BANKING REGULATIONS, SHMANKING REGULATIONS...

     Just another of my many dumb ideas. Economic bubbles like the housing bubble which burst in 2006 and the derivatives bubble which burst in 2008 can cause massive amounts of damage to an economy and affect many millions of people greatly. At the center of these storms are banking institutions lending out money, making what amounts to financial bets, and insuring those bets against losses. It turns out this is a ridiculously multi-trillion dollar industry in a world there is only about three trillion dollars in existence. It's kind of interesting when you think about it...it also sounds fraudulent and that's probably because it is at some level.

      One thing I've learned over the years is that banks are not required to fully back their loans. In fact any given bank is only required to have a 4% cash reserve which means that if you've deposited $20,000 in the bank, they are only required to keep $800 of that onhand and the bank will make loans with the rest. (oh wow, it's actually worse than that)

       That might sound all well and good but here's where it gets crazier. Thanks to something called Fractional Reserve Lending (which is totally legal by the way), it turns out the bank can lend out far more than the $19,200 it has available to loan. It's kind of scary. The example in the link shows how a $100 deposit can legally turn into over $350 in loans for the bank and legally exist as over $450 in deposits when only $100 ever existed. This is a source of inflation by the way. I personally don't think for a moment big ticket items like cars, houses, and education would cost what they do if they weren't propped up by these kinds of lending schemes.

       Now, despite the massive recession following the Lehman Bros. collapse in September 2008 - I think it's called the Great Recession now - banks are rather insistent that they are not in need of additional oversight in their lending practices. Personally I think that's bullshit to the highest level yet they're clearly getting away with it so don't expect much folks. But I did have this one idea and believe it or not it comes from a Warner Bros. cartoon.

       I remember when a bank robber would rob a bank in certain cartoons, they'd pass by the front entrance where the bank proudly boasted its total assets. The criminal would then erase everything but the cents and run off. Well...what if banks had to do a version of that?

      What I'm thinking is this. A bank has so much cash - physical actual cash - on hand. It also has various obligations on hand such as depositors' accounts, certificates of deposit, mortgages, other types of loans, etc. Larger institutions might have various CDOs and other derivatives on their balance sheets as well.
       Now, I'm one of those people who believes that it was overlending by the banks which led to this problem. I see it like a hot potato or a pyramid scheme. When things are going well, no one notices but eventually it has to end because otherwise the value of an asset or commodity would become infinite. Take houses for example. At the start of the bubble, people sold their homes for a tidy profit and those homes in turn could be sold again for an even higher price. I saw homes in my area go from about $250,000 to over $500,000 over the span of five years or so. The mentality becomes that of "Houses can only go up, Up, UP!!!" and they do...for a while. Eventually, however, some schmuck is left holding the bag when he can no longer sell his home for a higher price. He's forced to take a loss. Now the word gets out that if you're patient you can get a better deal. Now home prices start to sink leaving more people holding the bag because now their homes are worth less than what they paid for them.
       On top of all this mess, as home values were increasing (on paper, mind you), banks were all too happy to have owners tap into this "equity" and loan the homeowners money off the fictitious increasing value of their property. And why not? The home's value is rising so fast, the loan will pay for itself. I'll remind you here that people are stupid and easily swept up in such fads.

      Anyways, the point I wanted to make was, how about a trade? No new banking regulations (hell, we can even undo some other regulations too to sweeten the pot) in exchange for a number. A number which must be posted on the bank's entrance, on every bank statement, front and center on its webpage, etc. That number would be just how much your account would be worth if the bank had to pay out all its obligations at once with the actual cash it has on hand. Realizable assets like loans and mortgages don't count. It's simply CASH ON HAND ÷ OBLIGATIONS. This figure could be expressed as a percentage. In other words, for every dollar I have on deposit, the bank in the event of failure can guarantee me x.xx% on the dollar of my deposit. Bank statements would express the actual guaranteed amount.

       Now imagine you received your bank statement and saw the guaranteed amount of your $20,000 deposit listed as $800. That might give you pause. But it's worse than that. The derivatives market is estimated at over $600 trillion, and the real estate market is estimated at $34½ trillion, the stock market capitalization is estimated at $15.35 trillion, among other things I'm sure. Think about that. About $650 trillion dollars being traded around compared to about $3 trillion in cash.
       Viewed totally, that means there's only about ½¢ for every dollar in obligations so if the entire system (somehow) collapsed, you (on a system-wide basis) would only receive less than $100 for your $20,000 deposit. The reason I say less is because not all of that $3 trillion dollars is in banks. If I remember correctly, 2/3s of it is held abroad too so you're talking less than $33 of your $20,000 could be guaranteed.

