I blog as Nick Klaus. I do stand-up as Nick Klaus. I write things and sometimes even introduce myself to people as Nick Klaus.
But I can't use Google Plus as Nick Klaus. That is not allowed. For that, I must use my real name. And that is something which causes me great annoyance.
But let's get to the heart of the matter: why do I use a fake name from time to time? Sometimes it's convenience. My real last name is 12 letters long and is mostly unpronounceable to the uninitiated. If someone has to enter my name into their phone, I'll sometimes toss out Klaus as the last name to save them the trouble. Nick Klaus is a sort of shorthand in that way.
I also use Nick Klaus as a pseudonym because I want there to be a degree of separation from me as a person and me as a public figure. Granted, "public figure" is reeeeeally pushing it at this point but I don't want to have to reverse-engineer it later in life. If I start performing under this pseudonym now, should I ever become famous I'll always have this "real" identity that I can retreat to.
Think of it as Stephen Colbert. On The Colbert Report, he performs a character who satirically pushes a Republican agenda. He says things he doesn't truly mean. But Stephen Colbert is also his real name. The persona is so entrenched that he doesn't want his own children to watch the show because he doesn't want them to be confused about what it is he truly believes.
The idea is this: we all can be different things to different people. Nick Klaus on stage is separate from Nick (real last name) off-stage. There's a lot of overlap, but Nick Klaus is more outgoing and more of a hapless fool than I am in real life. Real me does things that are Nick Klaus-ish from time to time but Nick Klaus stage persona is always in that role. It's not a lie, it's not the Truth, but it's true enough.
Nick Klaus is a pseudonym that means something. It stands for an idea, and a person who in essence exists. But he doesn't exist to Google. And that is what will be Google+'s downfall. What google is saying is that you should only use G+ if you're comfortable with having only 1 identity, an identity which you share varying degrees of. But that's the Stephen Colbert problem. More people see public Colbert than private Colbert. They share a name, but are at odds with each other.
Comic Nick Klaus will tweet/say things that professional with a job Nick (real last name) probably shouldn't, and holds opinions that Interior design-y Nick Klaus thinks should be kept private. Separate blogs, separate fora, separate selves.
Only Nick (real last name) can use G+. And that will be its Achilles heel. I'm one of those people who can keep aspects of my life very separate from other facets. The internet should let me do that too. After all, on the internet nobody knows you're a dog.
Sunday, August 28, 2011
Sunday, August 21, 2011
Herman Cain doubles down
Part one in my Class Warfare 101 series: the funny things about business and taxes.
There are some things generally regarded as good in the business world: jobs, disposable income, and economic progress. So how do we get there? What's the path towards all three of those things?
It's complicated. A ridiculous oversimplification is that there's a vicious cycle between people buying things, leading to a need for more workers, leading to more people getting paid, leading to more people able to buy things.1 It works in reverse too. As joblessness increases and people have to tighten beltstraps and don't spend as much, companies need to reduce their workforce.
Right now we're in one of those negative spirals. There are ways to get out of a down economy, and people with the power to do so (big business and government) have a vested interest in avoiding these recessions because both business and government need a consistent stream of income to function. The government has essentially two options: stimulus funds (which might also be called "throwing a bunch of money at a problem and hoping it goes away") or creating incentives for business to hire more. The latter take the form of tax cuts.
Enter Herman Cain. GOP hopeful, and businessman. In the recent GOP debate, he was asked the following:
"You -- you say that we can boost job creation by eliminating the tax on companies that bring back overseas profits to the U.S. But when we tried a tax break like this in 2004, companies didn't create jobs. They just paid bigger dividends to their shareholders. Why would it work this time?" (Source: LA Times)
Before I get into Mr. Cain's response, this brings up a very valid point. When government gives a tax break to companies, the companies *should* reciprocate by creating new jobs. Obviously, we can't force them to do it. But it is a real problem when you consider that it's not the jobless who are being helped.
