Monday, August 31, 2015

Episode #108 of the Clarey Podcast

Matt Baldoni the Master of Guitars
Captain Lloyd the Master of Guns
Some gun talk
Chris Cantwell is no capitalist
Mozilla continues its nazism


In THIS EPISODE of The Clarey Podcast!

Friday, August 28, 2015

Only Connected Communists Will Avoid Toiling in the Fields

I'm going to leave this right here for all you idiot socialist, democrat, and communist college students and professors who think you're going to be given a cushy government job, when in reality those jobs only go to the connected cronies.

Ashley Madison and Fractional Reserve Dating

Just too true to pass up:

Is Bond Having Less Sex?

I was having a late night dinner with my buddy Richard and the GF.  We were discussing Bond films and the upcoming release "Spectre."  This then naturally delved into observations of the various Bonds over time, but when I said,

"I hope he gets laid this time!"

Richard and the GF looked at me quizzically...

and then thought about it...

and then said, "Ooooohhh yeeeaaaah!  You are right!"

Which I was.  For if you think about it Daniel Craig is the least-laid James Bond out there.  The movies do blur together (especially the last three), but I was under the distinct impression he didn't get laid in the first two (Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace) and only got laid in the last James Bond (Skyfall).

However, vague recollections amongst a handful of movies that blur together does not empirical data make.  And so, ever so the vigilant economist, poor ole Cappy took it upon himself to study not only how many women each Bond slept with in each movie, but how many lays there were in total and averages for all the Bonds.

And shucks howdy, look at that, the ole Captain was right.  Daniel Craig is the least laid Bond both in terms of number of women frequency in sex.  He averages only 1.7 women per movie and only 2 lays per movie (he'd only have 1 and 1.5 respectively if it weren't for Skyfall making him practically a virgin).

However, some other statistics of note.

Roger Moore (unsurprisingly) holds the record for most amount of lays (8) and ties with Sean Connery for most number of women (4).

George Lazenby (named "That Other Guy" because I couldn't remember his name) is the all-time stud of the James Bond actors, luckily starring in the one film that would give him the highest average in both categories.

And if Daniel Craig is even going to finish with an average score, the screenwriters better serve him up a record-breaking 5 women and 9 lays in the next two movies.

Keep a notch count for the guy when Spectre comes out this fall.
This post brought to you by Bachelor Pad Economics.  It's what Bond would use for a financial advice bible.

Thursday, August 27, 2015

The "Pay to Intern" Racket Continues

From our Australian Agent in the Field;

Cappy Gets "Strike #1" on His YouTube Channel...Again

You can't make it up, but again, this is why I have a back up account at Daily Motion. 

I have received my SECOND strike from YouTube about a video it found violated its speech codes.  Just two minor problems.

It's technically a FIRST strike because they rescinded my original first strike on "Inferior vs. Superior People."

AND (here's the good stuff)

This second strike is on THE EXACT SAME VIDEO THE FIRST STRIKE WAS ON - "Inferior vs. Superior People."

I've appealed the strike...again...but just a reminder that if YouTube proves too difficult to use as a platform I will be going over to Daily Motion.  And certainly feel free to file complaints with YouTube.  The video they're referring to is quite the OPPOSITE of what they think it is.

Wednesday, August 26, 2015

Episode #107 8-26-15

Internet traffic is currency
How bloggers/podcasters/YouTubers aren't entrepreneurial enough
Business magazines who run ads on people they promote
Why German cars suck
Cappy is forced to take weekends off
Expendables 3 and Aces High
How black markets prove communism is wrong


in THIS EPISODE of The Clarey Podcast!

Why the Federal Reserve Ain't No "Jesus Christ"

If there is a skill I have, it is taking incredibly complex and complicated things in the financial world and explaining it to normal, everyday people who had too healthy of social lives to major in economics.  And while today's post is one such article, it is one I had to sit down and think through, because I too had a simple question that I did not have the answer to.  Specifically;

How is this all going to end?  Can the Federal Reserve just keep "QE-ing" the government out of its debt problems?  And what is going to happen to the Fed when all those toxic assets they've been buying up don't pay up?  Won't it go bankrupt too?  And if it does, what will happen?

Thankfully, despite the complicated nature of central banking, it's something we can all understand.

First we must look at the Fed for what it is.  A separate entity that is technically NOT part of the government, NOR is it a private corporation owned by the "Rothchilds" and Illuminati.  It is best described as an NGO that is chartered by congress to be the country's central bank.

Second, we must look at the role it has most recently played that is OUTSIDE its traditional role of central banking.  Namely, playing the role of "Jesus Christ."

You may laugh, but regular listeners to my podcast know I jokingly sing the tune "Christ the Lamb of God (who taketh away the sins of the world)" but substitute my own lyrics in it to fit it to the Federal Reseve:

"Oooohhh Janet the Yellen of the Fed
Who taketh away the sins of the banking community
Baaailll out these banksters.
Ooooohhh Janet the Yelley of the Fed
Who bails out the scum who bought McMansions
Prinnnnnt off more money"

Blasphemous as that may be, it's 100% true.  The Federal Reserve has served as "Jesus Christ" like entity to wash away all the financial problems that were (and continue to be) created by various entities within our economy.  Specifically, all the horrible loans made during the financial crisis AND the federal government's insane deficit spending.  And you can see this, quite literally, on the balance sheet of the Federal Reserve:

I apologize in advance for the small font of the chart above, but I have highlighted the key figures that demonstrate the Fed's "Jesus" activity.

In the RED are US government bonds that nobody else in their right mind would buy.  Remember, especially under Obama, the US federal government has ran the country's worst peacetime deficits.  Worse, that deficit spending was not on genuine investments that would produce the profits necessary to pay back the principal and interest on those bonds, but (frankly) just vote-buying from the parasitic, non-economic producing classes for the democrats (welfare, worthless education, WIC, etc.).  Because of this traditional investors who would lend to the US government (pensions, the Chinese, Arab nations, retirees etc,) had no interest in lending money to this effectively insolvent entity.  Therefore, the ONLY entity that would buy US government bonds was the Federal Reserve.  And in the 7 years following the financial crisis, the Federal Reserve has purchased (lent) roughly $2 trillion to the US government. 

But before you go hating on Obama and the democrats, look at the GREEN.  The GREEN didn't even exist in 2007.  However, recklessly lending money just so they could make a commission on increasingly unprofitable mortgages, bankers and Wall Street drove the US economy, head first into the worst recession since the Great Depression.  And since they were at the effective "cardio vasculatory system" of the economy (the financial system is VERY much as vital to an economy just like your heart), they needed to be bailed out.  And so where you see:

"Federal Agency and Government Sponsor Enterprise Mortgage Backed Securities"

in English that means

"Crappy mortgages nobody else in their right mind would buy that were created by the bankster scum of the Earth, who conveniently made a 2-5% commission on those deals, but we had to buy these things anyway otherwise the entire financial system would collapse."

We could go on, but if you look at the BLUE square you see that the nature of the Federal Reserve has fundamentally changed.  It has gone from that of a central bank in 2007 to an effective "bailout machine" in 2014.  We bail out incompetent bankers, we bail out irresponsible borrowers, we bail out socialist politicians, and we bail out the parasitic classes that need government subsidies who vote for them (and if you'll permit this economist a minor prediction - you can bet you'll see "student loans" on the Federal Reserve's balance sheet within our lifetimes).

Third, how does the Federal Reserve afford all this?

Very simple, the Federal Reserve controls the US money supply and thus merely "prints off more money." 

Of course, it doesn't literally print it off as they did in the Weimar Republic.  That would be too obvious, brash, and Zimbabwean.  They use the flashy euphemistic technique called "Quantitative Easing" wherein they merely digitally add more money to financial institutions' deposit accounts in exchange for their worthless mortgage backed securities nobody else wants.  But whether the money is digital recordings on bank accounts or actual pieces of paper in circulation, the effect is the same.  A booming money supply, going from $1.4 trillion before the crisis to $3.1 trillion today.

Now here is the point where normal people, and even economists get a twinge in the back of their head saying, "Hey, something's not right here."  Because whereas "Jesus Christ" presumably washed away everybody's sins, that's a religion.  Not the real world.  And just like physics has the conservation of mass law, economics also adheres to similar such mathematical laws.  In other words, we know there's no such thing as a free lunch.  A price has to be paid and somebody has to pay it, which leads us to our fourth point.

Logic would suggest that it would be the Federal Reserve that pays the ultimate price.  It is a separate legal entity, and since it's been buying up all these worthless assets, like any other business it should go bankrupt.  Additionally, nobody really owns the Federal Reserve.  They actually DO have shareholders (who own an effective "preferred shares" in the entity which only entitle them to a 6% dividend while the remainder of Fed profits go to the Treasury), but based on the latest balance sheet of the Federal Reserve, they only have $57 billion in illiquid shares.  Hardly enough to cause a financial crisis in the US should the Fed "go bankrupt."