       If a bank had to admit that to you; that it could guarantee so little of your deposit...would you feel safe putting your money in such a bank? Yes, a lot of unwarranted assumptions are being made here. Obviously FDIC guarantees are not being considered but I wouldn't anyway. The banks abuse the FDIC notion now. They figure since your deposits are guaranteed up to $250,000 by the federal government, they see no reason to be careful with your money because fuck it, it's guaranteed. You won't lose so why should they give a shit about what happens to it? Banks lend money in your checking accounts too. Checking accounts are supposed to be demand accounts and thus fully on deposit at the bank but they sweep the money up when the bank is closed and lend it for short periods during the overnight without your permission nor do they share the profits with you.

      But anyways, long-winded entry aside. That's what I want. A single number. A number that shows just how much my deposit is actually guaranteed for. Banks would have much greater incentive to be careful and considerate with other people's money if people saw at a glance how reckless the bank is behaving. People would seek the highest guaranteed number.

      How to properly enforce it would be another question.

THE SMURFETTE PRINCIPLE...

     What was Gargamel thinking when he created Smurfette? And yes, I know he stated his intentions but what I'm getting at is...how was it supposed to work? He clearly didn't think this through.

      The Smurfs are magical beings born under the light of a blue moon. They don't reproduce...not even asexually through budding like a hydra. They're utterly sexless and given how long they live, I can only guess that the reason Papa Smurf is called that is because he came upon more than one human (Homnibus maybe?) who referred to him as the father of the Smurfs he fosters. It was probably the beard...

      The Smurfs show gender types (Vanity and Hefty are extreme examples) but nevertheless remain sexless. They almost certainly lack reproductive organs because that's not how they come to be. I would imagine if they were ever shown speaking a language of their own that it would not have any gender reference (outside of maybe living versus nonliving things). I can only imagine animals and especially humans confused them with their two halves of the same whole thing going for them. If there were a Superiority Complex Smurf, perhaps that Smurf would think their kind to be better than the other forms of life because they have no need for such thing as separate halves and crude babymaking.
      So again, I reiterate, how exactly was Gargamel's plan supposed to work? His plan was flawed from the start when he assumed their species played under the same male/female rules most lifeforms obey. I know how it played out because I watched the cartoon: the writers clearly assumed all the Smurfs were dudes and had no qualms about the idea that a multi-hundred to possible multi-thousand year old society which has never had a Smurfette before would suddenly find itself full of pent up attraction for something they couldn't possibly even conceive.

      And yet again and again throughout the series the Smurfs are gaga for her.

      Maybe it was the hair... Some envy perhaps? :-)

      The only thing I think I could accept is that the attraction to and lust for Smurfette is not because she is a female Smurf, an impossibility as far as I'm concerned, but rather a Smurf not born like other Smurfs. She's unique and different because she was not born of the light of a blue moon. They're attracted to her rarity, not her femininity despite how the cartoon portrays it. Either that, Papa Smurf went a little overboard in his attempts to undo Gargamel's spells and made her irresistibly charismatic to the other Smurfs. At the moment I forget if Papa Smurf was relative immune to her "charms" or if he acted like he lusted after her too.

      Also, if Gargamel could create a Smurf, however stereotypically feminine, from a magic spell, why didn't he just make a bunch of them that way considering how interested he has been in turning them into gold and/or foodstuffs? Nothing in the spell used to make her seemed particularly expensive or difficult to obtain, unless the "hardest stone" for her heart was in fact a diamond, something Gargamel certainly would have difficulty affording...

WAITING FOR THE ALLERGY PILLS TO KICK IN THEATER PRESENTS (part II)...

(a.k.a. NGE Angelic Self-Imagery)

     It's a two-fer this Monday. My usual Monday morning insomnia is in full gear when I really need it not to be and I think I may be coming down with a cold. I feel my joints aching, my body temperature rising, and my nose stuffing up to the point where I can't breathe except through my mouth which, if  you'll remember, is something I've been really trying not to do. I feel a cold-induced sneezing fit is likely. Either way I've taken two Benadryl so I now have about an hour before they kick in and off to diphenhydramine hydrochloric dreamland I go. But first...

