Fart Up your tires!!

This posting requires that you picture it as you read. Keep your nose open too. Now imagine you could use your farts to inflate your car tires. Imagine a pipe wired into the seat with an opening on the seat's surface to carry the hot gas inside.

If the gas doesn't exit fast enough or with enough force a small pump can help suck it into the tires.

On the plus side a patent like this eliminates the need to open the window of your car to ventilate the space inside and helps avoid embarrassment if others are in it as well.

The air pressure inside the tires always stays at the right amount which keeps the car in better balance.

And if the idea works well in cars it can be scaled next to buses and planes where the higher and more diverse the supply of gas the better the condition of the tires inside!

Before you get used to picturing this too much, let's see how much humor you can handle.

Say you're going to use this system in the future for your car. That by itself would mean you must have a good sense of humor. So why not display it with some kind of writing on the tires?

As you can see in the photos on the right, I made up four slogans you can put on your tires. Which one do you think better describes what will be happening inside your tires?

Vote Now!
:)

http://www.thinkaloo.com

toilet paper thoughts here

do you ever think of toilet paper? we use it so much it's a necessity. we love to abuse, scratch, stain, scrub and tarnish it, don't we? we molest rile and rag its lovely white color on a rolling basis every single day...if products had rights, toilet paper rights would by definition of use be absolutely shitty and toxic! perhaps if we could reverse the effects of use by coming up with a new kind of toilet paper that comes in crap color and switches to clean white after use. you know, it goes from maculate to immaculate and from molested black to extra virgin white. imagine swiping your... black with it and the paper comes out white instead. that would be The revolution in toilet paper rights!

http://www.thinkaloo.com

The Adam Smith solution to the economy. Sell inside info!

We are told the problem with trading credit derivatives over-the-counter is lack of transparency. Investors don't know how much risk the banks have on their balance sheet.

We read that no one really knows how much of these toxic assets have been bought by banks because they are not disclosed. They are not required to be disclosed because they are not regulated. A different solution to taxpayers footing the bill would be to ask the banks to keep the trades invisible but sell their invisibility to investors. Good information makes money so create a market.

The banks will make this invisible 'inside-info' visible to those investors who are willing to buy it in order to avoid betting their money on the wrong horse and lose more. But by selling the info to investors banks make money which reduces their losses so that other investors get interested in investing in them again.

Just because the logic is simple it doesn't mean it's not ingenius. If you don't think so, ask yourself why is it any more ingenius to have the taxpayer pay and not an investor pay to buy a good asset (a.k.a inside info on the losses).

The invisible hand of the market can recycle money as it knows best by turning the invisibility of risk exposure into a precious asset up for sale.

http://www.thinkaloo.com

Make money creating the crisis. Make money solving it!

Here's the skinny. The guy gives tons of loans to people who can't afford them and sets the stage for the sub-prime crisis. The crisis erupts. He buys the loans back from the government ridiculously cheaper than the government bought them from the banks using taxpayers money. As a result he can afford to lower the interest homeowners pay on those loans and still make a 20% profit from them. Desperate to keep their houses, homeowners will gladly say thank you to him for helping them keep their houses.

And I want to ask a very simple question. Why is the government selling the loans to him? Why can't the government hire Him or other people like him to do the job of lowering the interest rate on those loans itself? Why let Him do the job via PennyMac and let Him keep the 20% profit? Why not have the government do the job and return the 20% profit to taxpayers whose money it used to buy the loans in the first place?

Is our government stupid, incapable or what? Or is the former No2 of Countrywide Financial that brilliant?

I have to say, just by looking at the name of his company PennyMac, he is a brilliant shyster. Penny for thriftiness and Mac for creative! Son-of-a...spiv :((

Check the full story here

http://www.thinkaloo.com

Does starting a new bank make sense?

My reasoning for starting a new bank is that creditworthy customers would rather trust that their money is held with a bank that is 100% free of toxic assets and that it won't go bust. People tell me I must be crazy to want to start a new bank because a) no one trusts banks any more and b) no one has money any more. I don't think b is true and a happens because existing banks have a lot of bad loans/investments in their books. A new bank that has none of it can earn the trust of creditworthy customers. It seems good business to me to want to start a new bank despite the turmoil in global finance.

http://www.thinkaloo.com

Toxic Asset ruminations...

Hmmm, what shall we do with the financial so-called Toxic Assets?

a) bury them?
b) send them to space?
c) re-cycle them?
d) derive them?
e) re-rederive them?

Well!

Ok, a few hints before you make your pick

Choices d and e are sarcastic (as if the phrase Toxic Asset isn't). They were added to bring the number of multiple choices to 5, so it really comes down to a, b and c...

What do we usually do with things toxic when we also happen to view them as assets?

Obviously and despite the trillion dollar bailouts, it seems we can't afford to send them to outer space, otherwise Obama would have put NASA in charge, not Geithner.

Option b gets eliminated. So b as it may, we are left with options a and c. Now we have a real di-lemma!

If something is toxic, is it an asset or waste?

That's a tough one and goes beyond mere semantics. It depends really. If the waste is human or animal, it still is toxic but can safely and productively be recycled. Shit happens all the time, but it's good for you. Human shit goes into the ground and cow farts up the sky where they eventually get aircycled or if they can escape earth's gravity they might economically dissolve their way into outer space (can cow or any farts really escape earth's gravity??)

But seriously now, if the waste Is nuclear we don't recycle it, we insulate it and bury it as deep as we can.

So, where does that leave us in terms of our beautifully aromatic current predicament?

If it's shit, it Is an Asset because it can be Recycled. But if it's Nuclear it definitely Is Non-Recyclable Waste. So, which Is it we are dealing with here?

Before you say they are both shit anyway, ask yourself:

Even if it's shit, how much shit can we really take before it becomes detrimental to our health?

Perhaps until the coroner determines toxicity levels as cause of death, we might be better off calling them shitty assets and stick with the recycling for now.

Or, perhaps the coroners might be the first to go from too much shit in our media, so we might never find out what it was that caused Our going next!

a or c?

Pick your favorite answer but even if it's a, don't stop recycling your toxic assets.

So long as you call them assets, there will always be people willing to take your shit and pass it around!

Our media is so brilliant, isn't it??

Toxic Asset My Ass!

Perhaps, if Bush and Obama had named it TAMA instead of TARP, we might have smelled the humor and seen better results...

Perhaps!

www.thinkaloo.com