However, here is where the "Jesusy Magic" occurs.  Since the Federal Reserve is not the government, nor is it the financial industry, it effectively becomes a "sink hole" of sorts that wipes away all of our debts.  All the federal government has to do is refuse to honor the bonds the Federal Reserve holds and all of the country's financial problems go away.  Matter of fact, we don't even need taxation.  We could theoretically just have the Federal Reserve lend money to the government ad infinitum and go bankrupt every year.  But for those of us on the righter side of the political spectrum, we know this can't be true.  There HAS TO be a price to this, and there is.


Since the Federal Reserve's currency is ACTUAL CURRENCY it spreads or "socializes" the costs or "sins" of society by debasing our US dollars.  Now, at this point in time, if you listen very quietly, you will hear Paul Krugman and a bunch of other Keynesian economists nearly going into cardiac arrest as they trip over themselves to rush and point out there is no inflation (don't hurt yourself Paul, I'll do it for you here):

And they'd be right.  According to the CPI there has been effectively no inflation.  But there are two problems.

One, I'm outright accusing them of telling a half-truth, because (if they're economists) they know this low level of inflation, IN SPITE OF A NEAR TRIPLING OF THE MONEY SUPPLY, is due to a TANKING of the "velocity of money."

Without boring the reader, the velocity of money is the rate at which a dollar is re-spent.  So you can theoretically have a low money supply, but if people keep spending (either because of faith in the future or a market bubble) instead of saving, you can trigger inflation still.  However, the opposite is happening today, and the reasons are (I claim) the total disheartening and destructive effects socialist policies (primarily under Obama) has had on investors, purchasers, innovators, entrepreneurs, businessmen and other productive members of society.  The constant assail and assault against "the rich," "corporations," "success," and the always-available evil and hated "white males" has thrown sand into America's most productive economic engines, tanking faith and hope in the future, and thus the velocity of money.  And though this has slowed economic growth considerably, this grants the Federal Reserve's "Jesus Strategy" a reprieve in that their money printing has not caused inflation.

The second problem in claiming there's no inflation is that it's simply false.  While the CPI does measure what somebody is going to face in terms of prices at the gas pump or the grocery store, gas and groceries are NOT the largest items on people's personal budgets.

Education are

And if you look at these items, they have skyrocketed.

Housing, though nowhere near it's bubbly peak in 2006, is starting to re-inflate again driving both housing prices and rents up.  Using the Price-to-Rents ratio, we can see that Federal Reserve money starting to take its toll on the American public, being more costly than any point in recorded time BAR the housing bubble of 2006:

Investments the same.  If you would like to retire, tough.  Stock prices are LAUGHABLY overvalued.  Largely in part due to the trillions in Baby Boomer retirement money that has mindlessly flooded the market since 1978 through their 401k's and IRA's, but more recently through (once again) Federal Reserve money.

Once banks unload their worthless toxic assets on the Fed for an overinflated price, they have to do something with that money.  But since the corporate sector is demoralized by the socialist trend of the US, there's no economic growth and thus no demand by businesses to borrow it.  This is why the majority of that money does NOT go into new investments, plant, and companies (which would create jobs by the way), but instead merely goes into the stock market either for repurchasing their own shares or taking a position in stocks and bonds to "hedge against inflation."  This has resulted in over a trillion dollars (in this year ALONE) of buy backs.  But it has also made stocks simply unaffordable to anybody who wishes to retire.  This is more than amply displayed in the S&P 500's PE ratio and dividend yield, which suggests stocks are historically overvalued by about 33%.

Ironically, however, people are happy when the stock market goes up.  Which would be akin to being happy that the price of gas "jump to $6 a gallon."  Regardless, this is proof positive the Federal Reserve funny money is NOT sitting stagnant in some bank's digital account, but is seeping into sectors of the economy, causing real and serious inflation, and lowering our purchasing power.

And finally, student tuition.

It is no coincidence inflation is appearing where there is federal government money and intervention.  Housing is backed up by Sallie Mae and Freddie Mac.  The stock market is being inflated by Federal Reserve policy and US government retirement policy.  And now with Pell grants, Stafford loans, etc., government money is (and has been) flooding into the higher education system.  This flood of money, without an increase in either the volume or QUALITY of education, has resulted in skyrocketing tuition costs:

Of course, student tuition, though the single largest expense of nearly every person under 30, is not considered in the CPI.  But again, that doesn't mean those student debts and $300 textbooks aren't real.  In REALITY students are also paying the tax of inflation to finance the Federal Reserve's "Jesus Bail Out Strategy."

As you no doubt likely surmised, you knew there was a price to pay for all this central banking hanky panky.  The only problem is you couldn't put your finger on it because of the complexities and complications of central banking, the US' Federal Reserve system, and the machinations of "Quantitative Easing."  But when you strip it all away, it sadly is very simple.  It's just printing off more money.

I don't care how many doctorates in economics they have working for the Fed.  I don't care how many of them came from the Ivy League.  And I don't care how many Clark or Nobel prize participation trophies medals are awarded.  The majority of economists are not economists as much as they are overly-degreed-laden charlatans who make things "more complicated than they are" to hide what is their simplistic, childish, and highly flawed understanding of economics.

To quote Holly Gennero, "You're nothing but a common thief" and you "economists" at the Fed, and the majority of the economics profession should be ashamed of yourselves.

Tuesday, August 25, 2015

Housing Getting Kinda Bubbly Again

Figured it was time to take a look at the "Price to Rents Ratio" of the US housing market.  For those unfamiliar with this ratio it is basically a "PE" ratio, but for property.  It takes the price of a house and divides it by rent (either monthly, annual, etc., as long as you're consistent, you'll get the same shape graph).

Though nowhere near the peak of the bubble, it seems chronically low interest rates has driven money into the market even though rents may not warrant it.  Back in 1960 the ratio was 17, now it's 23.  Roughly a 25% overvaluation.

Nothing to panic about yet, but more proof it is federal reserve funny money is indeed causing inflation.  We're just happy with this because "housing going up is good" even though people have to buy into this market.

Enjoy the decline!


Monday, August 24, 2015

Die, Night Club Industry, Die!!!

Upon returning from Wyoming and having no real job in hand, I revisited my life's motto of "security is security" and ended up working for a security company a friend owned.  They specialized in armed security so most of the gigs were prisoner transport, body guard work, and the infamous "protecting spoiled rotten Saudi Prince brats and his entourage of 120 equally douchy elitists."  However, before you were allowed to work one of these easier shifts, you had to prove your mettle working the hated "parking ramp shifts."

These "parking ramp shifts" were really nothing more than "baby sitting the night clubbers" shifts where you would prevent fights, stop people from pissing in the stairwells, watch black women fight over "their man," and even prevent the occasional Russian body builder from kidnapping a pass-out party girl.  This was only made infinitely worse in the fact we had to patrol on foot which, during Minnesota winters, made life miserable.

But through all the headaches and hypothermia that comes with baby sitting the Twin Cities' club-going filth, I did notice something those 3 short years ago - there was only a FRACTION of the night clubs that used to be open during the 90's.

First Avenue (a night club) was still the "anchor club" of the Twin Cities and still in business.  Same for The Gay 90's.  And The Fine Line, another reliable standby, was also open for business.  But nearly every other club or bar I went to was now gone.  Daddy Rock's was no longer.  Banana Joe's gone.  Even Old Chicago (not a club, but just a bar) was gone too.  And they weren't necessarily replaced with new clubs either.   In short, there was by my quick economist eye only about 40% the amount of clubs that existed during my night clubbing days 20 years ago.

Fast forward three years to today and it's even worse.

Solera, gone.
The Times Cafe, gone.
Fhima (a St. Paul club), gone.
"Block E" (an entire BUILDING of night clubs) gone.
And the over-hyped, over-rated "Capital Grille" gone (thank god).

There is just nowhere near the night club life that once existed in the Twin Cities.

Of course, as economists are wont to do, they research things they see happening in real life.  And after poking around on teh interwebz the death of the night club industry is an interesting and telling death.

First, there is not so much a "death" in the night life scene as a stagnation and a shift.  Revenues for the "bar and nightclub industry" are stagnant, if not slightly dropping if you account for inflation.  However, the Minneapolis club scene has not "stagnated," it's cratered.  So how do these figures jive?  Simple, the data is for the "BAR AND night club industry."

While nightclubs may be tanking, bars are doing quite well.  This would explain why nearly every night club I attended during Clinton's administration are gone, but the neighborhood bars are still around.

Lee's Liquor Lounge, The CC Club, Jax Cafe, etc., all neighborhood bars, all still in business.