     I had this idea. I'm sure anyone who's seen Neon Genesis Evangelion has speculated on it for at least a little bit. No spoiler alerts for a nearly twenty year old anime here. The "villain" of the series were the angels, all children of the progenitor lifeform Adam. Life on Earth, born of the progenitor lifeform Lilith, bore the Fruit of Knowledge. It forced its pinnacle being, humanity, to express its individuality in subtle ways. The children of Adam however, bore the Fruit of Life and could thus express their individuality more extremely.
     It was based around the concept of an "A.T. Field", the A.T. standing for "absolute terror". The rumor for its origin is that it was based in psychiatric studies of autistics who become panicked when a person intrudes on their personal space. That dividing line was supposedly their absolute terror. However, there is no reference to this in any psychiatric journal. It's one of those oft-repeated rumors that has become fact by virtue of it having been repeated so often.

     In the show, every lifeform possesses an A.T. Field but in humans it is very weak. For us it is the sacred space of our minds through which no other being may pass. It is the source of our individuality and thus our loneliness. We are many but because our minds are isolated from everyone else's, we suffer. For the children of Adam, the angels, their A.T. Fields were so strong that they could stop physical attacks and even become visible briefly if an attempt to cross the barrier was made intensely enough. Another effect of these ridiculously strong A.T. Fields is that the angel, though made of the same stuff and DNA as mankind (said to be 99.89% similar), could manifest its self-image through its A.T. Field. So whereas all life on Earth is constrained to appear as it had evolved forcing us to express our individuality through the way we dress or hobbies we develop, an angel could look however it wanted to and in the show they did take on some rather odd forms.

The Third Angel: Sachiel, more humanoid than most though lacking a conspicuous head. The white plate over the red orb are its faces: yes it has two.

The Fourth Angel: Shamshel, insect-like in appearance (this is more apparent when viewed from above)

The Fifth Angel: Ramiel, this is the first one we see with a truly alien appearance. It may look like a crystal, but it's alive and one of the most powerful angels of the series.

The Tenth Angel: Sahaquiel, this is the largest of the angels. It appears in orbit. Once it figures out where it will crash land, it begins its descent.

     Anyways, I wondered what form I would take if my self-image could be actualized. It's an odd intellectual exercise because I really haven't given it too much thought. It also varies depending on the mood I'm in suggesting that my "true" self-image is that of a shape-shifter (I've always said I have a chameleon-like personality). However, in keeping with the spirit of the show, I wondered what grotesque form I might take; what parody of humanity would I be?
      Another quality the angels seem to possess en masse is an overall lack of intelligence. They don't behave complicatedly. They are often single-minded in their goal to return to Adam and generally will only attack in an effort to defend themselves. Only Zeruel, which appears late in the series, appears to show any direct malice toward human beings. Otherwise they are quite content to do what they came to do.
      Perhaps the best part of the exercise is that you also have to come up with how you would be killed by the Evangelion units since no angel ever actually won. Some did more damage than others, but they were all ultimately defeated. Do you go out by a show of force, via some heretofore unknown weapon, by cunning, by dumb luck? Does NERV defeat you? Are the UN forces capable of damaging you? Do you self-sacrifice? You have to pick something because you cannot be allowed to win otherwise the story would be over.

      I'll admit having a drawing or even a sketch would help but drawing is not my forte so you'll have to bear with me and use your imagination which, in the end, could prove a more effective tool than anything my pencil could conjure up.

