To Auckland and back.
Couple of thought provoking signs by the road: one at Tokaanu saying ‘We proudly serve coffee’. Which seems OK, I suppose, but at the same time a little excessive. I wouldn’t want anyone to feel ashamed of serving coffee, except maybe the stuff they serve in hotel conference rooms.
That is definitely grounds to hang your head.
Another sign in Manurewa, outside an Elim Church, suggesting people send their kids to the church’s ‘Genisis School’. Alternatively, I suppose, you could send your kids to a school where they will be taught to spell ‘Genesis’ correctly.
I mean, if you are, as these people are, believers the Bible is all literally true and the fundamental word of God, doesn’t that also mean the spelling is God’s literal words of Truth? And isn’t getting that spelling wrong kind of, well, taking the Lord’s name in Vain? You know, blasphemous?
Other thoughts: some years ago someone worked out that in recessions women’s skirts get longer and in boom times they get shorter.
I don’t know who did this. Some economist I presume. If you were an economist, and you had a choice between working on another study on why the Laffer Curve works/doesn’t work, or what’s the correlation between skirt lengths and economic booms, what do you think your marginal propensity to consume is going to be?
Actually, if you went for the skirt thing you’re probably not an economist: the bulk of them would go for the Laffer Curve job every time.
In fact I understand in some countries this used as a test to choose economists for the forecasting division of their Treasuries.
No, I suspect the skirts thing didn’t come from an economist at all…. I would imagine it being dreamed up by…well, now I think of it, now I examine the whole concept thoroughly, I suspect a journalist with a bit of historical knowledge and a touch of whimsy had a bit to do with it. It just has that ring about it.
Trust me on this one.
Exhibit A, on the short skirt thing, being the 1920s, Exhibit B being the 1960s, I suppose. It’s always seemed a bit of a dubious hypothesis to me: it rather ignores the entire Victorian era, which saw some remarkable economic expansion and the whole Industrial Revolution hit its peak. It made the 1920s and the 1960s booms look like small stuff.
If the rule holds true, Queen Victoria should have been getting around Balmoral in a G string and very little else. And I don’t want to explore that idea any further than I already have done.
Also skirts didn’t stagflate in the 1970s, unless you sort of develop some metaphor with feminism and bra-burning. Which I suppose you could do, if you were a bit strapped for something to occupy yourself with.
How did I get onto this? Only that going by what I saw in Auckland, the recession hasn’t hit there yet.
That’s if the skirt rule holds true.
Which it doesn’t, as I’ve established.
So all this is a bit pointless.