Second, this is corroborated by the most cited reason for the industry's decline- "The Great Recession."  While Gen X may have been whooping it up in the Dotcom days, drinking and partying themselves into oblivion, they at least did not graduate into "The Great Recession."  Their modern day Millennial peers have.  And not only are the Millennials facing the worst job market since the Great DEPRESSION, they are also saddled with more college debt than any generation in the history of the world.  Combine that with their worthless degrees and they plain don't have the money to afford a cover charge and drinks.

This has led to two behavioral changes.  One, Millennials now pre-drink at home, getting within one drink of a proper buzz.  And two, they avoid cover charges, commuting/parking expenses, and DWI's by walking to their local bar. 

The third reason for the nightclub's demise, however, is the really interesting one.  Because no professional publication or researcher can speak of it, even though it is the core and the heart of the nightclub business - sex.  Specifically women.

When we wipe away all the politically correct "industry research" jargon and cut through the bullshit, night clubs are all about men wanting to get sex from women.  And even though they may not come outright and say it, club owners are ACUTELY aware of this and it shows in their business models.

EVERY nightclub knows you have to get hot women into the club, otherwise the men (with their money) will not show up.  Therefore you have "ladies night," drink specials for ladies, sometimes women even get to drink for free, and if you're a 20 something female in America you don't even know what a "cover charge" is. 

This presents a problem however.  Wherever there are hot women, horny and thirsty men are sure to follow.  And their constant advances will inevitably scare away women.  Therefore, how do you get women to show up AND stay AND return next week?

Make the nightclub environment incredibly hostile towards men and incredibly tailored towards women.

You ever wonder why nightclub music is not only shitty, but incredibly loud?  It's so the girl can get you to buy her a drink, but not have to talk to you.

You notice how the music is the most monotonous remixed pop top 40's crap that has not an ounce of talent in it?  It's because girls like it and men don't.

And you notice how you have to stand in line, while a cute girl with a short skit gets to jump in line?  It's not only because they need her as "seed capital" to "get the party started."  They need to wear you out so you don't have the energy to approach (and thus harass) women in the club.

It is this "love hate" relationship nightclubs have with men (and their money) that they must delicately balance where you are encouraged to part with your money, but deterred from actually having any sexual success with women.  And if they do it right, you'll have spent at least $50 of your money with them and have no girl to show for it.

Now, for the past 40 years this business model has worked.  And using back of napkin statistics men have transferred roughly a trillion dollars worth of wealth to women in the form of drinks, food, cover charges (and flowers if you were stupid enough to fall for that gag where the guy is hocking roses in a bucket).  But there has been an incredible game changer as of recent.  One that completely obsoletes this model and has completely rewritten the rules for many other industries as well.

The internet.

"Fun" as it is to go clubbing, because of the challenging environment it presents to men, it gets tiring.  And even the most ardent of club-going men will burn out and seek for alternative ways to pick up women.  So after spending 5 years in the nightclub scene, forking over $50 a night, to maybe, just MAYBE get laid 3 times, the majority of men will inevitably do a cost benefit analysis and leave.  However, whereas in the past "leaving" meant giving up and basically staying home (or trying to "meet girls at church" or work, etc.), now men can get what they want (sex) by going online. And the reasons are just too compelling.

First you waste nowhere NEAR the amount of time you do going clubbing.  There's no commute.  There's no finding parking.  There's no waiting in line.  And there's no competing against 3 other guys for the same girl.

You fire up your laptop, set up a profile, and start firing off messages.

Naturally, the vast majority of your advances will be rejected and is the primary reason many men say online dating isn't worth it (for example a recently divorced friend of mine complained he had to spend a full hour a night online to get a date for that weekend).  But a mere hour a night is NOTHING compared to what 20 something men pre-internet invested daily in their pursuit of women.

Second, the financial costs.  Online dating is effectively free.  Either by going through Plenty of Fish, Tinder, or meetup groups where you indirectly try to find women, there is really no significant added marginal cost to start online dating.  Contrast that with 40 nights a year of clubbing for 5 years at $50 a pop, and you save yourself $10,000 in explicit financial costs merely going online.

And finally, the sanity you save.  In going online you avoid the nearly impossible environment that nightclubs have become: 

Women who have their "bitch shields" up as they gussied themselves up earlier that evening with their friends in sort of a "pre-game pep talk," making them froth at the chance to shoot men down (and consequently cry themselves to sleep later that night because "they can't find a man.")

The 100%-USDA-Certified-Full-Backing-and-Faith-of-the-US-Government GUARAN-FREAKING-TEE that there will be a fatty cockblocker there to pull ANY girl you're having success with away.

The "herd" you must masterfully penetrate or wait until a weak one separates herself from the herd, only to have the mother hen fatty cockblocker come in and "save her from you."

All while under the constant and never ending assault and barrage of the monotonous bass-beating of hiphop, rap, regatone, or whatever the latest "girl power" top 40's song that came out that week.

No, you just pour yourself a nice scotch, throw on, and click away.

Certainly, there are economic reasons for the decline in night clubs.  And certainly there are sociological/demographical reasons for the decline in nightclubs.  But although the data is not perfect (there is a report I found for $1,500, but I'm not going to buy it), the real threat nightclubs face is that they no longer hold a monopoly on (effectively) the only legal means by which men ultimately pay for sex/dating.  And in the face of competition from the internet their current business model is too punishing financially, mentally, and time-wise for any young man with the slightest bit of self respect and common sense.

Perhaps, with luck, there will be no need to patrol those parking ramps in the future.

Friday, August 21, 2015

Episode #106 of The Clarey Podcast

Procrastinating writing books
The key to success is execution
Stop majoring in stupid shit ladies
The law school bubble is bursting

and MORE!

In THIS EPISODE of The Clarey Podcast!

(buy your "Official" Clarey Podcast mug here)

But, But, But "The Patriarchy!"

Oh nosies!!!!  The truth!

The Music School Bubble

A guest post from the Great Matt Baldoni:

My music education began at age 8 in my hometown, when I began taking
guitar lessons. It continued through junior high and high school where I was
participating in public school music programs for jazz and classical music. I
played my first professional gig with a rock band at age 16. Also that year, the
guidance counselors started pressuring all of us to pick a major. So, I decided
I'd better major in music in college. I had already received a small amount of
attention (and even a few bucks) for what I believed was my passion and my
talent. It should be noted that the word “prodigy” was NEVER used in
reference to me. I don't believe I have any natural gifts or talents, I simply
believe that I was able to discover a sort of “natural affinity” and general
interest for playing music and practicing hard when I was a young kid.

My boomer parents and everyone else told me that I absolutely had to go to
college, there was no other option for me. So, I did what I thought I should, I
applied and sent audition cassettes (remember those?) to all of the top
schools I was reading about in the magazines: GIT at Musician's Institute, USC,
University of North Texas, and Boston's Berklee College of Music. I was offered
money by each of these schools to attend, but I did not attend any of them.
They were “too expensive and too far away”, but all located in hot music towns
where there was a lot going on. I was disappointed. So I took a full tuition
scholarship for $2000 per year at a small state college 70 miles from my small
hometown and got a degree in classical guitar performance. You see, I
“absolutely HAD to go to college”, but it had to fit the criteria of what the
boomers were actually willing to pay for, which was next to nothing. That
scholarship, incidentally, was for full tuition. College cost my family nothing. I
gotta hand it to 'em, they tricked me into doing whatever I could to save them
a few bucks.

While in college I tested out of certain curricula like ear training, aced music
theory, was a strong reader of sheet music notation by the standards of my
peers, and was working my way through school washing dishes and playing in
cover bands. By year 2 I could afford to not have another hourly job ever
again. I was also eventually teaching a few college courses TO my peers,
including the classes I tested out of myself. After graduation I was just anxious
to get to work, teaching guitar and playing five nights a week without all the
hassle and horse shit of being in class every day when I could've been sleeping
or making the girl brekfast I had brought home from the bar gig the night

That didn't last long, I accepted a fellowship at USC's prestigious Studio/Jazz
guitar program, getting my tuition paid for by teaching undergrads. I arrived
there and was absolutely SHOCKED at the high level of playing that the
younger guys were exhibiting. But I took a minute to think about it, and
eventually I found out why. They went to the top private arts high schools,
they were from areas like Marin County, Montauk Long Island, and Beverly
Hills,'s the kicker...they never had to have JOBS in high school. They
all came from highly wealthy families, had access to the best resources,
unlimited money for top level equipment and private teachers, and lots of free
time to practice. They also had access from their early teens to the best
musicians and teachers in large major cities full of working entertainers. My 4
years of hauling dirt and scraping plates in high school had me woefully behind
many of these guys. However, I was already making a living.

