Top 5 St. Patrick's Day Smells

5. Horse squeeze on hot asphalt
4. Funnel Cakes
3. Corned beef hash
2. Flat beer
1. That smell that occurs when you sip your cheap liquor and the smell of scrambled eggs wafts into your nostrils causing that quarter-stomach-turn.

Top 5 Items Bought From Street Vendors

Expanding on Joe's Top 5...

1. Silly String
2. Fake/Candy Cigarettes
3. Stink Bombs
4. Poppers
5. "Invisible Dog" leash

Top 5 St. Patrick's Day Knick-Knacks

5. Big green horn.
4. Green and white Dr. Seuss-type hat.
3. "Patrick was a saint, I ain't" t-shirt.
2. Three-feet tall inflatable hammer.
1. Green beaded necklace with prominent Cannabis leaf.

Top 5 St. Patrick's Day Sounds

1. Bagpipes
2. Kazoos
3. Police sire chirps
4. Snare drums
5. Dinosaur calls

Top 5 St. Patrick's Day Traditions

1. Pinkie Master's before the parade.
2. Open-bar breakfasts.
3. Chipewa Square after the parade.
4. BC boys getting kisses.
5. Green grits.

Top 5 Things To Do on St. Patrick's Day If You're Not Irish or Catholic

1. Pretend you recognize someone from BC who recognizes you

2. Pretend you aren't some rootless mutt with no ties to anything, really

3. Pretend that your BC ring isn't killing your fatter finger

4. Pretend that everyone you're waving to while you're marching cares that you're waving to them (fairly easy after heavy a.m. drinking)

5. Pretend that you have the stamina to suddenly be able to drink as much and as long as your red-faced, Catholic mick friends (difficult)

St. Patrick's Day Top 5's

With only five weeks to go until the most important day of the year, it is time to start posting some St. Patrick's Day material. Ryan started off the 2009 season with his five week's notice. I will periodically post Top 5 lists of various items relating to St. Patrick's Day in Savannah. I challenge you to do the same. I am also going to reach across blog lines and invite OIA and OITO to do the same.

Slainte,
Snuffy

In Five Weeks

The Assault on Saving, II of II

I left off yesterday arguing that consumer spending is the result of economic prosperity instead of the cause. The misunderstandings surrounding this issue are like most in economics: people are short-sighted and only tend focus on what is seen in the immediate sense, not on what is unseen. This is why it's not immediately apparent how savings are what fuel greater economic prosperity that later allows for more spending and higher living standards.

To illustrate, let us consider the story of two friends: one is named Hank, the other Snuffy. Snuffy and Hank must both be blessed by the luck of the Irish because an anonymous wealthy benefactor at Blessed Sacrament School has passed away and left both with an annuity of $100,000 in dedication for their lifelong service and support of that renowned institution.

Snuffy is a lavish spender with the new income. And he spends not only based on desire, but on principle. He is a firm believer in the theory that every penny must be spent or else goods will accumulate and people will be out of work. So he goes all out in redecorating his home, and buys a few luxury sports cars and a yacht. He dines at the finest restaurants, drinks top-shelf liquor at elite establishments, and goes on numerous vacations at exotic locales. He buys the finest diamonds and jewelry for his girlfriend. He tips very handsomely and keeps a large staff of chauffeurs and servants.

In this way, Snuffy feels he is not only serving his own immediate wants and desires, but is helping others through his generous spending. And it certainly appears this way, because Snuffy is extremely popular with the Lexus car dealers, the bartenders at the Mansion, the bellhops at the Westin, the strippers at Temptations, the wait staff at Ruth's Chris and the Yacht Club, and the entourage he keeps. Everyone around Snuffy see him as a public benefactor for his liberal indulgences. His extravagance keeps these people fat, happy, and employed because he pays for their services; that is what is seen.

Hank, on the other hand, is an entirely different story. His spending habits are quite austere. Unlike Snuffy, Hank decides to only spend half ($50,000) the income each year. Sure, Hank splurges on the occasional Outback steak or Captain's Platter at Hilliard's, but for the most part his spending habits remain the same as before the bequest. He lives a much more modest lifestyle and is rarely seen making it rain at the jewelers, the nightclubs, and the strip clubs. He still eats bologne sandwiches, sneaks peanuts and Sam's cola into the movie theatres, and brings flasks into bars. For this reason, many view Hank as overly stern and stingy. With Snuffy being the city's Santa, Hank is seen as its Scrooge. By withholding potential spending dollars, he deprives retail and services sector additional income or employment; that is what is seen.

