Article that states the obvious. Why do people think things are getting better already?

Retail sales fell in April, the second straight month of declines. The news dashes hopes that the falloff in consumer spending has bottomed out as recession-battered shoppers remain reluctant to open their wallets. The seasonally adjusted decline of 0.4% in U.S. retail and food services reported by the Commerce Dept. was worse than expected and follows a decline in March that was revised downward to 1.3%

The unexpected decline—analysts had expected flat sales—was especially jarring because retailers had hoped that gains in retail sales in January and February were the initial sign of stabilization in consumer spending, the main component of U.S. economic activity. As recently as last week, small gains reported by major retailers were being examined for signs of increased consumer confidence, and it's still possible the two-month downturn is just a blip in a larger trend.

"Overall, the report is much weaker than expected and casts doubt on the resilience of the consumer, and thus should temper much of the recent market confidence," Standard & Poor's analyst Beth Ann Bovino wrote.

Future Headwinds

The April retail and food services figures were 10.1% below April 2008. Gasoline sales were down 2.3% in April and 36.4% from last year, reflecting the large declines in gasoline pump prices. Motor vehicle and parts dealers' sales increased 0.2%, but are down 20.7% from April 2008.

There are signs that retailers will face more headwinds in the future. Research firm Retail Forward said on May 13 that a survey found that more than 8 out of 10 women have changed the way they shop for clothing, accessories, and shoes because of the economic turmoil.

"The largest shares of female shoppers are engaging in ways to limit spending on these categories," according to Kelly Tackett, author of the report. "However, many women also are trading down to less expensive brands, styles, and fabrics and changing how and where they shop for clothing, accessories and shoes."

The study said that the tactics for limiting spending are likely to endure post-recession.

And a couple of great comments:

• Biff Wellington May 13, 2009 5:46 PM GMT Since 70% of our economy is based on consumption, it is understandable that the "experts" want everyone to believe things are slowly improving. "Go buy stuff, and don't worry about tomorrow. Obama's got your back," they all say. If 650,000 jobs are lost one month, and 590,000 jobs are lost the following month, that simply means there are a half million less paychecks. The "experts" will say that these numbers show the economy is improving. Now, that's a serious "half-full" point of view. Please explain that to any of the 590,000 who just lost their jobs. I'm sure they will go right out and stimulate the hell out of the economy. Some people seem to be under the delusion that they will just wake up tomorrow and everything will be "back to normal." Unfortunately this is not a dream. But it is rapidly turning into an American nightmare. And all because of the kind-hearted nature of our congressmen, and their banking buddies. But don't worry. I am certain that they now have our best interests in mind. After all, there are elections coming up.
• American Sharecropper May 13, 2009 5:29 PM GMT Keynesian economic theory states government debt spending will spur the economy by encouraging spending of new government printed fiat currency. The idea is that debt dollars would be recouped by the next economic bubble, reducing the crowding effect of government debt and increasing private capital investment. This theory never took into consideration the governments propensity to grow. Keynes created an excuse for government to continually grow at the expense of future generations, forestalling the inevitable Ponzi scheme collapse. We have come to the end of this paradigm. There is no way for us to grow, increase our standard of living while transitioning our form of government into a collectivist state. Within the next ten years, the federal government will either begin to default on its �??entitlement�?? payments or drastically increase taxes (to the point of needing a police state to enforce). As government grows, private capital decreases. The only mystery about consumer (debt) spending is why it has been increasing for the last decade, at the expense of savings.

...

Urban Survival...

Government Going Bust

A report in the NY Daily News tells us (again) what we suspected: Medicare is headed for the rocks and will be bust in eight years if present trends are reversed. Not only that, but says the BBC, the timeline for Social Security to run out of money has been moved up to 2037 - which is four years earlier than had been forecast.

Not that CONgress will be inclined to do much about it, since America's Ruling Class members have set themselves up a system parallel to Social Security, but then you knew that, right? The National Taxpayer's Union site says (in part):

"Members of Congress began paying into Social Security in 1983, as part of a government-wide pension overhaul. This is a requirement, and Members may not opt out of it. They then have the option of participating in one of two pension plans, depending upon when they were elected (most of them do). If elected before 1984, they participate in the Civil Service Retirement System; if elected 1984 and after, they participate in the Federal Employee Retirement System. These two plans are also offered to rank and file federal employees, EXCEPT that the Congressional plan's benefit is calculated on a more generous formula than that offered to most other government workers. The "accrual rate" is much higher, and lawmakers tend to be able to retire earlier with benefits than other federal workers (as early as age 50)."

Think America ought to have universal healthcare? As one site puts it:

"While over 46 million Americans remain uninsured and millions more underinsured, members of Congress receive health-related services that many in the U.S. will never see. "

Seems to me - just thinking out loud here - that if members of both clubs (Senate and House) were living uninsured, falling retirement plan, and upside down in their houses instead of living in their taxpayer provided alternate reality, we'd get a lot more done in terms of social progress. But there I go back into my throw-back role. (I'm still looking for the part of the Constitution that says government can buy insurance companies and banks as it pleases, too, so you just know I'm over-the-edge.

...

Something to think about

Holding the 'Woo

Damn being responsible anyway. After a lot of discussion last night, Elaine and I've decided NOT to get rid of the Daewoo and buy a new car. While it's true that the economy is between crises at the moment, we also expect, based on the predictive linguistics work from HPH that more of the crap will be hitting the fan this fall. Given how dire the outlook is for then, Elaine made some very good points.

