Friday, September 04, 2015

Accounting for Inflation as a Tax

I will say it again for the cheap seats, it doesn't matter how much money a country has.  It's how much stuff it can produce.  This is the beginning lesson I would always start my economics class with because not only does it simplify economics incredibly well, but it's true.  It is the stuff your country produces that determines its economic success, not the amount of money it prints.

However, an interesting, but simple thought crossed my mind.  Why haven't we ever incorporated inflation into the federal tax rate?  The money IS controlled by the government/fed and since stuff is the only thing that matters then inflation SHOULD DEFINITELY be considered when attempting to calculate one's level of taxation.

Of course we need to define things (so leftists can disagree with semantics instead of grow a spine and deal with the argument) but I think you'll find the results interesting and of course enraging.

First the TRUEST measure of the overall tax rate of a country is taking TOTAL government spending at ALL levels of government (state, federal and local) and then dividing it by the country's total economic production, GDP.  Now leftists will argument it should be REVENUE as a percent of GDP because people don't pay the full effective rate at which governments spend.  We borrow money from other people and in running these deficits we provide an effective lower rate of taxation.

Which is true....for now.

Because in the end that debt has to be paid back with either:

1.  Future taxation or
2.  Printing off money/inflated away (which again is nothing more than indirect taxation)

So true and intellectually honest economists look at what has to be paid, now and into the future, to see what the real rate of taxation is.

Second, there is not a lot of data about total government spending (including both federal, state and local) that goes back significantly to provide a decent historical look. Ergo, I used only federal data which goes back to 1960.  Still, if you want to be ever so rough about it, tack on another 15% GDP for state and local (47% for California and New York) and you'll get a rough proxy of total tax rates when we include the diluting effects of inflation on our currency.

Finally, what is "inflation?"  If you're a Keynesian you (once again) stumble over yourself to cite the CPI.  But if you're a technical person you would look at the money supply as any increase in the numbers of dollars, by definition dilutes those already in currency lessening their purchasing power (arguments about what is sitting in banks vaults as capital and not currently in circulation in the larger economy duly noted).

Regardless, when you do the math looking at the annual increase in the M2 money supply (orange) and add it on top of the federal tax rate as a percentage of GDP (blue) the results are quite interesting.























When "inflation is considered you can see it is at times a VERY significant tax, sometimes being even more costly that state/local taxes.  The oil embargo/inflation days of the 70's and early 80's are very noticeable as well as the jump in the money supply during the financial crisis.  And when you tack on the roughly 15% state and local tax, you're looking at a total government take of about 42%-45%.

Thankfully, the inflation tax (like debt) is a deferred tax that future generations will get to deal with.  The US is once again VERY lucky to be the world's reserve currency and we're also very lucky that pretty much any other significantly sized economy is in worse shape that we are.  This makes the US dollar a "safe haven" for people who are not so much worried about the value of a dollar, but just want a currency perceived to be more stable than their own.  This effectively "ships" US dollars overseas where they can no longer cause inflation in our domestic economy and why is your Apple product still costs as cheap as it does.

But don't worry, either through future taxation or inflation, the aforementioned rates above WILL be paid, and quadruply so by future generations who were nearly completely innocent.
____________________________________________________________

http://aaron-clarey.podomatic.com/
http://www.assholeconsulting.com
https://www.youtube.com/user/AaronClarey
https://twitter.com/aaron_clarey
http://www.amazon.com/Aaron-Clarey/e/B00J1ZC350/

Thursday, September 03, 2015

Bonus Podcast #109 9-3-15

Cappy revisits Italy
Going to Seattle
Women who clog the toilet
Men don't care about race
Corporate American cocksuckers

and MORE in THIS EPISODE of The Clarey Podcast!

Monday, August 31, 2015

Episode #108 of the Clarey Podcast

Matt Baldoni the Master of Guitars
Captain Lloyd the Master of Guns
Some gun talk
Chris Cantwell is no capitalist
Mozilla continues its nazism

AND MORE!!!

In THIS EPISODE of The Clarey Podcast!

Friday, August 28, 2015

Only Connected Communists Will Avoid Toiling in the Fields

I'm going to leave this right here for all you idiot socialist, democrat, and communist college students and professors who think you're going to be given a cushy government job, when in reality those jobs only go to the connected cronies.

Ashley Madison and Fractional Reserve Dating

Just too true to pass up:


Is Bond Having Less Sex?

I was having a late night dinner with my buddy Richard and the GF.  We were discussing Bond films and the upcoming release "Spectre."  This then naturally delved into observations of the various Bonds over time, but when I said,

"I hope he gets laid this time!"

Richard and the GF looked at me quizzically...

and then thought about it...

and then said, "Ooooohhh yeeeaaaah!  You are right!"

Which I was.  For if you think about it Daniel Craig is the least-laid James Bond out there.  The movies do blur together (especially the last three), but I was under the distinct impression he didn't get laid in the first two (Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace) and only got laid in the last James Bond (Skyfall).

However, vague recollections amongst a handful of movies that blur together does not empirical data make.  And so, ever so the vigilant economist, poor ole Cappy took it upon himself to study not only how many women each Bond slept with in each movie, but how many lays there were in total and averages for all the Bonds.










































And shucks howdy, look at that, the ole Captain was right.  Daniel Craig is the least laid Bond both in terms of number of women frequency in sex.  He averages only 1.7 women per movie and only 2 lays per movie (he'd only have 1 and 1.5 respectively if it weren't for Skyfall making him practically a virgin).

However, some other statistics of note.

