Third party humor or, do you have decaf?

All right then, listen good 'cause I need to go do the family budget for the week and I have a limited amount of time to spend on this subject. While I prefer to directly inject humour into my postings I will be looking to an external entity for it's input today. I'm not the greatest teacher so it will require a little extra effort from you to make this work. You see, my teaching method is to stand at the end of the forested path yelling, "I'm over here".

Whereas a good teacher will come meet you where you are and show you how they got there. So sue me.
The starting place today will be a statement pertaining to economics that I hope we can agree on. If not, your path to "over here" will be a different one, though still attainable. Providing a product does not result in a purchase. Seems simple enough to me, what do you think? Can we start there together? If I build 2000 gizmos that there is no demand for, my inventory will likely stay at 2000 for quite some time. Meaning, I will not need to buy parts from my vendors to build said gizmos, meaning those vendor businesses will suffer equal to the proportion of their dependence on my need for their parts. This is a very direct relationship. I don't sell gizmos, they don't make parts for me. If I am their only customer, their fate is mine and so on. Further, if there is a demand for gizmos, and there are 10 different manufacturers of these items, then the flow of money to purchase materials, make parts, assemble parts into gizmos, etc. all moves on smoothly and effectively.
Now then. Jim and Jill Fredrickson are planning a gizmo purchase in 6 months when their old gizmo will be completely worn out. At the time of their decision, there are 10 companies making gizmos. 6 months later there are 8. Is it logical to suppose that they will not purchase their new gizmo because there are now only 8 companies making them? If so, then my fiction has no valid point in reality. However, I believe, Jim and Jill will simply buy from one of the 8 companies still in business, don't you? And if there are now 8 companies building gizmos providing for the demand, there will be no fewer jobs in the material supply stage, the parts vendor stage, or the assembly stage for the gizmos to be produced. It's all driven by the demand. Whether there are 10 companies, or 2 companies, the demand is what determines the need for jobs in the companies, not the companies themselves.
So, how can Mr. Obama, claim to have saved all these jobs by bailing out GM and Chrysler? The only real difference would be that people would be buying cars from different companies, requiring these other companies to hire more workers and order more materials and parts from their vendors, who would in turn be required, to hire more workers to supply the companies with what they needed. When the dust cleared, we would be left with more efficient companies and more affordable vehicles, not to mention less debt for us, and our children to be burdened with. My argument is, any jobs that cannot support themselves, that is to say, any empoyee providing a service to their employer, that is not equalled by what that employer can then extract from the value of it's product, is an overpaid employee. Other wise the whole system comes down and the company goes bankrupt. Oh, wait a minute.

Not Sure Where This Is Headed

It's been so long since I entered anything on my blog I felt obligated to stop by. I can only imagine how disappointed the two of you have been. I don't have a strong sense of direction so let me start with something that came to mind yesterday. I had gone outside to wait for my wife to arrive so I could take her to work. She is working 2 part-time jobs in addition to her other family activities. I had her bright chartreuse, (who'd a thought that word starts with a "ch"), Turnpike shirt and some tennis shoes for her to put on while I drove her to the plaza where she was starting her shift. While standing in the front yard I saw a neighbour kid, a little girl, ridding her bike. While she did not speak to me on this occasion, in the past she has called me, "Emma's Grandpa". "Hi, Emma's Grandpa, what are you doing?" For whatever reason I began wondering about addressing my Heavenly Father as Nancy's Heavenly Father, or Tim's Heavenly Father. Of course He is mine too, but thinking in terms of His position as my fellow believer's Heavenly Father lends a sense of community to the reference. (My sister would be proud) I haven't fully explored this paradigm but I kinda like the early stages of considering it.
On a more serious note I was faced with an uncomfortable situation the other day. We were headed to church from Winfield where we had attended a retirement party for my brother-in-law, (never did like him much, lucky stiff), anyway, we passed a sign announcing an auction with some information about when and where presented on the sign. It all seemed so seamless looking back on it, the transition from a fairly mundane event to the genius that was unfolding in my head. Almost instantly the tune and words came rushing into my thoughts, totally unabated. "Come on, let me show you where the auction is, oh, baby come on, let me show you where the action is, baby come on, let me ......,well, you get the idea. So simple, so incredibly funny and yet it took 40 some years of reading signs about auctions with this song waiting in the shadows of my fertile imagination to finally be masterfully combined into this soon to be classical bit of humour.
Gosh, I'm so glad you stopped by. Let me leave you with a stolen joke. I just read this on facebook a few minutes ago. To protect myself from any copyright liabilities let me be unambiguous about the source of the joke. A friend of a friend had posted it so here goes, "It's so hot I saw a bird pulling a worm out of the ground wearing an oven mitt".