The word on the street—typified by chants of "Distill, baby, distill!" (hat tip: O'Chihak)—is that the future of Iowa's economy is all about ethanol. But in my opinion, that ain't nothing but a bunch of bollocks.
Rather, it is my firm belief (and that of all within brumpelstiltskin) that Iowa's future fortunes will ride the coattails of a Muscatine-based company named GPC Pet Products.
But before I go on, allow me to briefly explain how we came upon this discovery. It all began with my decision (last month) to adopt two of my feline siblings, Dickens and Dolly, from my parents. Once they'd moved in, I had to buy cat food, toys, scratching posts, nail clippers, and litter. It was the latter item that brought me to GPC.
If it's yellow, let it mellow; if it's litter, flush it down the... For litter advice, I turned to the experts at my favorite pet depot, who recommended the GPC product, "World's Best Cat Litter" (WBCL). Incredulous at first, I honed it on their slogan:
The only litter good enough to be called "World's Best".
"World's Best"? How on Earth do they back up such a boast? For starters, WBCL is naturally made (from corn kernels), safe, clumping, long-lasting, odor-controlling, biodegradable AND...wait for it...flushable! If you don't believe me (or even if you do), please click below to view the official product demo video:
To put all these claims to the test, I purchased a 7-lb bag of WBCL and instructed D & D to do their worst. Five weeks later, I'm pleased to report that all three of us are extremely satisfied with the results. Granted, unlike the demo salesman, I've yet to eat the litter, but I do feel qualified to assess the video's other claims. As suggested, WBCL is indeed dry, dust-free, and clean-feeling; highly absorbent and clumpable; odor-repelling and—insofar as cat litter goes—quite pleasant-smelling (not unlike the scent of home-brewed beer).
I’m also impressed by its longevity and cost-effectiveness. To be clear, WBCL is quite expensive up front—I’ve spent $20.12 so far on just two 7-lb bags—but after six weeks I’ve still got a half bag left, and thus fully expect to make it a full two months off a Jackson plus change. For comparison, the previous brand I purchased (a 10-lb bag of “Better Valu”, sold at a gas station) cost only $2.63, but stunk to high heaven and needed to be changed after about a week. So, at $20.12 per two months versus $2.63 per week, the long-term costs are essentially even.
"Litter" in name only Personally, though, my favorite aspect of WBCL is its apparent earth-friendliness. Whereas the “Better Valu” scenario detailed above would add about 40lb of litter to the landfill each month; WBCL is biodegradable, flushable, and therefore necessitates zero new trash.
So, if you own a cat (or know someone who does), please consider using (or recommending) WCBL. If enough of us do so, we may just break Iowa's economic dependence on local oil.
*Admittedly, it makes brumpelstiltskin slightly uneasy that California—a very environmentally progressive state—"discourages" the flushing of cat litter (a fact denoted by an asterisk on the WBCL bag), but unless evidence emerges that doing so is somehow environmentally-unfriendly, Mic's Tape will continue to use, flush, and endorse WBCL with relish.
In the midst of the current financial crisis, people are looking to experts they can trust. Why then have I, Greenspanke, the so-called “finance minister” of the world’s 1,942,080th most popular blog, remained so conspicuously silent on the matter?
In short, I am a fraud.
Contrary to the many epithets (e.g., “First Dude of Finance” and "The Montell Jordan of Money") so often heaped upon me, in truth my economic “expertise” only extends to personal money management—not national (let alone global) finance as a whole.
As such, asking me to weigh in on something as wholly beyond my grasp as the world financial crisis is much like, oh I don’t know, asking someone with no apparent insight into the intricacies of domestic and international politics to run for US vice president.
All of that said, I have done some research (aided greatly by my mentor, TG), and will take a stab at briefly summarizing the current crisis.
Sowing the seeds of catastrophe Roots of the crisis largely stem from the Federal Reserve’s 2001 decision, under then-chairman Alan Greenspan, to lower the “federal funds rate” (FFR) and then keep it low for several years (e.g., under 2% until Sep 2004). The FFR had a strong ripple effect on other interest rates like those for mortgages and car loans (see below graph). Thus, having the FFR so low for so long basically flooded the world with cheap money.
House of cards In conjunction with this influx of easy cash, the real estate market underwent a meteoric rise in home values and, in addition, the banking system implemented an astounding reduction in eligibility requirements for would-be borrowers. Thus, not only did buying a home become a more tempting investment, but obtaining a loan to do so became absurdly easy. As my mentor put it: "no money down, no income documentation—your mom's cats could have gotten loans". As a result, the system enabled everyday people like Joe and Mario the Plumber to do things like buy homes beyond their means; or take out "second mortgages" on the seemingly ever-rising equity in their homes to buy things they didn't need like flat screen TVs and second houses.
