Wonderbra Obamanomics: Keynesianism Explained Using Victoria's Secret Models
With the topic of Keynesian stimulus now so prevalent, that for some reason everyone, even economic Ph.D.'s feel entitled to chime in with their useless opinions on whether or not it is appropriate for your overleveraged economy, we would like to present this very educational anecdote about the Obamanomic version of Keynesianism as it pertains to jobs, explained by Daniel Mitchell of the Cato Institute. The kicker - Victoria's Secret models. If after this one still doesn't understand the wonderbra approach to pushing up our economy, one is hopeless.
The White House is claiming that the so-called stimulus created between 2.5 million and 3.6 million jobs even though total employment has dropped by more than 2.3 million since Obama took office. The Administration justifies this legerdemain by asserting that the economy actually would have lost about 5 million jobs without the new government spending.
I’ve decided to adopt this clever strategy to spice up my social life. Next time I see my buddies, I’m going to claim that I enjoyed a week of debauchery with the Victoria’s Secret models. And if any of them are rude enough to point out that I’m lying, I’ll simply explain that I started with an assumption of spending -7 nights with the supermodels. And since I actually spent zero nights with them, that means a net of +7. Some of you may be wondering whether it makes sense to begin with an assumption of “-7 nights,” but I figure that’s okay since Keynesians begin with the assumption that you can increase your prosperity by transferring money from your left pocket to your right pocket.
And since any reference to Victoria's Secret would be a major tease without at least a clip from several recent Fashion Shows, here they are to prevent any confusion as to what this other Mark-To-Wonderbra concept is all about.
- advertisements -