I dropped out of USC about five minutes after I had some good gig offers. The
fact is, I couldn't fucking stand the place. It was impossible to legitimize things
like rock and blues music at the ivory tower level, and none of my teachers
seemed to be playing that many jobs. None of the commercial styles that were
actually making me my rent money were even discussed in passing at a USC
music class. The teachers who WERE playing jobs of any significance often got
fired for subbing out their teaching hours too much. It was at that point I
decided I didn't belong there. See, I never cared what the fuck I had to play in
order to make a living, I just wanted to be good enough to make good money,
and it was a sad day when I realized that music school can not often give you
what you need to actually pull that off. So, I left. Turned down a full graduate
fellowship. Everyone was parents were pissed because they were
more excited about me attending a famous expensive school than they were
when I later played for the fucking President. The school was pissed because
grad students are free labor. It costs them NOTHING to stick another guy in a
classroom when he's giving them the hours of a full time salaried professor in
exchange. To this day I feel like a fucking idiot for even entertaining the idea.
Let's now look at my music school experiences by the numbers:

This is easy to do these days because we are ALL connected on social media
now. It's very easy to see what everyone else is doing. So, I went to undergrad
college with 15 or 20 other guitar majors. Number of them who are making a
full time living as a live performer? One. Me. These guys play a lot but most
of them have to supplement or replace their gigs with a significant amount of
teaching. I went to grad school with 56 other guitar majors. Number of those
guys making a full time living as a live performer? From what I can tell from
the interwebs, about 6-10. Again, there are many, many guys who are teachers
full time, or at least teach more than they do play.

See, I believe that being a full time musician who plays live (and/or in the
studio) is the greatest badge of honor a musician can bestow upon himself.
Why? Because it's proof you can beat the odds. It shows you have no need for
the “stability” of teaching music. See, we all think we need to be teachers
because that is what MUSIC SCHOOLS tell us. They have a large stock in
keeping interest in becoming a music teacher, for it keeps them employed, and
the cycle continues. As of today, it's spiraled out of control. Our families all
want us to be teachers because they figure it's the closest thing to a “real job”
that a musician can have. It's a lot safer than playing in bars, touring, and all of
those “lifestyle” things that many people think are part of a music career.

When the recession began in 2007/8, things got interesting. All of the music
schools, even the most prestigious ones, lost a lot of revenue and interest
from young musicians. They were (are) far too expensive. So, young players
began checking out smaller, cheaper, less prestigious state colleges like the
one I went to. Well, the A-league schools said “We can't have that!”, so they
began slowly lowering their audition and testing standards while their tuition
prices have continued to skyrocket, just like their skyrocketing endowments
and assistance from state and federal governments. Today, they have more
money coming in than ever, and lower audition standards than ever. They are
now at their most expensive in history and are turning out the least talented
and equipped musicians they ever have. And I am laughing my ASS off,
because this whole thing is hilarious. They have literally dug their own grave,
and they are a ticking bomb.

The music business itself has also changed drastically in the last 20 years. No
one makes money selling records anymore, so everyone has to play live and
stay out on the road more than they used to. The steady stream of studio
work is gone, it's no longer a requirement to have good musicians on your
recording. The computer can fix everything, and the digital world turns
talentless hacks into international stars. The ProTools engineer is now at the
top of the music business food chain. Every two-bit asshole with a macbook
and garage band software can call himself an “artist” or “musician” or
“songwriter” or “producer”. The DJ, the karaoke bar, and the football game on
large plasma screens now stand where the live band once stood.

Is there still room for highly skilled musicians? Absolutely. There is great
demand for a good live band in thousands of places all over the world. Artists
need sidemen to play behind them for their concert dates, churches need
musicians, people need a band for their wedding or Christmas party, and the
list goes on and on. These types of gigs are the bread and butter for a
musician's work throughout the year. Does music school teach you what you
need to know to get these jobs? Absolutely not. I make a very good living at
what I do, and I got 100% of my abilities from the street. I did have a few good
teachers, yes, but even they aren't making what I make or playing as much as
me. Are there musicians better than me? Faster? Richer? More able to raise a
family? Of course there are. But none of them are turning down as much work
as I am simply because they're always booked.

The charlatans in the halls of music schools are taking your money and telling
you if you do what they say and ace the test, you'll make a living and get a gig.
That's a lie. If someone deceives you for their own financial gain, that's
committing fraud. If I pay money for a specific service, and that service is not
rendered, I should be able to get my fucking money back. Worse yet, the
charlatans KNOW they're lying, and they keep right on going. I don't know
how they sleep at night. I've been hired and fired a million times over for all
sorts of reasons, many of which were actually my fault, just as many were not.
It's a tough and shitty business with really great perks and rewards, but you
need very, very thick skin to survive it. You need to be able to take rejection
WELL a million times over, and then a million more. This makes most of us
pretty tough, and many of us skeptical, jaded and cynical. These attributes are
bare bones requirement for making it in my business.

That thick skin and the ability to take rejection is another thing music schools
will never be able to teach. Why? Because the vast majority of people
teaching in music schools never actually had to go through it. They went right
from being a student to being a teacher, having spent no significant amount of
time in the actual workforce they're claiming to supply with employable

I just spent last week in Boston. One of America's great cities and a great
music town too. While there I was guesting with the renowned Boston Pops,
one of America's most beloved groups of musicians. It was a wonderful
experience. While there, I ha the opportunity to make a few observations.
The first was seeing that a guitar degree from Berklee now costs a quarter of a
million dollars. It didn't surprise me when I heard that, but it struck me again
what a bad investment it is. If I invest $250,000 in anything, even just put it in
the bank, I should expect a return on that investment very soon if not
immediately. They'll give any 18 year old punk with a pulse and a guitar case
the loans to get the degree, and most of them will never pay it back in their
lifetime, no matter how hard they work or how great the gig is they get, if they
even get a gig at all.

I also spoke with an old friend who is a professional drummer in the Boston
area. He spoke very happily about how busy he was, not in a boastful way, but
proud of himself for being able to raise his son and daughter by playing the
drums. I know the guy's a phenomenal musician, he's a dear friend and I've
worked with him a great deal, but I wanted to hear from HIM why he thinks
he's working so much.

He told me that the Boston area is inundated with Berklee grads, everybody's
out of work, and they all “play too much”. See, now I'm gonna tell you the
other area where music schools fuck up. They're gigantic locker rooms with a
bunch of young jocks in them who are constantly measuring their dicks to see
how fast and complicated they can play their instruments. My drummer buddy
has the ability to do all that too, he has incredible technique and can play
anything. However, he just goes in to the job and “bangs out the time”. He
just plays his instrument as simply and effectively as he can for the song and
the occasion. He's got nothing to prove with his chops. Consequently he's the
busiest guy around, while the other cats are playing in ways that don't get
them the call back even though they desperately need the money (to pay back
that quarter million). But as they were spending the quarter million, the
institution somehow forgot to mention to them that they need to shut the
fuck up with all the scales and stick control exercises and just simply play the
minimum part that's required for each song with the maximum of authenticity
and effectiveness. In a way I don't blame these kids for going out and fucking
up potential accounts by playing too much, they were not properly prepared.
But once again, at some point you gotta blame them for spending that much
money on such a stupid investment in the first place.

Every decision I make as a professional musician is an economic one. I remain
single and childless and living as a bachelor because I can only have the life,
freedoms, and luxuries I want if I am by myself. I only take a gig if it makes
economic sense to me, and if it does not, I say no. I buy guitars used or get
them on endorsements because I refuse to pay full price for them. And I do
NOT recommend going to music school because it's a BAD economic decision.
It's an investment in thin air. You might as well burn your money. You'd have a
better ROI if you bought a home or just put it in the fucking bank. Even Wells
Fargo can guarantee you more return on your money than music schools can.

Here's what I do recommend for young musicians: Get ONE good private
teacher who tells you the truth. Find a musician you admire who's making a
living you want to make for yourself and begin following him around. I say
him, ladies, because most of us are men. It's not sexism, it's a fact. There is
not one woman on my list of subs. When people wanna see a rock guitar
player bangin' out some notes and screaming some lyrics, they wanna see a
dude. And not a fat or ugly one either. Oops, I almost forgot, that's another
thing music schools don't tell you: Fat, ugly motherfuckers don't work as much
and lean and handsome guys do.

Anyway, find that guy and follow him around. Get on youtube and scan
through the billions of guitar lessons on there, or lessons on whatever
instrument you choose. Practice your ass off and learn how to play, you don't
need to spend money to do that anymore, you just need to work hard. The
music teacher I DO know say that's the biggest problems with their students,
by the way, they all say they're all too lazy.

