From the Wall St. Journal.
"What's prompting the shift to shorter loans? Historically low interest rates for fixed-rate mortgages.
Homeowners are doing the math and realizing that rates have fallen enough so the increase in payment between a new 15-year mortgage and their current loan is no longer unbearable for their budgets, says Bob Walters, chief economist at online lender Quicken Loans."
...
"The financial situation of those capable of refinancing today is a factor in the shift, Mr. Walters says. These people typically are homeowners with the best credit and the most equity -- and, therefore, most suited for a shorter-term loan."
...
"A 15-year mortgage also acts as somewhat of a forced savings account for homeowners, says Leif Thomsen, chief executive of Mortgage Master, a privately owned lender, given that the higher payments help a borrower pay down the principal at a quicker clip."
...
"Borrowers...who are worried about future loss of income, might be better served taking a longer-term mortgage but making extra payments on the principal to pay off the loan faster, says Mr. Walters.
For instance, if you refinance a $200,000 mortgage into a 30-year loan with a 4.5% rate, and then apply $100 of the savings to the principal payment each month, you'd save $31,700 in interest over the life of the loan, Ms. Cutts says. And you would pay off the mortgage in 25 years, instead of 30, she adds."
Take a good long look at your amortization schedule (available at your bank if you didn't receive one at closing)--you'll notice the principal part of the mortgage payment is cheap compared to the interest each month. Using the Charles Givens mortgage snowball method (p. 121), you could make your own 15-year mortgage with less pain and suffering. It's faster and cheaper than a biweekly mortgage or a 15-year mortgage, and you can elect to skip months if money is tight.
To speed up the payment process, you may also elect to pay more than one of the advance principal payments, since they are so cheap at the beginning of the mortgage--as long as the bank receives them by the end of the month.
By paying your CURRENT mortgage payment, PLUS the next two months' worth of principal EACH MONTH, you turn a 30-year mortgage into a 10-year one without all the hassle, fees, and closing costs of a refi NO MATTER WHAT YOUR INTEREST RATE IS. Lower rates from the start would be beneficial, I admit, but we can't all have a perfect world.
Now if we all could get an amortization schedule for our CREDIT CARDS...
Monday, August 30, 2010
Saturday, August 28, 2010
Is the Hospital-in-a-Box the Way to Better Health Care?
From Fox Business News.
"Jon Weiner's hospitals are a far cry from what you might be used to. There are no lengthy admissions forms to fill in. And the service you get might remind you of a five-star hotel. The cost? No more than any other hospital. The catch? They are all overseas."
...
"Our first hospital in the UK has the highest patient satisfaction rates of any hospital in England," said Weiner, whose company operates five specialty hospitals in the UK, one in Cyprus as a partnership with the American Heart Institute and last January opened the doors on a new $100-million facility in Botswana, Africa.
"Given how we are operated we can basically become much more profitable than local providers because in fact we're significantly more efficient."
Just by being fully digital, he was able to save himself the cost of 100 employees, and has also managed through other means to speed up surgeries, and the number of surgeries performed each day.
I imagine the HCR law will be bringing this to our shores soon.
"Jon Weiner's hospitals are a far cry from what you might be used to. There are no lengthy admissions forms to fill in. And the service you get might remind you of a five-star hotel. The cost? No more than any other hospital. The catch? They are all overseas."
...
"Our first hospital in the UK has the highest patient satisfaction rates of any hospital in England," said Weiner, whose company operates five specialty hospitals in the UK, one in Cyprus as a partnership with the American Heart Institute and last January opened the doors on a new $100-million facility in Botswana, Africa.
"Given how we are operated we can basically become much more profitable than local providers because in fact we're significantly more efficient."
Just by being fully digital, he was able to save himself the cost of 100 employees, and has also managed through other means to speed up surgeries, and the number of surgeries performed each day.
I imagine the HCR law will be bringing this to our shores soon.
Friday, August 27, 2010
The Evolution of Home Economics Programs
From the L.A. Times. I know what happened to MINE--it got hijacked by the microwave, and that's all she wrote.
