The test that proves my story does hold water is that YOU, Ben, are the only one who doesn’t get it. Everyone else understands that the story is a morality play and not meant to be analyzed “mathematically.” It is not, nor was it ever intended to be, an economic model. And quite frankly, you would have to be pretty obtuse to ever think it was. In fact, I ACTUALLY TELL YOU AS MUCH WITHIN THE ARTICLE!! But because you are trapped within the confines of your own “shallow intellect,” your superiority (read, insecurity) complex does not allow you to see the big picture. You see only what you want to see, you hear only what you want to hear, and that fact renders your opinion null and void. If, because of your inability to see the point someone else is making due to the fact that you are so caught up in your own ego, the point you yourself are attempting to make is invalidated. At that juncture, you, and whatever poor soul you have trapped against a wall who doesn’t give a shit about what you have to say anyway and who would agree with anything you might be saying just to get out of the conversation and away from you, are discussing two completely different things. I’m sorry you don’t have any friends, Ben, but there is a reason for that. Keep up with the therapy, and one day, years from now, you may actually figure out what that reason is and be a happier person for it.

You are also misinformed about what constitutes a “childish insult.” A childish insult would be more like calling someone a “douche,” don’t you think, Ben? It is a childish insult because there are no factual grounds to it. It is an insult thrown out willy-nilly because the insulter does not possess an intellect mature enough to base said insult on firm reasoning. What I did was a psychological evaluation of your personality based on your comments. Like this:

THE EMPIRICAL EVALUATION OF BEN (as determined by his own definition of “empirical evaluation”)…

Ben is a lonely individual–Due to the fact that Ben spends most of his free time on the internet searching for blogs to comment on in a desperate hope that someone, ANYONE, will care about what he has to say, and that he has absolutely no idea how to relate to a real human being, we have determined that Ben is a sad, lonely man, and perhaps even harbors latent homosexual tendencies.

Ben is extremely insecure–Due to the fact that Ben feels an insatiable need to prove his point to anyone and everyone who will listen, even when no one gives a shit (which is most of the time), it is obvious to us that he maintains a severe inferiority complex. We believe this also demonstrates latent homosexual tendencies.

Ben is in therapy–Well, if he ain’t, he sure does need to be. Oh yeah, he’s gay, too.

We have run the numbers ad nauseam, and find these determinations to be mathematically sound.

Conversely, good guy Bill has made more profit than Bob selling at a greatly reduced capacity, (his fixed costs went down) also because he realizes he must make less bread since the demand has gone down, and has more flour left over for the next month.

So after only 2 months, what really happens in this situation, is Bob, the evil baker, has put himself in a situation where he cannot sustain his own business, and the moor likely result is that market equalization forces, or Adam Smith’s Invisible Hand will force him to raise his prices to cover his losses and stay in businesses. This will drive the customers back to Bill.

So now either Bakers have reduced capacity or there is only one baker baking, as a result there is a shortage of bread. This could cause the cost to temporality go up, as people will offer more for bread than the next chump as there is a shortage. This will go on for a while until another baker comes in and fills in the excess capacity which drives the prices down.

That’s how a free market and capitalism works.

Your first example of Bill and Bob may as well be labeled capitalism as socialism. Capitalism is not inherently evil as an economic system. It can be operated in an evil way and it can be operated in a massively productive, positive, and creative way. In fact, capitalism — which enables individuals to own their means of production and maximizes freedom to operate in the way they see fit — has raised vastly more people out of poverty than any economic system ever devised.

Nazi Germany was called socialism, in which the state did not own the means of production but just told everyone running companies what to do. It was an example of socialism in an evil incarnation — again, the ethics, or lack thereof, came back to the individuals running the system.

Much of what is wrong with American capitalism can be traced to the overbearing interference of the government, unintended consequences of well-intentioned regulation, the failure of the government to act as the referee it should be, and the ever-present inability of the government to accomplish much of anything in an efficient manner — government budgets and unnecessary programs almost never really get cut. The best of American capitalism is largely responsible for the prosperity of the world (see Milton Friedman) and an astonishing proliferation of innovations and inventions that benefit mankind immeasurably.

Finally, I think you are fortunate to know George Bush and report back that contrary to politically correct general wisdom he is not after all equipped with horns and a forked tail. I always thought he was an honorable and decent man who had to face the most massive disasters of any president since FDR and acquitted himself pretty well.

Good blog, Maestro, keep it up!