Roger Moore (unsurprisingly) holds the record for most amount of lays (8) and ties with Sean Connery for most number of women (4).

George Lazenby (named "That Other Guy" because I couldn't remember his name) is the all-time stud of the James Bond actors, luckily starring in the one film that would give him the highest average in both categories.

And if Daniel Craig is even going to finish with an average score, the screenwriters better serve him up a record-breaking 5 women and 9 lays in the next two movies.

Keep a notch count for the guy when Spectre comes out this fall.
________________________________________________________
This post brought to you by Bachelor Pad Economics.  It's what Bond would use for a financial advice bible.

Thursday, August 27, 2015

The "Pay to Intern" Racket Continues

From our Australian Agent in the Field;




Cappy Gets "Strike #1" on His YouTube Channel...Again

You can't make it up, but again, this is why I have a back up account at Daily Motion. 

I have received my SECOND strike from YouTube about a video it found violated its speech codes.  Just two minor problems.

It's technically a FIRST strike because they rescinded my original first strike on "Inferior vs. Superior People."

AND (here's the good stuff)

This second strike is on THE EXACT SAME VIDEO THE FIRST STRIKE WAS ON - "Inferior vs. Superior People."





























I've appealed the strike...again...but just a reminder that if YouTube proves too difficult to use as a platform I will be going over to Daily Motion.  And certainly feel free to file complaints with YouTube.  The video they're referring to is quite the OPPOSITE of what they think it is.

Wednesday, August 26, 2015

Episode #107 8-26-15

Internet traffic is currency
How bloggers/podcasters/YouTubers aren't entrepreneurial enough
Business magazines who run ads on people they promote
Why German cars suck
Cappy is forced to take weekends off
Expendables 3 and Aces High
How black markets prove communism is wrong

AND MORE!

in THIS EPISODE of The Clarey Podcast!

Why the Federal Reserve Ain't No "Jesus Christ"

If there is a skill I have, it is taking incredibly complex and complicated things in the financial world and explaining it to normal, everyday people who had too healthy of social lives to major in economics.  And while today's post is one such article, it is one I had to sit down and think through, because I too had a simple question that I did not have the answer to.  Specifically;

How is this all going to end?  Can the Federal Reserve just keep "QE-ing" the government out of its debt problems?  And what is going to happen to the Fed when all those toxic assets they've been buying up don't pay up?  Won't it go bankrupt too?  And if it does, what will happen?

Thankfully, despite the complicated nature of central banking, it's something we can all understand.

First we must look at the Fed for what it is.  A separate entity that is technically NOT part of the government, NOR is it a private corporation owned by the "Rothchilds" and Illuminati.  It is best described as an NGO that is chartered by congress to be the country's central bank.

Second, we must look at the role it has most recently played that is OUTSIDE its traditional role of central banking.  Namely, playing the role of "Jesus Christ."

You may laugh, but regular listeners to my podcast know I jokingly sing the tune "Christ the Lamb of God (who taketh away the sins of the world)" but substitute my own lyrics in it to fit it to the Federal Reseve:

"Oooohhh Janet the Yellen of the Fed
Who taketh away the sins of the banking community
Baaailll out these banksters.
Ooooohhh Janet the Yelley of the Fed
Who bails out the scum who bought McMansions
Prinnnnnt off more money"

Blasphemous as that may be, it's 100% true.  The Federal Reserve has served as "Jesus Christ" like entity to wash away all the financial problems that were (and continue to be) created by various entities within our economy.  Specifically, all the horrible loans made during the financial crisis AND the federal government's insane deficit spending.  And you can see this, quite literally, on the balance sheet of the Federal Reserve:



I apologize in advance for the small font of the chart above, but I have highlighted the key figures that demonstrate the Fed's "Jesus" activity.

In the RED are US government bonds that nobody else in their right mind would buy.  Remember, especially under Obama, the US federal government has ran the country's worst peacetime deficits.  Worse, that deficit spending was not on genuine investments that would produce the profits necessary to pay back the principal and interest on those bonds, but (frankly) just vote-buying from the parasitic, non-economic producing classes for the democrats (welfare, worthless education, WIC, etc.).  Because of this traditional investors who would lend to the US government (pensions, the Chinese, Arab nations, retirees etc,) had no interest in lending money to this effectively insolvent entity.  Therefore, the ONLY entity that would buy US government bonds was the Federal Reserve.  And in the 7 years following the financial crisis, the Federal Reserve has purchased (lent) roughly $2 trillion to the US government. 

But before you go hating on Obama and the democrats, look at the GREEN.  The GREEN didn't even exist in 2007.  However, recklessly lending money just so they could make a commission on increasingly unprofitable mortgages, bankers and Wall Street drove the US economy, head first into the worst recession since the Great Depression.  And since they were at the effective "cardio vasculatory system" of the economy (the financial system is VERY much as vital to an economy just like your heart), they needed to be bailed out.  And so where you see:

"Federal Agency and Government Sponsor Enterprise Mortgage Backed Securities"

in English that means

"Crappy mortgages nobody else in their right mind would buy that were created by the bankster scum of the Earth, who conveniently made a 2-5% commission on those deals, but we had to buy these things anyway otherwise the entire financial system would collapse."

We could go on, but if you look at the BLUE square you see that the nature of the Federal Reserve has fundamentally changed.  It has gone from that of a central bank in 2007 to an effective "bailout machine" in 2014.  We bail out incompetent bankers, we bail out irresponsible borrowers, we bail out socialist politicians, and we bail out the parasitic classes that need government subsidies who vote for them (and if you'll permit this economist a minor prediction - you can bet you'll see "student loans" on the Federal Reserve's balance sheet within our lifetimes).

