Posts Tagged ‘government’

This past week, in an assembly of all the university students and faculty, an administrator explained changes forthcoming in the basic core courses that all of our students must take at BJU. One of the new courses that will be required for graduation is Foundations of Economics. With all the difficulties people in today's world are having with debt, this should be a great course to give our young people information that could help them avoid personal financial disaster.

I find the world's economy far more mystifying than personal finances. The following picture from despair.com almost makes sense to me.

Today I'm posting some cartoons, informative pictures, and funny pictures on the subject of economics and the economy.
Click here to continue reading this post ⇒

If you enjoyed this post, get my RSS feed or get my posts by e-mail

Some laws are so bizarre or dumb that you question whether they are real. In some cases these laws have been on the books for years, but life has changed so much that it seems as if certain laws need to be stricken from the books. At times it's seeing a sign (like the one on the right) or a hearing of a local regulation that gives cause to wonder. Some dumb laws are not old at all — new ones are being made all the time. Today's post highlights both old and new dumb laws.

My dad used to say, "Well, should we watch the 6:00 news and get indigestion or the 11:00 news and get insomnia?" As my wife and I ate dinner this evening, we had the news on the TV, which may not have been a good idea. There was a story about a school in Danvers, Massachusetts where the use of the word "meep" has recently been banned. I don't know all that went into making that ruling, but at first blush, it seems over the top to me. Any readers from that area might be able to enlighten us.

This got me to thinking about dumb laws. On a web site devoted to dumb laws, I found the following laws still on the books here in South Carolina:

Dumb Laws in South Carolina

By law, if a man promises to marry an unmarried woman, the marriage must take place.

Railroad companies may be held liable in some instances for scaring horses.

Horses may not be kept in bathtubs.
Click here to continue reading this post ⇒

If you enjoyed this post, get my RSS feed or get my posts by e-mail

I'm posting off schedule to pass several odds and ends of information on to you. I've known for a while that our church, Hampton Park Baptist Church, is having Ken Ham from Answers in Genesis come speak. What I didn't know was the exact schedule or the topics. Now that I know, I thought those of you who live in the Greenville area might want to visit for at least one of the sessions.

Here's the schedule for Ken Ham's sessions:

Sunday, November 1
9:00 a.m. "Genesis: Key to Reaching Today's World"
10:30 a.m. "The Relevance of Genesis in Today's World"
4:30 p.m. "Defending Christianity from Today's Secular Attacks"
6:00 p.m. "The Origin of 'Races' and the Biblical Answers to Racism"

Monday, November 2
6:00 p.m. "Answers for the Most-Asked Questions about Creation, Evolution, and Genesis"
7:30 p.m. "How Can a Loving God...? — Understanding Death and Suffering"

If you haven't heard this, the White House is accusing Fox News of not being a legitimate source of news, calling them biased, etc. There have been reports that the Obama administration has tried to block Fox reporters from news conferences, etc. It's no secret to anyone paying attention, and many are, that the current leaders in Washington D.C. are not fans of Fox News.

NPR has put a survey online so that people can voice their opinion. It's found at http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2009/10/in_white_house_vs_fox_news_war.html

The voting is quick and easy, with no need to create an account or to log in to anything. It asks if you are for the White House or for Fox News in this matter. I don’t usually post things like this, but I don't enjoy seeing the rapid erosion of freedom of speech and I do not approve of thuggery. The current crowd in Washington seems intent of silencing voices that don't sing their praises or that don't sing the tunes they prefer. Speak out, while you still can.

When I voted this evening, I was surprised to see that the votes are currently almost 75% in support of Fox News in this controversy. I was amazed because I would characterize the listeners of NPR as tending more towards the liberal end of the scale.

If you have any comments on either of these topics, I would enjoy reading them.

quotation...

"Satan's not too keen on surrendering territory." - David Hosaflook

=^..^= =^..^=
Rob

Do atheists get insurance for acts of God?

If you enjoyed this post, get my RSS feed or get my posts by e-mail

This past Sunday my son told me he had heard that YouTube, Twitter, and Facebook were planning to merge. I was thinking about what a powerhouse that would be until he dropped the punchline. He added, "They're going to call it YouTwitFace!" This started me thinking about mergers (takeovers?) in the news lately, like GM and the US Federal Government. So does GM now stand for Government Motors?

Then this week's news delivered the story of the possibly soon culmination of the Chrysler/Fiat deal. I read in this morning's news that the new Chrysler will be owned 20% by Fiat, together with the U.S. and Canadian governments (who are financing the sale with $2 billion), while over 67% will be controlled by the United Auto Workers. Hmm, it should be well run after that "reorganization"....

In the wake of such unlikely mergers, here are others that would be interesting if they ever took place, or at least more humorous than the current administration's "remaking" of our auto industry. I'm not even sure some of these companies are still in business, but they're names most people would still recognize.

If Yahoo and Netscape merged, they'd be Net 'n Yahoo, with their headquarters located in Tel Aviv.

If J.C. Penney merged with Aunt Jemina, they'd be Penney Aunty.

If Fairchild Electronics merged with Honeywell, would the new company be Fairwell Honeychild?

If Wurlitzer merged with Xerox, would they specialize in the cloning of organs?

How about Polygraph Records, Warner Brothers, and Zesta Crackers?
It could be called Poly-Warner-Cracker.

3M and Goodyear?
M-M-M Good

John Deere and Abitibi-Price?
Deere Abi

Crabtree & Evelyn and Apple Computer?
Crab Apple

Swissair & Cheseborough-Ponds?
Swiss Cheese

If 3M, J.C. Penney, and Canadian Opera Company merged?
3 Penney Opera

Zippo Manufacturing, Audi, Dofasco, and Dakota Mining?
Zip Audi Do Da

Luvs Diapers, Hertz Rent-a-Car, and Krispy Kreme?
Luv Hertz, Donut?

