The Economics of Breaking Bad

Breaking Bad is the story of Walter White, a cash-strapped, suburban 50-year old high school chemistry teacher, who following a life-changing cancer diagnosis hooks up with his drug-dealing former student, Jesse Pinkman, to cook and sell crystal methamphetamine. Immediately thrown in at the deep end, White undergoes a vast personality change; from mild-mannered Father into the lying, murderous gangland drug lord Heisenberg;  first cooking methamphetamine wearing an apron in a winnebago, then working in a high-tech underground laboratory for the Chilean gangland kingpin Gustavo Fring — who White eventually kills — and finally amassing a multi-hundred-million-dollar pile of cash.

A key dynamic in the show is White’s relationship with his brother-in-law, DEA agent Hank Schrader. It is Schrader who first introduces White to the idea that selling methamphetamine can pay — boasting of multi-hundred-thousand-dollar drug hauls, and even taking White out on a DEA raid of meth lab, where White first encounters his former student Pinkman. As White’s famously pure blue methamphetamine grows in popularity, Schrader becomes increasingly obsessed with its influx, yet spends the course of almost the entire series unaware that its source is his own brother-in-law.

There is another layer of irony, though. For it is not just that Schrader drew White into the drug trade through informing him of its lucrativeness, and then taking him out on a drug raid. In economic terms, Walter White’s illicit drug empire — and all the killing and carnage that spews from it — is utterly dependent upon the protection of Federal agents like Schrader. Breaking Bad is very much a parable of the failed drug war.

As Milton Friedman famously noted:

If you look at the drug war from a purely economic point of view, the role of the government is to protect the drug cartel. That’s literally true.

There is no logical basis for the prohibition of marijuana. Our failure to successfully enforce these laws is responsible for the deaths of thousands of people in Colombia. I haven’t even included the harm to young people. It’s absolutely disgraceful to think of picking up a 22-year-old for smoking pot. More disgraceful is the denial of marijuana for medical purposes.

Why are drugs so lucrative? Why are users forced to pay such a premium over the cost of production? Because of drug prohibition. The more Federal money spent on drug prohibition, the more drugs seized, the higher the markup. Could criminal elements charging a one-thousand percent markup compete with a legal and free market? Of course not; nobody would buy drugs from a wild-eyed gun-wielding dealer when a pure product is available openly for a fraction of the cost.

So it is the Federal drug prohibitionists enforcing drug prohibition — both in the universe of Breaking Bad, as well as the real world — who are empowering the drug cartels, and criminal elements like Walter White who simply get around the law. Supply and demand rule this world. If society demands narcotics, they will be supplied; the only question is how.

As Abraham Lincoln noted:

Prohibition goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man’s appetite by legislation and make crime out of things that are not crimes.

The economic costs have been massive:

According to DEA estimates we capture less than 10 percent of all illicit drugs. Does $30 billion a year for a 90% failure rate seem like a good investment? And how much would it cost to stop the other 90%? $100 billion? $500 billion?$1 trillion?

And the resultant swollen prison population is not only a huge cost to the taxpayer, it also takes people out of the economy who could instead be working and producing. 59% of federal prisoners are incarcerated for drug chargers, compared to only 2.5% incarcerated for violent crimes.

The war on drugs also stretches scant police resources. 717, 720 Americans were arrested in 1997 for murder, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault (combined), while 695, 200 were arrested for marijuana offences alone. The time and resources spent on investigating, prosecuting and incarcerating nonviolent drug users is time and resources that has not been spent investigating, prosecuting and incarcerating violent criminals.

Walter White exemplifies the failure of the drug war. Without the folly of prohibitionism White could have profited legally from his obvious talent for supplying a popular recreational pharmaceutical product without having to become part of a vicious and brutal criminal underworld. Under prohibitionism, White was again-and-again forced to either kill or be killed, unleashing his previously-dormant psychopathic potential. The real story of Walter White is that only something as absurd as prohibitionism — and the lucrative criminal underworld that prohibitionism breeds — could provide the catalyst for a mild-mannered chemist to become a wild, murderous psychopath.