Third, how does the Federal Reserve afford all this?

Very simple, the Federal Reserve controls the US money supply and thus merely "prints off more money." 

Of course, it doesn't literally print it off as they did in the Weimar Republic.  That would be too obvious, brash, and Zimbabwean.  They use the flashy euphemistic technique called "Quantitative Easing" wherein they merely digitally add more money to financial institutions' deposit accounts in exchange for their worthless mortgage backed securities nobody else wants.  But whether the money is digital recordings on bank accounts or actual pieces of paper in circulation, the effect is the same.  A booming money supply, going from $1.4 trillion before the crisis to $3.1 trillion today.


















Now here is the point where normal people, and even economists get a twinge in the back of their head saying, "Hey, something's not right here."  Because whereas "Jesus Christ" presumably washed away everybody's sins, that's a religion.  Not the real world.  And just like physics has the conservation of mass law, economics also adheres to similar such mathematical laws.  In other words, we know there's no such thing as a free lunch.  A price has to be paid and somebody has to pay it, which leads us to our fourth point.

Logic would suggest that it would be the Federal Reserve that pays the ultimate price.  It is a separate legal entity, and since it's been buying up all these worthless assets, like any other business it should go bankrupt.  Additionally, nobody really owns the Federal Reserve.  They actually DO have shareholders (who own an effective "preferred shares" in the entity which only entitle them to a 6% dividend while the remainder of Fed profits go to the Treasury), but based on the latest balance sheet of the Federal Reserve, they only have $57 billion in illiquid shares.  Hardly enough to cause a financial crisis in the US should the Fed "go bankrupt."

However, here is where the "Jesusy Magic" occurs.  Since the Federal Reserve is not the government, nor is it the financial industry, it effectively becomes a "sink hole" of sorts that wipes away all of our debts.  All the federal government has to do is refuse to honor the bonds the Federal Reserve holds and all of the country's financial problems go away.  Matter of fact, we don't even need taxation.  We could theoretically just have the Federal Reserve lend money to the government ad infinitum and go bankrupt every year.  But for those of us on the righter side of the political spectrum, we know this can't be true.  There HAS TO be a price to this, and there is.

Inflation.

Since the Federal Reserve's currency is ACTUAL CURRENCY it spreads or "socializes" the costs or "sins" of society by debasing our US dollars.  Now, at this point in time, if you listen very quietly, you will hear Paul Krugman and a bunch of other Keynesian economists nearly going into cardiac arrest as they trip over themselves to rush and point out there is no inflation (don't hurt yourself Paul, I'll do it for you here):


















And they'd be right.  According to the CPI there has been effectively no inflation.  But there are two problems.

One, I'm outright accusing them of telling a half-truth, because (if they're economists) they know this low level of inflation, IN SPITE OF A NEAR TRIPLING OF THE MONEY SUPPLY, is due to a TANKING of the "velocity of money."


















Without boring the reader, the velocity of money is the rate at which a dollar is re-spent.  So you can theoretically have a low money supply, but if people keep spending (either because of faith in the future or a market bubble) instead of saving, you can trigger inflation still.  However, the opposite is happening today, and the reasons are (I claim) the total disheartening and destructive effects socialist policies (primarily under Obama) has had on investors, purchasers, innovators, entrepreneurs, businessmen and other productive members of society.  The constant assail and assault against "the rich," "corporations," "success," and the always-available evil and hated "white males" has thrown sand into America's most productive economic engines, tanking faith and hope in the future, and thus the velocity of money.  And though this has slowed economic growth considerably, this grants the Federal Reserve's "Jesus Strategy" a reprieve in that their money printing has not caused inflation.

The second problem in claiming there's no inflation is that it's simply false.  While the CPI does measure what somebody is going to face in terms of prices at the gas pump or the grocery store, gas and groceries are NOT the largest items on people's personal budgets.

Housing
Investments
and
Education are

And if you look at these items, they have skyrocketed.

Housing, though nowhere near it's bubbly peak in 2006, is starting to re-inflate again driving both housing prices and rents up.  Using the Price-to-Rents ratio, we can see that Federal Reserve money starting to take its toll on the American public, being more costly than any point in recorded time BAR the housing bubble of 2006:






















Investments the same.  If you would like to retire, tough.  Stock prices are LAUGHABLY overvalued.  Largely in part due to the trillions in Baby Boomer retirement money that has mindlessly flooded the market since 1978 through their 401k's and IRA's, but more recently through (once again) Federal Reserve money.

Once banks unload their worthless toxic assets on the Fed for an overinflated price, they have to do something with that money.  But since the corporate sector is demoralized by the socialist trend of the US, there's no economic growth and thus no demand by businesses to borrow it.  This is why the majority of that money does NOT go into new investments, plant, and companies (which would create jobs by the way), but instead merely goes into the stock market either for repurchasing their own shares or taking a position in stocks and bonds to "hedge against inflation."  This has resulted in over a trillion dollars (in this year ALONE) of buy backs.  But it has also made stocks simply unaffordable to anybody who wishes to retire.  This is more than amply displayed in the S&P 500's PE ratio and dividend yield, which suggests stocks are historically overvalued by about 33%.

Ironically, however, people are happy when the stock market goes up.  Which would be akin to being happy that the price of gas "jump to $6 a gallon."  Regardless, this is proof positive the Federal Reserve funny money is NOT sitting stagnant in some bank's digital account, but is seeping into sectors of the economy, causing real and serious inflation, and lowering our purchasing power.