Here's Mr. Cain's response:
"It'll work this time for a number of reasons, because I think you're only looking at a small piece of it. Remember, it is a combination of things that I indicated. If you just pick out one thing and try just to do that, no, that is not comprehensive.
When I talked about lowering the top corporate and personal tax rays to 25%, also taking capital gains rates to zero as well as suspending taxes on the repatriated profits. And here's the big one, make them permanent. Uncertainty is what is killing this company."
I'll break here for a bit to show what's going on. The line of reasoning is this:
1. The government gave a break to corporations, to help them make more jobs.
2. Corporations didn't make more jobs.
3. (Cain's response)I hear what you're saying, and I agree that both those things happened.
4. The reason is that corporations didn't make more jobs because there wasn't enough of a tax break given. The government wasn't business friendly enough.
That worries me. I understand that there is a tipping point for real effects to be seen, but the 2004 cuts were not insubstantial. We're talking about huge multi-national corporations here; even modest advantages should translate into job creation on a reasonable scale. I'll let Mr. Cain finish now.
"Now if a company were to decide that they want to take some of that money and pay a bigger dividend, so what, it is their money. The people receiving the dividends might be happy with that. Maybe that is the right thing to do."2
What should have been jobs for people in need was instead given back in money to people well-off enough to own stock. Not everyone has enough money to have a spare $5000, $10000 etc. to invest. In a recent survey, only 24% had more than 6 months salary saved up. That might sound like a lot, but we're talking emergency funds: the money you're only supposed to use when there's an emergency. Half of those surveyed didn't even have 3 months' salary saved up. (I do, but only because my salary is really low. Were I paid $24,000 a year, I'd be in that 50% who can't meet the 3 month's salary threshold)
As though it weren't a scary enough proposition, he wants to make this permanent. Immutable. A perpetual system which hasn't demonstrated it's going to help the people who need to be helped.
A better arrangement might be one where the government pays corporations only after they've created more jobs. The incentive is clear, the government can be held accountable, and everyone leaves happy: the corporations get their tax break equivalents, the unemployed get their jobs, the only loser is the taxpayer, right?
Er, no. This is one of those smart investments. People who need jobs in order to not just subsist, but to thrive will buy things. They'll put money in the bank. They'll consider buying houses, cars, TVs. The money goes back into the system, and makes people self-sufficient. Instead of a continuous stream of unemployment or welfare checks, a one-time investment ends that cycle. If anything, the taxpayer wins.3
Instead of backing a strong solution, Herman Cain is gambling with the economy, hoping that if he goes all in, that he'll be right. And he's playing with your money. The question is, is this a bet you can afford to lose?
1. You may ask, can that vicious cycle go on indefinitely? The answer is a qualified yes. Assuming there are more people to take these jobs, growth is easier. Looking at a world economy, the picture is ridiculously complex and is something I won't even begin to understand, and I won't pretend to be qualified to speak about it. In a hypothetical, sealed-off economy where there is population growth forever, the cycle *can* go on indefinitely. As population steadies, the way to "grow" the economy is in finding ways to keep the cycle flowing. If people keep spending what they earn, there isn't a "shortage" of funds holding the economy back. Left to its own devices, money will congregate in the hands of the people who are most advantaged by the system; this is only really a problem when there's minimal growth, or even negative growth.
2. I'm saying the real meat of his response ends here. The LA Times link shows more of his statement, but it's not anything that changes the tone of his answer
3. It's like this: Some one-time investments pay out over the long term. People who have real jobs that pay a real living wage become contributors, not recipients.
There are some things generally regarded as good in the business world: jobs, disposable income, and economic progress. So how do we get there? What's the path towards all three of those things?
It's complicated. A ridiculous oversimplification is that there's a vicious cycle between people buying things, leading to a need for more workers, leading to more people getting paid, leading to more people able to buy things.1 It works in reverse too. As joblessness increases and people have to tighten beltstraps and don't spend as much, companies need to reduce their workforce.
