The True Foundation of the American Economy

It occurs to me, as we view the smoldering wreckage of what was once a thriving economy, that it's not only Der Furor who has no clue of the actual granite foundation of the American economy. It is not manufacturing, which was long ago offshored* in an attempt to increase profitability by reducing labor costs. It is not small businesses, which are routinely driven out of business by giant competitors. It is not trade, which is being strangled by Der Furor's fever dream of prosperity through tariffs. It is not agriculture, which is no longer profitable for individual farms.

The true foundation of the American economy is lawsuits. 

Consider just the number of lawsuits filed against Der Furor's administration. At the time of this writing, the Litigation Tracker of the online law and policy journal Just Security is following 673 (!) lawsuits opposing various actions taken by the GOP-led government**. In the words of opinion writer Jill Lawrence, writing in The Bulwark,

These lawsuits and legal complaints are a sinkhole of time and money that we’ll never get back. But they are essential, as are the countless lawyers, watchdog groups and others flooding the courts to defend—even save—American rights, freedoms, laws, values, science, and modernity itself.

According to a January, 2026 article in Reuters, the average hourly rate for attorneys arguing complex cases in federal courts can range from $400 to over $1,000 for experienced partners, while rates charged by top attorneys for high-stakes federal litigation can quickly exceed $3,000 per hour***. 

I don't think anyone is trying to - or even could - calculate the full cost to you and I (as taxpayers^† and as  consumers^††) of this towering mountain of litigation, but it must run to the tens of millions of dollars, with no end in sight. How much better could this staggering amount of money have been spent? How many schools and hospitals might have been funded? How many items of crumbling infrastructure could be repaired? How many new immigration judges could be hired to help adjudicate asylum cases?

Lawsuits. They're the true foundation of the economy, but you have to be a lawyer to really benefit from them.

Have a good day, and try to avoid being sued, as difficult as that is nowadays.

More thoughts coming.

Bilbo

* An awful term, indeed.

** A similar compilation and tracking done by the New York Times follows 650 lawsuits ... 20 fewer than the Just Security number, but still "respectable."

*** These are, of course, "billable hours," each of which can be a lot shorter than the traditional 60 minutes, depending on how the individual attorney calculates them. 

† You do realize that we're paying the tab for the government to respond to all these lawsuits, don't you?

†† Of course, you pay twice for the lawsuits - in your taxes that pay for the government's lawyers, and in higher consumer prices that pay for the lawyers on the other side.

The President's Budget, 2025

Long ago, the United States government had a process by which the president and Congress worked together to develop a budget to determine how much money it spent, and on what. The last time that formal budget process worked was 1994, when then-President Bill Clinton signed all 13 appropriations bills before the start of the new fiscal year. Since then the United States has not had a single year in which the president proposed and Congress successfully marked up, debated, and passed a formal budget for the president's signature. For the last 30 years, the federal government has relied on continuing resolutions and gigantic, opaque omnibus packages, rather than the budget process, to keep itself going. 

Der Furor submitted his "Skinny Budget" last Friday, cutting virtually all domestic programs - programs that actually help people - by 23% of the previous level, or $163 billion. In the words of the White House press release, it "guts a weaponized deep state* while providing historic increases for defense and border security." The press release goes on to quote  OPM Director Russell Vought's justification of the budget proposal:

“For decades, the biggest complaint about the Federal Budget was wasteful spending and bloated bureaucracy**. But over the last four years, Government spending aggressively turned against the American people and trillions of our dollars were used to fund cultural Marxism, radical Green New Scams, and even our own invasion. No agency was spared in the Left’s taxpayer-funded cultural revolution. At this critical moment, we need a historic Budget—one that ends the funding of our decline, puts Americans first, and delivers unprecedented support to our military and homeland security.  The President’s Budget does all of that.”

Does this budget proposal actually put Americans first by cutting non-discretionary spending by an average of 35%? Let's see ...

Education? Cut by 15%. States and churches (speaking of indoctrination) need to take care of it, whether they can afford it or not. Der Furor is on record as loving the poorly educated, anyway.

Public Health? Cut by 26%. Why should anyone but you be responsible for your health? As Ebenezer Scrooge once remarked***, "If they would rather die they had better do it and decrease the surplus population."

Disaster Preparedness? Slashed. States need to take care of themselves, whether they can afford it or not.

Climate-Related Programs? Slashed. After all, according to OMB Director Vought, they are “antithetical to the American way of life.” I'm not quite sure how that is, but I'm sure it sounds as good to the average MAGAt as the right to bear arms.

National Park Service? Cut by 31%. Parks are located in the states, and the states should pay for them. And once we log out all those useless forests, there'll be no need for a park service, anyhow.

Foreign Aid? Cut by 84%. Better to spend that money on Americans at home ... oh, wait ... we're not going to spend that money on Americans at home, anyhow. Never mind.

National Endowment for the Arts? Eliminated. Why should we pay for cultural stuff that suckers in other countries have already paid for^†? 

Libraries? Support wiped out. Who needs all that accumulated knowledge, even though "do your own research" is a mantra of the suspicious right?

So, how are we spending all that money we're going to save by eliminating things Der Furor doesn't like? As the White House press release explains,

"Defense spending would increase by 13 percent, and appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security would increase by nearly 65 percent."

Somewhere in that defense spending is the cost of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's makeup studio in the Pentagon, while the DHS increase probably covers part of the cost of transporting and protecting Der Furor during his frequent golf outings.

Is there fraud and waste in government spending? Of course there is. Is it best addressed by eliminating inspectors general in government agencies? Hardly. Neither is it best addressed by evidence-free accusations couched in highfalutin' language that appeal to the MAGA faithful.

Do the American taxpayers save money when their state level taxes go up to compensate for services their federal taxes used to pay for? I'm reminded of the old joke about daylight savings time being the same as cutting off the bottom half of one's blanket and sewing it onto the top to make the blanket longer.

There are worthwhile discussions to be had about what the federal government should do and pay for, and what should be the responsibility of the states. Instead of having those discussions, coming to agreement on the proper division of responsibilities, and crafting federal budgets that allow states to properly plan and craft their own budgets, we have a ham-handed meat-ax approach to budgeting that serves no one except those who are more interested in cheap politics than in a functioning, well-funded government that fulfills the Constitutional aspiration to:

"... form a more perfect union, establish justice, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty ..."

We've got a long way to go, and Der Furor isn't going to get us there, at least not with our economy and our civil rights intact.

Have a good day, and let me know in your comments what you think the division of labor should be. What should the federal government do and pay for, and what should be the responsibility of the states? Why?

We'll have this discussion in an upcoming post. More thoughts then.