"...home ec has not disappeared, it's changed, evolving into classes focusing on child development, nutrition, family health, food service and hospitality. It hasn't been lost as much as translated. In 1994, the name of the course in most of the country was officially changed from Home Economics to Family and Consumer Sciences, or FCS, in an effort to dispel the impression that home ec was about teaching girls how to be housewives."
...
"In fact, in California, home ec is still called home ec; it's the only state in the nation that has kept the name. But whereas in the '60s and '70s, classes were composed entirely of girls and the curriculum focused on traditional homemaking, today they've evolved, says Patricia Scott, home economics teacher expert for the Los Angeles Unified School District, herself a longtime home ec teacher. "The name is still home economics; it's still around. But they're not the traditional programs; they're more specialized."
...
"...although today's flexible curriculum results in some remarkable success stories, it can also mean that basic cooking skills can get lost, translated into after-school specials, trade classes or boutique electives if they're not ignored altogether. And if home ec is ignored or replaced by more academic classes, then learning how to cook, something that was once routinely taught at home, is now often not taught at all."
...
"Making home ec compulsory is one thing that Alice Lichtenstein, a nutrition scientist at Tufts University and the co-author of a May commentary in the Journal of the American Medical Assn. titled "Bring Back Home Economics Education," emphasized in a recent telephone conversation.
Lichtenstein cites the alarming rise in pediatric obesity and the poor diets of American adolescents, including an over-reliance on packaged and fast food, as major issues of concern.
"I'm just talking about basic cooking skills," Lichtenstein says. "The only way to really ensure that more kids get this type of instruction is to have it mandatory."
My mother used to say that Christianity begins in the home (right before she slammed the door in a bible-thumper's face), and I believe economics also begins in the home--isn't that the pure essence of frugality? The microwave brought us nothing but dependency on several things all at the same time:
1. electricity
2. pre-prepared microwaveable foods
3. microwaveable dishes/cookware/bake ware
4. push-button technology
5. instant (or near-instant) meal gratification
Now we're paying for it as a society with increased morbidity, increased chronic illnesses, increased health care costs, increased food costs for unprocessed foods, and increased energy costs with more electricity usage as we zap our food into being in a minute or less.
I'm with Alice Lichtenstein on this one--here's part of what I wrote previously about hunger and the microwave:
If it wasn't for the microwave, people today would starve to death--they would choose microwaving despite an analysis of what that microwaving actually costs them in terms of energy use, food cost, and the costs associated with making the money to afford such luxury.
"...home ec has not disappeared, it's changed, evolving into classes focusing on child development, nutrition, family health, food service and hospitality. It hasn't been lost as much as translated. In 1994, the name of the course in most of the country was officially changed from Home Economics to Family and Consumer Sciences, or FCS, in an effort to dispel the impression that home ec was about teaching girls how to be housewives."
...
"In fact, in California, home ec is still called home ec; it's the only state in the nation that has kept the name. But whereas in the '60s and '70s, classes were composed entirely of girls and the curriculum focused on traditional homemaking, today they've evolved, says Patricia Scott, home economics teacher expert for the Los Angeles Unified School District, herself a longtime home ec teacher. "The name is still home economics; it's still around. But they're not the traditional programs; they're more specialized."
...
"...although today's flexible curriculum results in some remarkable success stories, it can also mean that basic cooking skills can get lost, translated into after-school specials, trade classes or boutique electives if they're not ignored altogether. And if home ec is ignored or replaced by more academic classes, then learning how to cook, something that was once routinely taught at home, is now often not taught at all."
...
"Making home ec compulsory is one thing that Alice Lichtenstein, a nutrition scientist at Tufts University and the co-author of a May commentary in the Journal of the American Medical Assn. titled "Bring Back Home Economics Education," emphasized in a recent telephone conversation.
Lichtenstein cites the alarming rise in pediatric obesity and the poor diets of American adolescents, including an over-reliance on packaged and fast food, as major issues of concern.
"I'm just talking about basic cooking skills," Lichtenstein says. "The only way to really ensure that more kids get this type of instruction is to have it mandatory."