About these ads

71 thoughts on “The Economics of Breaking Bad

  1. Why are drugs so lucrative?

    Have you dealt any pot? If you had you wouldn’t be asking this question. Take it from me, It is the demand that makes it so lucrative, not the supply. As you state, “we capture less than 10 percent of all illicit drugs”.

    Like money itself, the demand for drugs is almost infinite. You’ve never had as many ‘friends’ as when you’ve got good pot. In fact, I suggest to you that the real reason behind the drug war is not anybodies health, but that drugs are very much like money. The government controls money with an iron fist, nobody & no thing can be allowed to stand in between government & money.

    • So your saying drug dealing is actually a mental health issue. The drug dealer is a lonely person who feels important because they are being contacted by people and people are so nice to them. Perhaps we can save money by giving children psychological help. That way people are too scared to sell drugs, and are not driven by personal issues that overcomes that fear.

      So from the street hustler to the kingpin, they are just “needy” people.

      A two pronged approach:

      1. explaining to children that taking drugs will introduce you to a social circle of like “dependent” people with an apathy for life. Despite the highs the lows of associating with “negative” people will ruin their lives.

      2. Psychological help for the dealers.

      Will finalise the war on drugs.

      • “The drug dealer is a lonely person”

        How do you know that? Have you been a drug dealer?

        Your two pronged approach shows you have no knowledge of drugs whatsoever. I tell you, it is not government restriction of supply that makes drug dealing so lucrative, it is the demand for drugs.

        It is part of human nature. Blaming the dealers doesn’t solve anything.

        • Anybody can get drugs if they look hard enough (Or ask a scummy person to find it for them). People don’t take drugs because they have control and will not to descend into a social circle of apathetic weak people. In my University days I had to move out of my share house because the flat mate and his “friends” were always having parties. I am trying to pass my Degree and those wankers were “partying” mid week. At 38? he is probably still in a share house doing the same thing.

          My analysis of the drug dealer was seeing the geeky kids move into dealing because of their new found “friendship”.

          I grew up in a tough area, and I wanted to break free.

  2. lol, it’s against SEC regs, so no. I just want to compare the price of a kilo of weed (literally) to a kilo of corn, wheat, soybeans.

    • dunno about a kilo, but i just bought a pound (little less than half a kilo) of some very nice herbage for $3000, & i’m real happy with that price…

  3. Pingback: The Doom Collective &raquo The Economics of Breaking Bad

  4. Of course, to summarise the reality of it all like this would be to do a great disservice to the beautiful complexity of life, but it’s easily perceivable to say that…economists are like individuals working in a particular field that happens to belong to a club, and all club members are required to agree on main points of doctrine, and that …indeed, the price of admission is several years of graduate education, during which the chief dogmas are inculcated and learnt as if articles of some strange, spiritual faith…with the views of all outsiders being thus ignored…at least, that’s how Philip http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Kitcher is in that regard potentially comparing Krugman to a creationist…

    • I think you hit the nail on the head.

      The best revenge is the total collapse of the system, and these people will be blamed and ostracised. The people will then look for a “Savior” Philosophy..

  5. Pingback: The Economics of Breaking Bad « Silver For The People – The Blog

  6. Aziz, this is the best argument against drug “prohibition” I’ve ever encountered. You should cite the destructive folly (Al Capone, et al) of alcohol “prohibition” imposed at the highest level, Constitutional Amendment XVIII (1919), and repealed by Amendment XXI (1933).

    What about tax revenues from legal pot? Users would be happy to pay a lot, at least for a while.

    Please note that this and other “social conservative” issues are open for individual opinion and debate within our three “Tea Party” values: Constitutionally Limited Government; Free Markets; Fiscal Responsibility.

    • Don,

      I had a childhood friend who started to hang out with bad people and started to smoke pot. He migrated to other drugs and died of a heroin overdose.