Bilbo

* It's worth remembering that all that "wasteful spending and bloated bureaucracy" was approved by Congress in earlier budgets.

** See this earlier post for an opinion on who's actually weaponizing the government against whom.

*** A Christmas Carol, by Charles Dickens.

† If you need arts and culture, go to the Louvre, the Bolshoi Ballet, the British Museum, the Egyptian Museum, and all those other useless places funded by radical lunatic losers.

Executive Orders and The Outrage Economy

Der Furor made a lot of promises to a lot of different constituencies while clawing his way back to the presidency. If history is any judge, he'll pay lip service to some, slow-roll or ignore others, and go balls-to-the-wall with those that personally enrich him or appeal to his baser instincts.

On his first day in office, Der Furor issued dozens of holy commandments Executive Orders on a wide range of topics. They fall into several categories:

The Silly, such as changing the name of Denali back to Mount McKinley and renaming the Gulf of Mexico as the Gulf of America and "promoting beautiful federal civic architecture;"

The Petty Score-Settling, such as withdrawing security clearances from various retired military and intelligence professionals he thinks have wronged him; 

The Sadistic, such as a crackdown on immigration and asylum seekers, whether legal or illegal, complete elimination of all DEI programs*, and the frivolous and unscientific designation of two sexes**; 

The Dangerous, such as the blanket pardon for violent rioters from the January 6th, 2021 insurrection and the pardon for the founder of the underground Silk Road drug-dealing website, and granting immediate interim (six months) Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information (TS/SCI) security clearances to White House staff members***; and, 

The Blatantly Unconstitutional, such as the unilateral ending of the birthright citizenship guaranteed by the Constitution^†. 

The imperial presidency Republicans wanted is in full swing.

And if one of his goals is to "rescue" an economy he seems to think (in spite of all evidence) is in free fall, Der Furor appears to be doing it by distraction, sleight-of-hand and providing full employment for those in the new Outrage Economy ...

A blizzard of lawsuits has already been filed by states and organizations, pushing back against Der Furor's mean-spirited blitz of useless, frivolous, unconstitutional, petty, dangerous, and sadistic actions. How much time and money will be spent on legal fees and hearings by individuals, organizations, states, and the federal government to litigate them all? How long will the courts will be tied up with lawsuits, appeals, appeals of the appeals, appeals of the appealed appeals, ad nauseam, to the detriment of other important, but routine legal issues? We're already one of the most litigious countries in the world ... we're cementing our place as #1.

How much good could have been done with all that money if it were spent on education, health care, infrastructure, and housing? Instead, we're spending it on Der Furor's Outrage Economy.

Want to profit from the new Outrage Economy? Invest in one or more of the following:

Immigration Law Firms; 

Court Reporting Services; 

For-Profit Prisons; 

Migrant Transportation; 

Construction Companies (specializing in giant fences, prisons, and courthouses);

Companies Manufacturing Advanced Surveillance and Security Technologies; and, 

Cybercurrencies Marketed by Der Furor, His Family and Business Associates (carries no guarantee of return, of course).  

And hurry to get one of those high-paying jobs with great benefits that will soon be available in agriculture, service work, and elder care once the people doing them have been rounded up and deported.

Have a good day. Hope for the best, plan for the worst. More thoughts coming.

Bilbo 

* The basic idea of DEI is laudable, although a case can be made that many DEI training requirements (for example) were ludicrously overdone.

** I recognize that the issue of sexual identity is a complicated one, but waving a doctrinal wand is not the right way to address it. Besides, according the politically satisfying (to the right) but scientifically ludicrous text of Der Furor's Executive Proclamation, every American is actually female.

*** One should note that Der Furor himself, not to mention a number of his nominees for high-level positions, couldn't qualify for those clearances if they had to conform to the same standards I did.

† "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States..." (14th Amendment, Section 1)

 

Imaginary Numbers, Revisited

Almost ten years ago (October 16, 2013, to be precise) I wrote a post in which I expressed my limited understanding of the concept of imaginary numbers, but recognized its applicability to economics. 

Fast forward to earlier this month, when my friend Bob sent me this video about imaginary numbers. I watched it with great interest, although I still don't fully understand the concept ... you can watch the video yourself and see if it makes sense to you. And here's a cool diagram that shows how imaginary numbers relate to numbers in general:

Imaginary numbers are said to be a key to many other modern concepts in mathematics, physics, astronomy, engineering, and other scientific areas. That may be so. But the field that - now as back in 2013 - most depends on imaginary numbers is economics.

As far as I can see, all numbers in modern economic theory and the operation of government are imaginary. Here's what I mean ...

The national debt as of today is estimated* to be something in the neighborhood of 33 trillion dollars. That number, as large as it is, is not all the debt that's out there. According to a press release from the New York Fed last month, as of the second quarter of Fiscal Year 2023: 

"Total Household Debt" was around 17 trillion dollars, consisting of:

Credit Card debt, about $1.3 trillion; 

Mortgage debt, about $12 trillion;

Home equity lines of credit, about $34 billion;

Student loan balances were about $1.6 trillion;

Auto debt, about 1.58 trillion; and,

"Other" debt, about $53 billion.

If we add a national debt of $33 trillion to a household debt of $17 trillion, we get a grand total debt of $50 trillion. And this doesn't count money flowing through the web of PACs, Super PACs, and cash-stuffed briefcases that purchase our elections. Or the money socked away in bundles of cash and gold bars in politicians' homes or freezers, or the foreign accounts of the 1%.

As I see it, numbers this enormous are arbitrary and ... well ... imaginary. That is, they are, quite literally, beyond the imagination of the average individual. And there are other imaginary numbers that underlie economic theories, too, such as the $7.25/hour minimum wage**, which imagines someone earning it can support a family ... or even themselves alone.

We may not understand imaginary numbers, but they understand us. And they don't care.

Have a good day, if you can afford it. More thoughts coming.

Bilbo

* Nobody knows for sure, which is why every number is expressed in billions and trillions to, at most, two decimal places.

** Which has been the legal minimum wage in the US since July, 2009, although some localities have mandated higher minimums up to $15/hour.

P.S. - There are also "irrational numbers," of which "45" is the most irrational. Change my mind.

B.

The Official Animal of the United States Economy

There are a lot of cartoons and jokes dealing with the subject of Schrödinger's Cat ... the idea that if you place a cat and something that could kill the cat (for instance, a bowl of poisoned food) in a box and sealed it, you would not know if the cat was dead or alive until you opened the box; thus, until the box was opened, the cat was (in a weird sort of philosophical sense) both dead and alive.

I think this is a silly and useless concept, except in the field of economics.