      I picture myself floating in the air only. No walking of any sort. I get the appearance that in the direction I'm moving, I take on a crystalline appearance and in the trailing direction, I'm more liquidy and vaporous with the vapors obscuring the shape like fog would do. In the rear are four long, but thick, vaporous tendrils suggestive of hair that when relaxed, trail behind me. In front of me and prominently featured are two stubby arms (touch your elbows to your torso when imagining this) each terminating in a hand-like foot with hints of scales as though a bird's foot. Though bony in color, the "fingers" are very suggestive of human fingers complete with hints of fingernails (I'm thinking depressions in the shape of fingernails) and these fingers are arranged more like a bird's toes than a proper human hand with the thumb part facing my body. Between the two feet hands is a free-floating S2 organ with no protection around it. I picture my angelic form as rather arrogant and thus my Fruit of Life is located in a very vulnerable position because I am confident my A.T. Field will protect me from all harm. I see my front side as basically being all face, but without a mouth or nose. The upper torso/face is in a hunched-over position. I see four eye sockets. A pair in the center for binocular vision, though looking more-or-less straight down at the S2 organ and another eye socket on either side for that kind of vision leaving me with a slight blindspot as to what's right in front of me. There are no visible eyes within those sockets and each eye is capable of generating one of those blasts that result in cross-shaped explosions.
     The idea behind my A.T. Field is like the shield surrounding the artifact in Thirdspace. Where attacked, the field will flow toward the attack both to neutralize the attack and to strengthen the field in the area of the attack. The compensation for this is that the A.T. Field directly opposite the attack weakens to compensate meaning that a sustained, powerful attack on my front would eventually open a hole in my A.T. Field behind me. I realized that it would be this weakness that would be my undoing.

     When I stop moving, the crystalline areas become more fluid-like or plastic.The energy beams would be my primary means for entering the GeoFront in an effort to rejoin with Adam and I'm guessing had I made it that far that I would absorb my S2 organ and flow into the GeoFront, restoring my previous shape (or perhaps a new one entirely) upon encountering Adam. If attacked, the four tendrils behind me will twist like whirlwinds into four tight flagella and stab at whatever is attacking. The idea would be to impale the target with two or more tendrils and then rip it apart. The feet-hands can move, face fingertips forward and launch penetrating tendrils from where the fingernail would emerge on a human hand.

       I picture my defeat resulting from a combined attack using all three EVAs and yes, even the UN Forces with Misato being the one who devised the strategy based on analyses from the first failed confrontation. I see a sustained frontal assault by the UN forces, EVA-00, and EVA-01 with EVA-02 waiting to attack me from the rear. The attack on my front side becomes so intense that a hole opens up at the rear. Asuka in unit 02 leaps from her hiding spot with the idea of shoving an N2 mine into my A.T. Field's gap and positioning the mine near my S2 unit. I see her approaching and fire several cross-shaped blasts which Asuka artfully dodges. I then tighten my flagella in an attempt to stop her. Two of these flagella manage to impale her EVA, one in each leg, but the remaining two she has grabbed with one arm and possibly her EVA's mouth (whatever looks cooler to you), holding the N2 mine in the remaining arm. The N2 mine is just out of reach but she manages to shove it in with one last determined push. It is during this moment that I finally make a sound suggesting panic with my downfacing eyes now glowing with red irides and yellow pupils in fear and in realization of what had just happened. The mine detonates and its explosion is briefly contained within my A.T. Field, but the field soon collapses when my S2 unit is destroyed and the explosion now moves outward swallowing the EVA units but they are undamaged as their own A.T. Fields have protected them.

The End

HE SAID/SHE SAID, maybe THEY SAID?

     I'm reading this article in Psychology Today shared to me by a friend about introversion. It's enjoyable and potentially helpful for me in the future when explaining my behavior to others, but I'm finding myself continually distracted by the use of she/her/hers pronouns for the imagined introvert in this article.

     I'm trying to wrap my brain around it while reading (apparently in true introverted style). Why does it bother me so when I see the use of she/her/hers over the old generic standard of he/him/his? I'm well aware that half the population is female so the choice of gender to use in such articles could really be 50/50 but yet it nags on me.
     And I feel it goes deeper than some superficial attempt to attack me for being patriarchal or some other form of male privilege. I think it's specificity.

     This is true in Romance languages as well whereby the masculine plural form is used for all men or mixed company (even if the mixture is female dominant) and the feminine plural form is used only for a group of women. In other words, the masculine form is defaulted.
      But what does that defaulting do in terms of meaning? When I read "he/him/his" in articles like the one linked above, I'm not picturing anyone, let alone a male. "One/One's" could just as easily be substituted but I'm guessing it is not because it creates awkward sentence structures to read, especially if the language of the article is being presented in a conversational style. "One/One's" does not lend itself to conversational type pieces.
      However, when I read "she/her/hers", it triggers an immediate "who?" question. Whereas the use of "he/him/his" could be referring to someone, it could just as easily be referring to no one in particular. Therefore the use of "he/him/his" does not beg a question whereas "she/her/hers" necessarily does. "She/Her/Hers" definitely refers to someone in particular. Whereas "he" is roughly equivalent to "a(n)", "she" is equatable with "the".