If you're gonna pick an instrument, pick the guitar or the keyboard. Why? It
gives you the most options. You can play gigs solo, duo, trio, on up to playing
with orchestras like I just did. Drummers can't do that. Singers can't do that
(unless they also play guitar or piano). Horn players can't do that. If you pick
one of those two instruments, learn how to sing, and learn how to read and
interpret sheet music, you'll always work. The last thing is most important:
KNOWING SONGS. You have to know a lot of fucking tunes to work steady. At
this point it's about five decades worth of songs in about 8-10 styles. I'd say I
probably know how to play and/or sing a thousand or more.

Choose the minimalist lifestyle, drive the cheapest car and live in the cheapest
apartment you can afford. Don't knock anybody up. Don't move your
girlfriend in. Don't get married, and don't accrue any significant debt. Above
all else, do NOT fall prey to the fraud sold to you by the charlatans that hide
behind the banner of the music school or conservatory. It's a dead end road.
Get out now instead and just start working.

Thursday, August 20, 2015

An Economist's Take on the Meaning of Life

and why self employment is vital to it:

More Cappy Crap

A coffee mug of The Clarey Podcast now available at Cappy's Crap.

However, ladies, I won't lie because you'll be tortured between that and whether you buy a coffee mug with Mr. Brown's epic picture from BMGOP.  It IS a tough choice.

More crap coming once I figure out what might sell.

How Much of an Advantage Do Hot Conservative Women Get?


1.  I do not HATE anybody in the group of women used in this study (bar Katie Kieffer, who I don't even hate, I just have no respect for).  Many of them are intelligent and accomplished, some of whom I do listen to regularly...while many are not.  Do not take this personally if you know you are one of those women who are talented, who do make original content and do NOT mere regurgitate conservative talking points.

2.  I am aware that there are other people on the lists you would like to see.  These lists were compiled with what I had and in a non-scientific fashion.  I will gladly add others to help the accuracy of the study.  But for now, this is the data I had to work with.

3.  Data was adjusted for Dana Loesch's insanely high twitter followers.  The official "final" ratio was calculated taking an average of all three "final" ratios.  Criticize the methodology as you like.

A well known fact about life is that pretty girls have it easier.

That's not an opinion.
That's not a guess.
That's a fact.

However, I was curious just HOW MUCH of an advantage there is.

Specifically, instead of being a super awesome economic genius trapped in a 5'9" average looking male body, what if I was instead a very average mind trapped in a cute 20 something female body with a nice set of perky tits?

So I set out and asked all my agents in the field to send me examples of hot conservative or libertarian babes that had an internet presence.  I then averaged both the number of their Twitter followers and YouTube subscribers.  I did the same within my professional circle of right leaning MALE internet celebrities and then calculated the ratios of female Twitter followers to male Twitter followers, as well as the ratio of YouTube subscribers.

This was the result:

In short, when you average it out women are paid a premium of 512% over their internet male micro-celebrity counterparts.

Now, again, this is nothing new.  And I'm not even going to argue against it, for it is human nature.  A hot conservative or libertarian female is much RARER than an average looking conservative or libertarian male.  What I will, however, file a complaint about is the quality of each group's work.

Certainly there ARE accomplished, intelligent, insightful people on both sides.  However, when you average it out, it is just not comparable.  The sheer number of ditzes in the female list REALLY DO get by on their looks.  Again, I don't "hate" anyone on either list, but when a girl is essentially paid 5 times to regurgitate talking points Limbaugh made before they were born, or epiphanies I realized on my blog when they were in grade school, don't tell me all the men in the conservative or libertarian movement are "deep philosophical types."  They're just your regular average horny guys who happen to vote Republican.  That is the market you are serving.  Not your high-minded economic and political intellectuals.

Finally, (and I have mentioned this to my pretty AND SMART conservative and libertarian female friends) if you are:
1.  A pretty AND SMART conservative or libertarian female
2.  Who is looking for a job,
3.  And have the slightest bit of camera presence
4.  And are willing to show off some leg and cleavage,

you will find no easier career than being a "COLBOTI" (Conservative Or Libertarian Babe on the Internet).  You will make 5 times the audience your male counterpart has in 1/5th the time, making 5 times the money.  And if you happen to actually be SMART and not just a cute set of tits, you can write your own ticket for the rest of your life.

I know this post sounds cheeky.  I know it sounds arrogant.  I know it may have insulted some people.

Too bad it's 100% true.

Ladies, take advantage of that 500% advantage.

Wednesday, August 19, 2015

Announcement: "Cappy's Crap"

Howdy All,

Finally getting around to opening up a Cafe Press shop to sell various Cappy memorabilia affectionately titled:

"Cappy's Crap"

Right now there is only ONE item, a bumperstick titled "Enjoy the Decline" but I will be adding more.

On account you are the market, let me know if there is something you wanted in particular and I can likely make it.

Mucho thanks,


The Economics of Waifu

The world, I have concluded, will never cease to amaze me.  And thus, once you get to that point you'll say, "nothing shocks me anymore."  And so once again ole Cappy went head long, cluelessly into a whole new world where he learned about "Waifu."

If you don't know what "Waifu" is, that's alright.  It means you're normal and frankly avoided a sad aspect of humanity.  But while it originally meant "favorite female Japanese anime character," (and there's nothing wrong with that) it has also morphed in some circles to mean where men have actually formed imaginary relationships with these fictitious characters, some times even marrying them.   This not only explains the inside joke on Archer where Krieger has a pink-haired hologram for a girlfriend, but also explains the existence of "Waifu dolls/pillows."

My initial reaction to all of this was "thank god I'm dying in 30 years," but that annoying part of my brain dedicated to economics wouldn't turn off.  It just "had to" do some research, and look into what possible incentives existed for this to even be a thing.  And the observations were very interesting.

First, economically speaking, the only way a boy/man would choose to date/court/marry a fictional girl instead of a real one is because the costs required to get a real one is just too high.  At first you may scoff at this (and I surely did), but upon running some numbers and thinking about, it IS a very expensive endeavor.  If you think back to when you hit puberty on, precisely how much have you spent in terms of


and plain ole other sources of calories of energy dealing with women?

My figures are of course HIGHLY subjective and up for debate, but if you take into consideration direct financial expenses, mental costs, and opportunity costs, the total costs to find a wife ever so roughly hover around $720,000.  Enough for most single people to retire on.

These costs are not insignificant, and only certainly higher for less social or good looking men who (likely) populate the "Waifu Community."  So even though they are very UNLIKELY to run and crunch the numbers I did above, intuitively their brain does some kind of cost benefit analysis and concludes it's not worth the $700,000+ in life expense to chase after a real girl.  Not entirely irrational.

However, enter in the concept of substitute and inferior goods.

Just because a young man decides it's not worth the total expense to get a girl in the real world, doesn't mean he can't (albeit delusionally) satisfy some of his romantic desires with non-human substitute goods.  Sex can be more than adequately (though inferiorly) be replaced with porn.  A loving relationship can be replaced with one's imagination (think Wilson in "Castaway").  And a marriage or confirmation of a relationship can be replaced by fake ceremony where you marry a video game character (or in the case of an increasing # of American women, marrying yourself).  And so instead of becoming a hermit or a virgin "MGTOW" where you have no relationship with women, some men escape into a fantasy world where they get themselves a Waifu.  

Now naturally everybody's mind is focusing on the delusional aspect of this mentality.  However, I want to again reiterate and refocus our attention to the economic aspect of this.  Whether you agree with them or not, whether you find them sane or not, they are at least being RATIONAL to a certain extent.  And we can't deny the fact that they've made the conscious choice to choose a fake girlfriend over a real one.  But the fact ANYBODY is making this choice consciously speaks volumes as to the price and costs of finding a real woman today.

Consider not just the various financial, time, labor, and opportunity costs associated with finding a quality real world girl.  Consider the lack of drama and the mental pain associated with having an "imaginary girlfriend."  Not only do you save yourself $700,000 in explicit and implicit costs, you also save yourself;

Being stood up
Being shot down
Temper tantrums
Girls cheating on you
Girls leading you on
Bi-polar freaks
Blue balls

and every other form of scourge and fire-laden hurdles you and every other man had to jump through during his teens and 20's.

Additionally, though it isn't real and it IS delusional, imagine what nice, kind, compliant, and supporting personalities Waifu's have.  She isn't a single mom.  She isn't demanding you gotta do this and that.  She isn't going to cheat on you.  She's always happy to see you.  She's PRECISELY at your EXACT same intelligence level (because she is you), etc. etc.  It's a trait the inferior good has that is superior to the real thing.  So when you consider all these factors through the lens of a (likely) unattractive male, you can start to see why they choose to be delusional instead of live in the real world.

The sad point I'm trying to make is that if men are willing to be irrational in the real world by choosing to live in a delusional one, the economics of having a Waifu make complete sense.  What's even sadder, however, is that the cost differential between having a real girlfriend and a fake one is so huge in the real world, the concept of having a Waifu (or marrying yourself in women's cases) is actually becoming a real thing.

