Two Cows

Major Government Systems – using the two cow philosophy

I thought I'd take a break from my serious side and bring in some humor. I haven't seen this in years and thoroughly enjoyed the humorous comparison of governments and economies to that of two cows.  The original idea started in Canada, but in 1938 a column in the Chicago Daily Tribune posted this from and address by Silas Strawn at the Economics Club in November of 1935. The article has been modified from many sources to include other models.

ANARCHISM: You have two cows. You steal your neighbor's bull and ignore the      government.

COMMUNISM: You have two cows and donate them to the government. Your neighbors help you take care of them, and you all share the milk.

RUSSIAN COMMUNISM: You have two cows. You have to take care of them, but the government takes all the milk and gives you an allotted amount in return.

CHINESE COMMUNISM: You don't have any cows. The government sets up a joint venture with McDonald's. 

CUBAN COMMUNISM: You no longer have any cows. They sailed to Miami.

DEMOCRACY: You have two cows. Your neighbors decide who gets the milk.

REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY: You have two cows. Your neighbors pick someone to tell you who gets the milk.

AMERICAN DEMOCRACY (A republic): You have two cows. The government exercises those powers delegated to it by the people, who are sovereign. The representatives (elected, appointed and employed) are constrained by various checks and balances, including the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the three co-equal branches of government, and the 50 state republics (see, e.g., Article IV, section 4). So what the government does with your cows and with the milk from those cows depends on the interaction between the people and the checks and balances mentioned above.      Note: The government taxes you on your two cows and, in the form of a gift, supports a man in a foreign country who has only one cow.

DICTATORSHIP: You have two cows. The government takes both and drafts you.

FASCISM: You have two cows. The government takes both, hires you to take care of them, and sells you the milk.

FEUDALISM: You have two cows. Your lord takes some of the milk.

EUROPEAN FEDERALISM: You have two cows which cost too much money to care for because everybody is buying milk imported from some cheap east-European country and would never pay the fortune you'd have to ask for your cows' milk. So you apply for financial aid from the European Union to subsidize your cows and are granted enough subsidies. You then sell your milk at the former elevated price to some government-owned distributor which then dumps your milk onto the market at east-European prices to make Europe competitive. You spend the money you got as a subsidy on two new cows and then go on a demonstration to Brussels complaining that the European farm-policy is going drive you out of your job.

LIBERTARIANISM: Go away. What I do with my cows is none of your business.

NAZISM: You have two cows. The government takes both and then shoots you.

NEW DEALISM: You have two cows. The government takes both, shoots one, milks the other, and pours the milk down the sink. The government insists there is a giant storage tank where all the milk goes.

BUERACRACY: Same as New Dealism, but then requires you to fill out                               forms accounting for the missing cows.

SOCIALISM: You have two cows. The government takes one of them and gives it to your neighbor.

PURE SOCIALISM:   You have two cows. The government takes them and puts them in a barn with everyone else's cows. You have to take care of all the cows. The government gives you as much milk as you need.

BUREAUCRATIC SOCIALISM: You have two cows. The government takes them and puts them in a barn with everyone else's cows. They are cared for by ex-chicken farmers. You have to take care of the chickens the government took from the chicken farmers. The government gives you as much milk and as many eggs as the regulations say you should need.

FINNISH SOCIALISM: You have two cows. Soon you have to kill one of them because in the Netherlands there is an overproduction of milk and the European Union rules say so. When you do so, you realize that it was not necessary, only the system was too slow in getting you the up-to-date news. From the stress, you get an ulcer in your stomach so you go to a doctor. The doctor realizes that this ulcer is a serious one, so you need an urgent treatment. Therefore, you soon get a call to the local hospital. The call's date is for 3 months later, because there is a queue with more urgent cases. Then your ulcer becomes even more serious because you remember that 40 percent of your income is taken for social tax.

SAUDIISM: You have two cows. Since milking the cow involves nipples, the government decides to ban all cows in public. The only method to milk a cow is to have a cow on one side of a curtain and a guy milking the cow on the other side.