If Knott's Berry Farm and the National Organization of Women merged?
Knott NOW

If FEDEX and UPS merged? They'd call it FED UP.

Honeywell, Imasco and Home Oil would become "Honey, I'm Home."

Denison Mines and Alliance and Metal Mining merge and would become "Mine, All Mine."

If Allegheny Airlines merged with Braniff, they'd be All-Bran, the world's most regular airline.

If Grace Chemical bought the Fuller Brush Co. and Mary Kay Cosmetics, and then merged with Hale Business Systems, would this new conglomerate be known as "Hale Mary Fuller Grace?"

In this month of wedding, let's look at the results of some possible and improbable marriages and remarriages. Some of the names below remind me of names like Mary Baker Glover Patterson Eddy (founder of Christian Science) or Liz Taylor if she had retained all her married names — Liz Taylor Hilton Wilding Todd Fisher Burton Burton Warner Fortensky. Phew! Anyway, here goes....

If Yoko Ono had married Sonny Bono, she would have been Yoko Ono Bono.

If Julie London married Bo Bridges and fell down the church steps after the wedding, she'd be Julie London Bridges falling down.

If Olivia Newton-John married Wayne Newton, then later married Elton John, she'd be Olivia Newton-John Newton John.

If Oprah Winfrey married Deepak Chopra, she'd be Oprah Chopra.

If Sondra Locke married Elliott Ness, then later married Herman Munster, she'd become Sondra Locke Ness Munster.

If Tuesday Weld married Frederick March II, she'd be Tuesday March II.

If Dolly Parton married Salvador Dali, she'd be Dolly Dali.

If Bea Arthur married Sting, she'd be Bea Sting.

If Liv Ullman married Judge Lance Ito, then later married Jerry Mathers, she'd be Liv Ito Beaver.

If Nog (Quark's nephew having no other name on "Star Trek: Deep Space Nine") used his name twice when getting a marriage license, took the name of his bride, and married a girl whose last name was Hughes, and then later married Pamela Dare, he'd be Nog Nog Hughes Dare.

If Ivana Trump married, in succession, Orson Bean (actor), King Oscar (of Norway), Louis B. Mayer (of MGM), and Norbert Wiener (mathematician), she would then be Ivana Bean Oscar Mayer Wiener.

Do you have any thoughts on mergers, real or fictitious?

quotation...

"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini

=^..^= =^..^=
Rob

Bumper sticker seen in California — Honk if you've been married to Liz!

If you enjoyed this post, get my RSS feed or get my posts by e-mail

At this time of year, Americans have either already done their income taxes or still have about a month and a half to put it off. On top of that, we just heard today about the president's proposed new budget with tax increases for the nation's most wealthy. (We all will have to wait breathlessly to see if there's any chance it can go through.) This all made me think of something that's been aging in my files for the right moment to be posted....

Coffee Shop Economics

Suppose that every weekday ten men go out for lattes. The coffee shop is the best one around and their beverages are not cheap. Each day the total bill for the ten men comes to $100.

If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

- The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
- The fifth would pay $1.
- The sixth would pay $3.
- The seventh would pay $7.
- The eighth would pay $12.
- The ninth would pay $18.
- The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59, enjoying the latte and his friends.

So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men had lattes every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve.

"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily coffees by $20."

Lattes for the ten now cost just $80. They could continue to enjoy their lattes and their time together, but for a lot less!

The group still wanted to continue to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes, so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink coffee for free.

But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his "fair share?"

They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his coffee.

So, to be fair, the owner suggested reducing each of the six men's bills by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:
- The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
- The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
- The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
- The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
- The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
- The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink coffee for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

"I got only one dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got $10!"

"Yeah, that's right!" exclaimed the fifth man. "I saved only one dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!"

"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute!" yelled the first four men in unison, "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth man and beat him up.

The next night, as much as he had previously been enjoying coffee with the guys, the tenth man didn't show up for coffee. So the nine sat down and had their lattes without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them to pay even half of the tab! Too late, though, since their wealthy friend had no plans to return.

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction, all the while still getting stuck for most of the tax revenues. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might go to other coffee shops where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier and less demanding and where they can drink a latte for the same price everyone else pays and possibly with nicer friends.

(Added 5 March 2009: I just learned that the original idea for the scenario above came from David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D., Professor of Economics, University of Georgia. The original that I received was unattributed and I could not find the source. I changed it quite a bit, turning it into a coffee shop instead of a bar, but I'd like to give credit where credit is due. I was really surprised to find that Muddy Dog Roasting Co. had done almost the same thing with the piece back in October 2008! Great minds....)

What are your thoughts on the Coffee Shop Economics story above? Do you think it's valid? There's an interesting article about this type of thing called The 2% Illusion in the Opinion Journal of today's Wall Street Journal.

This week has been extremely full, but definitely good. Our church, Hampton Park Baptist Church, has been hosting the Steve Pettit Evangelistic Team all week. The messages have been excellent and the music outstanding. Anyone local who would like to attend Friday evening's Irish Sacred Concert, the meeting begins at 7:00. Come a few minutes early to get settled into a seat before it starts.

quotation...

"Every person born since Adam's sin is not God-centered, but self-centered." - Steve Pettit

=^..^= =^..^=
Rob

The IRS looks at every taxpayer as having what it takes.

If you enjoyed this post, get my RSS feed or get my posts by e-mail