My mother used to say that Christianity begins in the home (right before she slammed the door in a bible-thumper's face), and I believe economics also begins in the home--isn't that the pure essence of frugality? The microwave brought us nothing but dependency on several things all at the same time:
1. electricity
2. pre-prepared microwaveable foods
3. microwaveable dishes/cookware/bake ware
4. push-button technology
5. instant (or near-instant) meal gratification
Now we're paying for it as a society with increased morbidity, increased chronic illnesses, increased health care costs, increased food costs for unprocessed foods, and increased energy costs with more electricity usage as we zap our food into being in a minute or less.
I'm with Alice Lichtenstein on this one--here's part of what I wrote previously about hunger and the microwave:
"If you were to give a poor person today 2 cups of flour, ½ cup of sugar, an egg, 1 t. baking soda, and some milk, they wouldn’t know what to do with it. This, by the way, is a recipe for basic pancakes—it cannot be casually tossed into the microwave in any but the finished form."
...
"At least two generations (possibly more) have grown up without public school access to Home Ec classes—and with mothers marching off to work, leaving kids at home to fend for themselves, the microwave has replaced the mother as the main source of nourishment. As we well know, food engineered for the microwave leaves a LOT to be desired when it comes to good nutrition, and it doesn’t help matters when bad shopping skills, a lack of nutritional knowledge, and a lack of preparation skills are thrown in."
If it wasn't for the microwave, people today would starve to death--they would choose microwaving despite an analysis of what that microwaving actually costs them in terms of energy use, food cost, and the costs associated with making the money to afford such luxury.
Thursday, August 26, 2010
The Latest Real Estate Ripoff--The "Flip Tax"
From CNN Money.
"Many condo and townhouse dwellers are already familiar with the "flip tax," more formally known as a resale fee. Typically calculated as a percentage of the sale price, it's a fee due to the condo association or community when an owner sells. These charges fund common-area maintenance or provide a boost to reserve funds, which benefits the association's homeowners.
But in some new developments, homebuilders are including in contracts a 1% fee to be paid to them every time the house is sold -- for 99 years. And the money doesn't go for improvements or upkeep: It's just money in the builders' pockets."
...
"Freehold Capital Partners, the New York-based financial company that is developing the program, claims it has already signed up thousands of developers nationwide, representing hundreds of billions of dollars of development.
The company's plan is to monetize that future income -- essentially allowing developers to get paid now rather than later. To do that, Freehold would bundle together the estimated income from the future fees and sell that package to investors. It claims this new "asset" would be worth about 5% of the original home prices."
...
"One company that is working with Freehold is Thieman Enterprises, a developer based in Ohio. "I think it's a fantastic program," said owner Ted Thieman. "I can get my development going again."
He said he needs the upfront cash to fund the building of infrastructure -- roads, sewers and other essentials. Working with Freehold to sell the fee package on to investors would potentially give him enough cash to get projects going and land construction loans more easily."
If there was ever a good reason to avoid condos, co-ops, townhouses, new construction, or homes in HOAs, this is it. Developers act like this is a royalty fee or something!
"Many condo and townhouse dwellers are already familiar with the "flip tax," more formally known as a resale fee. Typically calculated as a percentage of the sale price, it's a fee due to the condo association or community when an owner sells. These charges fund common-area maintenance or provide a boost to reserve funds, which benefits the association's homeowners.
But in some new developments, homebuilders are including in contracts a 1% fee to be paid to them every time the house is sold -- for 99 years. And the money doesn't go for improvements or upkeep: It's just money in the builders' pockets."
...
"Freehold Capital Partners, the New York-based financial company that is developing the program, claims it has already signed up thousands of developers nationwide, representing hundreds of billions of dollars of development.
The company's plan is to monetize that future income -- essentially allowing developers to get paid now rather than later. To do that, Freehold would bundle together the estimated income from the future fees and sell that package to investors. It claims this new "asset" would be worth about 5% of the original home prices."
...
"One company that is working with Freehold is Thieman Enterprises, a developer based in Ohio. "I think it's a fantastic program," said owner Ted Thieman. "I can get my development going again."