      Pot is definately a gateway drug, and weak minded people will use harder drugs. Do we “weed” these people out or protect them. He was a good kid, very articulate with various issues because of his family divorce. He needed counselling. Banning drugs did not help protect him from the weak pushers who made him believe they were “friends”

      • I had a childhood friend who started to hang out with bad people and started to smoke pot. He migrated to other drugs and died of a heroin overdose.

        The plural of anecdote is not data.

        The smartest person I know (exited high school with some of the highest marks in the state, finished a law degree with first class honours and is now a quite successful environmental lawyer.

        He smoked pot quite regularly (weekly) for the last couple of years of high school and still does probably once every month or two.

        Nearly all the problems caused by illegal drugs disappear when they are decriminalised and regulated. The ones that are left are health issues, no different to those associated with any other form of drug addiction and/or abuse.

        • “WEAK minded people will use harder drugs”

          Drsmithy, I thought your reading comprehension skills were better than that.

          Do we have a moral obligation to protect the weak?

        • “WEAK minded people will use harder drugs”

          Drsmithy, I thought your reading comprehension skills were better than that.

          What is your (non-circular) definition of “weak minded” ?
          How are you intending to identify such people ?
          Why should they be any more allowed to use alcohol or nicotine than marijuana ? Both are more harmful and addictive than the latter.
          What is a “hard drug” ?

        • Heroin and Cocaine are hard drugs because they are the ones that cause the greatest addiction and the most withdrawal symptons, So is Marijuana. It causes psychosis in people who are predisposed to it.

          Look at Gambling. They legalised it so the rich could enjoy and fitter away their evenings. At the same time, poor people with Obsessive Compulsive Disorder or other neural defects, just can’t stop the addiction and ruin their lives. And most important of all their family’s.

          An option islegalising and taxing the hell out of it, then using the money to fund health program. But this is proven not to work in Gambling, so it would not wok with drugs.

        • Heroin and Cocaine are hard drugs because they are the ones that cause the greatest addiction and the most withdrawal symptons, So is Marijuana.

          Nicotine is equally as (if not more so) addictive as heroin and cocaine. More so, really, given the latter two don’t have marketing behemoths behind them to constantly reinforce the physical effects.

          All three are in a completely different league to Marijuana, which is about as addictive and dangerous as caffeine (ie: essentially not at all, unless used at phenomenally high levels).

          It causes psychosis in people who are predisposed to it.

          No, it increases the likelihood of psychosis in people who are predisposed. That’s what “predisposed” means. This is a tiny percentage of the population, no different to a myriad other drugs which can disproportionately impact certain people (eg: large amounts of caffeine and some heart conditions are a poor combination).

          Of course, that’s not a reason to class it as a “hard drug”, nor ban it. Nicotine and alcohol are more addictive, more dangerous, more damaging, to vastly more people, and legal.

          And this is before even going into the much more fundamental issues around controlling what people can and cannot do with their own bodies.

          They legalised it so the rich could enjoy and fitter away their evenings. At the same time, poor people with Obsessive Compulsive Disorder or other neural defects, just can’t stop the addiction and ruin their lives. And most important of all their family’s.

          The real problem here is gross under-resourcing of mental healthcare (and immaturity of the field in general, though at least the latter problem is changing quickly). There is no justification for banning things that the vast, vast majority of people can partake of without problem. You can play whack-a-mole with individual targets addictive personalities will focus on, but without fixing (or treating) the root cause you’ll never escape the negative outcomes.

          In short: treat the cause, not the symptoms. Excessive and uncontrollable drug (or anything else) use is a symptom, not a cause.

  7. For Uni I’ve had to recently read Niccolò Machiavelli… (pretty wise guy: “Friendships that are obtained by payments, and not by greatness or nobility of mind, may indeed be earned, but seldom are they very secure – rarely reliable in times of need”) … some paragraphs of his inspired me to write….