Economics is where Schrödinger's feline would be perfectly at home, because every single economic statistic you can name is both good and bad, depending on whose interpretation you choose to accept.

Consider last week's announcement that employers added a staggering 517,000 jobs in January, driving the unemployment rate to a 53-year low of 3.4%. Good news, right? Lots of jobs out there for people looking for work! Wrong! It's also bad news, because it fuels inflation!

Consider rising wages ... that's good news for workers, right? Wrong! It's also bad news because employers raise prices to compensate for the additional wage expense, which fuels inflation and results in a net loss for workers as inflation outpaces the wage gains.

Consider that corporate profits are at an all-time high ... that's good news for the economy, right? Wrong! It's also bad news because those profits are being used for stock buybacks and CEO salaries and bonuses, not for lower prices for suffering consumers.

I nominate Schrödinger's Cat as the Official Animal of the United States Economy. It makes at least as much sense as bulls and bears.

Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow, when we announce the Right-Cheek Ass Clown for February - be here for the festivities!

Bilbo

Market Adjustment

This past Saturday, we bought a new car. We didn't really need to, as our present car is only eight years old, low-mileage, has been regularly dealer-maintained, gets excellent gas mileage (it's a hybrid), and is in good mechanical condition, but we figured that we'd have to replace it eventually and, the market for used cars being what it is, we'd never get a better deal on the trade-in than now.

We went to the dealership where we bought our current chariot, where we've always been well treated and where I enjoy the support of Paul, the world's best and most honest service advisor. We knew exactly what we wanted and - of course - the dealership had not a single vehicle in stock that we were interested in. Not to be deterred, the energetic salesman spent all afternoon running back and forth to negotiate with other dealers and, finally, found exactly what we wanted (not in a color we'd have wanted, but by that point, the color was the least of our worries). The price was high, but within the range we were willing to negotiate around, and so we began the traditional automotive kabuki dance of "let me see what I can do," "let me take this to my manager," "let me see if my manager will go with this," etc, etc.

Finally, after much to-ing, fro-ing, and agonizing, the salesman came back with a proposed final deal, which shot my already too high blood pressure through the roof.

The base price of the car was what we'd agreed to and, of course, the usual range of suspicious fees and charges one has come to expect on a new car had been tacked on. So far, so good. But then came the unexpected financial sucker punch: a new, nearly $7,000 charge listed simply as "market adjustment."

If you've been reading this blog for any length of time, you know that I have a very jaundiced view of the capitalist market economy, which tends to be great for business and the wealthy and pretty yucky for the average working (or, in my case, retired) guy. I looked at the salesman and, in my best and most diplomatic negotiating style, pleasantly asked "What the &^#$! is this??"

"Oh," he replied, "I'm sorry if I didn't explain that well enough" (actually, he hadn't even mentioned it before). He launched into a long explanation full of boilerplate words about market forces and supply and demand and the relationship between the prices of new and used cars and the height of the tides in Nova Scotia in mid-April and blah, blah, blah ... which essentially boiled down to "you want the car, we have the car, we can add whatever charges we want."

Agnes pulled me down from the ceiling, and we prepared to walk out and enjoy the service of our trusty existing car for another few years. The salesman, seeing what had been a near-sure sale evaporating before his eyes, turned the page in his manual and executed the next phase of the negotiation: "What will it take for you to buy this car today?"

"Take off the 'market adjustment'," we replied. 

"Let me talk to my manager," he answered.

And so began the next act of the kabuki dance, as the salesman repeated the to-and-fro discussions with the man behind the curtain. The result was, as we expected, that they would would not drop the "market adjustment" entirely, but wanted to know how much of that amount we'd be willing to accept. Given that they were going to hold fast to getting something, we said "$1000." The salesman gulped and hightailed it back to the manager. After some time, he returned and asked if we would settle for $1,599 ... an amount which, he implied, would result in his children going without adequate food and clothing. After some discussion, we agreed that we could grudgingly live with it.

And so began the next round of the kabuki dance - the credit check and financing discussions. Our credit is excellent, our debts modest, and our income, although not oligarchal, is comfortable, so we weren't particularly worried about any of that, especially since we were bringing a very desirable trade-in and a substantial down payment to the table. Nevertheless, the dance had to be danced, and we waited for hours as figures were laboriously typed into computers, endless forms were generated, expensive additional coverages and services were presented and declined, and a million wet and electronic signatures were applied.

And so it is that, after an agonizing five and a half hours of debate and negotiation, we now own ... almost ... a new car. It should be delivered either this coming Thursday or the following Tuesday, depending on transit time and the provision of the services supposedly covered by all those "destination fees" and "dealer preparation" and "CEO's yacht fund" charges we had to agree to. We will enjoy it and hope that it will provide the same level of reliability and comfort our old car did.

But I'm still pissed off over the whole idea of a market adjustment, which is what we used to call extortion.

Have a good day. Drive carefully ... I don't want any scratches in my new car once it gets here.

More thoughts coming.

Bilbo

Strange Economics

As you all know and I freely acknowledge, I'm not always the brightest bulb in the chandelier. But I like to think that the difference between me and many other dim bulbs is that I'm willing to acknowledge the areas where my wattage is low, and try to educate myself better on them.

Economics is such an area.

The "science" of economics is one that has never made much sense to me, as I think the whole concept of economics is based more on herd psychology and greed than on any immutable laws of the universe. Take our current economic situation, for instance ...

The most recently released data show that the US economy has added new jobs at an astounding rate over the last three months. This is considered by economists to be amazingly good (if unexpected) news, and a sign that the economy is strong and its recovery from the pandemic slump is moving ahead very well. But nevertheless, everywhere you look are "help wanted" signs pleading for new employees. Service in restaurants and many stores is slow and/or hours have been reduced because of a lack of staff. Whyzat?

There's a fairly simple explanation, but one that seems to be minimized by economists and conservative politicians: there are plenty of jobs, but they don't pay enough to allow a worker to support a family. This indicates to me that the problem is not the availability of jobs, of which there are hundreds of thousands, it's the ability of workers to make ends meet when they take them.

This, in turn, underlines the central paradox of the capitalist system and the market economy: a business exists not to produce goods or provide services, but to earn money by doing so. For a business to thrive, it has to make enough of a profit (income after expenses) to pay three specific groups of people: (1) the owner of the business, who wants (and deserves) to earn his living; (2) the shareholders of the business, who want a return on their investment in the business; and (3) the workers who actually make the business generate revenue, who need to be able to support themselves and their families. Each of these groups approaches the business from a different perspective:

The owner wants to maximize profit so that he or she obtains maximum personal economic benefit from the business;

The shareholder wants the largest possible return on his or her investment as a reward for underwriting the business; and,

The worker wants the largest possible salary consistent with his or her investment of time and energy in the job (including paying off the education and training that were required to obtain the job in the first place).