      Now that's likely where the social conditioning comes in because had "she/her/hers" been the default, then "he/him/his" would cause a triggering question. And had English used "it/its" for mixed sex references, then both separate genders would trigger questions.

      Perhaps that's why, to the consternation of grammarians everywhere, the use of a special case singular "they/them/their/theirs" has been creeping into the language (actually I think it has been for centuries). When a male-dominated society was the norm, the use of "he/him/his" as a default genderless personal pronoun would have also been the norm and now with the rise of a more equally represented society both in actuality and in thought, the need for a gender-neutral personal pronoun is even more insistent. I find the use of singular "they" preferable over random usage of "she" for the reason mentioned in prior paragraphs though I acknowledge its use is hardly best.

ALL JUST A DREAM...

     You always get the best kind of sleep when you're trying not to sleep. I don't know why that is because it's really annoying. On the plus side, my dreams become especially vivid in this state.

      I'm lying in bed periodically texting a girl I've been talking to off OKCupid (I really like this one by the way, so I'm rooting for myself here). I'm lying on my back because it's difficult for me to sleep in this position. Eventually between a long lull (she was still at work, only texting when she could), I fell into a simple dream.

      I was with my brother in my maternal grandparent's house, a place I hadn't been since 2005. He was listening to music on a stereo when he decided to blast this particular song. I was trying to talk to him and now I couldn't hear what he was saying so I yelled at him to turn it down...or at least I tried.
      I was making the yelling noise, but it wasn't projecting. There was no power behind it. You can do this now yourself. Scream in your mind...your own scream, not your memory of another person's scream. It feels weird, doesn't it? For me it feels like hearing the written equivalent of "AAAAAAUUUUUGGGGGHHHHHH!!!!!!" - it's so artificial.

      I tried several times to yell to him to turn the music down but he never heard me, to my frustration, because I could not project my voice. I guess that's a good thing because if I ever actually slept with someone, I could only imagine me screaming out of nowhere in my sleep would scare the shit out of her :-)

      The experience reminded me of a Batman: the Animated Series episode in which the Mad Hatter gave Batman a lifelike dream in which he led a normal life. His parents were still alive; he was an executive at Wayne Enterprises; etc. Also, there was still a Batman, but it wasn't him. For a while Bruce Wayne did not know what was going on until he tried reading something and found he could not. Anything in newspapers and books looked just like scribbles. That's how he knew he was dreaming.
       If I am lucky, I will be able to take this lesson with me into another dream. If I cannot scream, then I will know I am dreaming and maybe this time I can enjoy some lucidity rather than what usually happens when I realize I'm dreaming which is...I wake up.

DELIBERATELY CIRCULATED

     I mentioned in a previous post that I've been carrying around various modern coins for the past several years because I want to see how they'll look worn down. Modern coins don't circulate anymore because their purchasing power has declined to the point of making them worthless except in aggregate. The largest regularly circulating coin in our pockets is the quarter-dollar and even that coin's purchasing power is now equivalent to that of the cent 100 years ago so imagine what that makes our still produced cents, nickels, and dimes. The average price of an item at my store hovers between $2.18 and $2.25. There's no place for anything below a quarter anymore and possibly (arguably) under a half-dollar.

     Anywho, because of this, I'm convinced that our modern coins will never become worn down from circulation so I'm doing it for them by carrying a select few in my pocket every day. I walk three miles a day to and fro work and am constantly on the move at my job so these coins "circulate" pretty well. Unfortunately I never made note of when I started doing this. Only the 2010 cent can be traced to around April of that year since that's when I first found one. The latest additions to my long-term patience project have been the 1978 Eisenhower dollar (replacing the 2007 SAE I was carrying for a few years), the 2009-P nickel, and the four different 2009 cent designs. I want to carry a 1978 half dollar but I bring half dollars in every night to work to give out in change so I'd hate to accidentally give it out.