And finally, student tuition.

It is no coincidence inflation is appearing where there is federal government money and intervention.  Housing is backed up by Sallie Mae and Freddie Mac.  The stock market is being inflated by Federal Reserve policy and US government retirement policy.  And now with Pell grants, Stafford loans, etc., government money is (and has been) flooding into the higher education system.  This flood of money, without an increase in either the volume or QUALITY of education, has resulted in skyrocketing tuition costs:


























Of course, student tuition, though the single largest expense of nearly every person under 30, is not considered in the CPI.  But again, that doesn't mean those student debts and $300 textbooks aren't real.  In REALITY students are also paying the tax of inflation to finance the Federal Reserve's "Jesus Bail Out Strategy."

As you no doubt likely surmised, you knew there was a price to pay for all this central banking hanky panky.  The only problem is you couldn't put your finger on it because of the complexities and complications of central banking, the US' Federal Reserve system, and the machinations of "Quantitative Easing."  But when you strip it all away, it sadly is very simple.  It's just printing off more money.

I don't care how many doctorates in economics they have working for the Fed.  I don't care how many of them came from the Ivy League.  And I don't care how many Clark or Nobel prize participation trophies medals are awarded.  The majority of economists are not economists as much as they are overly-degreed-laden charlatans who make things "more complicated than they are" to hide what is their simplistic, childish, and highly flawed understanding of economics.

To quote Holly Gennero, "You're nothing but a common thief" and you "economists" at the Fed, and the majority of the economics profession should be ashamed of yourselves.
__________________________________________________________________

http://aaron-clarey.podomatic.com/
http://www.assholeconsulting.com
https://www.youtube.com/user/AaronClarey
https://twitter.com/aaron_clarey
http://www.amazon.com/Aaron-Clarey/e/B00J1ZC350/

Tuesday, August 25, 2015

Housing Getting Kinda Bubbly Again

Figured it was time to take a look at the "Price to Rents Ratio" of the US housing market.  For those unfamiliar with this ratio it is basically a "PE" ratio, but for property.  It takes the price of a house and divides it by rent (either monthly, annual, etc., as long as you're consistent, you'll get the same shape graph).

Though nowhere near the peak of the bubble, it seems chronically low interest rates has driven money into the market even though rents may not warrant it.  Back in 1960 the ratio was 17, now it's 23.  Roughly a 25% overvaluation.























Nothing to panic about yet, but more proof it is federal reserve funny money is indeed causing inflation.  We're just happy with this because "housing going up is good" even though people have to buy into this market.

Enjoy the decline!

Source:

Monday, August 24, 2015

Die, Night Club Industry, Die!!!

Upon returning from Wyoming and having no real job in hand, I revisited my life's motto of "security is security" and ended up working for a security company a friend owned.  They specialized in armed security so most of the gigs were prisoner transport, body guard work, and the infamous "protecting spoiled rotten Saudi Prince brats and his entourage of 120 equally douchy elitists."  However, before you were allowed to work one of these easier shifts, you had to prove your mettle working the hated "parking ramp shifts."

These "parking ramp shifts" were really nothing more than "baby sitting the night clubbers" shifts where you would prevent fights, stop people from pissing in the stairwells, watch black women fight over "their man," and even prevent the occasional Russian body builder from kidnapping a pass-out party girl.  This was only made infinitely worse in the fact we had to patrol on foot which, during Minnesota winters, made life miserable.

But through all the headaches and hypothermia that comes with baby sitting the Twin Cities' club-going filth, I did notice something those 3 short years ago - there was only a FRACTION of the night clubs that used to be open during the 90's.

First Avenue (a night club) was still the "anchor club" of the Twin Cities and still in business.  Same for The Gay 90's.  And The Fine Line, another reliable standby, was also open for business.  But nearly every other club or bar I went to was now gone.  Daddy Rock's was no longer.  Banana Joe's gone.  Even Old Chicago (not a club, but just a bar) was gone too.  And they weren't necessarily replaced with new clubs either.   In short, there was by my quick economist eye only about 40% the amount of clubs that existed during my night clubbing days 20 years ago.

Fast forward three years to today and it's even worse.

Solera, gone.
The Times Cafe, gone.
Fhima (a St. Paul club), gone.
"Block E" (an entire BUILDING of night clubs) gone.
And the over-hyped, over-rated "Capital Grille" gone (thank god).

There is just nowhere near the night club life that once existed in the Twin Cities.

Of course, as economists are wont to do, they research things they see happening in real life.  And after poking around on teh interwebz the death of the night club industry is an interesting and telling death.

First, there is not so much a "death" in the night life scene as a stagnation and a shift.  Revenues for the "bar and nightclub industry" are stagnant, if not slightly dropping if you account for inflation.  However, the Minneapolis club scene has not "stagnated," it's cratered.  So how do these figures jive?  Simple, the data is for the "BAR AND night club industry."

While nightclubs may be tanking, bars are doing quite well.  This would explain why nearly every night club I attended during Clinton's administration are gone, but the neighborhood bars are still around.

Lee's Liquor Lounge, The CC Club, Jax Cafe, etc., all neighborhood bars, all still in business.

Second, this is corroborated by the most cited reason for the industry's decline- "The Great Recession."  While Gen X may have been whooping it up in the Dotcom days, drinking and partying themselves into oblivion, they at least did not graduate into "The Great Recession."  Their modern day Millennial peers have.  And not only are the Millennials facing the worst job market since the Great DEPRESSION, they are also saddled with more college debt than any generation in the history of the world.  Combine that with their worthless degrees and they plain don't have the money to afford a cover charge and drinks.