These three perspectives are, of course, inconsistent with each other.

Workers want the lowest possible prices for the things they need to buy. In order to keep prices low and profits high, business owners must minimize their operating costs. How are costs minimized? By, among other things, employing the smallest possible number of workers and paying them the lowest possible salaries consistent with getting them to sign on in the first place. Shareholders care about workers only to the extent that they keep businesses operating at maximum profit.

And the ugly economic circle goes round and round.

I have more (borderline coherent) thoughts and ideas about economic issues and the motivating greed and herd psychology that masquerade as economic law, but I need to stop now, because my head hurts and I don't see any way to make an American-style capitalist economy satisfy the needs of everyone in the current environment.

I really worry about the economy that my grandchildren are going to inherit, and the people who believe it's the best of all possible worlds.

Have a good day. More thoughts coming. 

Bilbo

Centibillionaires

At the intersection of linguistics and economics we have an interesting and depressing new word: centibillionaire, defined as "a person with assets worth more than 100 billion dollars, pounds, euros, etc."*

How sad (or amazing, depending on your personal financial and socio-political outlook) is it that we need a word to denote the fact that we have at least five persons (as of this writing) who have such enormous wealth? That they can buy their own flight into space? That they can own multiple huge houses on several continents? That their wealth - in comparison to that of the average person working for them - is literally beyond comprehension?

The real question, which has been asked by people more educated than I in the science of economics and the morality of wealth, is how much is enough? How large does one's asset list need to be? How many homes, yachts, sports teams, paramours, and members of Congress does one person need to own?

The average Republican (who probably earns not much over minimum wage) would tell you that rugged individualism coupled with unbridled capitalism built the American society we all enjoy, and that those who have amassed staggering fortunes have earned the right to their luxuries by providing the wealth that has "trickled down" to the rest of us. They are not bothered by the fact that this is clearly hogwash.

Although it may seem like it, I really don't begrudge the wealthy their fortunes, to the extent that those fortunes have actually been earned rather than inherited. I do believe, however, that those who have amassed enormous fortunes have an obligation to see to the well-being of those whose work built those fortunes. If you're a Jeff Bezos with a fortune nearly beyond calculation, paying the workers in your fulfillment centers an average of $15 per hour is, at the very least, fair.

How much should an average worker be paid? That's a good question, and one on which there will never be agreement. In general, it's clear that a worker should be paid based on the level of skill and education required to do the job ... the chemical engineer who designs and operates production lines for critical vaccines probably deserves to be paid more per hour than the person sweeping the floors and cleaning the toilets at the factory ... even though both of those persons play important roles in the economic ecology. The idea of a minimum wage is not all bad, but ignores the economic fact that no one can support a family on $7.25/hour anywhere in the United States.

A better idea might be the living wage, which would allow a person to support a family of four, but - like the minimum wage - it will be different in different parts of the country, and it would be difficult to agree on what that wage might be and who should be empowered to calculate it. 

Which brings us back to the centibillionaires.

I personally think there's something wrong with the fact that many people in this country (including both members of many households with two working parents) must work multiple jobs to pay for food, rent, medical insurance, and utilities, with little left over to save for things like vacations and the education of their children. Do centibillionaires have a responsibility to share their wealth with those less fortunate? Legally, no. Morally, probably. How would they do it?

By paying their share of taxes, for one thing. Recent reports based on leaked IRS records show that the super-rich pay little - often no - taxes on their income, using a wide range of tax law advantages and loopholes not available to the average American. There is wide disagreement on what constitutes a fair level of taxation for the vastly wealthy, but the simple fact is that there has never been a serious attempt to address the issue. Our tax laws help the wealthy to increase their fortunes simply by allowing them to avoid taxes commensurate with the extent of their wealth.

I suppose this makes me a ... gasp! ... socialist (at least in the eyes of those who howl about socialism but really don't understand what it is). But I can live with that. I pay hefty taxes on my relatively small retirement investment returns and my military pension, and I can live with that, too. I don't need to be a centibillionaire ... I just want to be able to support my wife and I and live without fear that an unexpected bill will wipe us out.

If you're a centibillionaire, you don't worry much about that.

Have a good day. More thoughts coming.

Bilbo

* Contrary to what you might have thought, a "centibillionaire" is not one in need of more or better deodorant.

Of Minimums and Minorities

There are two things that seem to me to be of surpassing importance in looking at our political situation: the fight over the minimum wage, and the specter of minority rule.

The current push to increase the minimum wage from $7.25/hour to $15/hour is understandable, as are the arguments on both sides of the issue. In a capitalist society like ours, profits are the most important thing - every aspect of a business is geared toward maximizing profits while minimizing costs. It's obvious that a business owner focused on minimizing costs would rather pay an employee $7.25/hr rather than $15/hour. In addition to this, the argument is often made that the wage paid should reflect the capabilities required of the worker and the degree of responsibility inherent in the job. As the argument goes, the pay scale of the janitor who sweeps the floor and the CEO who makes multi-million-dollar decisions affecting the whole company need to reflect the reality of their positions in the corporate food chain.  

But it's equally clear that in most localities around the country, a full-time employee earning $7.25/hour simply can't make ends meet. That individual cannot pay the rent on a simple two-bedroom apartment, much less buy food, own a car, pay for medical insurance, take a vacation, etc. So, from the perspective of the worker trying to survive, a higher wage is crucial.

Irresistible force, meet immovable object.

Nobody could seriously argue that the CEO should not be paid more than the janitor. But simple fairness and common sense indicate that the janitor ought to be paid a wage that allows him (or her) to afford to live, not merely survive. The CEO doesn't need three homes on two continents, but the janitor needs to put food on the table, stay healthy, and get the children educated. The issue is one of economic and social fairness, not of pure profit.

The fight over the minimum wage illustrates another ongoing issue, which is the growing specter of minority rule in the United States.

Despite the fact that most progressive policies (a living wage, affordable health care, and a basic social safety net, for example) are wildly popular with large majorities of the working-level population, the conservative senators and representatives those people elect are dead-set against them. How does this make sense?

It's been noted over and over again that the conservative members of Congress as a group represent tens of millions of citizens fewer than their more progressive colleagues, and yet they continue to oppose legislation that is supported by the people they represent. In the Senate, for instance, routine use of the filibuster serves to block legislation that is popular with voters, but is opposed by the monied interests who pay for election campaigns. The conservative tail is wagging the progressive dog, while howling that the progressive dog is failing to be "bipartisan" ... which, in the telling, means failing to roll over and accept the positions of those who advocate positions their constituents do not support.  