     Photographing these coins in a way which will reveal their relief and wear is difficult as they are highly reflective. I feel I got some acceptable, though not great, results by propping them up on a nickel and  having the light I was using diffuse through some translucent plastic. Their current states will be presented below.

     Coins are designed to last about 40 years in circulation so this is truly a long-term patience project as I have called it :-)

Click on the images to ENLARGE

1978-D Eisenhower Dollar: about a year's wear

 The last of the "big" dollars. It's also my birth year so I have a certain fondness for the coin. :-)

1999-P Susan B. Anthony Dollar:  3-4 years wear

 I chose the 1999 SBA dollar because it was the only mini dollar ever made because it was wanted. The 1979, 1980, and 1981 were rejected by the public before production ceased entirely. Coin-Op businesses and mass transit authorities slowly drew down the stock of coins and in 1999, more were needed. The mint balked at first since it had been preparing the Sacagawea Dollar for release in 2000, but when the mint was sued, they relented and produced about 50 million 1999 dated dollars. Proof that they were not anticipated was their lack of inclusion in the 1999 mint and proof sets. They had to be released as a separate issue. For this reason alone, I continue to advocate that such sets should be released the following year just in case something like that happens again.

2001-P Jefferson Nickel: 3-4 years wear

It wasn't my intention to carry the 2001 nickel. It was one of my filler coins in case I needed it to switch out with a desired nickel at work. Turns out I went months without needing it so I added it to the circulation pile using the rationalization that I've never seen a worn-down shallow relief Jefferson nickel.

2005-P Jefferson Nickel [1st issue]: 3-4 years wear

2005-P Jefferson Nickel [2nd issue] : 3-4 years wear

2009-P Jefferson Nickel : about one year's wear

 I doubt I'll ever see any of what will likely be the final design of any U.S. nickel wear down either. I chose a 2009 dated one because it is infrequently encountered in change. Coins of 2009 had drastically reduced production on account of the "Great Recession" - is that what it's officially called now?

2009 Lincoln Cent [1st issue] : about one year's wear

2009 Lincoln Cent [2nd issue] : about one year's wear

2009 Lincoln Cent [3rd issue] : about one year's wear

2009 Lincoln Cent [final issue] : about one year's wear

 All the Lincoln bicentennial designs collectively I feel will never circulate so I'm doing it myself. I don't know why I delayed so long to circulate them. As single year designs, they were natural choices.

1974-S Lincoln Cent : 3-4 years wear

 I've never seen a worn-out Lincoln Memorial cent and the series began production in 1959. Only the first few years tend to show any wear at all leading me to conclude that cents stopped circulating around 1964. Even though cents continue to be produced by the billions annually, their lack of purchasing power causes them to be hoarded rather than spent so the coin's attrition rate is nearly 100%. Many cents get used only once and remain around in jars and dishes for month's at a time before getting spent again. I'm guessing this process got started in the 1960s and only accelerated once vending machines and pay phones stopped taking them. I've never seen a vending machine accept cents in all of my living memory (about 30 years). I chose 1974 because I feel that this year got Lincoln's design perfectly. The pictured coin is beat up, but if you should find a 1974 cent in your pocket, appreciate its sculpture. The mint did a fantastic job that year in my opinion. I chose the San Francisco mint because I don't see the S-coins too often so it'd be less likely I'd accidentally spend it.

2010 Lincoln Cent : 3 years wear

Again, I highly doubt this coin will ever receive noticeable wear in circulation so I'm doing it myself. Also, I'll find out if these copper-veneered zinc cents even CAN take heavy amounts of circulation wear. Zinc corrodes quickly when exposed to moisture, turning powdery. The copper on cents made since 1982 is microscopically thin. The coin already looks gray in some spots along the rim so we'll see what happens. A fun thing to note is the denomination ONE CENT is actually raised on the banner leaving the possibility that as the coin takes wear, it will disappear like the date on Buffalo nickels and Standing Liberty quarters of yesteryear.

1999-P New Jersey quarter : about 3 years wear

      Again, I don't think any of the state quarters will ever receive appreciable wear despite the quarter being the "workhorse" of the coin-based economy. In my opinion, quarters stopped circulating around 1991 [for the nickel, I would say 1971 and the dime, 1982]. Clad quarters have been around since 1965 so the earliest dates should be worn flat now, but I've never seen a clad quarter worn flat. The ones from the 1960s have considerable wear but very rarely have I seen one where the rim has worn into the edge lettering. By the 1990s, they start showing little wear at all despite being over twenty years old in some cases.
     Anyways, I picked the NJ quarter because that's my home state. When the NJ America the Beautiful quarter is released in 2017, I'll start carrying one of those too.