This has led to two behavioral changes.  One, Millennials now pre-drink at home, getting within one drink of a proper buzz.  And two, they avoid cover charges, commuting/parking expenses, and DWI's by walking to their local bar. 

The third reason for the nightclub's demise, however, is the really interesting one.  Because no professional publication or researcher can speak of it, even though it is the core and the heart of the nightclub business - sex.  Specifically women.

When we wipe away all the politically correct "industry research" jargon and cut through the bullshit, night clubs are all about men wanting to get sex from women.  And even though they may not come outright and say it, club owners are ACUTELY aware of this and it shows in their business models.

EVERY nightclub knows you have to get hot women into the club, otherwise the men (with their money) will not show up.  Therefore you have "ladies night," drink specials for ladies, sometimes women even get to drink for free, and if you're a 20 something female in America you don't even know what a "cover charge" is. 

This presents a problem however.  Wherever there are hot women, horny and thirsty men are sure to follow.  And their constant advances will inevitably scare away women.  Therefore, how do you get women to show up AND stay AND return next week?

Make the nightclub environment incredibly hostile towards men and incredibly tailored towards women.

You ever wonder why nightclub music is not only shitty, but incredibly loud?  It's so the girl can get you to buy her a drink, but not have to talk to you.

You notice how the music is the most monotonous remixed pop top 40's crap that has not an ounce of talent in it?  It's because girls like it and men don't.

And you notice how you have to stand in line, while a cute girl with a short skit gets to jump in line?  It's not only because they need her as "seed capital" to "get the party started."  They need to wear you out so you don't have the energy to approach (and thus harass) women in the club.

It is this "love hate" relationship nightclubs have with men (and their money) that they must delicately balance where you are encouraged to part with your money, but deterred from actually having any sexual success with women.  And if they do it right, you'll have spent at least $50 of your money with them and have no girl to show for it.

Now, for the past 40 years this business model has worked.  And using back of napkin statistics men have transferred roughly a trillion dollars worth of wealth to women in the form of drinks, food, cover charges (and flowers if you were stupid enough to fall for that gag where the guy is hocking roses in a bucket).  But there has been an incredible game changer as of recent.  One that completely obsoletes this model and has completely rewritten the rules for many other industries as well.

The internet.

"Fun" as it is to go clubbing, because of the challenging environment it presents to men, it gets tiring.  And even the most ardent of club-going men will burn out and seek for alternative ways to pick up women.  So after spending 5 years in the nightclub scene, forking over $50 a night, to maybe, just MAYBE get laid 3 times, the majority of men will inevitably do a cost benefit analysis and leave.  However, whereas in the past "leaving" meant giving up and basically staying home (or trying to "meet girls at church" or work, etc.), now men can get what they want (sex) by going online. And the reasons are just too compelling.

First you waste nowhere NEAR the amount of time you do going clubbing.  There's no commute.  There's no finding parking.  There's no waiting in line.  And there's no competing against 3 other guys for the same girl.

You fire up your laptop, set up a profile, and start firing off messages.

Naturally, the vast majority of your advances will be rejected and is the primary reason many men say online dating isn't worth it (for example a recently divorced friend of mine complained he had to spend a full hour a night online to get a date for that weekend).  But a mere hour a night is NOTHING compared to what 20 something men pre-internet invested daily in their pursuit of women.

Second, the financial costs.  Online dating is effectively free.  Either by going through Plenty of Fish, Tinder, or meetup groups where you indirectly try to find women, there is really no significant added marginal cost to start online dating.  Contrast that with 40 nights a year of clubbing for 5 years at $50 a pop, and you save yourself $10,000 in explicit financial costs merely going online.

And finally, the sanity you save.  In going online you avoid the nearly impossible environment that nightclubs have become: 

Women who have their "bitch shields" up as they gussied themselves up earlier that evening with their friends in sort of a "pre-game pep talk," making them froth at the chance to shoot men down (and consequently cry themselves to sleep later that night because "they can't find a man.")

The 100%-USDA-Certified-Full-Backing-and-Faith-of-the-US-Government GUARAN-FREAKING-TEE that there will be a fatty cockblocker there to pull ANY girl you're having success with away.

The "herd" you must masterfully penetrate or wait until a weak one separates herself from the herd, only to have the mother hen fatty cockblocker come in and "save her from you."

All while under the constant and never ending assault and barrage of the monotonous bass-beating of hiphop, rap, regatone, or whatever the latest "girl power" top 40's song that came out that week.

No, you just pour yourself a nice scotch, throw on Jazz24.org, and click away.

Certainly, there are economic reasons for the decline in night clubs.  And certainly there are sociological/demographical reasons for the decline in nightclubs.  But although the data is not perfect (there is a report I found for $1,500, but I'm not going to buy it), the real threat nightclubs face is that they no longer hold a monopoly on (effectively) the only legal means by which men ultimately pay for sex/dating.  And in the face of competition from the internet their current business model is too punishing financially, mentally, and time-wise for any young man with the slightest bit of self respect and common sense.

Perhaps, with luck, there will be no need to patrol those parking ramps in the future.
________________________________________________________________

http://aaron-clarey.podomatic.com/
http://www.assholeconsulting.com
https://www.youtube.com/user/AaronClarey
https://twitter.com/aaron_clarey
http://www.amazon.com/Aaron-Clarey/e/B00J1ZC350/

Friday, August 21, 2015

Episode #106 of The Clarey Podcast

Procrastinating writing books
The key to success is execution
Stop majoring in stupid shit ladies
The law school bubble is bursting

and MORE!