This is crazy.

I don't know what the answer is. Well, actually, I do. The answer is for each side to recognize the fundamental interests of the other and cooperate seriously in search of a realistic accommodation. Unfortunately, this requires common sense, compassion, and a willingness to abandon political dogma and the use of simplistic bumper-sticker slogans ("socialism," "death panels," "own the libs," etc) in place of rational thought. Sadly, I don't see that happening any time soon.

I think that if the filibuster is eliminated and more progressive policies are enacted, the voting population will be able to see what works and what doesn't. They will see the difference between government by popular and people-oriented policies and government by fear and the unyielding support of profits over workers.

It's time to give sanity a chance.

Have a good day. More thoughts coming.

Bilbo

Government by Voucher

A mainstay of GOP economic policy is the use of "vouchers" as an alternative to direct government funding of (mainly social) programs.

So, what's a "voucher?" For purposes of the current discussion, we'll define it as, "an amount of money provided by the government to an individual or family to defray a particular category of expense, such as health care or a child's education at the school of the parents' choice." The voucher concept appeals to conservatives and libertarians because it removes the government from a role in individual decision-making, allowing the individual to apply a given amount of money as he or she sees fit.

Of course, from a conservative or libertarian perspective, the government shouldn't be giving anyone any money at all ... the individual should be totally responsible for his or her own life and decisions, and should not expect the government to channel anyone else's hard-earned money to them for any reason. But as long as the reality is that some form of government assistance will be needed by a certain part of the population, vouchers are the go-to answer for conservatives and libertarians.

So ...

Why not let vouchers take the place of government budgeting?

Since Congress hasn't actually passed a budget for years, relying on "continuing resolutions" to fund the nation's business, why not admit that budgets are passé and just run the country by giving vouchers to each cabinet department and independent federal agency? I think the federal government could save a huge amount of money by dumping the whole budget sham with all its vast administrative overhead and just delivering shrink-wrapped pallets of hundred-dollar bills to each department to spend however they want, much as the DoD and CIA do to rent the temporary allegiance of warlords in Afghanistan and Pakistan. For instance ...

Give the Department of Defense a voucher for, oh, say, about $600 billion*, and tell the Secretary of Defense that he can spend it on whatever he needs for the national defense.

Give the Department of Education a few million** to spend on frivolous things like ... well ... educating our children and preparing them for a future as productive citizens.

No vouchers needed for the Environmental Protection Administration, since it's being managed into politically-mandated uselessness, anyhow.

Financial management by voucher ... how could it be any worse than the mess we have now?

Have a good day. If you don't have one, let me know and I'll send you a voucher.

More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

* The DoD Budget Request for FY 2017 was $582.7 billion. See page 1-2.

** The Department of Education Budget Request for FY 2017 was $69.4 billion, but that was clearly too much, since it's obvious that the American populace isn't especially well educated. The department can get by with a lot less, as can most school districts, since teachers make up a lot of funding shortfalls out of their staggeringly large salaries ... and in any case, teaching junk science and "creation science" is cheap, anyhow.

Fearonomics

One of my favorite websites, WordSpy, introduced me to an interesting new word the other day: fearonomics (noun) - "The negative impact of fear and anxiety on economic activity; the use of fear to sell products and services."

It seems to me that this is an especially good word for the present day, particularly in the second meaning. For instance, how many millions of guns continue to be sold in this country every year because of the fear of

(1) tyrannical, overreaching government that wants to take your guns away*;

(2) armed criminals**;

(3) violent, uncontrolled illegal aliens***; and,

(4) America-hating liberals bent on ruining the country?

Sex may sell^†, but so does fear.

And as President Franklin Roosevelt memorably said in his first inaugural address,

"So first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself—nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance."

I think we've done a spectacular amount of retreating in the last few years, and it's not doing anyone any good. Let's think about advancing for a change.

Have a good day. Don't give in to the counsel of your fears, or let your spending be driven by fearonomics.

More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

* The fact that it's done a pretty inept job of doing it for the last 200-odd years notwithstanding.

** Who, oddly enough, find it extraordinarily easy to get their hands on plenty of guns.

*** Who should be deported or jailed, anyhow.

† Contrary to popular belief, it may not - at least, in the long run. Check out this article from Psychology Today.

Pre-Existing Conditions

One of the most contentious elements of the ongoing fecal maelstrom over health care is the responsibility (or not) of insurance companies to cover the treatment of pre-existing conditions. How that term is defined, and what sorts of conditions are considered "pre-existing," are at the heart of the debate.

Here is a good basic definition of pre-existing condition, taken from Investopedia: "Any personal illness or health condition that was known and existed prior to the writing and signing of an insurance contract."

Insurance companies write, price, and issue policies depending on their assessment of the relative risk to their bottom line - that is, the likelihood that they will have to pay out benefits to policyholders. It's obvious that, from a purely business perspective, an insurance company doesn't want to issue a policy to an individual if they already know that individual represents a bad risk - will cost the company far more in benefits than the individual has paid in premiums. The assessment of risk is why auto insurance companies charge more to insure a teenage male driver than a middle-aged female, or cancel the policies of persons whose record shows multiple accidents for which they are at fault. It's why property insurers charge more to protect homes built on top of earthquake fault lines or in areas prone to wildfires.

Health insurance is a bit different, though. Obviously, it's cheaper and a much better risk to insure a person who is young and fit and less likely to need medical care than to insure an older person who, in the natural scheme of things, is probably more prone to conditions which will require increasingly expensive treatment. The paradox is that young, fit people who think they'll live forever don't want to waste* money on insurance ... but later on, when they're older and really need it, they'll have accumulated a raft of pre-existing conditions that may price the necessary coverage out of their reach.

What are some of the pre-existing conditions that are sometimes cited by insurance companies as justification for higher rates, or for the denial of coverage altogether? Here are some of the commonly-cited conditions which have resulted in automatic denial of coverage**:

AIDS/HIV;
Alcohol or drug abuse with recent treatment;
Alzheimer’s/dementia;
Anorexia;
Arthritis;
Bulimia;
Cancer;
Cerebral palsy;
Congestive heart failure;
Coronary artery/heart disease, bypass surgery;
Crohn’s disease;
Diabetes;
Epilepsy;
Hemophilia;
Hepatitis;
Kidney disease, renal failure;
Lupus;
Mental disorders (including Anxiety, Bipolar Disorder, Depression, Obsessive Compulsive Disorder, Schizophrenia);
Multiple sclerosis;
Muscular dystrophy;
Obesity;
Organ transplant;
Paraplegia;
Paralysis;
Parkinson’s disease;
Pending surgery or hospitalization;
Pneumocystic pneumonia;
Pregnancy or expectant parent (includes men);
Sleep apnea;
Stroke; and,
Transsexualism.

