuring comics from Hollywood players like actor Edward Norton (DOCK WALLOPER), director Guy Ritchie (GAMEKEEPER) and director John Woo (SEVEN BROTHERS). Virgin hoped to turn these projects into major films.

Virgin’s Voices comic line featured works from actor Nicolas Cage (VOODOO CHILD), adult film star Jenna Jameson (SHADOW HUNTER) and musician Dave Stewart (ZOMBIE BROADWAY).

Ed Norton!??  Deepak Chopra??  Jenna Jameson??   Hmm..  I think they should have looked for more folks like John Woo and Guy Ritchie - at least they make a bit of sense.

Just because a person has had every major orafice of their body violated on camera does not mean that they will make a good comic book.  Maybe it was just the irony of Jenna Jameson making Virgin Comics?

Do other industries do stupid sh*t like this?  Never mind.  Don’t answer that.  I don’t think I could stomach the truth.

Virgin Comics, Comic Books

No, really. They do. At least in California.

California legislators have passed AB 2270, a bill that basically allows the government to confiscate your water softener if a non-elected board decides that local salinity is too high or harmful to the environment.

You can read the amended text here.

The juicy part is here:

SEC. 4. Section 13148 is added to the
Water Code , to read:
13148. Notwithstanding Article 1 (commencing with Section 116775)
of Chapter 5 of Part 12 of Division 104 of the Health and Safety
Code, if the state board or a regional board makes a finding at a
public hearing that the control of residential salinity input will
contribute to achievement of water quality objectives, any local
agency that maintains a community sewer system in an area affected by
the finding may by ordinance take action to control residential
salinity inputs, including those from water softeners, to protect the
quality of the waters of the state.

So basically, after we have spent $2500 to make our water more normal for everyday use (we have 26 grains of hardness!), they can come in and simply remove my unit, without any compensation at all for my cost.  We bought the unit for medical reasons (my daughter has very dry skin), and yet there is no allowance even for that.

I swear our politicians are dead set on making the United States a modern Gulag.

While we did buy the unit to help my daughter’s dry skin, its a simple fact that hard water also costs a homeowner money by greatly damaging pipes and plumbing, increasing the cost to operate appliances and by making clothes wear out faster.

Hard water is also BAD for the environment, as it forces the use of more soap and detergent for all household and commercial cleaning applications.  That means that MORE, not less chemicals are introduced back into the environment when the entire goal of the proposed bill is to reduce environmental impact and to increase water serviceability through recycling.  Sacramento is sometimes nothing more than an expensive idiot farm.

Here’s an idea - why don’t we have a referendum to vote that next year, politicians can only REMOVE laws from the books - they can’t write new ones for a whole year.  Something tells me the benefit to society would be tremendous.

Please join me in telling the Governator to VETO this assinie bill.  Its easy to do - just go to: http://savemysoftener.com/ and follow the directions.

Water Softener Ban, AB 2270, Save My Softener

A nice reminder of history from Investors Business Daily.

No one likes war.

War is a horrific affair, bloody and expensive.  Sending our men and women into battle to perhaps die or be maimed is an unconscionable thought. 

Yet some wars need to be waged, and someone needs to lead. The citizenry and Congress are often ambivalent or largely opposed to any given war. It’s up to our leader to convince them. That’s why we call the leader "Commander-in-Chief."

George W.’s war was no different. There was lots of resistance to it. Many in Congress were vehemently against the idea. The Commander-in-Chief had to lobby for legislative approval.  Along with supporters, George W. used the force of his convictions, the power of his title and every ounce of moral suasion he could muster to rally support. He had to assure Congress and the public that the war was morally justified, winnable and affordable.

Congress eventually came around and voted overwhelmingly to wage war.  George W. then lobbied foreign governments for support. But in the end, only one European nation helped us. The rest of the world sat on its hands and watched. 

After a few quick victories, things started to go bad.  There were many dark days when all the news was discouraging. Casualties began to mount. It became obvious that our forces were too small. Congress began to drag its feet about funding the effort.  Many who had voted to support the war just a few years earlier were beginning to speak against it and accuse the Commander-in-Chief of misleading them. Many critics began to call him incompetent, an idiot and even a liar. Journalists joined the negative chorus with a vengeance.

As the war entered its fourth year, the public began to grow weary of the conflict and the casualties. George W.’s popularity plummeted. Yet through it all, he stood firm, supporting the troops and endorsing the struggle.  Without his unwavering support, the war would have surely ended, then and there, in overwhelming and total defeat. 

At this darkest of times, he began to make some changes. More troops were added and trained. Some advisers were shuffled, and new generals installed.  Then, unexpectedly and gradually, things began to improve. Now it was the enemy that appeared to be growing weary of the lengthy conflict and losing support. Victories began to come, and hope returned. 

Many critics in Congress and the press said the improvements were just George W.’s good luck. The progress, they said, would be temporary. He knew, however, that in warfare good fortune counts. 