    “He sings the praises of “virtu” like it were a merry bee buzzing about from flower to flower according to its own mysterious reasoning, pausing momentarily to enjoy the fruits of one flower whilst skipping over that which may be offered in some equal or even greater amount by its solemn neighbour, amidst the sea of other flowers, attended to here and there by other busy buzzers, each of whom continues to lay droplets of wisdom taken from the chosen few behind his flying path, drifting further afield under the golden Sun through the clear blue sky.”

    In some ways I think Nicco was closer to Mother Taresa than say a brutal dictator like Saddam Hussein, and it got me thinking, with everyone always criticising the US (and yes, having rooted myself into the idea of violence being bad and highly undesirable, I’m well aware of America’s recent deficits on that count)…could it perhaps be that the US..if it played its cards correctly…coud sort of evolve NOW into a new Rome? What say if the US started issuing global passports backed by its global military on the basis of which all holders of said passports could freely travel anywhere on Earth, so long as they complied with a sheet of rules (don’t murder, steal etc, all the natural laws one can quickly reel off of the top of one’s head), in turn kinda of creating a new East-India Company…whereby alleged breakers of the sheet’s rules would be deported back to the US and tried in a court (probably private) established on US territory….I really believe that the US stands a good chance of getting through this economic maze of dilemmas better than many expect, due largely to its quite unique ability to remain and act in relatively flexible ways….It’s just a thought…and it could be totally wrong…but I just don’t think you can say “oh yes america is over now the chinese will rule…” already many corporations (some of which are american) are larger or at least act like governments of their own…like Exxon for exmaple

    ….imagine its CEO partnering with say a General David Petraeus? This sounds crazy, I know…but ultaimtely you need a security force..and a global one can only really emanate from the US … as far as I could guess, at least…. reality is global commerce is in a mess and the world is necessarily imperfect…. who knows…

  8. Pingback: Guest Post: The Economics Of Breaking Bad | TheTradersWire.com

  9. it would interesting to calculate if a little bag of weed would cost say $5 and be taxed at 10% if 50 million of those bags were sold each month how much tax revenue that could produce LOL

  10. Pingback: The Economics of Breaking Bad | SteveB's Politics & Economy Scoops | Scoop.it

  11. Pingback: We know this » Why Aren't You Outraged?

  12. I find it morally reprehensible to argue that drugs dangerous to human health even in small quantities like heroin and cocaine should be legalized and sold and the profits accrue to the government. However bad the current policy is from the social and economic factor – the suggested solution is unethical.

    • It’s more morally reprehensible that the profits should accrue to violent criminal gangs than to businesspeople engaging in voluntary custom in the legal marketplace. Devote drug war funds to help and treatment for addicts instead.

      • That’s simply a utilitarian spin on the fundamental basis of the argument. Anyway – there won’t be violent criminal gangs post legalization – because they will all become ‘businesspeople engaging in voluntary custom in the legal marketplace’. Presto chango – you’ve transformed yesterday’s villains to respectable folks. And why would anyone want to devote drug war funds to help addicts – that would be against business’ interests and against the government’s. In short – you’ve created perverse social/economic incentives where private individuals and the government benefit from people’s misery in full compliance of the law.

        • where private individuals and the government benefit from people’s misery in full compliance of the law.

          Sounds like the status quo to me.

    • I find it morally reprehensible to argue that drugs dangerous to human health even in small quantities like heroin and cocaine should be legalized and sold and the profits accrue to the government. However bad the current policy is from the social and economic factor – the suggested solution is unethical.

      So I take it you’re in favour of criminalising cigarettes and booze then ? Both of them are quite easy to consume in dangerous (at best) to lethal (at worst) quantities.

  13. Pingback: The Economics of Breaking Bad « Hawks5999

  14. Aziz,

    Don’t forget that the prison and enforcement arms of our fascist industrial government partnership make a pretty penny enforcing these laws and punishments. If we legalized drugs, those massive budgets would seem wholly unnecessary. There would be far less demand for these massive super prisons built by private corporations on overpriced government contracts. These people know where their paychecks come from and actively protest and lobby against any attempt at rational drug policy.

    P.S. Thanks for the spoilers. I really should have skipped those first two paragraphs.