Enjoy that decline!

Tuesday, August 18, 2015

How Bernie Sanders Proves "Socialism" is No Longer a 4 Letter Word

A position I've held since I took my first college level economics course was that the democrat party was not functionally a political part that advocated democracy.  It was, based on all measures, intents, and actions of its members a socialist party.  Of course, I was laughed at when I said the democrats were socialists because "socialism" and "socialist" were pejoratives we reserved for the evil Soviet empire and communism during the 80's.  However, there in my economics textbook, was statistics showing the government spending just shy of 35% GDP and the democrats were advocating for even MORE spending.  This, combined with my independent mind, convinced me of precisely what the democrat party was.

The next twenty years passed by, and like Overton's Window, we've slowly, but surely moved more and more to the left.  Also during this time my friends who once mocked and ridiculed me as "Oh crazy Clarey!  You funny Republican you!" started having kids, jobs, and adult responsibilities.  And soon I wasn't that "one crazy republican at the party, bringing the buzz down," but a respected economist that even my most ardent detractors of days past had to agree with.

So, as further proof that this country has moved to the left, and quite rapidly so allow me to point out a curious observation.  Bernie Sander's poll numbers.  

As it stands right now Bernie is the front runner for the democratic presidential nomination.  Bernie as you know is an avowed socialist, replete with a lack of any real world private sector experience, 1960's hippie expertise, upper middle class upbringing, and an entire career as a soft-hands, work-free politician. However, what should be shocking to you is that a SOCIALIST, a person who advocates banishing private property, a person who wants to have the same economic system as the Soviets, Venezuela, Cuba, and Argentina, is so warmly welcomed by democrat voters.

This shift, though shocking, was entirely predictable.  For while we were told and aware of the evils of socialism in the 1980's, nearly two new generations have since been brainwashed by the K-College government education system.  Thus why we've gone from:

President Kennedy willing to go to war with the Soviets in 1962
To Ronald Reagan breaking their backs in 1985.
To Bill Clinton wetting the panties Gen X girls with his saxophone in 1992.
To Barack Obama wetting the panties of Millennial girls (and boys) with his government checks and nationalized health care in 2008 and 2012.

And now, so complete was this brainwashing of the younger generations, Bernie Sanders, an avowed socialist, is the front runner of the democrat party, even beating out Hillary Clinton, no rightist herself.

The larger point is to point out and tip my hat to the democrat party and their various leftist organizations.  They have MASTERFULLY taken over the country's key institutions with the conscious and intended purpose of brainwashing America's youth to the point they are so naive and ignorant about history they have NO PROBLEMS voting for a socialist.  It is a PR stunt no different than getting two generations to vote for nazis (who actually have a lesser track record of murdering innocents than socialism). 

However, to all my friends who patted me on the head 20 years ago dismissing me as alarmist.  And to those of you who voted for Bill Clinton or even Obama in 2008 because you thought they were "cool," I just want to say "I told you so."

Socialism is no longer a four letter word.

Enjoy the decline.

The Escape Velocity of Poverty

This was for a client, but came out better than I thought it did and deemed it worth sharing.  It addresses how you can be so poor you can't escape poverty, making it so ALL your decisions have to be made right and paid off.  It also addresses the crippling depression many college graduates have due to no jobs and student loans.  Finally, it revisits the "God Complex" I mentioned in my video about suicide.

Also, if anybody out there is willing to hire this guy or is in Pittsburg and can point him in the right direction, that would be great:

Precisely How Much Silver Do You Need Post-Collapse?

A concept I try to explain to either friends, clients, family members, or random hot chicks I try to seduce with my awesome economic knowledge on the street is that you don't need "that much" silver in order to hedge against an economic collapse.

The logic is simple.

If there was an economic collapse, all fiat currencies (ie - all major world currencies) would become worthless and an alternative currency (nearly practically guaranteed to be precious metals) would HAVE TO rise to replace them.  This "last currency standing" would be the default world reserve currency and it's supply would then have to (by necessity) purchase all of the "post-economic collapse" world's GDP.  And though that GDP would be less, there is far less precious metals in circulation to purchase said remaining GDP.  This increase in the ratio of "production to currency" would increase the value of the world's supply of precious metals and is why you don't need "$1 million in silver" to insure $1 million today's assets.

Of course, this logic does not translate into precise mathematical figures and still leaves open the question,

"Well, if I have $500,000 in assets today, how much silver (or gold) would I need to purchase to effectively insure against an economic collapse?"

So I looked into it and though the numbers are of course VERY back-of-napkin, I think I've come up with a pretty good rule of thumb most people can operate by.

Assume first, that during an economic collapse the world's GDP would shrink by 80%.  This would leave only $15 trillion left of the world's current $74 trillion in GDP in annual economic production.

Assume second, that the current world supply of silver of 1.4 million tons does not dramatically change AND that it is preferred over gold as gold is too precious (I know this is not a valid assumption, but just work with me on the math).  When converted to ounces this results in 44.8 million ounces of silver, the effective world's money supply to purchase said annual post-economic collapse production of $15 trillion.

Using simple division we get a value of $330.36 per ounce.

As I write this right now, the spot price of silver is $15.10 per ounce.  So buying one ounce of silver today would buy (under a post-economic collapse economy) $330.36 tomorrow.  Essentially a ratio of 22 to 1.

Of course, this does not speak to the fact that the world's remaining silver supply would not just buy one year's worth of post-apocalyptic world's GDP.  It would buy the world's GDP into the future until an alternative currency would replace it.  Ergo, if one wanted to be mathematically "correct" about it, you would take the NPV of that ounce of silver's purchasing power.  Here it's anybody's guess as to the "discount rate" one would use in a perpetuity calculation (don't worry if you didn't understand that, it's to get the finance nerd-technicalitists off my ass).  But applying a heavily discounted rate of 30% that would imply a purchasing power in today's dollars of $1,100.  A full ratio of 73.

Meaning for every $1 in silver you buy today you would have a theoretical insurance of $73 in a post-economic collapse future.

Now naturally silver will not be the sole currency left.  And naturally the discount rate is not going to be 30%.  And naturally, we don't know if global GDP would collapse by just 80%.  But somewhere between a ratio of 22 and 73 is likely the value of "insurance" silver would provide in a post-economic collapse world.

I say, for the sake of simplicity, let's just take the average and call it 48.

So to translate all this economic mumbo jumbo into English for normal people, this is the take away:

If you have $500,000 in network and want to insure it against an economic collapse,
Divide it by 48, and that's how much in silver you need to buy today.

Again, just a rough measure.  But a measure most thinking folk should consider.

And always, remember, Enjoy the Decline!

Monday, August 17, 2015

Proof Young Ole Cappy Had a Heart

A friend of mine started posting pictures from a NYE 2000 party I was graciously invited to.  This was of course 15 years ago and in 15 years your forget a little bit of who you were, what you were, and start to question the beliefs you hold today.

This is of concern to me as it makes me think...

"Was it really that bad?"
"Did I really play my cards right?"
"Perhaps I screwed up and I've been wrong this entire time?"

In short, I question myself and my actions in the past as any erroneous thought back then would lead to an ill-informed and erroneous philosophy today.

Perhaps I was in the wrong.
Perhaps I didn't play my cards right.
Perhaps I was indeed a loser and just didn't realize it till now.

But then I saw this picture and one thing jumped out at me and consequently jumped my memory.

Her corsage.

I remember back when I was young I would buy my dates corsages if I liked them in particular and made it to the 3rd or 4th date.  I would also take them out on dates that would warrant a corsage and my usage of a tuxedo.  In this particular instance I remember BEING EMBARRASSED because my date had no straps on her dress and we had to pin her corsage to her side.  But I still had the consideration to purchase her a corsage.

Now, I ask you this ladies.

When's the last time a guy bought you a corsage for a date?

That's right.  NEVER.

So in hindsight, and with the use of this picture, I don't ever want to hear American women again about "where the good men are" or "why can't they find a man," because I have empirical proof they did exist, even if they themselves forgot about it.  You shot them down, you fucked them over, you stood them up, so much so the entire CONCEPT of buying a date a corsage was not only abandoned but completely forgotten that it ever took place in a man's life.

So, in summary,

Fuck you
Fuck you
Fuck you

You enjoy that decline ladies.  You've earned it.

Sunday, August 16, 2015

Boys, You NEVER Date Girls in Cosmetology School

Don't know how this one slipped under the radar:

The Megyn Kelly Effect

Howdy All,

The ole Captain is intending to do some research, but needs some data points.  Specifically, I need a list of women on teh interwebz who have either a YouTube channel or Twitter account where I can see NUMERICALLY how many "subscribers" or "followers" they have.  However, they also have to be:

1.  Conservative/Libertarian.
2.  Decent looking

I am already aware of Julie Borowski, Katie Kieffer, etc., but aside from those two not much else.