Right now we're in one of those negative spirals. There are ways to get out of a down economy, and people with the power to do so (big business and government) have a vested interest in avoiding these recessions because both business and government need a consistent stream of income to function. The government has essentially two options: stimulus funds (which might also be called "throwing a bunch of money at a problem and hoping it goes away") or creating incentives for business to hire more. The latter take the form of tax cuts.
Enter Herman Cain. GOP hopeful, and businessman. In the recent GOP debate, he was asked the following:
"You -- you say that we can boost job creation by eliminating the tax on companies that bring back overseas profits to the U.S. But when we tried a tax break like this in 2004, companies didn't create jobs. They just paid bigger dividends to their shareholders. Why would it work this time?" (Source: LA Times)
Before I get into Mr. Cain's response, this brings up a very valid point. When government gives a tax break to companies, the companies *should* reciprocate by creating new jobs. Obviously, we can't force them to do it. But it is a real problem when you consider that it's not the jobless who are being helped.
Here's Mr. Cain's response:
"It'll work this time for a number of reasons, because I think you're only looking at a small piece of it. Remember, it is a combination of things that I indicated. If you just pick out one thing and try just to do that, no, that is not comprehensive.
When I talked about lowering the top corporate and personal tax rays to 25%, also taking capital gains rates to zero as well as suspending taxes on the repatriated profits. And here's the big one, make them permanent. Uncertainty is what is killing this company."
I'll break here for a bit to show what's going on. The line of reasoning is this:
1. The government gave a break to corporations, to help them make more jobs.
2. Corporations didn't make more jobs.
3. (Cain's response)I hear what you're saying, and I agree that both those things happened.
4. The reason is that corporations didn't make more jobs because there wasn't enough of a tax break given. The government wasn't business friendly enough.
That worries me. I understand that there is a tipping point for real effects to be seen, but the 2004 cuts were not insubstantial. We're talking about huge multi-national corporations here; even modest advantages should translate into job creation on a reasonable scale. I'll let Mr. Cain finish now.
"Now if a company were to decide that they want to take some of that money and pay a bigger dividend, so what, it is their money. The people receiving the dividends might be happy with that. Maybe that is the right thing to do."2
What should have been jobs for people in need was instead given back in money to people well-off enough to own stock. Not everyone has enough money to have a spare $5000, $10000 etc. to invest. In a recent survey, only 24% had more than 6 months salary saved up. That might sound like a lot, but we're talking emergency funds: the money you're only supposed to use when there's an emergency. Half of those surveyed didn't even have 3 months' salary saved up. (I do, but only because my salary is really low. Were I paid $24,000 a year, I'd be in that 50% who can't meet the 3 month's salary threshold)
As though it weren't a scary enough proposition, he wants to make this permanent. Immutable. A perpetual system which hasn't demonstrated it's going to help the people who need to be helped.
A better arrangement might be one where the government pays corporations only after they've created more jobs. The incentive is clear, the government can be held accountable, and everyone leaves happy: the corporations get their tax break equivalents, the unemployed get their jobs, the only loser is the taxpayer, right?
Er, no. This is one of those smart investments. People who need jobs in order to not just subsist, but to thrive will buy things. They'll put money in the bank. They'll consider buying houses, cars, TVs. The money goes back into the system, and makes people self-sufficient. Instead of a continuous stream of unemployment or welfare checks, a one-time investment ends that cycle. If anything, the taxpayer wins.3
Instead of backing a strong solution, Herman Cain is gambling with the economy, hoping that if he goes all in, that he'll be right. And he's playing with your money. The question is, is this a bet you can afford to lose?
1. You may ask, can that vicious cycle go on indefinitely? The answer is a qualified yes. Assuming there are more people to take these jobs, growth is easier. Looking at a world economy, the picture is ridiculously complex and is something I won't even begin to understand, and I won't pretend to be qualified to speak about it. In a hypothetical, sealed-off economy where there is population growth forever, the cycle *can* go on indefinitely. As population steadies, the way to "grow" the economy is in finding ways to keep the cycle flowing. If people keep spending what they earn, there isn't a "shortage" of funds holding the economy back. Left to its own devices, money will congregate in the hands of the people who are most advantaged by the system; this is only really a problem when there's minimal growth, or even negative growth.