First, there's the matter of the cost of the car. Since the Nissan Cube is new in dealerships, the salesman tells me that there is no special financing available yet. Strike one. In the current climate a person would have to be crazy to lay out all cash, or pay any more than zero percent interest for a car. That's just be plain old dumb. So I will call him this morning and cancel the planned test drive with instructions to 'call me when you get zero percent financing going on this one."

Secondly: $20-grand for a Nissan Krom (and that's before Tax & License) is just too much money for a small car. Elaine has read some of the linguistics around the idea of Diaspora (the great global moving about yet to come) and she said "If we ever did have to move - for whatever reason - we won't be able to get hardly anything in a car that small. Besides, can you picture throwing a couple of bales or hay or a couple of sacks of goat feed in the back of it? Honestly, damn fine points. Strike two.

The capper: "You know we could probably get something bigger, cheaper, and with the same kind of mileage if we wait until fall. Besides, these are not times to be into conspicuousness. Strike three.

Humor: The Send Up Story

Humor's a curious thing to analyze. Has patterns to it. To show you what I mean, here's an email I received this morning:

Subject: SEND EM UP!

In addition to communicating with the local Air Traffic Control facility, all aircraft in the Persian Gulf AOR are required to give the Iranian Air Defense Radar (military) a ten minute 'heads up' if they will be transiting Iranian airspace.

This is a common procedure for commercial aircraft and involves giving them your call sign, transponder code, type aircraft, and points of origin and destination.

This was conversation on the VHF Guard (emergency) frequency 121.5 MHz while flying from Europe to Dubai .

It is too good not to pass along.

The conversation went like this...

Iranian Air Defense Radar: 'Unknown aircraft you are in Iranian airspace. Identify yourself.'

Aircraft: 'This is a United States aircraft. I am in Iraqi airspace.'

Air Defense Radar: 'You are in Iranian airspace. If you do not depart our airspace we will launch interceptor aircraft!'

Aircraft: 'This is a United States Marine Corps FA-18 fighter. Send 'em up, I'll wait!'

Air Defense Radar: (no response ... total silence)

Now to the pattern part of the discussion: The original pattern for this kind of email can be traced back to a purported 1995 incident involving the US Navy:

"This is based on an actual radio conversation between a U.S. Navy aircraft carrier (U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln) and Canadian authorities off the coast of Newfoundland in October, 1995. (The radio conversation was released by the Chief of Naval Operations on 10/10/95 authorized by the Freedom of Information Act.)

Canadians: Please divert your course 15 degrees to the South to avoid collision.

Americans: Recommend you divert your course 15 degrees to the North to avoid a collision.

Canadians: Negative. You will have to divert your course 15 degrees to the South to avoid a collision.

Americans: This is the Captain of a US Navy ship. I say again, divert YOUR course.

Canadians: No, I say again, you divert YOUR course.

Americans: THIS IS THE AIRCRAFT CARRIER USS LINCOLN, THE SECOND LARGEST SHIP IN THE UNITED STATES' ATLANTIC FLEET. WE ARE ACCOMPANIED BY THREE DESTROYERS, THREE CRUISERS AND NUMEROUS SUPPORT VESSELS. I DEMAND THAT YOU CHANGE YOUR COURSE 15 DEGREES NORTH--I SAY AGAIN, THAT'S ONE FIVE DEGREES NORTH--OR COUNTER-MEASURES WILL BE UNDERTAKEN TO ENSURE THE SAFETY OF THIS SHIP.

Canadians: This is a lighthouse. Your call. "

Of course the Navy denied it ever happened and even put out an official denial as early as 1997.

What intrigues me about both of these stories is asking "How did they happen?" Are they some kind of deliberate military memeering (meme/thought-virus being injected into the netosphere) or are they just examples of humans thinking they have free time on their hands, getting creative and spinning what they hope to be funny yarns.

The jury is out on which of these possibilities is correct. But it's enough of a pattern you might want to observe your thoughts next time one of these shows up in the inbox. Was it just funny, or did it change how you think in some subtle way?

---

Humor has sure changed a lot. Seems to me that people aren't laughing nearly as much as they used to when I was growing up. Back then seemed like a lot of humor was based on race and sex, but humans seem to be evolving into much more serious-minded people. Polish and Swedish jokes are pretty much gone, and if you're old enough to remember L.S.M.F.T (Lucky Strike Means Fine Tobacco") you might also remember the days when L.S.M.F.T also meant "Loose straps mean floppy..." to high school boys watching the girls play volleyball.

Those were times when we were much more naive. And maybe humor is what helped us as a society get past some of that; I remember being the 'token honkey' at an R&B radio station, LOL.

Maybe humor is just a tool, a reaction to our inner feelings that we (were back then) to embarrassed to put straight out there. Or maybe times really have changed, and nothing much is funny any more. So the patterns of the humor that worked in the past - that makes it past today's broader filtering of what's acceptable - find themselves being replayed every 10-15 years - like the pattern of the "Send Up" and "Lighthouse" stories.

Not that I'm too worried about it as a writer, though. I've been finding delight lately digging out the underlying humor of language. Some words are just hysterically funny on their own; no story needed. They're short, easy to tell, and hysterically funny when you think about them in a Zenly sort of way

My three current favorites?

• "Normal"

• "Transparency"

• and of course, "COMEX"