Which Came First – The Hookers Or The Johns??? Economics Through The Lens Of Prostitution!!!
This question is easier to answer than the famous Chicken and Egg problem first described by Aristotle. Framing the question in terms of Prostitution gets rid of all the messy micro-biological and evolutionary distractions related to chicken embryology.
Whither, the world’s oldest profession??? Is this a Trick Question??? Where do we apply the Stimulus??? Both parties are necessary. Remove either party from the equation and there is no Prostitution. Remove the Hooker, and there is no supply. Remove the Johns, and there is no demand. But in these days of Tight Resource Allocation, we must carefully select the best way to channel our efforts.
Republicans and Libertarians, with their love of Supply Side Economics, would argue that Hookers stimulate demand, and that If you supply it, they will come. Simply free up the producers to produce, and the demand will be there. And not just be there, but be there pulsing, throbbing, and waiting for that supply to just EXPLODE.
This is turn leads to all the catering to the moneyed classes. It isn’t simply a vote-buying kind of Careless Love, like the Democrats do on the Down-Low. No. This is the deep “I will name him George, and I will hug him and pet him and squeeze him… ” kind of Love. No trade barriers, no regulations, just on laisse faire la nature (“let nature run its course” – Boisguillebert.)
Progressives, however, think that demand is the driving force. And that demand requires the financial wherewithal to pay for that which is demanded. This is why Progressive agendas focus on infrastructure expenditures, deficit spending, bringing jobs back to America, and making sure American jobs pay a decent and livable wage. Without demand, from the bottom up, Hookers aren’t even able to have a “Going Out Of Business Sale!!!” (And, OH I am sooo resisting the temptation to wonder at the possible advertisements and television commercials , such as— “Prices so low, we should have our head examined!!!” )
All in all, the Progressive argument seems more persuasive. Because the underlying demand for satisfaction can be slaked in many ways. Some, for FREE! For example, Marriage, One Night Stands, Cold Showers, Friends With Benefits Arrangements, Prayer, Third Rate Romance, Low Rent Rendevouz, or Alimony, can all serve to allay Lust. And, what I call the “Onan the Librarian” approach. (A Dirty Book, a Jug of Lotion(Male), [or a Loaf of a Ithyphallos (Female)] and WOW!)
To go beyond those options, and to pay for it, is a move up to or beyond Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. In fact, Prostitution directly conflicts with the 3rd and 4th level Needs of Love, Affection and Belongingness and Needs for Esteem, respectively.
Of course, one can not examine this issue without considering PRICE. Fortunately, this Girl Reporter can rely on the work of others. From the TuftsObserver, Muddy Drawers: Sexonomic, citing Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner’s book Superfreakonomics:
Superfreakonomics concentrates on the sex trade in the modern United States, more specifically on what the authors dub the “declining salary of prostitutes.” According to the authors, even the lowest-rent prostitutes in the 1910s made what amounts to $25,000 a year in today’s dollars, and women working at the most expensive brothels made over $430,000. Much has changed over the past century, and the average wage of prostitutes today “pales in comparison to the one enjoyed by even the low-rent prostitutes from a hundred years ago.” The book tells the story of a low-rent prostitute today, “LaSheena,” who makes about $350 a week working the streets in Chicago. This, according to the authors, is typical pay for prostitutes in America today.
Why the sharp decrease in salaries of prostitutes? Levitt, a professor of economics at the University of Chicago, attributes this steep decline to a fall in demand. So why has the demand for prostitutes fallen? Are men today less horny than they were a hundred years ago? Probably not. Instead, Levitt attributes this decrease to something else: competition. It is no secret that sexual norms have evolved substantially, especially in the last couple of decades. The Women’s Liberation movement of the 1960s and the proliferation of contraceptive methods during the 1970s (especially the condom and the birth control pill) led to the “sexual revolution” of the United States. The sexual revolution was a period of loosening sexual norms and increasing sexual liberation. What does all of this have to do with prostitutes? When there are less stringent social norms, women are more likely to have sex before marriage. And when more women are having sex before marriage, men are less likely to seek out prostitutes. As Levitt puts it: “Who poses the greatest competition to a prostitute? Simple: any woman who is willing to have sex for free.”
So, Demand wins. Of course, I remember what my Mother told me very early on, “Men won’t buy a cow if they can get the milk for free. ” What she forgot to tell me was, “No matter how large the Supply of Cows.”
Three Little Monkeys Pumping Thru The Fed
by Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter
Three Little Monkeys, pumping thru the Fed.