2. I'm saying the real meat of his response ends here. The LA Times link shows more of his statement, but it's not anything that changes the tone of his answer
3. It's like this: Some one-time investments pay out over the long term. People who have real jobs that pay a real living wage become contributors, not recipients.
Friday, August 19, 2011
Nick Klaus: Live
Two upcoming shows:
Monday August 29, 8PM The Comedy Store, Los Angeles.
Wednesday September 7, 8PM The Comedy Store, Los Angeles.
Both shows are $5. It's highly worth it.
Monday August 29, 8PM The Comedy Store, Los Angeles.
Wednesday September 7, 8PM The Comedy Store, Los Angeles.
Both shows are $5. It's highly worth it.
Tuesday, August 9, 2011
Is The Real Housewives fake?
One of my jobs is to very indirectly work for a Bravo network celebrity. (Or "Bravolebrity". Actual word) As a result, I came across the Bravo Network rulebook for blogging about their shows. One of the rules is interesting.
Stars aren't allowed to say "the show made it seem one way but THIS is what really happened". Ever. You're not allowed to "set the record straight". There's a really good reason for it, too.
Everything in the show has to be presented as real and as how it all went down. Letting stars say that the show didn't show what "actually happened" would undermine all credibility. So obviously, there's a little misdirection on the part of Bravo here.
But I wouldn't call it "fake". Sure, the events in the show are a little bit manufactured. The series finale has to be a little bit of a trainwreck. This means you've got to guarantee a trainwreck will happen. Bravo's not telling people to fake anything, but they are guiding things to a spectacular conclusion. Add in a little creative editing, and a horrific dinner party becomes an epic battle. Just pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.
Nothing is faked, nothing is scripted or planned out but some interactions are... finessed. And THAT's setting the record straight.
Stars aren't allowed to say "the show made it seem one way but THIS is what really happened". Ever. You're not allowed to "set the record straight". There's a really good reason for it, too.
Everything in the show has to be presented as real and as how it all went down. Letting stars say that the show didn't show what "actually happened" would undermine all credibility. So obviously, there's a little misdirection on the part of Bravo here.
But I wouldn't call it "fake". Sure, the events in the show are a little bit manufactured. The series finale has to be a little bit of a trainwreck. This means you've got to guarantee a trainwreck will happen. Bravo's not telling people to fake anything, but they are guiding things to a spectacular conclusion. Add in a little creative editing, and a horrific dinner party becomes an epic battle. Just pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.
Nothing is faked, nothing is scripted or planned out but some interactions are... finessed. And THAT's setting the record straight.
Friday, August 5, 2011
Um... Guys?
From the 'Didn't think this one all the way through' department:
Office Max has a motivational poster featuring a Roman aqueduct and the word Teamwork.
They do realize that that aqueduct was built by a tyrannical leader demanding things from slaves who had no say in the process. But that's also how Apple is run.
Office Max has a motivational poster featuring a Roman aqueduct and the word Teamwork.
They do realize that that aqueduct was built by a tyrannical leader demanding things from slaves who had no say in the process. But that's also how Apple is run.
Wednesday, August 3, 2011
Good reasons to buy expensive clothes
Today, my very first Turnbull and Asser shirt arrived in the mail. A brand new shirt identical to the one I received retails for roughly $220. (135 pounds, if you want to be precise) This is certainly a lot of money. When you consider that I can walk into a target and buy a dress shirt for thirteen dollars and tax, I admit paying more than $200 for a shirt sounds excessive. But it's not always expensive.