In THIS EPISODE of The Clarey Podcast!

(buy your "Official" Clarey Podcast mug here)

But, But, But "The Patriarchy!"

Oh nosies!!!!  The truth!

The Music School Bubble

A guest post from the Great Matt Baldoni:

My music education began at age 8 in my hometown, when I began taking
guitar lessons. It continued through junior high and high school where I was
participating in public school music programs for jazz and classical music. I
played my first professional gig with a rock band at age 16. Also that year, the
guidance counselors started pressuring all of us to pick a major. So, I decided
I'd better major in music in college. I had already received a small amount of
attention (and even a few bucks) for what I believed was my passion and my
talent. It should be noted that the word “prodigy” was NEVER used in
reference to me. I don't believe I have any natural gifts or talents, I simply
believe that I was able to discover a sort of “natural affinity” and general
interest for playing music and practicing hard when I was a young kid.

My boomer parents and everyone else told me that I absolutely had to go to
college, there was no other option for me. So, I did what I thought I should, I
applied and sent audition cassettes (remember those?) to all of the top
schools I was reading about in the magazines: GIT at Musician's Institute, USC,
University of North Texas, and Boston's Berklee College of Music. I was offered
money by each of these schools to attend, but I did not attend any of them.
They were “too expensive and too far away”, but all located in hot music towns
where there was a lot going on. I was disappointed. So I took a full tuition
scholarship for $2000 per year at a small state college 70 miles from my small
hometown and got a degree in classical guitar performance. You see, I
“absolutely HAD to go to college”, but it had to fit the criteria of what the
boomers were actually willing to pay for, which was next to nothing. That
scholarship, incidentally, was for full tuition. College cost my family nothing. I
gotta hand it to 'em, they tricked me into doing whatever I could to save them
a few bucks.

While in college I tested out of certain curricula like ear training, aced music
theory, was a strong reader of sheet music notation by the standards of my
peers, and was working my way through school washing dishes and playing in
cover bands. By year 2 I could afford to not have another hourly job ever
again. I was also eventually teaching a few college courses TO my peers,
including the classes I tested out of myself. After graduation I was just anxious
to get to work, teaching guitar and playing five nights a week without all the
hassle and horse shit of being in class every day when I could've been sleeping
or making the girl brekfast I had brought home from the bar gig the night
before.

That didn't last long, I accepted a fellowship at USC's prestigious Studio/Jazz
guitar program, getting my tuition paid for by teaching undergrads. I arrived
there and was absolutely SHOCKED at the high level of playing that the
younger guys were exhibiting. But I took a minute to think about it, and
eventually I found out why. They went to the top private arts high schools,
they were from areas like Marin County, Montauk Long Island, and Beverly
Hills, and...here's the kicker...they never had to have JOBS in high school. They
all came from highly wealthy families, had access to the best resources,
unlimited money for top level equipment and private teachers, and lots of free
time to practice. They also had access from their early teens to the best
musicians and teachers in large major cities full of working entertainers. My 4
years of hauling dirt and scraping plates in high school had me woefully behind
many of these guys. However, I was already making a living.

I dropped out of USC about five minutes after I had some good gig offers. The
fact is, I couldn't fucking stand the place. It was impossible to legitimize things
like rock and blues music at the ivory tower level, and none of my teachers
seemed to be playing that many jobs. None of the commercial styles that were
actually making me my rent money were even discussed in passing at a USC
music class. The teachers who WERE playing jobs of any significance often got
fired for subbing out their teaching hours too much. It was at that point I
decided I didn't belong there. See, I never cared what the fuck I had to play in
order to make a living, I just wanted to be good enough to make good money,
and it was a sad day when I realized that music school can not often give you
what you need to actually pull that off. So, I left. Turned down a full graduate
fellowship. Everyone was pissed...my parents were pissed because they were
more excited about me attending a famous expensive school than they were
when I later played for the fucking President. The school was pissed because
grad students are free labor. It costs them NOTHING to stick another guy in a
classroom when he's giving them the hours of a full time salaried professor in
exchange. To this day I feel like a fucking idiot for even entertaining the idea.
Let's now look at my music school experiences by the numbers:

This is easy to do these days because we are ALL connected on social media
now. It's very easy to see what everyone else is doing. So, I went to undergrad
college with 15 or 20 other guitar majors. Number of them who are making a
full time living as a live performer? One. Me. These guys play a lot but most
of them have to supplement or replace their gigs with a significant amount of
teaching. I went to grad school with 56 other guitar majors. Number of those
guys making a full time living as a live performer? From what I can tell from
the interwebs, about 6-10. Again, there are many, many guys who are teachers
full time, or at least teach more than they do play.

See, I believe that being a full time musician who plays live (and/or in the
studio) is the greatest badge of honor a musician can bestow upon himself.
Why? Because it's proof you can beat the odds. It shows you have no need for
the “stability” of teaching music. See, we all think we need to be teachers
because that is what MUSIC SCHOOLS tell us. They have a large stock in
keeping interest in becoming a music teacher, for it keeps them employed, and
the cycle continues. As of today, it's spiraled out of control. Our families all
want us to be teachers because they figure it's the closest thing to a “real job”
that a musician can have. It's a lot safer than playing in bars, touring, and all of
those “lifestyle” things that many people think are part of a music career.