TALIBANISM: You have two cows. At first, the government makes them wear burkas, but later shoots them because "they are Hindu religious symbols."

TOTALITARIANISM: You have two cows. The government takes them and denies they ever existed. Milk is banned.

A REPUBLICAN: You have two cows. Your neighbor has none. So what?

A DEMOCRAT: You have two cows. Your neighbor has none. You feel guilty for being successful. You vote people into office who tax your cows, forcing you to sell one to raise money to pay the tax. The people you voted for then take the tax money and buy a cow and give it to your neighbor. You feel righteous.

AN INDEPENDENT: Has to wait for the cow the Republican and Democrat fight over.

Economics - using the two cow philosophy.

CAPITALISM: You have two cows. You sell one and buy a bull.

CAPITALISM - AMERICAN STYLE: You have two cows. You sell one, buy a bull, and build a herd of cows.

PROTECTIONISM: You have two cows. You can't buy a bull from another country.

REDISTRIBUTIONISM: You have two cows. Everyone should have the same amount of cow. The government takes both cows, cuts them up, and spends more than the cows are worth giving everyone a little piece of cow.

AN AMERICAN CORPORATION: You have two cows. You sell one, and force the other to produce the milk of four cows. You are surprised when the cow drops dead.

A FRENCH CORPORATION: You have two cows. You go on strike because you want three cows.

A JAPANESE CORPORATION: You have two cows. You redesign them so they are one-tenth the size of an ordinary cow and produce twenty times the milk.

A GERMAN CORPORATION: You have two cows. You re-engineer them so they live for 100 years, eat once a month, and milk themselves.

AN ITALIAN CORPORATION: You have two cows but you don't know where they are. You break for lunch.

A RUSSIAN CORPORATION: You have two cows. You count them and learn you have five cows. You count them again and learn you have 42 cows. You count them again and learn you have 12 cows. You stop counting cows and open another bottle of vodka.

A SWISS CORPORATION: You have 5000 cows, none of which belongs to you. You charge for storing them for others.

A BRAZILIAN CORPORATION: You have two cows. You enter into a partnership with an American corporation. Soon you have 1000 cows and the American corporation declares bankruptcy.

A TALIBAN CORPORATION: You have two cows. You turn them loose in the Afghan "countryside" and they both die. You blame the godless American infidels and the Jews.

AN INDIAN CORPORATION: You have two cows. You worship them.

A COWSMIC VIEW OF WORLD ORGANIZATION

ARTIST -- VISUAL: You have two cows. You stuff them and put them in glass display boxes.

AUSTRALIANISM: You have two cows. You take one to the beach and teach it to surf, then you bung the other one on the barbie, drink some VB, and laugh at the idea of a surfing cow.

COUNTER CULTURE: Wow, dude, there's like... these two cows, man. You got to have some of this milk. Far out! Awesome!

DARWINISM: You have two cows. They develop opposable thumbs and milk you.

ENVIRONMENTALISM: You have two cows. The government bans you from milking or killing them.

PACIFISM: You have two cows. They stampede you.

PLATONISM: You have a reflection of two perfect cows. Their milk tastes like water. You look for two real cows to milk.

POLITICAL CORRECTNESS: You are associated with two differently-aged bovines of non-specified gender.

SURREALISM: You have two giraffes. The government requires you to take harmonica lessons.

Social Additives - Beware

Beware of Societal Artificial Preservatives

The idea behind using an additive is to enhance or improve a process or substance. However, the additive itself could be destructive. When we think of additives, our first thought is artificial preservatives used in food. I have noticed a surprising similarity between food and ethics, which led me to the idea that our culture is heading toward an unknown territory of societal dysfunction.

In the early part of the 20^th century U.S. industry was conjuring up ways to mass produce methods to preserve food.

In prior centuries, popular ways of preservation were sun dried, or canned in jars, or salted the heck out of.  Thanks to refrigeration, food decay was delayed.