He said he needs the upfront cash to fund the building of infrastructure -- roads, sewers and other essentials. Working with Freehold to sell the fee package on to investors would potentially give him enough cash to get projects going and land construction loans more easily."
If there was ever a good reason to avoid condos, co-ops, townhouses, new construction, or homes in HOAs, this is it. Developers act like this is a royalty fee or something!
A New Day, A New Tax Avoidance Tip
I left off yesterday with a warning that Obama and his minions are coming for your retirement money, and how to avoid it:
There is another way to avoid being taxed on that money: DON'T MAKE IT IN THE FIRST PLACE! Take payment in things other than salary/wages, like additional benefits, a benefits upgrade, buying/upgrading health insurance, comp time, a shortened work week, additional vacation or sick leave time, or any other way you can be "paid" without actually receiving cash. Benefits aren't taxable to you, so if you can amass the same $$ amount in benefits as you formerly spent on your 401k/IRA account before it became taxable, it should all come out even (I hope).
Here's a previously-written article from the archives about working for perks and benefits--it might give you some ideas.
"Plan avoidance tip: if it should come to fruition, plan on shutting down your 401k, shift the money into a self-directed IRA account, then you can access the money to buy cheap real estate (but not to live in). Rental income from those investments will go directly back into your IRA account, as will the proceeds when you finally sell. When you eventually DO retire, or become 59 1/2, you can take a house as an IRA distribution. Sell a house every two years, with the proceeds coming in under $250,000, and the home sale is tax-free.
If you were to do this now, you will profit immensely when the real estate market comes back--perhaps more than if you stayed in the stock market, and DEFINITELY if you chose the government bonds plan. Since this new account is self-directed, you don't have to just buy houses--you can put some back in the stock market, buy precious metals, ETFs, foreign currencies, foreign bonds, and/or foreign real estate. You can even finance a business with one, as long as you don't participate in it directly.
...
You can also put money back into your account after distribution under certain circumstances. If Congress made the law, Congress was sure to leave a back door to somehow avoid complying with it.
What to do about the existing employer 401k plan offering, and its tax shelter status? Nothing--according to the proposed legislation, the 401k and IRA plans will now be taxable, so you may as well shuttle off your after-tax contributions to your self-directed IRA by means of an automatic deduction, or by simply sending them a check for the monthly equivalent amount that was going to the 401k or IRA plan. Do anything but keep your money under the employer's wing, where the IRS can get its mitts on it."
There is another way to avoid being taxed on that money: DON'T MAKE IT IN THE FIRST PLACE! Take payment in things other than salary/wages, like additional benefits, a benefits upgrade, buying/upgrading health insurance, comp time, a shortened work week, additional vacation or sick leave time, or any other way you can be "paid" without actually receiving cash. Benefits aren't taxable to you, so if you can amass the same $$ amount in benefits as you formerly spent on your 401k/IRA account before it became taxable, it should all come out even (I hope).
Here's a previously-written article from the archives about working for perks and benefits--it might give you some ideas.
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
The Dem's Evil Plans For Your Money--Second Call
From Fox Business News (video). Scroll down on the home page until you see the video screen. Click on GOVERNMENT PLANS FOR YOUR 401K, mute the speakers through the first 20 seconds or so of the video for the commercials, then turn up the volume.
I wrote about this stuff before--back in November of 2008. Now we're hearing it again, so this makes the second warning call.
The evil plans:
Instead of a $20.5k tax increase, it would be more like a $21.5k increase: $16.5 for 401k's and $5k for IRAs (using 2010 figures).
The government wants to use your 401k money to buy bonds to lower the debt by automatically enrolling you in the new Universal Retirement program and investing all your money in government bonds--both old and new money. We knew we were going to have to pay down this debt, but THIS way? Where's the spending slowdown? They think they've found a vast new sea of money to spend, and that it's never going to run out.
John Kerrey is introducing legislation into Congress that promotes this activity--hopefully, it won't get anywhere until November, and he and/or others who back this stupid thing will be voted out.