That's quite a list, and I'm pretty sure that it covers a significant portion of the population. I'm just glad that my arthritis and sleep apnea were diagnosed well after I'd already obtained my insurance, or I'd be up the creek without a medical paddle.

There are a few other conditions I'm surprised aren't on the list. They include:

Life (after all, if you weren't alive, you wouldn't need to worry about health care);

Poverty (which will, in many cases, prevent you from obtaining the routine care that will prevent the development of other pre-existing conditions); and,

Stupidity (which prevents you from recognizing that you are being screwed by the health care insurance system, and allows you to vote for elected officials who do not have your best interests at heart).

Oh, and it should be noted that while mental disorders are considered a pre-existing condition which will preclude the purchase of health insurance, they are not considered serious enough to preclude the purchase of firearms*** (see Stupidity, above).

If you suffer from anything on this list, or any other list maintained by any of the 50 states or any insurance provider, good luck. You're on your own.

Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

* From their perspective.

** From a December 2016 report on the topic from the Kaiser Family Foundation. You can see the list in context and read the full report here.

*** Not completely accurate, but close.

Is There a Doctor in the House?

You no doubt noted the news flash that hit yesterday, announcing that premiums for popular insurance plans bought through ACA (Affordable Care Act, aka "Obamacare") exchanges would go up by 25% for 2017.

Your reaction to this news likely depends on your political persuasions and economic circumstances: if you are a Republican or a Libertarian, it's positive proof that the ACA is a total failure and a swindle perpetrated on the helpless American public by a grasping and all-invasive government. If you are a Democrat, it's positive proof that the ACA is being deliberately undermined by the GOP, the AMA, Big Pharma, and the insurance industry. If you have a job that offers good health insurance through your employer, you probably don't care all that much. And if you are a low- to middle-income American who is unemployed and needs affordable health care, it's terrible news. No matter. This pooch has been screwed for a long time.

It's no secret that America has the finest health care in the world, and probably the worst system in the world for delivering it to those who need it. Over the years, for better or worse, we have developed a system under which the availability of health care is contingent upon insurance provided as a benefit (in lieu of wages) by one's employer. In general, the larger one's employer, the more varied and affordable are the insurance options available. Those who are self-employed or unemployed must fend for themselves, or rely upon health care at hospital emergency rooms or free clinics.

I would be the first to admit that the ACA is far from a perfect solution to the problem of availability and affordability of health care in this country. It is, however, an attempt to address that problem. Republicans insist that the ACA must be repealed and replaced; however, they have yet to address the "replace" part of that thunderous denunciation, and it's hard to take them seriously until they do.

To the extent that the GOP has any actual ideas on making health care available and affordable, they seem to center on two things:

1. Let the free market set the prices and self-manage the system; or,

2. Let people pay for health care with tax credits.

Now, you can take everything I know about economics, put it in your navel, and have room left over for a herd of elephants and a brass band, but it seems obvious to me that The Market hasn't done a particularly good job of making health care affordable up to now. Many reasons have been put forward for this. One theory - beloved of conservatives and libertarians - is that the economy has been distorted by government interference, and if only all governmental restrictions were removed, The Market would eventually solve its own problem.

I believe this is so much caca de toro, for a few reasons. First, a mainstay of free-market pricing is that prices will adjust to "what the market will bear," meaning that if prices are too high, people will not buy the products and the sellers will either go out of business or find a point that delivers maximum profits at a price customers are willing to pay*. I contend that when you have a product or service - like medical care - that people must have, The Market is rigged** in favor of the provider of the product or service because that provider knows the customer absolutely has to have it and will figure out a way to pay whatever price is demanded, not having the option to do without***.

Tax Credits, along with Tax Cuts, are the standard conservative solution to every problem, but as I've often written here, tax credits granted for one purpose take away funds needed for operation of the government^†. In any case, people don't need Tax Credits that help them when they file at the end of the year ... the insurance premiums are due now, the doctor wants to be paid now, the pharmacist wants paid for your prescriptions now, etc. They're not interested in waiting until the end of the year when Uncle Sam grudgingly gives you that credit.

Some observers advocate a so-called "single-payer" solution as a way to help bring down costs and simplify the provision of health care. This is the approach used in much of the rest of the world, where a government agency is responsible for paying the bills, and individuals pay their insurance premiums by means of a tax. Such an approach is anathema to conservatives and free-market supporters in this country because (a) the government screws up everything it touches; (b) it removes the freedom of the individual to decide how to obtain and manage his health care; and (c) it allows government bureaucrats to make decisions on health care that a person's doctor should be making^††. As for the government screwing up everything it touches, I view that more as a problem of poor leadership, management, and accountability than of any inherent problem with government ... no different from any commercial enterprise. As for the denial of freedom of choice, I can't argue with that ... but it seems to me that the freedom of choice we have now in the health care arena is as much a curse as a blessing. And as for (c), it appears little different from the system we have now, in which insurance company bureaucrats rather than government bureaucrats make decisions on health care that a person's doctor should be making.

I don't pretend to have the answers to this problem, but I do like to try to keep an open mind and not reject possible solutions out of hand. Health care is one of the most difficult and intractable problems facing the country today, largely because it is profit-driven and there are so many different stakeholders with often-conflicting interests. The only stakeholders whose interests are not being addressed are you and I - the people who need health care that ought to be available and affordable in the greatest country on earth^†††, political philosophies be damned.

Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

* As an example, how many times per year do the various businesses and services with which you deal announce that they are raising their prices because their costs have gone up? Quite a few, I imagine. And chances are you grumble and keep on paying the new rate. Now imagine the reverse: you write to those same businesses and announce that you are reducing your payments because your cost of living has gone up and your wages have remained stagnant or declined. Can you spell "service cutoff" or "lawsuit?"

** Sorry.

*** Consider the scandalous price increases levied by the manufacturers of Epi-Pens and Daraprim in the past year ... the manufacturers don't appear to be too worried about the patients who need the drugs. 

† Conservatives and Libertarians will tell you that tax cuts should be compensated for by reduced spending ... but nobody ever seems to be willing to take on the wide range of special interests who oppose almost any spending reduction you could name.

†† Remember the stupid canard about "death panels" deciding when to pull the plug on grandma?

††† It's already great, Mr Trump. 

Inka, Dinka, Doo

Just a brief rant for today: I bought a set of new ink cartridges for Agnes's printer at Costco yesterday for $79.99.

