Sent to me, without attribution... and I'd really like to know who authored this variation because it's my favorite.
- J
SOCIALISM
You have 2 cows.
You give one to your neighbor.
COMMUNISM
You have 2 cows.
The State takes both and gives you some milk.
FASCISM
You have 2 cows.
The State takes both and sells you some milk.
NAZISM
You have 2 cows.
The State takes both and shoots you.
BUREAUCRATISM
You have 2 cows.
The State takes both, shoots one, milks the other, and then throws the milk away.
TRADITIONAL CAPITALISM
You have two cows.
You sell one and buy a bull.
Your herd multiplies, and the economy grows.
You sell them and retire on the income.
ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND (VENTURE) CAPITALISM
You have two cows.
You sell three of them to your publicly listed company, using letters of credit opened by your brother-in-law at the bank, then execute a debt/equity swap with an associated general offer so that you get all four cows back, with a tax exemption for five cows.
The milk rights of the six cows are transferred via an intermediary to a Cayman Island Company secretly owned by the majority shareholder who sells the rights to all seven cows back to your listed company.
The annual report says the company owns eight cows, with an option on one more.
You sell one cow to buy a new president of the United States , leaving you with nine cows.
No balance sheet provided with the release.
The public then buys your bull.
SURREALISM
You have two giraffes.
The government requires you to take harmonica lessons.
AN AMERICAN CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You sell one, and force the other to produce the milk of four cows.
Later, you hire a consultant to analyze why the cow has dropped dead.
A FRENCH CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You go on strike, organize a riot, and block the roads, 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.
You then create a clever cow cartoon image called a Cowkimona and market it worldwide.
AN ITALIAN CORPORATION
You have two cows, but you don't know where they are.
You decide to have lunch.
A SWISS CORPORATION
You have 5000 cows. None of them belong to you.
You charge the owners for storing them.
A CHINESE CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You have 300 people milking them.
You claim that you have full employment, and high bovine productivity.
You arrest the newsman who reported the real situation.
AN INDIAN CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You worship them.
A BRITISH CORPORATION
You have two cows.
Both are mad.
AN IRAQI CORPORATION
Everyone thinks you have lots of cows.
You tell them that you have none.
No-one believes you, so they bomb the ** out of you and invade your country.
You still have no cows, but at least you are now a Democracy.
AN AUSTRALIAN CORPORATION
You have two cows.
Business seems pretty good.
You close the office and go for a few beers to celebrate.
A NEW ZEALAND CORPORATION
You have two cows.
The one on the left looks very attractive.
Friday, December 2, 2011
Friday, November 18, 2011
Relying on the Dream World
"Self-deception seems always to depend upon the dream world, because you would like to see what you have not yet seen rather than what you are now seeing. You will not accept that whatever is here now IS what is, nor are you willing to go with the situation as it is. Thus, self-deception always manifests itself in terms of trying to create or recreate a dream world, the nostalgia of the dream experience."
--Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche
--Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche
The Looming Conflict with Iran - America in Front?
From where I sit, it looks as if writer Amir Oren has buried his lede.
In an otherwise interesting article about the decades of friendship between Israel and Iran that preceded the subsequent three decades of hostility, Oren concludes with an interesting analysis of America's increasing antipathy toward the Iranian regime and its maneuvers:
Quite simply it's evident, even to the Obama administration, that the clerical regime did not respond to the president's overtures to dialogue, his "extension of an open hand," when he came into office. More and more it appears a mistake for the Obama administration not to voice support for Iran's Green movement, crushed by the regime in 2009. Secretary of State Clinton recently said, in defense of the administration's silence, that that had been according to the wishes of the Green movement's leaders. Perhaps this is so. And yet here we are.
Read the whole article HERE, and do read to the end. For Americans, Oren has buried his lede.
Update: On reflection, regarding Oren’s depiction of Americans being at the boiling point, I’m sure Martin Dempsey and Leon Panetta are people who weigh and calculate matters. US use of force is not undertaken lightly, nor without contemplation. Nonetheless, Oren’s piece makes interesting reading.
In an otherwise interesting article about the decades of friendship between Israel and Iran that preceded the subsequent three decades of hostility, Oren concludes with an interesting analysis of America's increasing antipathy toward the Iranian regime and its maneuvers:
Even more than the Israelis, the Americans are close to the boiling point vis-a-vis Iran, more because of its actions in Iraq than its nuclear efforts. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey issued warnings in this direction this week at a congressional hearing. On that very day - which was also the day that Gantz appeared in the Knesset - the head of the ruling Military Council in Egypt, Mohamed Hussein Tantawi, hosted American Gen. James Mattis, head of CENTCOM, the U.S. Central Command, which covers Egypt and Iran, Iraq and Jordan, Syria and Lebanon.
It will not come as a surprise if in the coming weeks, in response to the incrimination of the Revolutionary Guards for a large attack on the American forces pulling out of Iraq, the Americans will land a warning blow on an Iranian target. The table is wobbling and some of the options are in fact under it.
Quite simply it's evident, even to the Obama administration, that the clerical regime did not respond to the president's overtures to dialogue, his "extension of an open hand," when he came into office. More and more it appears a mistake for the Obama administration not to voice support for Iran's Green movement, crushed by the regime in 2009. Secretary of State Clinton recently said, in defense of the administration's silence, that that had been according to the wishes of the Green movement's leaders. Perhaps this is so. And yet here we are.
Read the whole article HERE, and do read to the end. For Americans, Oren has buried his lede.
Update: On reflection, regarding Oren’s depiction of Americans being at the boiling point, I’m sure Martin Dempsey and Leon Panetta are people who weigh and calculate matters. US use of force is not undertaken lightly, nor without contemplation. Nonetheless, Oren’s piece makes interesting reading.
Wednesday, November 9, 2011
Tuesday, November 8, 2011
G. Bruce Boyer - An Ivy Leaguer's Lament
... and it's all about clothes, I'm afraid, but it's witty:
Boyer writes:
"When I was growing up back in the late 1950s, the matter of dress for young men was relatively simple. There were basically three types of clothing stores. There was of course the traditional store for the traditional American business look: conservatively cut suits, safe shirts, and discreet foulard or striped neckwear. Then there was the somewhat “sharper” store, a more courant version of the trad store. Finally there was the Ivy League shop.... For most, the subtleties of double-breasted jackets and grenadine neckwear, of suede town shoes, enameled cuff links, covert cloth chesterfields, and cashmere cabled hosiery were not imaginable. But then neither were exterior logos, Italian designers, or microfibers. There also didn’t seem to be the questions of what to wear when. We certainly knew when the occasion called for a tie, and gym clothes were confined to the gym. It was, as I say, a simpler time."
Read the whole thing at A Continuous Lean.
Boyer writes:
"When I was growing up back in the late 1950s, the matter of dress for young men was relatively simple. There were basically three types of clothing stores. There was of course the traditional store for the traditional American business look: conservatively cut suits, safe shirts, and discreet foulard or striped neckwear. Then there was the somewhat “sharper” store, a more courant version of the trad store. Finally there was the Ivy League shop.... For most, the subtleties of double-breasted jackets and grenadine neckwear, of suede town shoes, enameled cuff links, covert cloth chesterfields, and cashmere cabled hosiery were not imaginable. But then neither were exterior logos, Italian designers, or microfibers. There also didn’t seem to be the questions of what to wear when. We certainly knew when the occasion called for a tie, and gym clothes were confined to the gym. It was, as I say, a simpler time."
Read the whole thing at A Continuous Lean.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)