One was at the Treasury, a Figure Head!
But he had no head for figures, so the People said,
OMG! We wish he’d stayed at home in bed!
Two Little Monkeys, pumping thru the Fed
Qualitative Easing was for what one plead.
But the Qualitative Easing to Inflation led.
OMG! We wish he’d stayed at home in bed!
One Little Monkey, pumping thru the Fed.
When he saw the Budget, everything was RED.
“Hope and Change!”, and “Yes We Can!” won’t buy a loaf of bread.
OMG! We wish he’d stayed at home in bed!
Three Little Monkeys, all at home in bed.
Flung Poo at each other for a change instead.
They all got sick, from Monkey Poop, and ended up dead.
OMG! It served them right, the People said!!!
In Norse Mythology, the “Gotterdammerung” (The Twilight of The Gods) was a prophesied war of the gods that brings about the end of the world. I guess kind of like Armageddon. Wiki says the term Gotterdammerung is occasionally used in English, referring to a disastrous conclusion of events.
Soooo, I guess the Bankers are facing their Twilight, especially in Iceland. How fitting. As reported at the link below, the Icelanders again say HELL NO to covering the debts of the banks with taxpayer funds.
The problem for the Bankers is that Iceland will NOT fall off the map if the Bankers get their heads shaved. Oh no, as it shows in the Internet Article above, Iceland is headed UP, while the other Indentured Servant Nations are headed DOWN. How long before the secret is out??? JUST SAY NO!!!
But there is a difference in the ending between Gotterdammerung and Gotterdammerbanker. I don’t think the Bankers will be taken to Valhalla by Valkyrie where they spend Eternity drowning in Mead and Maidens. No, I think they are headed in the opposite direction, like this:
Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter
(NOTE: For the linguistically pure reader, YES, I know the correct way to say my new word is Bankerdammerung. But there is just some animal spirit in me that likes the sound of Gotterdammerbanker. The way the word rolls off the tongue just soooo sounds like something you would say to a Banker!!! Plus, I don’t know how to put those two little dotsie thingies over the letters “O” and “A”, which is a German thing.)
Everybody knows the story of Jack and the Beanstalk, but just in case you don’t, here’s a brief recap. Jack lives with his mother, who is a 99er, and has completely run out of money. Jack’s mother unplugs the XBox, and rousts Jack off the couch, to go to market with the only remaining asset, Buttercup the cow. Along the way Jack meets a sharp Wall Street derivatives trader who manages to con Jack out of the cow for a handful of magic beans. When Jack gets back home his mother is distraught, and unable to afford an attorney, throws the silly magic beans out the back window, and hocks Jack’s XBox.
During the night, the magic beans grow into a huge beanstalk, which Jack proceeds to climb. At the top, Jack finds a goose that lays golden eggs, which he steals from its rightful owner. Jack slides back down the stalk, and chops it down to evade apprehension, and everybody lives happily ever after. This is probably a mythological reference to finding the Greater Fool, and destroying the document trail, but that is a story for another time.
But what if the beans had not been magic??? What if the beans were just plain beans??? Such is the state of affairs between the Democrats and Obama.
Because Obama, much like Jack, has taken something good, solid and productive, like a cow, and swapped it in for the magic beans of Birtherism. Rather than work to stop the Bush tax cuts, or truly rein in Wall Street, Obama has relied on the magic beans of Birtherism to ensure his re-election. Rather than honestly focus in like a laser on jobs, or exorcise the demons of speculation from the price of oil, Obama has bet his bank on the magic beans of Birtherism, assuming that either sympathy or fear will impel his faithful base to the polls in numbers sufficient to guarantee a second term.
Strangely, this bet did not pay off in 2010. In what was widely regarded as a referendum on Obama, the Republicans won seats in record numbers and a majority in the House. Yet, Obama is still in his backyard, with a bottle of Miracle Grow trying to coax the sprouts upwards. His minions are complicit in this, and if you doubt it, simply watch the media response to Donald Trump. There is more coverage on the missing birth certificate than on Trump’s pledge to confront OPEC and end the trade imbalance with China.
And one can not help but wonder at the Obama supporters. Do they really think the Spectre of Obama “coughing up” a long form birth certificate is going to have the same effect as Lyndon Johnson’s Mushroom Cloud??? Do they really think a majority of voters are going to duck and cover in fear and trembling lest the true birth weight of Obama becomes known???
Sadly, for the Democrats, this is the real world. They have contentedly swapped Buttercup, the cow, for a handful of beans. Truly, they don’t know beans.