Consider the economics of ink ...

The three color cartridges (cyan, magenta, and yellow) hold (on average) about 8 ml of ink each, while the black one holds 14 ml, giving a total volume of ink in the package of approximately 22ml*. At a total cost of $79.99, this means that printer ink costs about $3.64/ml. If there are 3,785 ml in a gallon, this means printer ink costs about $13,777/gallon.

Forget prescription drug coverage ... I need ink insurance.

Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

* My source of the ink volume figures is this Hewlitt-Packard webpage. The packaging does not tell you how much ink is in each cartridge.  

Putting it All in Perspective

A while back I ran across some interesting graphics that illustrated what various large amounts of money would look like if they were expressed as packets of $100 bills. This is what $1 billion would look like if it was in standard bank packets of $100 bills - a "strap" of 100 c-notes, or $10,000 ...

Each of those piles of straps of $100 bills is resting on a standard-sized cargo pallet, with a non-gender-specific humanoid individual* for reference. That's quite a lot of hundred dollar bills, especially now that I have to count them a lot more closely than I used to.

Now consider that the 2016 presidential campaign could cost between three and five billion dollars ... most of it from sources Real People aren't allowed to know about. Five billion dollars would look like this ...

Now, instead of picturing that amount of money as pallets of $100 bills, why not picture it as ... oh ... schools? Or affordable hospitals? Or clean water? Or non-collapsing bridges and non-potholed roads?

I know that my deeply conservative and libertarian friends will howl with outrage and ask the usual question - "Who are you to tell me how to spend my money?" Well, I obviously have no control over how you spend your money. But what I do have is a vital interest in how you spend your money if your intent is to buy control over the government that makes decisions that affect me and my family. You're going to spend your money however you want ... but don't expect me to accept that you can buy a platinum-plus level of government service and assistance** that other people can't afford.

Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

* I don't want to offend anyone, and I don't care where he/she goes to the bathroom.

** Tax breaks, corporate welfare, etc.

Medical Economics

In the frantic, outraged howling over how the Affordable Care Act (AKA "Obamacare") is destroying the nation, there's a simple issue that gets buried amid the lawsuits and the neverending stream of useless Congressional votes to repeal the law: it represents an attempt, whether one agrees with it or not, to address the serious problem of the cost of health care in this country. I take no position on whether the ACA is good or bad ... nobody will ever agree on that and every side of the argument can marshal vast armies of data, statistics, and apocryphal stories to "prove" that they are correct and everyone else is either a heartless fascist or a dirty commiepinkoratbastard who hates America.

What's lost in the shouting is that this country has the best health care in the world ... but Real People can't afford it.

Allow me to illustrate the point by sharing with you a shocking lesson in medical economics that I learned in the last week.

I have health insurance through my employer with a major HMO (which I will not name here). I have been with this HMO ever since I retired from the Air Force in 1996. On the whole, Agnes and I have been very happy with our care and we have personal physicians we like and trust. It's expensive, but the cost has been bearable and I've always felt we were getting what we paid for.

On January 1st of this year, my employer changed its relationship with our HMO to what's known as a "High Deductible Health Plan," or "HDHP." An HDHP saves the employer money by shifting more of the cost of health care to the employee, who must pay a fairly large amount of money (the "deductible") out of pocket before actually seeing any cost relief; and it supposedly encourages the employee to manage his or her health better by making individual doctor visits and medications much more expensive, thereby discouraging the seeking of treatment until one has one foot in the grave and the other on a banana peel.

In December of last year, my doctor prescribed a three-month supply (90 tablets) of a specialized medication for me, for which I paid about $8.00 at the HMO's pharmacy. In early February, after some additional tests, the doctor decided to up my dosage from one to two tablets per day, and told me that when the prescription ran out, he would write a new one for a single tablet with twice the dosage of the medication so that I would only have to take one horse pill per day rather than two. This past Thursday, I went to the HMO pharmacy to pick up the new prescription. I fully expected it to be more expensive, because it was double the strength of the previous one; I went in estimating to pay anywhere from $20-$30 for what had cost me $8.00 two months earlier.

When the pharmacist brought out the new prescription, the cost for 90 tablets was $1275.98 ... an increase of nearly 16 thousand percent from what I had paid just three months earlier. Martin Shkreli would be proud.*

I walked out of the pharmacy without the medication, and with a profound new appreciation of exactly what a high-deductible health plan actually means. I am still trying to figure out how to afford the medication ... and to be fair, my doctor was shocked when I told him about the difference in price, and is working out an alternative approach to my treatment.

So riddle me this, Batman ... what is the point of the world's finest health care system if people cannot afford it? Should medical care follow the usual "charge whatever the market will bear" rules of a capitalist economy, which assume that the price of goods and services will come down to a level that balances the needs of the buyer and the seller? I think that the health care industry is a prime example of why that economic model doesn't work, at least not in all cases.

I don't know what the answer is to making health care affordable for Real People. There are a vast number of moving parts and an equally vast number of stakeholders in the medical care business, all of whom are motivated, in the last analysis, by the need to turn a profit rather than the need to provide affordable care to Real People. Obamacare, whatever its faults, was an attempt to fix it. For all their screaming and bluster, the GOP has yet to offer any comprehensive and workable alternative.

I didn't tell you my story to garner sympathy, but to offer a real-world illustration of the insanity that is our American system of delivering health care. If you have better ideas about how to control costs and deliver quality health care, let your elected reprehensives know. It won't do any good unless accompanied by a large campaign contribution, but you can enjoy the illusion of having tried.

Have a good day. Don't get sick unless you're rich. More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

* Yes, I know that the comparison is not completely accurate, because although it's the same medication, the pills are of a different dosage strength. However, simple math (which clearly does not apply in medical economics) would have suggested that if 90 tablets at a strength of S cost $8.00, 90 tablets of the same medication at a strength of Sx2 might be estimated to cost somewhere in the neighborhood of $16. As noted, I was prepared to pay a larger sum of say, $20 to $30 ... but not nearly $1,300.00.

It's All About (Getting Rid of) the Benjamins

You are no doubt aware, Dear Readers, of many of the slang terms that are employed to describe our currency, usually in reference to the person on the front: the dollar bill is often called a "George," the five a "Ham" (short for Abraham Lincoln), and the hundred-dollar bill is often called a "Benjamin" in honor of Benjamin Franklin. The hundred-dollar bill is the largest bill in general circulation in the United States, and has become a symbol of wealth and greed, as in the street slang expression "it's all about the Benjamins."