When the recession began in 2007/8, things got interesting. All of the music
schools, even the most prestigious ones, lost a lot of revenue and interest
from young musicians. They were (are) far too expensive. So, young players
began checking out smaller, cheaper, less prestigious state colleges like the
one I went to. Well, the A-league schools said “We can't have that!”, so they
began slowly lowering their audition and testing standards while their tuition
prices have continued to skyrocket, just like their skyrocketing endowments
and assistance from state and federal governments. Today, they have more
money coming in than ever, and lower audition standards than ever. They are
now at their most expensive in history and are turning out the least talented
and equipped musicians they ever have. And I am laughing my ASS off,
because this whole thing is hilarious. They have literally dug their own grave,
and they are a ticking bomb.

The music business itself has also changed drastically in the last 20 years. No
one makes money selling records anymore, so everyone has to play live and
stay out on the road more than they used to. The steady stream of studio
work is gone, it's no longer a requirement to have good musicians on your
recording. The computer can fix everything, and the digital world turns
talentless hacks into international stars. The ProTools engineer is now at the
top of the music business food chain. Every two-bit asshole with a macbook
and garage band software can call himself an “artist” or “musician” or
“songwriter” or “producer”. The DJ, the karaoke bar, and the football game on
large plasma screens now stand where the live band once stood.

Is there still room for highly skilled musicians? Absolutely. There is great
demand for a good live band in thousands of places all over the world. Artists
need sidemen to play behind them for their concert dates, churches need
musicians, people need a band for their wedding or Christmas party, and the
list goes on and on. These types of gigs are the bread and butter for a
musician's work throughout the year. Does music school teach you what you
need to know to get these jobs? Absolutely not. I make a very good living at
what I do, and I got 100% of my abilities from the street. I did have a few good
teachers, yes, but even they aren't making what I make or playing as much as
me. Are there musicians better than me? Faster? Richer? More able to raise a
family? Of course there are. But none of them are turning down as much work
as I am simply because they're always booked.

The charlatans in the halls of music schools are taking your money and telling
you if you do what they say and ace the test, you'll make a living and get a gig.
That's a lie. If someone deceives you for their own financial gain, that's
committing fraud. If I pay money for a specific service, and that service is not
rendered, I should be able to get my fucking money back. Worse yet, the
charlatans KNOW they're lying, and they keep right on going. I don't know
how they sleep at night. I've been hired and fired a million times over for all
sorts of reasons, many of which were actually my fault, just as many were not.
It's a tough and shitty business with really great perks and rewards, but you
need very, very thick skin to survive it. You need to be able to take rejection
WELL a million times over, and then a million more. This makes most of us
pretty tough, and many of us skeptical, jaded and cynical. These attributes are
bare bones requirement for making it in my business.

That thick skin and the ability to take rejection is another thing music schools
will never be able to teach. Why? Because the vast majority of people
teaching in music schools never actually had to go through it. They went right
from being a student to being a teacher, having spent no significant amount of
time in the actual workforce they're claiming to supply with employable
candidates.

I just spent last week in Boston. One of America's great cities and a great
music town too. While there I was guesting with the renowned Boston Pops,
one of America's most beloved groups of musicians. It was a wonderful
experience. While there, I ha the opportunity to make a few observations.
The first was seeing that a guitar degree from Berklee now costs a quarter of a
million dollars. It didn't surprise me when I heard that, but it struck me again
what a bad investment it is. If I invest $250,000 in anything, even just put it in
the bank, I should expect a return on that investment very soon if not
immediately. They'll give any 18 year old punk with a pulse and a guitar case
the loans to get the degree, and most of them will never pay it back in their
lifetime, no matter how hard they work or how great the gig is they get, if they
even get a gig at all.

I also spoke with an old friend who is a professional drummer in the Boston
area. He spoke very happily about how busy he was, not in a boastful way, but
proud of himself for being able to raise his son and daughter by playing the
drums. I know the guy's a phenomenal musician, he's a dear friend and I've
worked with him a great deal, but I wanted to hear from HIM why he thinks
he's working so much.

He told me that the Boston area is inundated with Berklee grads, everybody's
out of work, and they all “play too much”. See, now I'm gonna tell you the
other area where music schools fuck up. They're gigantic locker rooms with a
bunch of young jocks in them who are constantly measuring their dicks to see
how fast and complicated they can play their instruments. My drummer buddy
has the ability to do all that too, he has incredible technique and can play
anything. However, he just goes in to the job and “bangs out the time”. He
just plays his instrument as simply and effectively as he can for the song and
the occasion. He's got nothing to prove with his chops. Consequently he's the
busiest guy around, while the other cats are playing in ways that don't get
them the call back even though they desperately need the money (to pay back
that quarter million). But as they were spending the quarter million, the
institution somehow forgot to mention to them that they need to shut the
fuck up with all the scales and stick control exercises and just simply play the
minimum part that's required for each song with the maximum of authenticity
and effectiveness. In a way I don't blame these kids for going out and fucking
up potential accounts by playing too much, they were not properly prepared.
But once again, at some point you gotta blame them for spending that much
money on such a stupid investment in the first place.

Every decision I make as a professional musician is an economic one. I remain
single and childless and living as a bachelor because I can only have the life,
freedoms, and luxuries I want if I am by myself. I only take a gig if it makes
economic sense to me, and if it does not, I say no. I buy guitars used or get
them on endorsements because I refuse to pay full price for them. And I do
NOT recommend going to music school because it's a BAD economic decision.
It's an investment in thin air. You might as well burn your money. You'd have a
better ROI if you bought a home or just put it in the fucking bank. Even Wells
Fargo can guarantee you more return on your money than music schools can.