  15. Pingback: Emerging & Frontier Markets Headlines 2012.09.03 - Diverging Markets

  16. There can be no “strong evidence” that confirms or falsifies the statement that “supply and demand rule the world”.

    We cannot perform controlled experiments in economics. We can’t isolate the cause of change if we can’t run controlled experiments. This is why economic statements/theories can’t be verified or falsified by observation.

    You wrote a piece on Praxeology. I suggest you also write a piece on Empiricism.

    • You’re demanding certainty on a frontier which we both know is uncertain. Natural experiments are often enough to isolate causes of change to a high degree of certainty. Just because something will always involve a degree of uncertainty doesn’t mean to say we cannot use falsification and verification. Mises correctly identified that we can never really be certain with empiricism in economics. His retreat into pure logic, though, attempted to replace an imperfect methodology with an absurd one.

      And I already did write a piece on empiricism I come to a radically different conclusion to both the Miseseans and the Neoclassicists:

      http://azizonomics.com/2011/09/25/empiricism-in-economics/

  17. Pingback: The War On Drugs | Info Sample

  18. Empiricists contradict themselves when they say everything is uncertain. They are actually saying “I know with certainty that everything is uncertain”. If anything is possible, then empiricists must admit that deductive economics statements can be universally correct statements about reality. This debate has real policy implications.

    The rejection of deduction is motivated by political ideology. The economists showed that the central planners’ schemes cannot increase living standards. The social planners could not refute the economists, so they responded by rejecting deductive logic. Historicism and Empiricism are used by central planners to justify all types of planning schemes.

    Empiricists argue anything is possible, so empiricism offers central planners an endless policy agenda. When their schemes fail, they can argue their hypothesis has not been falsified and that they simply need to control for other factors.

    For instance, an empiricist like you can argue socialism in the U.S.S.R would have worked if only Trotsky had taken power instead of Stalin. Ben Bernanke will one day argue his radical monetary experiments would’ve worked if fiscal policy had been different. Empiricism offers its proponents an endless bag of excuses to explain away their failures. Empiricism results in never ending central planning.

    • Empiricists contradict themselves when they say everything is uncertain. They are actually saying “I know with certainty that everything is uncertain”.

      Or they could just be saying “everything is uncertain [including this statement]“.

      The rejection of deduction is motivated by political ideology. The economists showed that the central planners’ schemes cannot increase living standards. The social planners could not refute the economists, so they responded by rejecting deductive logic.

      _Reality_ refuted the economists (as it so frequently does). The countries with the highest standards of living all have relatively high degrees of “central planning”.

      Indeed, you would struggle to find a functional state at all that doesn’t have some degree of “central planning” (commonly referred to as “laws”).

      • “The countries with the highest standards of living all have relatively high degrees of “central planning”.”

        In 1984 did those living in East Berlin have higher living standards than those living in West Berlin? In 1959 did the Chinese have higher living standards than Americans? In August 2012 did Candanians have higher living standards than North Koreans? Where was there more central planning in each of these cases?

        Empiricists can’t isolate the cause of the higher living standards. Simply put, did residents of East Berlin have lower living standards because of, or in spite of, central planning? Empiricists can never determine the cause of higher living standards because repeatable, controlled experiments are impossible in economics.

        For instance, Mao could argue his Great Leap Forward failed because it wasn’t great enough. Krugman can argue the stimulus failed because it wasn’t big enough. Falsification doesn’t discredit the hypothesis, so the social experiment grows.

        That’s my point: empiricists have an endless bag of excuses. There is never an end to the social experiments no matter how colossal the failures.

        • In 1984 did those living in East Berlin have higher living standards than those living in West Berlin? In 1959 did the Chinese have higher living standards than Americans? In August 2012 did Candanians have higher living standards than North Koreans? Where was there more central planning in each of these cases?

          How unsurprising you pick extreme examples to construct a straw man argument.

          The countries with the highest standards of living today (including things like social mobility, access to education, access to healthcare, etc) are the social democracies of northern Europe, all of which have greater “central planning” than more “free market” countries like the USA and UK.