But there is a fairly serious move afoot now to do away with the venerable Benjamin, for a number of reasons. The most important is that it has become the bill of choice for criminals, who must move hundreds of millions of dollars every year. Most of us never need to think about the logistics of moving that much money, but it's quite a problem. A single $100 bill looks like this:

A million dollars in $100 bills looks like this when stacked in packets of $10,000 (each packet has one hundred hundreds) ... you could probably fit it into a normal suitcase:

But a hundred million dollars in $10,000 bundles looks like this when stacked on a standard cargo pallet:

Now, imagine you are a drug kingpin who needs to move many hundreds of millions of ill-gotten dollars ... and you need to use $50 bills ... or, worse, $20s. The volume would be far beyond your ability to easily and safely transport.

So, one reason for doing away with the Benjamin is to make life difficult for criminals. If you're interested in a more detailed analysis of how eliminating the hundred dollar bill (and the five-hundred euro bill as well) can serve the war on crime, you can read this study by Peter Sands of Harvard's Kennedy School of Government - Making it Harder for the Bad Guys: The Case for Eliminating High Denomination Notes. 

Another reason for doing away with high denomination bills like the Benjamin is that it's often difficult for small businesses to make change for such large bills ... not to mention the merchant's suspicion that they may be counterfeit, and consequent reluctance to accept them at all.

You can read a good article on this issue (where I got the idea for this post) here. And if you're interested, you can go back to August of 2014 and read my earlier post on the topic. As the motto of a committee to which I once belonged said, "No Horse Too Dead."

Have a good day. Spend those Benjamins while you've got 'em.

More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

Labor Day

Today, September 7th, is the American holiday of Labor Day, meant to honor the American labor movement and the contributions that workers have made to the strength, prosperity, and well-being of the United States. Most of the rest of the world has its equivalent of Labor Day as well, and most countries observe it on May 1st, which is known as International Workers Day.

It seems to me that Labor Day in its traditional sense of honoring the American labor movement and the contributions of workers is pretty much a sham nowadays. Conservative legislators and governors have gone out of their way to gut the ability of unions to represent workers, and big business puts profit over the interests of its workers by shipping jobs to other countries where labor costs are lower and they aren't bothered by pesky nuisances like workplace safety rules, taxes, and other job-killing^TM measures. Working men and women are viewed not as valued members of the business team to be trained and nurtured but as an expense to be minimized.

And so, for this holiday honoring what's left of the American labor movement, and the underappreciated American worker, this cartoon from last weekend's Cartoon Saturday collection applies in spades ...

Have a good day, and enjoy the rest of your holiday weekend ... assuming you have a job and were fortunate enough to get the day off.

More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

Dental Economics, or the Tooth, the Whole Tooth, and Nothing but the Tooth

Let's talk about the economics of teeth, shall we?

There were two things that led me to ... uh ... sink my teeth into this topic. The first was a letter from my dental insurance company, proudly announcing that I can get dependable and affordable dental coverage* when I retire (I have dental insurance through my employer now). This is one of the many things I have to worry about as I approach the age of full geezerhood, along with finding affordable medical care, affordable food, affordable housing, and pants that belt up under my armpits. I'm just glad to know that my elected reprehensives of both parties are working hard on the issue: the GOP is working hard to maximize profits and minimize costs for the insurance companies and the medical care industry, while the Democrats are working hard to provide Real People with the best possible care without regard for how it gets paid for. Good luck with all that.

The other thing that got me to thinking about teeth was this article: Tooth Fairy Tightens Purse Strings, Pays Less Per Tooth.

It seems that the Tooth Fairy**, that cheap bastard, is cutting back on payments to children for their lost teeth. According to the article:

"After hitting a high of $3.70 per tooth in 2013, [the Tooth Fairy's] average payout dropped to $3.43 in 2014 and is down yet again to $3.19 this year, according to a new survey by Visa. And she clearly favors the rich. Kids in families who make less than $75,000 a year are getting just $3.07 per tooth, while kids in families who earn more are averaging $3.46, reports UPI. She also has a thing for the Northeast, where kids enjoy the highest average return of $3.56 per tooth; kids suffer the most in the South, where a tooth goes for just $3.07."

Well, hell! ... I remember Little Bilbo and his siblings back in the 50's getting a dime for a regular tooth and a quarter for a molar. Times change, don't they?

And - believe it or not - there is also a "Tooth Fairy Calculator App" available at the iTunes app store to help you calculate the proper payout for a particular tooth, based on gender, education, state, age, family size, marital status and household income.

And finally, there's the GOP tooth fairy ...

But that's enough biting sarcasm for now.

Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

* Luckily, eye care is presently covered under my medical insurance (also provided through my employer), which will help me read the fine print in the offer from the dental insurance company.

** Not to be confused with the somewhat more sinister "Tooth Fairy" in the Thomas Harris thriller Red Dragon.

Luxury Pyramids

I ran across this interesting article a while back by Meagan Willet on the "Business Insider" website: Here's the Hierarchy of Luxury Brands Around the World. It cited a book by HSBC Bank managing director Erwan Rambourg titled The Bling Dynasty: Why the Reign of Chinese Luxury Shoppers Has Only Just Begun, in which Mr Rambourg created a pyramid of brands to show how major brand names range in accessibility from more-or-less affordable everyday luxuries like Starbucks coffee* and craft beers to extreme-high-end luxury items like top-of-the-line diamonds. Here's his pyramid:

The idea is that brands which become overly accessible to the Great Unwashed like you and I become less desirable and appealing to those higher up on the economic scale. If too many people are able to buy a particular item, it loses its appeal as a symbol of the wealth, power, and sophistication that allows the privileged to exist in the rarefied atmosphere of the social and economic elite.

I tried to do up a few versions of the Rambourg Pyramid** that would be a little more realistic when applied to the 99%, but wasn't really happy with any of them. Here's one version ...

In my pyramid, the first five levels represent the increasing levels of more realistic "luxury" (meaning that there's more disposable income to be able to dispose of at increasingly expensive stores). Most of us will never reach the peak of super-ultra-premium-high-end goods represented at the Bespoke*** level of Mr Rambourg's pyramid.

I spend most of my time in the first three levels of my pyramid and the first level of Mr Rambourg's, and at my age I'm not likely to move up much higher. So tell me ... what does your pyramid look like? Leave a comment and let the rest of us know.

Have a good day. Shop at the right places, and come back tomorrow when we reveal our Right Cheek Ass Clown of the Month for April.

More thoughts then.

Bilbo

* I'm not sure I agree that Starbucks Coffee is an "affordable everyday luxury" ... I sometimes think that each Starbucks location should have a collocated bank branch to handle short-term loans.

** My term, not Mr Rambourg's.

*** "Bespoke" means "custom-made," as opposed to off-the-rack.