Here's what I do recommend for young musicians: Get ONE good private
teacher who tells you the truth. Find a musician you admire who's making a
living you want to make for yourself and begin following him around. I say
him, ladies, because most of us are men. It's not sexism, it's a fact. There is
not one woman on my list of subs. When people wanna see a rock guitar
player bangin' out some notes and screaming some lyrics, they wanna see a
dude. And not a fat or ugly one either. Oops, I almost forgot, that's another
thing music schools don't tell you: Fat, ugly motherfuckers don't work as much
and lean and handsome guys do.

Anyway, find that guy and follow him around. Get on youtube and scan
through the billions of guitar lessons on there, or lessons on whatever
instrument you choose. Practice your ass off and learn how to play, you don't
need to spend money to do that anymore, you just need to work hard. The
music teacher I DO know say that's the biggest problems with their students,
by the way, they all say they're all too lazy.

If you're gonna pick an instrument, pick the guitar or the keyboard. Why? It
gives you the most options. You can play gigs solo, duo, trio, on up to playing
with orchestras like I just did. Drummers can't do that. Singers can't do that
(unless they also play guitar or piano). Horn players can't do that. If you pick
one of those two instruments, learn how to sing, and learn how to read and
interpret sheet music, you'll always work. The last thing is most important:
KNOWING SONGS. You have to know a lot of fucking tunes to work steady. At
this point it's about five decades worth of songs in about 8-10 styles. I'd say I
probably know how to play and/or sing a thousand or more.

Choose the minimalist lifestyle, drive the cheapest car and live in the cheapest
apartment you can afford. Don't knock anybody up. Don't move your
girlfriend in. Don't get married, and don't accrue any significant debt. Above
all else, do NOT fall prey to the fraud sold to you by the charlatans that hide
behind the banner of the music school or conservatory. It's a dead end road.
Get out now instead and just start working.

Thursday, August 20, 2015

An Economist's Take on the Meaning of Life

and why self employment is vital to it:


More Cappy Crap

A coffee mug of The Clarey Podcast now available at Cappy's Crap.

However, ladies, I won't lie because you'll be tortured between that and whether you buy a coffee mug with Mr. Brown's epic picture from BMGOP.  It IS a tough choice.

More crap coming once I figure out what might sell.

How Much of an Advantage Do Hot Conservative Women Get?

DISCLAIMERS:

1.  I do not HATE anybody in the group of women used in this study (bar Katie Kieffer, who I don't even hate, I just have no respect for).  Many of them are intelligent and accomplished, some of whom I do listen to regularly...while many are not.  Do not take this personally if you know you are one of those women who are talented, who do make original content and do NOT mere regurgitate conservative talking points.

2.  I am aware that there are other people on the lists you would like to see.  These lists were compiled with what I had and in a non-scientific fashion.  I will gladly add others to help the accuracy of the study.  But for now, this is the data I had to work with.

3.  Data was adjusted for Dana Loesch's insanely high twitter followers.  The official "final" ratio was calculated taking an average of all three "final" ratios.  Criticize the methodology as you like.
______________________________________________________________________________

A well known fact about life is that pretty girls have it easier.

That's not an opinion.
That's not a guess.
That's a fact.

However, I was curious just HOW MUCH of an advantage there is.

Specifically, instead of being a super awesome economic genius trapped in a 5'9" average looking male body, what if I was instead a very average mind trapped in a cute 20 something female body with a nice set of perky tits?

So I set out and asked all my agents in the field to send me examples of hot conservative or libertarian babes that had an internet presence.  I then averaged both the number of their Twitter followers and YouTube subscribers.  I did the same within my professional circle of right leaning MALE internet celebrities and then calculated the ratios of female Twitter followers to male Twitter followers, as well as the ratio of YouTube subscribers.

This was the result:




















In short, when you average it out women are paid a premium of 512% over their internet male micro-celebrity counterparts.

Now, again, this is nothing new.  And I'm not even going to argue against it, for it is human nature.  A hot conservative or libertarian female is much RARER than an average looking conservative or libertarian male.  What I will, however, file a complaint about is the quality of each group's work.

Certainly there ARE accomplished, intelligent, insightful people on both sides.  However, when you average it out, it is just not comparable.  The sheer number of ditzes in the female list REALLY DO get by on their looks.  Again, I don't "hate" anyone on either list, but when a girl is essentially paid 5 times to regurgitate talking points Limbaugh made before they were born, or epiphanies I realized on my blog when they were in grade school, don't tell me all the men in the conservative or libertarian movement are "deep philosophical types."  They're just your regular average horny guys who happen to vote Republican.  That is the market you are serving.  Not your high-minded economic and political intellectuals.

Finally, (and I have mentioned this to my pretty AND SMART conservative and libertarian female friends) if you are:
1.  A pretty AND SMART conservative or libertarian female
2.  Who is looking for a job,
3.  And have the slightest bit of camera presence
4.  And are willing to show off some leg and cleavage,

you will find no easier career than being a "COLBOTI" (Conservative Or Libertarian Babe on the Internet).  You will make 5 times the audience your male counterpart has in 1/5th the time, making 5 times the money.  And if you happen to actually be SMART and not just a cute set of tits, you can write your own ticket for the rest of your life.

I know this post sounds cheeky.  I know it sounds arrogant.  I know it may have insulted some people.

Too bad it's 100% true.

Ladies, take advantage of that 500% advantage.
____________________________________________________________________________

http://aaron-clarey.podomatic.com/
http://www.assholeconsulting.com
https://www.youtube.com/user/AaronClarey
https://twitter.com/aaron_clarey
http://www.amazon.com/Aaron-Clarey/e/B00J1ZC350/