But what of the $50,000 Hank chooses not to spend? Where does it go? Does he just stuff it under his mattress or allow it to pile up in his closet? What happens to it? This is the part of the equation this is not seen. Hank decides to take his cash and deposit it into a savings account at First Chatham Bank. And when Hank does this, the Bank uses that money to loan to businesses. The businesses can employ Hank's savings in a variety of ways: maybe as short-term working capital, maybe to expand production, maybe to invest in new and better equipment, maybe to hire additional workers.

In this way, saving is really just another form of spending. The chief difference is the spending Snuffy engages in can be easily seen with the naked eye, while the result of Hank's investing is harder to grasp because it goes unseen. When people like Hank save, it increases the supply of money capital in the economy, which lowers real interest rates. And when interest rates are lowered, it allows for the production and purchase of capital goods like new houses, factories, office buildings, equipment, and high-tech tools. Businesses are more willing and able to invest because loan payments are cheaper than before. More projects can now be undertaken because interest payments no longer exceed the potential and projected revenues from such projects.

20 years pass. The trust fund becomes exhausted. Snuffy, having spent every dime, is now broke. His former colleagues now think of him as a fool, and he begs his friend Hank for money, who is meanwhile rolling in dough from the interest income he now receives from his investments. And not only has his fiscal prudence secured his own personal financial well-being, but his savings have provided and will continue to provide better, high-paying, and more productive jobs.

In this way, Hank has done far more good for the economy through saving than Snuffy did with his spending. When a company invests in new equipment or better machines, it helps raise living standards by lowering the costs of production. There are two ways in which this happens: (1) workers are provided with higher wages, because they are now able to produce more per hour and thus create more value for their employer, and (2) it allows the business to reduce the price per unit, which translates into more money into consumer's pockets. So not only is Hank's personal income and wealth greater than Snuffy's, but he has added to the economy's productive capacity while Snuffy has not.

This is why a nation's wealth and prosperity depends not on the public's willingness to spend money on consumer goods, but on the amount of accumulated capital the public has at its disposal in its production of such goods. This is why it makes little sense for our government to continue coercing consumers to engage in spendthrift behavior (just so we can get nice, big, fat GDP figures!) instead of allowing the market to adjust and the economy to recapitalize itself. By continuing to inflate the currency and holding down nominal interest rates (now at a ridiculous 0%), people have little, if any, incentive to save their money. Washington is doing everything in its power right now to turn us into a nation of Snuffys, but the road to prosperity lies in having more Hanks.

The Assault on Saving, I of II

Nowhere else in the free world are the rhetorical obscenities necessary to justify radical economic fallacy so flagrantly on display right now as in our nation's capital. Nowhere else but in a political setting can good so easily be viewed as evil, can vice be so suddenly transformed into virtue; can common sense so quickly be chastised as ignorance.

I am talking of course, of the political establishment's all-out war against thrift in the current economic mess. In the stimulus debate going on right now, there is deep disdain for giving out tax refunds because, God forbid, the people might actually just "save" some of it. And that's bad news! We can't have that! We can't allow selfish private citizens to think only of themselves instead of the common good during these rough times! We can't have miserly taxpayers hoarding dollars into their bank accounts! This is proof, the president said last month, that only government can truly look out for the common good and get money circulating again to create jobs! Right?

So, the politicians and so-called "economists" who say and publish whatever is necessary to win their favor reason that the "wise" course would be to "get the biggest bang for the buck" by spending the money on government make-work projects, food stamps, and unemployment benefits. This, they claim, will have a so-called "multiplier effect" because it will force dollars to "circulate" out in the economy in and endless process that will create an infinite number of jobs! Yay! The public workers will most certainly get some cash, and then they'll turn around and spend it at the grocery store, so that the grocery store's employees can get cash and spend it on new DVD players, so that the DVD manufacturers will get paid and spend it on new cars, so that the automakers can go out and purchase new houses! And the boom never ends! Thanks to government spending, we'll just have a never-ending, "trickle-up" spiral of prosperity! Anyone who's watched CNN, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, ABC, or read any major newspaper has been subjected to this drivel on a daily basis.

