Sperm Central Bank

Originally Published In:

Fairfield County Weekly (1/08/2009) Link

Anyone trying to understand the financial crisis eventually needs to understand central banking, and that route yields such complicated phrases as "money supply," "systemic risk" and "credit crunch." There is a way to understand central banking that immediately exposes its central themes and sheds light on its many myths, but you have to imagine a world where you no longer choose who you sleep with.

Imagine a world where there are so many venereal diseases spread as men and women pair up, the government instituted a Central Sperm Bank. The idea was simple: Men deposit their sperm, able to take it back whenever they want, and women apply to borrow some, to be repaid from the sperm of the male children they eventually produced.

The government didn't want to do all the dirty business of collection and client management, so they didn't nationalize all sperm banks, but rather instituted a central depository, the Central Sperm Bank. There were neighborhood sperm banks, and competition was encouraged as many new sperm banks sprouted up, some even becoming large and national.

You might think your sperm is special and shouldn't be mixed with that of others, but the Central Sperm Bank would consider that discrimination. The Central Sperm Bank is very progressive — just as the industry of central banking is.

We've accepted the notion that all our dollars should be fungible, that if I deposit mine but get yours back, I can't complain. Your dollar might be one you're unlikely to demand back soon as you're building up some savings, while I might need it in a week to pay my bills.

It's the same idea of the Central Sperm Bank — none of the sperm is special, and all of it is available to everybody.

Women looking to get pregnant no longer had to go on bad dates, sit in bars, dance in clubs or suffer through bad pick-up lines. Men no longer had to buy flowers and chocolates. Before, women had to find men directly, men they trusted, to supply them with sperm, but after the Central Sperm Bank, they could deal with impersonal bankers who would objectively assess their fertility and child-rearing ability. It was the end of the romantic age.

Luckily for the Central Sperm Bank, men who deposited their sperm almost never all asked to get it back at the same time, so the banks could lend it all out.

The system churned merrily along. Sure, from time to time, certain sperm banks failed as women were unable to repay the loan. They didn't get pregnant, or gave birth to a girl or had a boy who grew into an adult who couldn't produce enough sperm to pay back the loan. In some cases, the banks would simply roll the loan over to the next generation, but sometimes they would have to acknowledge the sperm was gone. And because they were lending out far more than they had on hand, it was inevitable that some of the banks would quickly lose more sperm than they had on deposit.

In such cases, central sperm bankers stood at the ready to swell the supply. They were the sperm donors of last resort. A bank that needed some more sperm temporarily called on the virile young central bankers who would promptly supply some much-needed liquidity.

So how could this system collapse? A law could pass deeming existing sperm loans discriminatory. Why should women deemed infertile be unable to borrow? Just because they had very little chance of actually repaying the loan didn't mean they didn't have a right to the American dream. The number of these "subprime" women who actually borrowed was not large, but it was enough to cause large losses to write off, and the Central Sperm Bank realized it had a real problem on its hands.

As before, they tried to inject liquidity hand over fist, but it wasn't enough. There was just too much lost sperm that would never be repaid. They went to the government to try to forcefully collect sperm from the general population to compensate. They thought as long as men were confident they could get their sperm deposits back at any point, they would stop asking for them back. But the losses kept trickling out.

A credit crunch ensued: Fertile women who previously could easily borrow sperm to produce children were as cut off from new loans as infertile women. Men who worried about getting their sperm back started making fewer deposits and even some withdrawals to keep their wealth in their own pants. Pregnancies dwindled and the economy experienced a George Costanza–level of shrinkage.

The Central Sperm Bank was most frightened of a systemic collapse. Could you imagine a world where men and woman had to find each other, rather than being matched up through a central bureaucracy?

What is the system that they were worried would collapse? Not sperm production — men would always produce sperm. Not pregnancies — fertile women with able partners could always a produce children. They were worried their happy little lie of sperm central banking would collapse and men would find women all by themselves. The economy would grow at a slower pace as so much energy and assets would be wasted on wooing and romancing.

Thank goodness we have central banks! They have eliminated that most unnecessary and uneconomic emotion: love.

Oral and anal sex are

Oral and anal sex are illegal in over 30 states.  This discourages some of the most productive means of sperm generation.  Imagine if we encouraged sperm production and investment by cutting the sperm(income and captial gains taxes) to zero. Imagine if there was no socially engineered stigma attached to abundant sperm produtction.

Punny, no?

P.S.  The socialists would handle things differently.  They might invent a pending disaster, like global lightening in which those who don't produce enough sperm were accused of allowing the 'too light' planet earth to rotate iever closer into a disintegrating solar orbit.

I know there's a reason for

I know there's a reason for all those sperm banks to exist but having a Central Sperm Bank? Is sperm the new currency? I don't get it...Ain't it enough that the whole procedure is frowned upon by some people, do they have to nationalize it?

I absolutely love this

I absolutely love this analogy. It totally explains the banking system in the United States. Its a radical idea even, to think that we could survive without banks. Are banks just a convenience that we created that we really don't need? It had never crossed my mind until i read this post. Thanks for expanding my mind!