Plan avoidance tip: if it should come to fruition, plan on shutting down your 401k, shift the money into a self-directed IRA account, then you can access the money to buy cheap real estate (but not to live in). Rental income from those investments will go directly back into your IRA account, as will the proceeds when you finally sell. When you eventually DO retire, or become 59 1/2, you can take a house as an IRA distribution. Sell a house every two years, with the proceeds coming in under $250,000, and the home sale is tax-free.
If you were to do this now, you will profit immensely when the real estate market comes back--perhaps more than if you stayed in the stock market, and DEFINITELY if you chose the government bonds plan. Since this new account is self-directed, you don't have to just buy houses--you can put some back in the stock market, buy precious metals, ETFs, foreign currencies, foreign bonds, and/or foreign real estate. You can even finance a business with one, as long as you don't participate in it directly.
Self-directed IRA FAQ
You can also put money back into your account after distribution under certain circumstances. If Congress made the law, Congress was sure to leave a back door to somehow avoid complying with it.
What to do about the existing employer 401k plan offering, and its tax shelter status? Nothing--according to the proposed legislation, the 401k and IRA plans will now be taxable, so you may as well shuttle off your after-tax contributions to your self-directed IRA by means of an automatic deduction, or by simply sending them a check for the monthly equivalent amount that was going to the 401k or IRA plan. Do anything but keep your money under the employer's wing, where the IRS can get its mitts on it.
There will be more on this subject as I gather information. I myself am deeply interested in this--my own retirement's at stake here.
I wrote about this stuff before--back in November of 2008. Now we're hearing it again, so this makes the second warning call.
The evil plans:
"Basically, Congress is hearing proposals to end tax-deferred retirement savings accounts as we know them, and substituting a government-run Social Security-like account in their place. Apparently they don't think we can invest our own money well enough, and they need our money under their control to use as collateral for more borrowing."
...
"This is going to be one hell of a tax increase for ALL of us--at least $20.5k in added individual income when shelters are done away with ($15.5k for 401k's and $5k for IRA plans). Gosh--I wonder what Congress itself is going to do...oh, wait--they have pensions!
Another thought: you can legally make a withdrawal from retirement accounts to buy your first home--perhaps we can withdraw all of it, and start buying homes in cash with our retirement money. We can all live in huge mansions just to protect our money just like the rich."
Instead of a $20.5k tax increase, it would be more like a $21.5k increase: $16.5 for 401k's and $5k for IRAs (using 2010 figures).
The government wants to use your 401k money to buy bonds to lower the debt by automatically enrolling you in the new Universal Retirement program and investing all your money in government bonds--both old and new money. We knew we were going to have to pay down this debt, but THIS way? Where's the spending slowdown? They think they've found a vast new sea of money to spend, and that it's never going to run out.
John Kerrey is introducing legislation into Congress that promotes this activity--hopefully, it won't get anywhere until November, and he and/or others who back this stupid thing will be voted out.
Plan avoidance tip: if it should come to fruition, plan on shutting down your 401k, shift the money into a self-directed IRA account, then you can access the money to buy cheap real estate (but not to live in). Rental income from those investments will go directly back into your IRA account, as will the proceeds when you finally sell. When you eventually DO retire, or become 59 1/2, you can take a house as an IRA distribution. Sell a house every two years, with the proceeds coming in under $250,000, and the home sale is tax-free.
If you were to do this now, you will profit immensely when the real estate market comes back--perhaps more than if you stayed in the stock market, and DEFINITELY if you chose the government bonds plan. Since this new account is self-directed, you don't have to just buy houses--you can put some back in the stock market, buy precious metals, ETFs, foreign currencies, foreign bonds, and/or foreign real estate. You can even finance a business with one, as long as you don't participate in it directly.
Self-directed IRA FAQ
You can also put money back into your account after distribution under certain circumstances. If Congress made the law, Congress was sure to leave a back door to somehow avoid complying with it.
What to do about the existing employer 401k plan offering, and its tax shelter status? Nothing--according to the proposed legislation, the 401k and IRA plans will now be taxable, so you may as well shuttle off your after-tax contributions to your self-directed IRA by means of an automatic deduction, or by simply sending them a check for the monthly equivalent amount that was going to the 401k or IRA plan. Do anything but keep your money under the employer's wing, where the IRS can get its mitts on it.