2007 Silver American Eagle : 3-4 years wear (currently halted)

      This was the first coin I carried around. I got it as a freebie for renewing my subscription to a coin newspaper. I didn't want the coin so I thought to carry it around. I was the victim of rising silver prices though. I was supposed to get three, one for each year 2007-2009 but the 2009 never came because of silver's rising price. The coins cost more than a year's subscription at that point.
      The coin being pure silver, is very soft, so it takes wear easily. Even after just a few years several details have been lost and E PLURIBUS UNUM on the banner on the reverse is showing signs of disappearing.

Angel Token : a few week's wear

      I remember getting one of these in a received piece of junk mail. I found this one walking to work and decided to add it to the pile as a goof. My only example of exonumia in this project :-)
      The design is the same on the reverse though slightly scuffed as that was the surface in contact with the street. I'm sure it's bronze-plated but I don't know what the core metal is. It feels too heavy to be aluminum and isn't magnetic ruling out steel and nickel.

If I'm still blogging in a few years, I'll do an update :-)

THE PRICE OF FREEDOM

     I hate working. I hate having to spend so much of my life doing something for which I have never been given a choice. And this isn't because I work a shitty job. It wouldn't matter what I would be doing to earn money. The problem would still remain: I was never given a choice in the matter.

     What do I mean? I mean the idea that one has to earn money for a living. We were all born under that regime. There can be no job I can ultimately enjoy doing because any job, by its very nature, would REQUIRE me to do it. It's that MUST aspect of working that drives me to despair.

      I value leisure and by that I don't mean being a lazy asshole. If I come across that way at all it is because my time off from work is so short. I haven't been "free" since the Summer of 1996. And a week off from work just doesn't cut it. All that week off does is get me used to the idea of being off just in time to go back to work. Vacations are almost more cruel than not having vacations. At least my weekend is part of the flow of my week. A vacation is a tease of the worst kind...

     So it got me thinking, what is the price of my freedom? In other words, how much money do I need on an annual basis to cover my life the way I wish to live it? I make almost $28,000 a year now and barely eke out a living from it. I don't drive because I can't afford it so while I'm keeping a roof over my head and food in my belly (and internet for my mind), it's hardly affording me a "lifestyle". I've learned how to live without driving but I'm going to assume I'll need it for this equation.

     Now I know this number won't be accurate because I don't know how the taxes would work. For me, the price of freedom is the amount of money you would need in an interest-bearing account that it pays enough in interest to cover your annual expenses thus removing the need to work for a living. Now this doesn't preclude you working or volunteering. No, what it does is remove the NECESSITY that you work. It makes working a CHOICE; something you've never had before when it comes to employment. Now you can do what you've always wanted to do because you know you're covered by this bank account.
      See, I'm assuming you can't collect Social Security based on interest income so you're probably not paying the FICA tax, just the Federal and State income taxes. Therefore, I'm guessing that an annual taxable income of $35,000 would not only cover my life's expenses (and a car) but leave enough left over for activities as well. Any money unspent could always be returned to the fund. Might even be a good idea to do so on account of inflation and variable interest rates.

      Anyways, so what amount in the bank would cover that $35,000 annual income? The amount, of course, varies because the interest rates keep changing. The highest my CDs ever earned was 5.15%. I locked in on a 3-year CD for 2% a couple years ago and that same 3-year goes for 0.9% now. The highest my bank offers is 1.25% on a 5-year CD. Just terrible rates.
      But let's use that 1.25% as our basis. I'm going to pretend that 1.25% represents the floor for interest rates that can be gotten. Thus in higher years, your account will grow in value producing greater income. With that said, the current price of my freedom is, get this, $2,800,000. Yup. 2.8 million dollars. Interest rates are so low that at that amount, with no interest at all, just withdrawing $35,000 a year, it would last 80 years which is longer than my projected lifetime by almost 35 years.

       If the interest rate were 3%, the price of my freedom would be approximately 1.2 million dollars. I have less than 15% of that total.

      The point of this entry? That I will never be free...