        • Let’s assume you’re correct (you’re not).

          Do the social democracies of northern Europe have higher living standards because of central planning? Or do they have higher living standards in spite of central planning?

        • Let’s assume you’re correct (you’re not).

          Pretty sure I am.

          Do the social democracies of northern Europe have higher living standards because of central planning? Or do they have higher living standards in spite of central planning?

          Given the western countries that have drifted towards the American and UK model of industry deregulations, greater power endowed in private companies, fewer workers rights, and reduced public services have seen (or begun to see) the same increases in wealth gaps, relatively stagnant worker wages and generally worse outcomes for the poor (as have both the USA and UK as they continue further down that track), the evidence suggests the former.

    • BetaHater — drsmithy makes a couple of excellent points. In any case, let me proceed with the rest.

      The rejection of deduction is motivated by political ideology. The economists showed that the central planners’ schemes cannot increase living standards. The social planners could not refute the economists, so they responded by rejecting deductive logic. Historicism and Empiricism are used by central planners to justify all types of planning schemes.

      Well if they looked at the empirical record they’d understand that the record is deeply unfavourable for those kinds of schemes. Just because one particular viewpoint has been used for evil doesn’t mean to say that the viewpoint is evil. Both deductionism and empiricism have been used to justify disasters.

      For instance, an empiricist like you can argue socialism in the U.S.S.R would have worked if only Trotsky had taken power instead of Stalin. Ben Bernanke will one day argue his radical monetary experiments would’ve worked if fiscal policy had been different. Empiricism offers its proponents an endless bag of excuses to explain away their failures. Empiricism results in never ending central planning.

      Your final sentence is absurd.

      You need to actually read what I’ve written about empiricism before you lump me in with Marxists and Keynesians, both of whom advocate for empiricism in terms of economic ideology without actually advocating for an empirical economy based on the experimental market mechanism.

      Only by minimising central planning can we maximise economic empiricism; by leaving the market free to experiment with different forms of organisation.

      • The empirical record does not falsify the central planner’s hypothesis. Since the central planners can continue “controlling for more variables” ad infinitum, they can continue their schemes ad infinitum.

        Empiricism never attempts to make universally true statements. Every empirical statement is always open to future falsification or verification. Empiricists proudly admit that it’s possible for central planning to raise living standards. This is why empiricism is the methodology of central planning.

        • I note that you didn’t address my central point and continued to hurl straw men trying to tie all notions of empiricism up with central planning.

          The only truly empirical system of economics is the free market; the freer the market, the more experimental. Central planning is not experimental (i.e. empirical) because there is not the freedom to experiment. There is some necessity for governance, but my view is that this should be toward the aim of keeping the market free (e.g. law, infrastructure, etc), rather than planning or controlling the market.

        • What you’re talking about is intellectual dishonesty —

          The planner says — I am going to use the power of the state to achieve X using Y. The planner undertakes Y, and X either fails or succeeds (or more complicatedly succeeds but causes iatrogenic side-effects). If X fails, then the planner’s thesis is falsified, and his methods are discredited.

          Saying that the entire methodology of falsification is discredited because of the misdeeds of central planners is like destroying a city in hellfire because a boy stole a loaf of bread.

  19. “If X fails, then the planner’s thesis is falsified, and his methods are discredited.”

    If the planner’s thesis is falsified, this does not mean his methods are discredited. It only means that they need to refine the hypothesis.

    Consider Mao’s Great Leap Forward. Mao hypothesizes the living standard (L) is related to the number of chinese farmers (X). L = a + bX

    Mao increaes the number of workers (X), but living standards (L) fall and millions die. His hypothesis as stated is incorrect, but it doesn’t mean the hypothesized relationship is falsified. It doesn’t mean Mao’s Great Leap Forward is discredited.

    Mao can argue the Great Leap Forward will work if the farmers have more supervision. The number of supervisors is Y. The refined hypothesis is L = a + bX + cY.

