First of all, I would like to apologize to everyone worldwide who has been affected by the current recession.  I am sincerely sorry.  Economists and (most) news reporters know that the economy runs in cycles: peak (or boom), recession, trough (or bust), recovery.   However, as part of the business cycle, the wealth of a nation is measured in real output of goods and materials.  This may sound trite, but believe me, it is important.  Very important. 

So, how did one New York resident cause the American economy to collapse?  No, I didn't vote for the Republicans, run a bank or manufacturing plant into the ground through questionable or ignorant tactics like any good businessperson, and I didn't sell loans from one creditor to another across international systems of unrelated commerce and real estate holdings like some international Ponzi Scheme ( note to any current or prospective business major: never  do any of these.  They are all terrible ideas). 

Well, let me tell you:  I haven't bought shampoo in over a year.  But I can explain.  The bottle of shampoo contained forty (40) ounces of hair-cleansing chemical miracle in a bottle.  That's a lot of shampoo, even though I shower everyday, sometimes twice a day!  And I am losing my hair at a rate that is inverse to the business cycle of output.  Therefore, the state of the economy rests squarely on me. 

This isn't as crazy as it sounds, as I told you in the first paragraph of this article how the economy works.  In a capitalist system, consumer purchases drive the economy.  The idea behind the concept of the Laws of Supply and Demand dictate that producers manufacture a product that the consumer will want.  The continued purchase of this product will make the producers wealthy, and -like anyone in the midst of a good thing- they will keep producing the item until either an improved product comes on the market or the consumers tire of the product.  Since I haven't bought shampoo in over a year, I have negatively impacted the wealth of a major company by not purchasing their product as often, therefore, fewer bottles of shampoo are purchased, which means the company rakes in less money, impacting their investment in future products. 

Which brings me to the issue of the economic cycle versus my hair growth.  Over time, since I'm beginning to lose my hair, I will be even less likely to increase my shampoo purchases.  Looking at the hyperlink provided in the first paragraph, the economic cycle has a positive slope in relation to output over time.  Inversely, my hair growth is in a negative slope in relation over time.  Consequently, my (and other individuals with balding or thinning hair) lack of purchasing power will cause a negative trend in the wealth of that business and may eventually lead to bankruptcy. 

However, I have good news: I am now out of the large forty ounce tub of shampoo!  That means I need to buy a new bottle of shampoo.  Despite the thrift and benefit of having a large bottle of shampoo lasting such a long time, I think I shall now endeavor to buy smaller bottles.  This will increase my consumer spending even though I am losing the hair growth required for shampoo purchases.  Over a short time, this will cause an upward trend in the health of the economy, and before long, we'll be back to the recovery stage! 

Hopefully, this will lead to fewer shootings and incidents of rage related to financial insecurity.  After all, the economy doesn't revolve around mortgages, activities of the banks, and the fluctuations in real estate markets.

Now that is a crazy theory of the way the economy works.  Good thing we don't actually believe this.