However, by the middle of the 20^th century, the food industry got the bright idea to preserve foods with additional chemicals, which would add to shelf life in the store and at your home. 

Supporters considered this development a success; it allowed perishables sitting in the store or at your home to be left alone for extended periods of time without having them waste away. Consumers and retailers alike would lose less food, thus profiting in the end.

Everyone should have been happy, but this was not to be the case. Many of the chemical additives, such as nitrates, sulfides, and so on, were actually harming us. Allergies, respiratory illnesses, or other negative reactions began to appear throughout the following decades. Currently, there are so many chemicals in American’s food no one really knows to what affect these additives have on our body.

In recent decades, people have steered away from rolling the dice of food preservatives and have moved toward a simpler life style. Organic and natural foods are the mantra of today. Many people swear by the change, and the food industry has taken notice. Presently, it is not uncommon to see what used to be a tiny section in the stores now remodeled with large swaths of floor space for natural products. And cooking shows are very popular. People are replacing their rush toward the fast food restaurants with the old fashioned way of cooking at home.

In prior centuries, birth control was a form of discipline, religious virtues were passed down through family systems, and poverty was averted by providence and hard work. By the middle of the 20^th century, ethical industrialists were figuring ways to mass produce the freedom from societal prisons; a few examples being unwanted pregnancies, stagnant religious views, and negative health conditions.

Thanks to educators, the medical community, and policy makers, ethical additives enhanced the lives of people throughout the U.S. Supporters considered this development a success; it freed American women from the prison of reproductive consequences with birth control, opened up a citizen’s religious tunnel vision with counseling, and tackled the downtrodden citizen with social welfare.

These additives should have brought happiness to the American household, but again this was not the case. Many of the societal additives began to show side effects in society.

Birth control, the first example, spawned some problems in the following decades. On one end of the scale were minor inconveniences such as mood changes and breast tenderness, at the other end was serious medical conditions, including the risk of cancer. Birth control also allowed mothers to stave off unwanted children. Thus, children were no longer a reason to develop a committed relationship and get married. By 2010, 48% of unwed women between 15 and 44 were cohabiting with a partner.

Religion, the second example, is not as it was. Persons (known as the Nones - those who are atheist or agnostic) are the fastest growing non-religious group in America. As societal pressure to conform to religion lessens, so too is the need to regulate births. Thus, the stigma for having a baby out of wedlock is no longer relevant. In 2013, nearly 50% of births are by unwed women.

The last example highlights the poor, who are still poor. Here too, even with the artificial preservatives (providing funds to enhance the lives of the poor) in half a century hardly has made a dent in the lives of the poor. Between 2008 and 2010, the number of able-bodied adults on food stamps increased from 2 million to 4 million. Providing funds to lift the poor out of poverty in the last several years have not only shown little improvement for the poor, but they have become poorer (see footnote).

These are three examples of how societal artificial preservatives can have serious side effects. And no one really knows to what extent these and other policies will affect our society in the future.  But I contend that these additives are hurting us…that ultimately our lives will become empty and without purpose.

Ultimately, people will have to decide whether or not to roll the dice of moral additives, or to return to the “old fashion” ideas of morality. It is my contention that we must realize that loose sex is like a loose cannon; being free from pledges has no honor like a long term commitment; and that the short term gain of throwing money to the needy doesn’t come close to the endless satisfaction of helping a person get a new job and career. In essence, old fashion isn’t a definition for old useless ideas; it’s a proven notion for good sense.

Fact links:

Food stamps   http://blog.heritage.org/2013/08/15/you-wont-believe-this-surfer-living-the-food-stamps-dream/

 Births  http://cnsnews.com/news/article/new-report-48-percent-first-children-born-unwed-mothers

Living together http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/04/04/more-people-than-ever-living-together-before-marriage

Poor http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/412766-Lost-Generations-Wealth-Building-Among-Young-Americans.pdf