A related issue is that mortgage salespeople (now affectionately known as "predatory lenders") had every incentive to sell high-risk loans (e.g., "subprime" and "adjustable rate" mortgages) to high-risk borrowers. Namely, the lenders got a commission for their sale and, what's more, the institution they worked for often turned around and sold the new mortgage (and its risk) to other entities like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. By the banks financing these loans to begin with, and by Freddie and Fannie buying such "mortgage-backed securities" from the banks, all parties put themselves at the incredibly risky mercy of (a) home prices continuing to rise and (b) borrowers continuing to make their mortgage payments.
Death of a party Alas, circa 2006 the US housing bubble burst and home prices started to fall. Making matters worse for borrowers, by this point the Fed had started raising interest rates. Adjustable interest rates spiked, mortgage payments went way up, borrowers began to default on payments, and home foreclosures sprang up in droves. Soon enough, mortgage-back securities became "toxic assets" and the financial institutions who'd bet the farm on them—such as Bear Stearns, Freddie and Fannie, and Lehman Brothers—saw their risk come home to roost. Bailout blues In the wake of all this, stock prices have plummeted and the banks have taken huge losses, which has greatly impaired the banks' capacity and willingness to make new loans to businesses, individuals and each other. With lending (i.e., the glue that holds the economy together) in such dire straits, the US government has decided to step in with its projected $700b Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP, aka bailout).
So, what is the bailout aimed to do? I think I'll quote my mentor (again) on that one:
The bailout package will help some because the government will buy from the banks $700 billion worth of the worst crap they have on their balance sheets. [The banks] will not get face value for this stuff - maybe somewhere north of the current very low market values which exist because there is essentially no market. In addition, the accounting changes that are part of the bill will allow the banks to sell the stuff, perhaps realize the losses over a period of time instead of immediately, and therefore have some capacity to lend, which may help lower rates for real people. As the economy is run by credit this is necessary but not sufficient for getting the economy going again. This will also help restore some confidence to arcane things like the interbank and commercial paper markets which are frozen or near frozen and in which rates are very high and impeding activity (emphasis mine).
In short, then, it seems the bailout aims to save the banks arses and, by doing so, help restore the banks' ability to lend and also restore overall confidence in the marketplace. No time to blink In conclusion, I trust that the elementary, bullet point regurgitation of other people's ideas presented above will put to rest rumors that I am anything but a novice when it comes to big time economics. That said, if the next president asks me to be treasury secretary, I will answer him yes because I have the confidence in my readiness, and know that you can't blink. You have to be wired in a way of being so committed to the mission, the mission that we're on, reform of this country, and victory in the war. You can't blink. So, I wouldn't blink then, if asked to be treasury secretary.
In the wake of Thursday night's VP debate between Sen Joe "Bosniak" Biden (D-DE) and Gov Sarah "Toxic mess on Main Street that's affecting Wall Street" Palin (R-AK), it seems like everyone's talking about how Palin "exceeded expectations".
But let's be frank: this didn't take much doing. As one reader of Andrew Sullivan's blog, put it:
She didn't poop her pants. So basically she did great!
To be fair, Palin accomplished far more than simply not defecating herself. Namely, she established herself as a very formidable 21st century, reality-TV-era, style-over-substance debater: she displayed a firm command of the talking points her campaign advisers had crammed into her; she effectively zinged her opponent several times over past inconsistencies between himself and Obama; she spoke in a confident, aggressive fashion (albeit quickly and a bit nervously at points); she avoided obvious gaffes and awkward silences; she did not look physically unattractive; she looked straight in the camera, smiled, talked and winked at the same time; she correctly pronounced "Ahmadinejad" five times (and four times in the same response!); and she implemented a folksy, "doggone it"-infused delivery style that made me want to drive a stake through my ears and gouge my own eyes out—but evidently connects with a vast swath of the US electorate.
So again, to be clear, she did "exceed expectations". But let's also talk about what she did not do. She rarely answered questions directly (if at all). She failed to explain how exactly she and John McCain would "change" Washington or end the war in Iraq. She utterly lacked substance. She failed to demonstrate—much like George W Bush—that she: (a) understands that the word "nuclear" has one "u", not two; or (b) possesses an ounce of intellectual curiosity or independent thought (e.g., the kind needed to stray even one inch from talking points and note cards). And, most crucially, according to this CNN poll, she convinced only 42% of viewers (compared to 87% for Biden) that she is qualified to assume the presidency.