Nevermind that it's equally imaginable how the public worker, like the refund recipient, could also decide to save a portion of his income. Maybe he won't go out and buy that flat-screen. Maybe he'll just sock it away like all the other stingy taxpayers would have. I guess in the minds of the business journalists and exhalted economists, the public worker is somehow "different." He's just going to be inherently generous with his paycheck for some reason, it's presumed. How or why, I'm not sure. Like the several other "crises" we've experienced these last 6 months, we just have to take them at their word, I guess. And we know how that usually turns out.

But this is all beside the point. The theory that we can somehow spend our way into prosperity not only seems just a little too good to be true, but it contradicts and violates everything common sense has told us for thousands of years. Since time immemorial, the virtues of saving over spending have been preached. Since ancient times, in every successful religion, culture, and tradition, thrift and industry have been exalted while prodigality and waste have been chastised. Since grade school, our parents have always lectured us to keep whatever and whenever we can, and to spend less than what we have. Only in Washington, D.C. are such established truths and proverbs perverted to serve the ends of the political class and their addiction to spending other people's money.

So, as I'll demonstrate in tomorrow's post, politicians and media pundits are putting the cart in front of the horse when they say things like "consumer spending drives the economy," because saving is not the enemy of economic growth but is in fact its very source. Stay tuned as we will see how a simple short story can illustrate this truism and thoroughly dismantle Keynes' alleged "paradox."

The Show About Nothing

I was a Freshman at BC when the last episode of Seinfeld aired May 14,1998. Little did I know back then that this show was truely a gem that will be carried on for many generations to come. I really didn't start to appreciate the cleverness of the show unitl I was well into my college education at GSU.

Now almost eleven years after the finale it has many phrases that are still used today, like "Not like there is anything wrong with that", Yada Yada Yada" and "Shrinkage". What is your favorite?

The 2nd Annual Gael Force Run

It's that time of year again. As St. Patrick's Day draws near, so too does the Gael Force Run.

This year's race is scheduled for Friday, March 13th at 6:30pm and will follow the parade route.

There's a twist this year: everyone begins at the start with a full beer. Racers cannot leave the starting line until they have finished their beer. At the finish line, each racer will grab another full beer and must finish it before they can be counted as finishing the race.

Whoever finishes in last place must buy a round of beers for the top 5 finishers at the post-race social at Pinkie Masters.

Also, we are getting t-shirts made, so the entry fee is $10.

As tradition dictates, creative Irish attire must be worn by all contestants.

See y'all there!

Delirium of the Brave - The Movie

No, a production of the quintessential Savannah Catholic novel is not in the works...but what if it was?

Your job is to help cast the movie. I will list the major characters with a brief description. In the comments section, list which current Hollywood star you think should fill each role. I am assuming you have all read the book. If you have not, you will be suspended from posting until you have completed the assignment.

John-Morgan Hartman
The novel's protagonist. A young man who leads by example. Brigade Commander of the Benedictine Corps of Cadets.

Ann Marie Kerry
John-Morgan's sweetheart and an SVA girl. Beautiful and would make a good wife.

Charlotte Drayton
John-Morgan's summer fling. A Country Day girl from a wealthy family. A fast girl.

Tony O'Boyle, Jr.
The novel's antagonist. Aggressive and power-hungry. Knows what he wants and will step over anyone to get it. Start QB for the Cadets.

Bubba Silverman
One of John-Morgan's life-long friends. Happy-go-lucky. Jewish.

Mike Sullivan
Another of John-Morgan's best friends. Big and rowdy. Enough personality to fill the room.

Lloyd Bryan
First black student to attend BC. Incredible athlete. Devout Catholic. Becomes friends with John-Morgan, Bubba and Mike.

John Hartman
John-Morgan's father. A level-headed newspaper columnist.

Tony O'Boyle, Sr.
Young Tony's father. Taught young Tony everything he knows. A social-climbing politician.

Al O'Boyle
Big Tony's brother. The Victory Drive Slasher. Semi-retarded. Big and burly. Does not know his own strength.

Best BC Teachers

I think it's safe to say we have an unhealthy and unusual obsession on this blog with high school and the romanticization of things that happened 10 years ago in general. But seriously, who cares. That's what you get for going to the best high school and being from the greatest city in America.

I felt it was long past time to name the best teachers on Seawright Drive. I could substantiate these rankings by listing academic reasons why each teacher deserves to be on here, but that would just sound really gay. Plus, different teachers are good for different reasons (Tvrdy, for example, makes this list for entirely different reasons than, say, Curley does).

1. Coach Yeckley
2. Mr. Graham
3. Fr. Jeff
4. Coach Curley
5. Mr. Tvrdy

Honorable mentions: LTC Owens, Coach Orsini.