Then, in the unlikeliest of circumstances and perhaps the most historic example of military luck, the enemy blundered and was resoundingly defeated. After six long years of war, the Commander-in-Chief basked in a most hard-fought victory.  So on that historic day, Oct. 19, 1781, in a place called Yorktown, a satisfied George Washington sat upon his beautiful white horse and accepted the surrender of Lord Cornwallis, effectively ending the Revolutionary War.

History, George W, Economics, War

Interesting, mortgage lenders are putting a 30 day hold on forclosure proceedings across the board.  They are trying to work things out with their customers rather than just throw them out.

This may sound "nice" - but really it is just good business.  Lenders don’t want the house, and in this slow market they REALLY don’t want the house.  The people living in it on the other hand really DO want the house, so usually there is some kind of middle ground.  Of course, that is really only if the interest rate is high and there is room for wiggle, and if the owners have steady income.

You can also thank the Federal Reserve for their 3/4 point cut a few weeks ago.  That figures heavily into the mix. 

Mortgage lending, ARM Mortgage, foreclosure

So, in case you’ve been under a rock, Microsoft has put in an unsolicited bid to buy Yahoo! for $31 a share, or $44.1 billion.

Score one for Google - they sure have upset the apple cart to prompt such an unprecedented move.  And, at the same time - OUCH for Google.  They’ve finally pissed off the giant.

Check out more information here.

Really, the biggest question in my mind is how will this be branded?

• Microsoft Yahoo!
• Yahoo! by Microsoft
• Microsoft, the Yahoo! people
• Microsoft, the company formally known as Yahoo!
• Yahoo!, the company formally known as Microsoft
• YaMicHrooSoft
• And, my personal favorite, Soft MicroHooYas!

 My biggest fear?  They they will put a yodeling paperclip in all their advertising.   **Shudders-to-the-Bone**

Global warming is a hot topic, no pun intended.  I have various views on the subject (hasn’t it been getting warmer since the ice age?) and so do my friends.

There’s also lots of other interesting stuff to read out there, such as this.  I find it so funny how right-wing conservative folks are always accused of being money grubbing, cold hearted power mongers, etc. and somehow the liberal crowd adeptly dodges this moniker.  Its at least as true there as across the aisle.

This aside though, one of my cars is still an ULEV.  No harm in that.  And, while I’m not SO excited to strap a tank of pure hydrogen to my rear, I really do wish they’d hurry up with fuel cell cars.  I look forward to the day when we aren’t beholden to foreign oil.

Until that day, please use your head and realize that many global warming band-wagonists aren’t true modern day altruistic prophets.

Global Warming

Here is some great commentary from Asymmetrical Information on a New Yorker article that looks at how poverty levels are determined in the US.

The article itself has some good points and has a lot of helpful information. Unfortunately, it draws a conclusion that is naive at best, and disastrous at worst. It’s main thrust is pushing an idea of a relative poverty line, rather than an absolute level, as is currently used.

While this may have some benefits - read the article to see what I mean - I think the overall side effect is very dangerous. It supports an idea of entitlement. The average “poor” family today has many things that families years ago would have considered luxury items - like televisions, VCRs, and a Nintendo, etc - yet a relative poverty line would say that they are even poorer because their neighbor’s have DVD players, flat screen TV’s and a shiny new XBOX 360.

How can someone be poor, simply because they don’t have what another person has? That is a ridiculous idea - if it were true, then I too am poor, because I don’t have what Bill Gates has. Am I poor compared to him? Sure, but who cares (besides me…)? I have no right to have what he has, just as no one has a right to what I have. But, in today’s society, we’ve deemed that someone does have a right to eat. There is a very big difference.

While this idea would certainly be embraced by lower income people, I can tell you that the idea was never invented by a lower income person. If you’ve ever gone through a time of wondering if you are going to get to eat today or not, you know that you aren’t so concerned with the quality of your TV. Only a mind linked to a fully tummy has time for such considerations.

The article also quotes certain people as saying that our current poverty levels don’t make sense in more expensive urban areas, such as Boston, New York and San Francisco. They advocate raising the poverty line in these areas because it is so much more expensive to live there, and therefore requires that a person earn more to get to the same standard of living. Again, I think that this shows more of an entitlement attitude. I agree that these areas are more expensive to live in, and that a person who lives there has a much harder time of making ends meet - but I cry bunk at the idea that this is a problem. No one has a right to live in a specific area and I certainly don’t think government entitlement programs to allow them to do so would make very much sense at all.

Yes, I do understand the need for an income spectrum in the labor force - there are both high and low earning jobs to be done in an urban setting, and pushing out lower income workers can hurt the overall economy by leaving jobs undone. Yet there is also the argument to be made that in a more wealthy area, those jobs that truly need doing will then pay more to attract the appropriate labor. The market will adjust itself, as it always does - yet government redistribution programs are expensive to administer, always politicized and completely non-voluntary. So, exactly why is that preferable to relying on market forces?

While the current poverty level designation is showing many signs of wear, I don’t think the idea of a specific subsistence level should be thrown out in favor of a relative index.

poverty, poverty levels, New Yorker