There's a few different kinds of expensive. There's "good expensive". Things that cost a fair amount of money and are worth every penny. There's "Not-so-good expensive". Things where you pay a premium for some attribute like exclusivity or style, but where there isn't an equivalent in quality. A lot of expensive shirts fall into this category. They might be better than $20 dollar shirts, but they're not hundreds of dollars in quality better.
Then there's "hidden expensive". You *can* buy a used luxury car for a fraction of what it costs new, but you'll soon discover that the repair bills add up quickly. Heck, I drive a Volkswagen and I've put almost all of what I paid for it, into repairs. And my car doesn't have 12 cylinders or complicated computers to go wrong.
Similarly, you can buy a bunch of cheap things that will last you a little time. You could keep buying 5 dollar umbrellas and use them until they break. Or you could buy one quality umbrella and have it last a lifetime. Probably even longer than a lifetime. And sure, if each umbrella lasts two years, you might come ahead price-wise. But factor in all those little costs about environmental damage. One quality umbrella is going to be a whole lot greener than ten cheap ones.
Blah blah greener, right? Here's a little story to bring up the next point. I used to help out the USC ultimate frisbee team. We would sell frisbees to alumni at football games. I was really good at it. The trick? I asked them to hold the frisbee in their hands. We sold official, 175 gram frisbees. As soon as whomever I was selling the disks to held the frisbee, they could feel the difference. They knew they were getting a quality disk.
Trying this shirt on for the first time, it felt... good. It wasn't just a piece of cotton to put on my body. The sleeves fit my arms. I wasn't drowning in a sea of extra fabric around the hips and waist. Shouldn't the things you use make you feel like a person worthy of having little luxuries? You have to do so many mundane things, shouldn't you try and make them special?
The big confession is that I didn't actually spend $200 for the shirt. I was lucky enough to come across an ebay auction, and I scooped it up for under $50. This is the other side of the coin: Just because a quality shirt costs a lot of money doesn't mean that you have to pay full price
As the philosopher Smokey Robinson once said: my momma told me you better shop around.
There's a few different kinds of expensive. There's "good expensive". Things that cost a fair amount of money and are worth every penny. There's "Not-so-good expensive". Things where you pay a premium for some attribute like exclusivity or style, but where there isn't an equivalent in quality. A lot of expensive shirts fall into this category. They might be better than $20 dollar shirts, but they're not hundreds of dollars in quality better.
Then there's "hidden expensive". You *can* buy a used luxury car for a fraction of what it costs new, but you'll soon discover that the repair bills add up quickly. Heck, I drive a Volkswagen and I've put almost all of what I paid for it, into repairs. And my car doesn't have 12 cylinders or complicated computers to go wrong.
Similarly, you can buy a bunch of cheap things that will last you a little time. You could keep buying 5 dollar umbrellas and use them until they break. Or you could buy one quality umbrella and have it last a lifetime. Probably even longer than a lifetime. And sure, if each umbrella lasts two years, you might come ahead price-wise. But factor in all those little costs about environmental damage. One quality umbrella is going to be a whole lot greener than ten cheap ones.
Blah blah greener, right? Here's a little story to bring up the next point. I used to help out the USC ultimate frisbee team. We would sell frisbees to alumni at football games. I was really good at it. The trick? I asked them to hold the frisbee in their hands. We sold official, 175 gram frisbees. As soon as whomever I was selling the disks to held the frisbee, they could feel the difference. They knew they were getting a quality disk.
Trying this shirt on for the first time, it felt... good. It wasn't just a piece of cotton to put on my body. The sleeves fit my arms. I wasn't drowning in a sea of extra fabric around the hips and waist. Shouldn't the things you use make you feel like a person worthy of having little luxuries? You have to do so many mundane things, shouldn't you try and make them special?
The big confession is that I didn't actually spend $200 for the shirt. I was lucky enough to come across an ebay auction, and I scooped it up for under $50. This is the other side of the coin: Just because a quality shirt costs a lot of money doesn't mean that you have to pay full price
As the philosopher Smokey Robinson once said: my momma told me you better shop around.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