If you could list some women below in the comments section who are on the Twitter or YouTube that are these cutsie "Tee Hee!  I'm a Soccer Mom and I Like Sean Hannity!  Yea for America!" types, I would greatly appreciate it.


Saturday, August 15, 2015

Privatizing Governments

Got a couple inquiries about this since I mentioned it on the podcast.  Basically, this was a business proposal that I turned into a kindle only short dowloadable "proposal."  You can't call it a "book" because it is not.

Still, some people were intellectually interested in how one could go about privatizing governments and not only did I find a (of course, theoretical) way to do it, but a way to profit into the trillions of dollars' worth in the process.

I DID approach several investment banks and even Peter Thiel, but nobody was interested.

BUT!  If you got the connections (or are just intellectually curious how a private government would work) here you go.

Friday, August 14, 2015

Episode #105 of The Clarey Podcast 8-14-15

Whining about driving in a Corvette
"There's always a gun on my desk"
Capitalism vs. Socialism in terms of Logical Proofs
Running to the airport makes you manly
Coke commercials and the sheeple
Cappy's Global Domination (and world's first trillionaire) Plan
The Goldfinger theme song to be redone as "Cappyfinger"
60 years of the same medicine has not helped the black community


in THIS EPISODE of The Clarey Podcast!

Thursday, August 13, 2015

Late Night Listening with Your Local Podcasters

New podcast out by Davis, but I love how the SJW's are downvoting his podcast.  If you want to do him a solid, stop on over, download it, and then upvote it.

Bernard also has a new podcast out over at Male Defender.

Bill Burr has his Thursday Afternoon Monday Morning Podcast.

And DT and the Man...well, they're recording now, but you can check in and maybe they'll have their Thursday night podcast up later.

Help Our Sponsor!

Howdy All,

Wanted to make sure I made a specific post here for Good Looking Loser who has a product called Phenibut that he is marketing.  It is an anti-anxiety supplement that calms you down WITHOUT THE USE OF BOOZE.  So if you're one of those people who needs a drink to relax, but you want to stop drinking, this here is what you may want to try.

Haven't tried it myself because I am always very calm and relaxed and never agitated at the slightest thing.

Regardless, if you think you could use Phenibut OR you want to visit his site (which has merits unto itself) consider visiting the Good Looking Loser.


Students Now PAYING to Intern

Remember, there's no education bubble here!

Wednesday, August 12, 2015

Additional Gun Laws I Will Not Be Following

You always carry in National Parks.  Even if the burnt out hippie woman park ranger from the 1960's tells you not to.  You always carry in the National Parks.

A New Breed of Man SJW's Can't Beat

In the spirit of full disclose I must admit that:

1.  I know Roosh and
2.  I am an occasional guest writer for his site Return of Kings.

Having said that neither my personal nor professional relation with Roosh will affect nor color my analysis of his Canadian trip and the SJW drama that has ensued.  The reason why is simple - his actions and experiences in Canada speak for themselves and tell a story that needs no editorializing.

As this post is being written Roosh has completed one of two Canadian speeches in his world speaking tour.  The first speech (Montreal) was threatened by some SJW's, notably one who set up a petition to prevent him from even entering Canada, while another (Jessica Lelievre, the epitome of "spoiled brat rich daddy's girl") harassed him in public by dousing him in liquor (and foolishly filming it which has resulted in a lawsuit).

Now I can go on, and certainly the media will cover Roosh's travels through Canada and the SJW circus that will come with it.  But instead of chronicling what's happened and then make some obvious observations about the mentally-ill culture of SJW's, I wanted to explain

1.  Why this time it will be different
2.  Why it is because of qualities and traits of men like Roosh that will make it different and
3.  Why the SJW's will lose

What SJW's, leftists, socialists, and other vermin of society are used to is a tired, old, and worn out tactic of silencing somebody they disagree with or threatens to expose them for the parasites they are by accusing them of an "ism" (racism, sexism, ageism, etc.), which in turn then threatens that individual's career and thus livelihood.  Mozilla firing Brendan Eich, Dr. Palmer's shooting of Cecil, doxxing and SWATing, even I've had people try to tell my clients I wrote "mean racist things."

Though dishonest, cowardly and tiresome, this tactic works and is highly effective.  In threatening and holding hostage an individual's career and reputation, they also threaten that individual, his life, and his family.  Alas, they can essentially shut down any social or political commentary from the productive classes, leaving only leftist, SJW and politically approved socialist thought in the public forum. 

However, this tactic only works if there is something of value to hold hostage over the person saying things SJW's find disagreeable. 

A dentist with a career.
An accountant with a family.
A professor with a 20 year track record.

But what the SJW's and leftists don't realize is that while they may find the world to be such a place of injustice and they "still have a long way to go," their leftist predecessors have made great strides in the past.  They have managed to stagnate the economy.  They have managed to create an education bubble.  They have managed to destroy the labor market for young people.  And, above all else, feminists have largely been successful in destroying young women for young men.

And it is from this environment a new strain of men have arisen.  A strain of men immune to all SJW's tactics.

Take a look at Roosh and his background and you'll see a man who has nothing to lose, and therefore nothing the SJW's can threaten.

He tried (like all of us) to "do what was right."  He went to college, tried his hand at a soul sucking job, and when his employer found out he was blogging under a pen name, they still threatened him with being fired.  This not being exactly conducive to having the "freedom of speech" and with no real job prospects that were promised to him like the 1950's, he went on a South American trip which laid the foundation for what would be his career - traveling to different countries and then writing about how to get laid in these countries. 

Of course, while that sounds great it wasn't easy. Traveling on buses in South America, constantly going to clubs, learning new languages, and the meticulous level of detail he had to take in terms of notes and writing made it a real (albeit exciting) job.  But the larger point is that SJW's, socialism, leftism and feminism had made the US so hostile, if not impossible for the "9-5 job and wife with children and a white picket fence," he was practically compelled to go down this route of self-employment.

But what is doubly ironic is how precisely he makes his money.  Most entrepreneurs can still be threatened by SJW's.  The cupcake shop that doesn't make cupcakes for lesbians.  The pizzeria that theoretically would not deliver pizzas to a gay wedding.  They have a product that can still be assailed, assaulted, held hostage, and destroyed.

But what if your job is merely countering the political, economic, social, and psychological environment SJW's created?  What if your job is to unplug as many Neo's out of "the Matrix?"  What if your job is nothing more than being an SJW hunter?  This is why Roosh is simply immune to any SJW's attacks.  It's because he not only has nothing they can threaten or take hostage, but because his business is a direct result and response to the environment SJW's and leftists have created.

Alas, this is why Roosh is invincible against the SJW's and there's no way they can win.  Unlike Mortimer Snerd, loyal accountant at KMPG for 30 years, with a mortgage, two car loans, a wife about to divorce him, and three kids in college, they cannot threaten Roosh's career or family as it doesn't exist.  Worse for them, the more they attack, the more publicity he gets AND the more they get exposed for the psychopath, tyrants they are. 

But what's worse for SJW's is there's (what I would estimate to be) millions more Rooshes with absolutely nothing to lose.  Men who grew up in and are by products of the SJW/feminist culture, and are thus immune to it.  My company, Asshole Consulting, NEEDS feminist, SJW culture to continue to brainwash young men and women into delusion otherwise I'd run out of clients.  Jack Donovan NEEDS SJW's to continue to emasculate young boys otherwise nobody would need his books on masculinity.  And that's just the tip of the iceberg when it has come to what is nothing more than a full-fledge industry of neo-masculinity that has arisen in the past decade to deprogram, explain, provide sanity to, and provide agency and purpose to MILLIONS of young men (and women) who are slowly waking up and realizing just how badly feminism, socialism, and their goose-stepping SJW's have ruined their lives.

What SJW's around the world need to realize is that Canada is just the first instance where SJW's have met a monster of their own creation in the form of Roosh.  And not only can he not be stopped, but there are millions more who also have nothing to lose, are immune to you, and are very, very angry that you not only lied to them about the real world, but destroyed their birthright to western civilization. 

And there's nothing you can do to stop them.

Tuesday, August 11, 2015

A Masters in Male Studies

A professor wants to start an entirely new (and worthless) study - Men's Studies.

The problem is it already exists.  It's called "history."

Monday, August 10, 2015

Were the Nazi's Socialist? Why Not Ask Them?

From our Agent in the Field (who makes the simple point of "why not go to the source to see if the Nazi's were socialists?")