There will be more on this subject as I gather information. I myself am deeply interested in this--my own retirement's at stake here.
Monday, August 23, 2010
Shrinking the Federal Deficit with a Flip of a Coin
From Fox Business News.
"Federal Deficit in the Flip of a Coin Last week the CBO estimated the nation’s deficit would hit 1.34 trillion this year.
It’s a hard number to swallow, but what if you could help shrink it without your tax rate or cost of living being affected? Switch to one-dollar coins instead of bills.
Our neighbors to the north are already doing this, and an eclectic group of domestic organizations already support the idea including, Treasury, the National Bulk Vendors Association, and Citizens Against Public Waste.
The argument for coins is simple: they last longer than paper money, a lot longer."
Does anybody remember the Susan B. Anthony dollar coin and how well THAT worked out? Being roughly the same size and weight of a current quarter, people were mistakenly using them in vending machines, or in place of quarters for change. To bring this back now, especially when the rest of our money's been covered with various 50-state designs, would be a nightmare--first, you couldn't tell it from the quarter, and now you REALLY couldn't tell the difference just by the (different?) design.
They'd have to make it two-tone and/or really big to set it apart from the other coins, and that would defeat the purpose of saving money by making money. This is about as foolish as doing away with the penny.
"Federal Deficit in the Flip of a Coin Last week the CBO estimated the nation’s deficit would hit 1.34 trillion this year.
It’s a hard number to swallow, but what if you could help shrink it without your tax rate or cost of living being affected? Switch to one-dollar coins instead of bills.
Our neighbors to the north are already doing this, and an eclectic group of domestic organizations already support the idea including, Treasury, the National Bulk Vendors Association, and Citizens Against Public Waste.
The argument for coins is simple: they last longer than paper money, a lot longer."
Does anybody remember the Susan B. Anthony dollar coin and how well THAT worked out? Being roughly the same size and weight of a current quarter, people were mistakenly using them in vending machines, or in place of quarters for change. To bring this back now, especially when the rest of our money's been covered with various 50-state designs, would be a nightmare--first, you couldn't tell it from the quarter, and now you REALLY couldn't tell the difference just by the (different?) design.
They'd have to make it two-tone and/or really big to set it apart from the other coins, and that would defeat the purpose of saving money by making money. This is about as foolish as doing away with the penny.
8 Bold New Forecasts for 2010
From Martin Weiss Research. Basically, we're sliding back down the rabbit hole, and last year's horrors will replay themselves--the old BRIC portfolio plays are coming back.
The forecasts:
1. The Obama administration and Congress will be paralyzed, unable to pass another big stimulus package, and unable to prevent a double-dip recession.
This would actually be a GOOD thing, because it means government has to step back from massive deficit spending, and business now has to step up...this spells R-E-C-O-V-E-R-Y.
2. The entire burden of fighting recession and financing deficits will fall on central banks. Therefore, Bernanke and his counterparts in Europe will launch a second, even bigger round of money printing.
The GOOD part of this? Interest rates will be kept low for the foreseeable future. The BAD part? Devalued dollars--worse than we already have. However, this is good for trade, because foreign countries can no buy our crap at even bigger discounts than before...if we ever make things again.
3. The sovereign debt crisis will soon return with a vengeance — first in Eastern Europe, then in the U.S. and the U.K.
In other words, our bonds will be worthless as their interest rates climb higher and higher to offset the much-increased risk in owning them. No matter what the tempting offer, STAY AWAY FROM BONDS!!
4. The government debt burden in the United States will soon be worse than the debt burden in Greece! Ultimately, the debt burden in the U.S. will reach 400% of GDP, more than triple the debt burden of Greece today.