Straight talk? In my opinion, though, Palin's biggest shortcoming was highlighted during the first half of the debate after Biden pointed out to moderator Gwen Ifill that the Alaska Governor had not answered a question about deregulation. When Ifill then asked, "Would you like to have an opportunity to answer that before we move on?" Palin responded (see 2:45 mark in this 10-minute debate recap):
I'm still on the tax thing because I want to correct you on that again. And I want to let you know what I did as a mayor and as a governor. And I may not answer the questions that either the moderator or [Biden] want to hear, but I'm going to talk straight to the American people and let them know my track record also (emphasis mine).
Not going to answer the questions that either the moderator or Biden want to hear? What does that mean? What types of questions was she referring to? For some insight, let's review clips from the three interviews (with Charlie Gibson, Sean Hannity, and Katie Couric) that Palin granted prior to the debate (please watch):
Based on these interviews, it seems the questions Palin "may not answer" are those that: (a) cannot be sufficiently answered using memorized talking points; (b) refer to topics that she does not adequately grasp; and (c) press for specific examples to supplement the vague, ridiculous, rambling bullcrap that she (like every politician) often spews out.
Fortunately for Palin, when it came to the VP debate, the McCain campaign successfully insisted that:
[Her and Biden would] have shorter question-and-answer segments than those for the presidential nominees [which allowed] much less opportunity for free-wheeling, direct exchanges between the running mates. McCain advisers said they had been concerned that a loose format could leave Ms. Palin, a relatively inexperienced debater, at a disadvantage and largely on the defensive (emphasis mine).
Clearly, the plan worked. As evidenced by her above response to Ms Ifill, Palin used the debate's short 2:00 segments to her advantage. She did not have to be free-wheeling, but rather—thanks to a virtual lack of direct exchange and cross-examination—she successfully avoided specifics and glossed over questions she did not want to (or could not) answer with folksy, prepackaged, sound-bite-infested, stump speech drivel. A sexist, disrespectful double standard In my opinion, the "expectations" that Palin exceeded are—by the very nature of their lowness—demeaning and sexist. Had a male candidate for VP performed as Palin did Thursday night, I seriously doubt anyone would have lauded his performance as "better than expected"; or that that the conservative National Review editor Rich Lowry would have been smitten enough to write:
I'm sure I'm not the only male in America who, when [he] dropped [his] first wink, sat up a little straighter on the couch and said, "Hey, I think [he] just winked at me." And [his] smile. By the end, when [he] clearly knew [he] was doing well, it was so sparkling it was almost mesmerizing. It sent little starbursts through the screen and ricocheting around the living rooms of America. This is a quality that can't be learned; it's either something you have or you don't, and man, [he's] got it.
Rather, had Palin been a male, I suspect that the overwhelming majority of analysts would have bashed said candidate's performance, pronounced Biden the decisive winner, and lambasted John McCain's judgment for selecting said candidate to potentially be next in line to the presidency. To not apply the same standard to Palin is disrespectful to the fact that women are just as capable as men, and should be cheered and jeered based solely on their words and actions—not their identity.
Beyond gender That said, this whole situation extends far beyond gender. For instance, it's inconceivable that female politicians like Sen Hillary Clinton (D-NY), Sen Elizabeth Dole (R-NC), Gov Kathleen Sebelius (D-KA) or Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice would receive this kind of treatment, either. Likewise, when former Rep Geraldine Ferraro (D-NY) ran for VP in 1984, the Mondale campaign certain didn't rewrite the debate format to avoid free-wheeling and direct exchanges, nor did they shield her from unscripted press conferences. In contrast to Ferraro, who faced reporters within days of her selection, Palin has yet to hold a press conference—36 days and counting since McCain picked her—which is both unprecedented and astounding.
So what is it about Gov Palin that warrants this special treatment? Is it her beauty pageant good looks, or because she's so clearly—borderline pitiably—unready for presidential prime time? I don't know. But if I have to listen to myself think about it any longer, I will drive a stake through my ears, so at this point I must digress.
The word on the street—typified by chants of "Distill, baby, distill!" (hat tip: O'Chihak)—is that the future of Iowa's economy is all about ethanol. But in my opinion, that ain't nothing but a bunch of bollocks. 
I’m also impressed by its longevity and cost-effectiveness. To be clear, WBCL is quite expensive up front—I’ve spent $20.12 so far on just two 7-lb bags—but after six weeks I’ve still got a half bag left, and thus fully expect to make it a full two months off a Jackson plus change. For comparison, the previous brand I purchased (a 10-lb bag of “Better Valu”, sold at a gas station) cost only $2.63, but stunk to high heaven and needed to be changed after about a week. So, at $20.12 per two months versus $2.63 per week, the long-term costs are essentially even.
Posts