I saw your article asking about National Socialism and am sending the above link.
The above link is to one of many English translations of the Party Platform of the Nazi party.  Once you get to around paragraph 11. you start to see, from the original source document, that especially for the times in question, they were a brand of socialism.   I would suggest you simply look for the Nazi Party Platform on your search engine to get other translations of the original source document if you are interested.
To the extent practical politics deviated from party platform, this is a common occurrence in modern times and one suspects it was no different then.  Compared to USA at the time, which had no federal minimum wage/ maximum hours laws, no unemployment insurance, no social security, no federal pension laws, no federal welfare benefits, and so forth, these proposals would have seemed far reaching, national and socialist at the time.
Obviously, I understand you are not in favor of this group, its history, and personalities; and I am not a fan either.  I hope you find this interesting and a good place to start, in answering your question about the brand of socialism, if any, there was in Nazi Germany.

How Socialism Makes Women Barren

Arrogance and cockiness set aside, I would make an awesome dad.  I did not forget what it was like to be a child.  I know that once I had a child my life would be put on hold and dedicated towards raising "The Spawn of Clarey."  I would not brainwash him to be a leftist, a feminist, a rightist or a Christian, but would instead impart upon it logic, empiricism, morality, philosophy, and independence letting it choose its own path in life.  And above all else, unlike nearly all my Gen X parental counterparts, I would actually stay at home to raise The Clarey Child instead of outsource it to a government baby sitting farm or "day care" concentration camp facility.  It is without a doubt that I would make a great dad.

The irony of course is that this entire discussion is moot since I had a vasectomy 10 years ago.  And while the reasons for having a vasectomy was many, the primary one was that I just could not plain support a child, let alone myself.  And bringing a child into this world would not only ruin what pathetic finances I had in the past, but would just not be fair to the theoretical Clarey Spawn.

Of course times change and now at the age of 40 I could theoretically afford a child.  I work from home, I have a (albeit small) house.  And my source of employment is stable (self employment) guaranteeing the income to put food on the table and pay the mortgage.  But though this situation is specific to myself the question everybody should be asking as it applies to millions more is


Think about it for a second.  Biology and nature says I've been ready to have a child for about the past 28 years.  Society, tradition, and law says I should have been able to have a child since I was 18.  But why, a full 28 years after I'm able to, and 22 years after society says I "should" have children, is it now that I actually COULD have children?

The answer is economics.

I've pointed it out before, but there is a disconnect between human biology and our current political-economic system.  Specifically, today's political-economic structure does NOT allow people to breed when nature is telling them they should.  I first was MANDATED to go to school till the age of 18.  This was largely a pointless exercise in that nobody today will hire a high school graduate, let alone pay one an adequate salary to raise a family on.  This then mandated I go to college for an additional 4 years.  Of course, this dumped me into a labor market that would be ravaged by the Dotcom crash and I would limp along employment wise eeking out a meager living teaching dance and working security for the next five years.  There was hope working in the banking industry, but this hope was quickly dashed as it was so hopelessly corrupt and dysfunctional (not to mention low paying) that the income security needed to raise a child was never there.  Throw in the financial crisis, the housing crash, and the Obama economy, and it wasn't until this Earth made 40 orbits around the sun that I would be in a position to support another human being in this world.

Of course, as mentioned before, this discussion is merely academic.  But the point I'm making is that our society, economy, educational system, labor market, government, and employers are making it increasingly difficult, if not impossible to PROPERLY raise a family (and by "properly" I mean the 1950's way, not the ghetto culture, Wyoming way where women spread their legs and ask the government to replace the daddy). And this is sad for it is other humans that is the most important thing in life, and it is usually your spouse and your children that are the most important humans.

Now I can sit here and pontificate arrogantly and cockily because I have no skin in the game.  Not only can I "not" have children, I still to this day definitely do not WANT them.  But, even with a vasectomy if I wanted to I could still HAVE children.  It would require either a direct extraction of sperm from the testes or a reversal of my surgery.  But the REAL reason I can take this position is that my sperm does not have an expiration date.  My sperm can impregnate any woman from here until I'm dead, carrying on the "great Clarey genetic legacy" if I so chose to.

But the same cannot be said for women.

Naturally, we all know by now that women's eggs have an expiration date.  Menopause hits by a certain age, and even then the eggs start to deteriorate in quality post 30-32 running the risk of birth defects etc.  We don't need to hammer this point anymore, we are all aware of it.  But while women are acutely aware of the tickity tock of their biological clock, what they are completely unaware of is the non-biological side of this formula that is also working against them.  Namely the same economic, political, and sociological forces that made it impossible for me to have children until the age of 40. And while that number, 40, may mean nothing to men, it definitely means something to women.

After 40, frankly, forget it ladies.  It's over.  You're not having kids.  And if you try, you're gambling not just with your theoretical child's life, but your own.  But before you get all angry at me for being the messenger telling you biological truths, you need to look back and ask who and what made it so it was basically impossible for you to have children and raise a family in today's society.

First there was the same mandatory K-12 education I had to take.  In all honesty the average education delivered by the K-12 system could be shrunk down easily to K-8, allowing us an addtional 4 years of youth to pursue a career that would support a family.  But who do you think is at the core of stretching out this now-economically worthless education to last 13 years?

The Patriarchy?

No, it's your good socialist friends in the democrat and labor parties who need to live off of your entire childhood mandate you go to school until you're an adult so their main political contributors (teachers unions) have jobs.   You're now 18.

Then there's college.  Remember, K-12 education has been so diluted, so dumbed down, NOBODY will hire you.  So now you need to spend another 4, more likely 6 years of your youth getting MORE education.

Who predominantly controls acaedemia and benefits from you postponing your life another 4-6 years?

Leftists.  You're now 24.

Of course, unlike the first "13 years" of your education, you get to pay an egregious price for your last 6 years of education - tuition.  And with that comes an inordinate amount of student debt.  Certainly you can't start having a family until you pay this off.  But complicating this issue is that the economy hasn't been growing this slow since the Great Depression, making good paying jobs scarce, and your student loans a monkey on your back for at least 6 years.

But who told you you needed to go to college?  Who pushed you to get a masters?  And who told you to vote against those "evil" corporations, rich people, investors, and all those other entities that create those JOBS you'd need to pay off your student loans?

Hmmm...that would be leftists.  Congratulations, you're now 30.

Now here things are a little different, for while at this age men are FINALLY allowed to start working off their student loans, start a real career, and maybe work up a down payment for a house, women are barraged with propaganda to do something else.  Namely, what feminists have been telling them to do for their entire post-pubescent lives - live life, party, you go girl (TM), travel, climb that corporate ladder, have it all, etc., etc., etc.

And so do women starve themselves, live in basements, get out of debt, and start looking for a proper suitor to raise a family with?

Hell no!

NOW it's time to PAAAARTAAAY!!!!!

Let the flirtini's flow, the car payments commence, and the accumulation of shoes begin as you store it all in an overpriced downtown flat you can barely afford!  You've EARNED IT GIRLFRIEND!

And so prompted by feminism (not to mention corporate interests of the likes of Vogue, Oprah, etc.) you party another 10 years.

But if I recall correctly aren't Oprah, Jezebel, feminism, and all those writers at all those snarkey cheeky lifestyle magazines are leftist?  Congratulations, you're now 40 (but don't worry, you're a "cougar!")

And finally, how can we forget the final nail in your eggs' coffin driven in by feminism?  The blatant, bald-faced lie that looks don't matter.

You were GORGEOUS just the way you were girl!  
Big is beautiful!!!
And any man has mommy issues if he doesn't want to sleep with a human oil tanker.  
He's also "shallow" and a "jerk."

Of course looks do matter, tremendously, to men.  But alas, you wanted to believe sweet lies over harsh truth and lived a lie your entire life, making you not only too old to have children, but physically unable to attract a mate.  So super-congratulations!  You believed the (again, LEFTIST ideology of) feminism and have now not only ruined any chance of having a family, but attracting a mate as well.

I could go on, but the larger point I want all women to understand is that it is NOT

The "Patriarchy"
The Republican's "War on Women"
"Lad culture"
"Rape culture"
"White Males" or
"Evil Corporations"

who are ruining your lives.

It's the left.

It is the left who wants to enslave you at a school where you learn nothing till you're 18.
It is the left who mandates you into thinking you need a college education to have any worth in this society.
It is the left that tells you you are oppressed and need to be freed, replacing your family with a career.
It is the left that convinces you to ignore the biological programming and demands of the (necessary) half of humanity needed to bring and raise children in this world.
And it is the left that tells you you need to spend money on stupid crap to have fulfillment in life.

In reality, all they are doing is taking

your money,
your youth,
your vote,
your love,
your family, and
your life

just so they can stay in power and enrich themselves.  And once they have sucked as much of your financial and life blood out of you, they will dump your ass into the real world.  A world you are WOEFULLY unprepared for, and one you offer nothing of value to.

So please wake up and take the time to identify who your true enemies are.  If not, enjoy your masters degree, cats, body-positive "slut walks," and articles about freezing your eggs.