    Mao increases the number of supervisors (Y), but living standards keep falling. Again, the Great Leap Forward is not discredited. Mao can argue the farmers aren’t working enough hours Z. The refined hypothesis is L = a + bX + cY + dZ

    Again, Mao finds millions are dying after increasing the hours worked (Z). Still, the Great Leap Forward is not discredited. Mao can keep refining his hypothesis ad infinitum. He can control for the seeds, the temperature, the amount of water, etc. The possibilities are endless, so the scheme can be continued forever.

    Empiricism is the methodology of central planners because empiricism allows for perpetual central planning.

    • You did a good job with that argument (I laughed), but it is just as plausible to say that deductionism is the methodology of central planners because deductionism allows for the central planner to continue to make excuses and ignore the empirical record that shows his methods are at best very, very unlikely to work. A real empiricist with some sense (mixture of induction and deduction) would immediately recognise that tweaking and tweaking and tweaking a failed system of interventionism is disastrous and likely to lead to more and more failure.

      Again, I urge you to think of empiricism in terms of the actual shape of the system itself. The only empirical economy is one where individuals have the freedom to economically experiment.

    • I was with you a couple of arguments back, but it was good to break out your argument into maths. I agree.

      Stalin used the other mathematical equation. Crops failed becaue of the Kulaks. i.e. he had a – K in his equation. When that did not work he added another variable – UP for Ukrainian Peasants.

  20. Mao should have sought and taken some advice from FARMERS. [Instead, he executed ten or 20 million in order to stamp out capitalist thoughts (i.e., competition) -- but that's another story, one that is playing out this week in Charlotte, NC, where the radicalized Democratic Party uses unrestrained character- and truth-assassination because they have yet to achieve enough power to use bullets.]

    Was anyone else around in the early days of training people to use “business” computers/software? Most classes included the lesson of the new and improved dog food:

    A leading producer used the latest and greatest computers to optimize nutrition and cost-saving, and launched a new product with a giant advertising campaign. It did NOT sell! The CEO summoned the entire sales department — top to bottom. No one had any answers until, from the back of the room, came a timid “THE DOGS WON’T EAT IT!”

    • Stalin too. When the Ukrainian Peasants said my plot of land is only good for Sugar Beets and not wheat, he said they were ignorant peasants. Hi listened to his “Agronomists” He planted wheat to sell on the international market to fund his “Utopia” Millions (6-10) died of famine when crops failed.

      When the peasants stored some food to survive, he killed them as traitors to his “utopian dream” They eneded up canabalising the dead to make it.

      This is why Ukrainians supported the Germans in WW2 and fought the Russians for 10 years after the war in the Carpathian Mountains (Ukrainian Insurgent Army)

      Communists. Wankers.

  21. Here’s what George Carlin said about the drug money laundering by the banksters and what we should do with these financial terrorist criminals.
    George Carlin on The Death Penalty & 1% Banksters Laundering Drug Money .

  22. Pingback: Daily Reading on the Financial Markets: 9/6/12 « Playing the Ponzi

  23. drsmithey on Sep 06 @ 09:15:58: “Given the western countries that have drifted towards the American and UK model of industry deregulations, greater power endowed in private companies, fewer workers rights, and reduced public services have seen (or begun to see) the same increases in wealth gaps, relatively stagnant worker wages and generally worse outcomes for the poor (as have both the USA and UK as they continue further down that track),……..”

    CORRECTION: Others may comment about the UK, but the USA of Obama-Pelosi-Reid has “drifted” — no plunged — in the OPPOSITE direction: more REGULATION, greater power endowed in GOVERNMENT, more “public service” union power (and seeking fewer workers’ right to choose to join or not), INCREASED public “services” (entitlements; Federal government legal action against States’ control of voter fraud, immigration, and energy development; diversion of corn to ethanol; crop irrigation water diverted to endangered fish; etc.). The result is indeed worse for wages and the poor, who always suffer the most from failing economies.

    As Ronald Reagan said to Jimmy Carter, “There you go again!”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s