What's your list? And please no negative stuff. While I'd like to think nobody reads what we say on here, history has shown that's not always the case.

Snuffy's Food For Thought

Lee McCurry played varsity basketball at BC.

Happy Birthday Phil

On this day back in 1951, Philip David Charles Collins, was born in Chiswick, London.

Phil comes from an era when pop stars actually wrote their own music, and it sounded good.

Here are lyrics from my personal favorite.

(Phil begins...)

Easy lover

She'll get a hold on you believe it

Like no other

Before you know it you'll be on your knees

She's an easy lover

She'll take your heart but you won't feel it

She's like no other

And I'm just trying to make you see

(Now for high pitched black guy, Philip Bailey...)

She's the kind of girl you dream of

Dream of keeping hold of You'd better forget it

You'll never get it

She will play around and leave you

Leave you and deceive you

Better forget it

Oh you'll regret it....

Awesome.

It's Official

Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid think they know how to spend $1 trillion better than 300 million private individuals do. Kudos to the House Republicans, all of whom opposed the measure.

Street View

View Larger Map

The Stimulus Package Ruse

by Walter Williams.

Here is what my George Mason University colleague Professor Richard Wagner wrote, which was published by Office of the House Republican Leader: "Any so-called stimulus program is a ruse. The government can increase its spending only by reducing private spending equivalently. Whether government finances its added spending by increasing taxes, by borrowing, or by inflating the currency, the added spending will be offset by reduced private spending. Furthermore, private spending is generally more efficient than the government spending that would replace it because people act more carefully when they spend their own money than when they spend other people's money." A short translation of Wagner's comment is: There is no Santa Claus or Tooth Fairy. Let's examine the ruse.

Suppose the value of all that we will produce in 2009, our gross domestic product (GDP), totals $14 trillion. There cannot be any disagreement that if Congress spends $4 trillion, of necessity there is only $10 trillion left over for us to spend privately. In other words, if Congress is going to spend $4 trillion, it must find a way to get us to spend $4 trillion less. The most open and aboveboard method to force us to spend less privately is to tax us to the tune of $4 trillion.
You might say, "Congress doesn't have to tax us $4 trillion. They could tax us $3 trillion and run a $1 trillion budget deficit." You have that wrong. There is no way for Congress to spend $4 trillion out of our 2009 $14 trillion GDP by getting us to spend only $3 trillion less privately. It has to be $4 trillion less. Another method to force us to spend less privately is to print money and inflate the currency. Rising prices reduce our ability to spend privately since each dollar we hold will not buy as much. Another way is for Congress to borrow, thereby reducing our ability to spend privately. By the way, all of this means that in any real economic sense the federal budget is always balanced. That is, if Congress spends $4 trillion we must privately spend $4 trillion less whether it is accomplished through taxation, inflation or borrowing.

The stimulus package being discussed is politically smart but economically stupid. It's that bedeviling, omnipresent Santa Claus and Tooth Fairy problem again. Let's say that Congress taxes you $500 to put toward creating construction jobs building our infrastructure. The beneficiaries will be quite visible, namely men employed building a road. The victims of Congress are invisible and are only revealed by asking what you would have done with the $500 if it were not taxed away from you. Whatever you would have spent it on would have contributed to someone's employment. That person is invisible. Politicians love it when the victims of their policies are invisible and the beneficiaries visible. Why? Because the beneficiaries know for whom to vote and the victims do not know who is to blame for their plight.

In stimulus package language, if Congress taxes to hand out money, one person is stimulated at the expense of another, who pays the tax, who is unstimulated. A visual representation of the stimulus package is: Imagine you see a person at work taking buckets of water from the deep end of a swimming pool and dumping them into the shallow end in an attempt to make it deeper. You would deem him stupid. That scenario is equivalent to what Congress and the new president proposes for the economy. A far more important measure that Congress can take toward a healthy economy is to ensure that the 2003 tax cuts don't expire in 2010 as scheduled. If not, there are 15 separate taxes scheduled to rise in 2010, costing Americans $200 billion a year in increased taxes. In the face of a recession, we don't need that.

(Remember, government spending needs to be reduced in proportion with tax cuts... increased government spending is only a tax increase for future periods whether it be in the form of increased income tax rates, borrowing, or printing money.etc)

Snuffy's Food For Thought

Have you ever noticed how time drags on when you're at work, but flies by when you are home, sick?