Obamanomics Are An Obamanation

By Trace Mayer, on March 17th, 2009

Obamanomics are an Obamanation.

Robin Hood. President Obama.  Are they the same persona?  Based on TV and Obama’s news conferences both he and the media seem to think so.  “Rob from the rich; give to the poor.”  Of course, he uses the words “you should give more, because you have more”.  But the reality of Obama’s accomplishments remain the same.

I do not see the likeness between this man and Robin Hood.  While Robin Hood is a great folklore hero, I contend that Obama has nothing in common with the man.  Let us review some of the finer points of the story.  A tale with which I hope you are already somewhat familiar.

Robin Hood lived in feudal times.  Kings, Lords and Barons ruled the country as the sole land owners.  King Richard departed the country to fight in the crusades leaving Prince John to rule in his stead.  Prince John and the Sheriff of Nottingham decided that they would claim the throne for themselves but they needed the support of the Lords, Barons and similar figures in the surrounding countries.

Their plan required many goods – Gold, Silver, Wine, and Food in order to bribe these leaders to join their cause.  In acquiring this stuff to buy the allegiance of the lords and barons they began taxing the people heavily if not outright stealing their possessions.

Enter a man with the courage and skill to fight such tyranny, Robin Hood.  As a loyal and patriotic man he fought to protect the people and the throne of the king.  He would steal the money/taxes back from Prince John and return it to the poor from whom it was wrongfully taken; establishing the mantra “rob from the rich; give to the poor”.  In doing so he protected both the people and the crown until King Richard’s return.

So I ask you; how in any conceivable way could President Obama be likened to this man?  Recently Obama began to push sweeping legislation to steal (*ahem, sorry tax) from the rich of this country.  One assumes he is doing this to give to the poor; yet somehow all of the money ends up in the hands of banks and automakers.

President Obama performs this redistribution in broad daylight.  The more I stare at his policies; the more I liken the man to Prince John.  He is trying to steal the very life out of people to buy the right allegiances, also known as votes, in order to keep the throne he is guarding.  After all, large portions of bailout money will be distributed in 2011.

Obamanomics, my unoriginal pet name for the “New” new deal, scares me to death. Recent polls suggest that FDR should be considered one of the top 3 presidents in the United States history.  While history books have been favorable I do not understand.

Why is it that no one remembers the perpetual unemployment FDR created with his policies?  How can anyone in today’s time acknowledge ponzi schemes, like Madoff or Social Security, as good ideas?  Eventually FDR did successfully reduce unemployment in this country but it took a war and the loss of a few million good men.

Is this really the direction we want to head?  It is Obamanable to think that World War II was a good thing and that FDR should be praised.  Yet the whole nation is looking to resurrect FDR’s policies.

This time which future generation will be burdened?  Are there even any left unburdened?  We are staring at the greatest redistribution of wealth in our era.  Unless theft is considered “earning” the wealth is going to the people who did nothing to earn it.  By the way, theft income is required to be claimed on your income tax return unless you are a tax eater for the government and are not required to report it.

The hardest part is trying to be Robin Hood in this story.  The Prince has a larger army and superior guns.  Government propaganda attempts to paint tax evaders, like Treasury Secretary Geithner, Senator Daschle, etc. as leeches on society and unpatriotic.  But how does one protect their own country when the nanny state government is attempting to steal it from them?

I anxiously await the return of the king and President Obama is not him either.



Leave a comment   Monetary Policy, U.S. Economics   ,  

The future of the TV Series Industry

By Bhagwad Jal Park, on March 17th, 2009

I’m a big fan of TV series like “24″ and “Lost”. My wife and I eagerly watch episode after episode and get completely involved in the characters and the storyline. In fact, we begin to identify with each character and their mannerisms to the extent that we “latch” onto the main figures. We would give way to howls of outrage if say Kiefer Sutherland who plays “Jack Bauer” were to be replaced by someone else!

Image Credit: TCM Hitchhiker

Virtual Kiefer Sutherland

My greedy Game Theory mind immediately latches onto this scenario as a means to extort money out of Television Series producers. In my earlier article on the benefits of holding back patents, we discussed the problem of holdups. Holdups are situations where party A has the potential to cause massive damage to party B after the initial assessment has been made and work set in motion.

In the case of patents, this meant that if you have invested millions in making a factory, then I can hold you up by acquiring a patent on a crucial process that is mandatory with your current setup. In the case of the TV series, this means that an actor like Kiefer Sutherland who has already been ingrained into the hearts and minds of millions of fans, has the ability to hold up FOX networks. Each series has 24 episodes. Suppose after the 10th episode, Sutherland demands a 300% raise from FOX, he would be holding up the network.

The key element here is that Sutherland is irreplaceable as “Jack Bauer” and that after airing 10 episodes, a substantial investment has already been made. These two factors are critical for any holdup and not just with TV Series.

It’s useless to say that FOX has a contract with Sutherland, and that Sutherland will forced to continue acting at a pre-arranged rate. Acting is an art, and Sutherland’s “performance” can just drop, he can lose the special way in which he says “You gotta trust me on this!”, or he can just come down with an inexplicable fever. There are many ways in which he could execute a holdup without breaking his contract.

So why doesn’t he? I guess there are two reasons. One, Sutherland may be a “good guy” and not greedy. Fortunately, as we say earlier, all humans are not rational. After all, he’s an actor and not a game theorist! Second, his reputation will suffer irreparable damage if he were to indulge in this kind of behavior. Assuming that Sutherland wants to pursue an acting career after the series gets over, it’s in his best interests to be a “good guy” and stick to the contract. In other words, a “repeat game” ensues.

But if Sutherland wanted to just amass one time wealth and live out the rest of his life in luxury, there would be nothing to stop him from holding FOX to ransom for huge sums of money. This means that TV networks should also be careful of actors who are getting old and are thinking of retirement. These actors have nothing to lose by their reputation being damaged, and can capitalize on their years of being decent by one massive holdup were they to ever get a chance! It short, never trust an old fart.

I can imagine that in the future, virtual actors will eventually replace real ones, and not just because they’re cheap, but because holdup problems can be averted. After all, virtual actors are your slaves and don’t have an agenda of their own. Given this inevitable future, I would be very worried if I were an actor just starting out, since my future is at stake. If everyone thought like this, then there would be a shortage of young actors and the asking price for young actors would go up…….

But no one thinks that far. Not young actors anyway. So don’t expect a shortage anytime soon. But the future of the TV industry is definitely set for a change. You can bet on that.



Leave a comment   Opinion   , , ,