Couple this with super-devalued dollars and a government that's out of bullets to shoot into this economy, and yep, we're headed into a depression that will make the last one seem tame by comparison. Yep, we're definitely looking at higher taxes for ALL income brackets, so top off your pantries now for at least a two-year period. We may also be looking at layoffs at the top levels--federal government--so whatever debt and money arrangements you need to make, do it now while the banks are still open. Public services are likely to get cut, so you may have seen your last unemployment extension, as well as some unemployment workers. Undoubtedly, there will be cuts in food stamp/welfare/SSI, Medicaid/Medicare, and other social safety net programs, and the people who work in them.
Corporations and businesses have been hoarding cash, and they should step in at this time. They won't throw ALL their lot in at once, but will trickle in over the next decade while new incoming Congress-critters will be elected to clean up this mess and put us back on a decent fiscal course--first on that docket will be repealing Health Care Reform.
5. Starting right now and continuing for years, the growth in China will to be at least four times greater than that of the U.S. and Western Europe.
They have the cash to sustain it. Still, I wouldn't invest there--the politics are too unstable, and the growth won't last forever.
6. Over the next 12 months, investors in Indonesia will make even more money than investors in China.
In other words, there's something better than China, and with friendlier governments, too.
7. While Asia outperforms the U.S. and Europe, Brazil and Chile will outperform most of Asia!
I'd bet more on Chile than Brazil--we know from past articles that Brazil's population is just as crazy about over-spending as we are. Besides, Brazil has a dictator, while Chile has an elected president.
8. Some of the greatest fortunes in the world will be made in international ETFs!
Okay--this is where I get off the train. The original article recommends specific ETFs, but I want you to do your homework and find YOUR OWN investments. Beware that ETFs cannot be placed in an IRA account, but CAN be placed in a Roth account, and may not be as tax-friendly to you if bought outside Roth accounts.
The forecasts:
1. The Obama administration and Congress will be paralyzed, unable to pass another big stimulus package, and unable to prevent a double-dip recession.
This would actually be a GOOD thing, because it means government has to step back from massive deficit spending, and business now has to step up...this spells R-E-C-O-V-E-R-Y.
2. The entire burden of fighting recession and financing deficits will fall on central banks. Therefore, Bernanke and his counterparts in Europe will launch a second, even bigger round of money printing.
The GOOD part of this? Interest rates will be kept low for the foreseeable future. The BAD part? Devalued dollars--worse than we already have. However, this is good for trade, because foreign countries can no buy our crap at even bigger discounts than before...if we ever make things again.
3. The sovereign debt crisis will soon return with a vengeance — first in Eastern Europe, then in the U.S. and the U.K.
In other words, our bonds will be worthless as their interest rates climb higher and higher to offset the much-increased risk in owning them. No matter what the tempting offer, STAY AWAY FROM BONDS!!
4. The government debt burden in the United States will soon be worse than the debt burden in Greece! Ultimately, the debt burden in the U.S. will reach 400% of GDP, more than triple the debt burden of Greece today.
Couple this with super-devalued dollars and a government that's out of bullets to shoot into this economy, and yep, we're headed into a depression that will make the last one seem tame by comparison. Yep, we're definitely looking at higher taxes for ALL income brackets, so top off your pantries now for at least a two-year period. We may also be looking at layoffs at the top levels--federal government--so whatever debt and money arrangements you need to make, do it now while the banks are still open. Public services are likely to get cut, so you may have seen your last unemployment extension, as well as some unemployment workers. Undoubtedly, there will be cuts in food stamp/welfare/SSI, Medicaid/Medicare, and other social safety net programs, and the people who work in them.
Corporations and businesses have been hoarding cash, and they should step in at this time. They won't throw ALL their lot in at once, but will trickle in over the next decade while new incoming Congress-critters will be elected to clean up this mess and put us back on a decent fiscal course--first on that docket will be repealing Health Care Reform.
5. Starting right now and continuing for years, the growth in China will to be at least four times greater than that of the U.S. and Western Europe.
They have the cash to sustain it. Still, I wouldn't invest there--the politics are too unstable, and the growth won't last forever.
6. Over the next 12 months, investors in Indonesia will make even more money than investors in China.
In other words, there's something better than China, and with friendlier governments, too.
7. While Asia outperforms the U.S. and Europe, Brazil and Chile will outperform most of Asia!
I'd bet more on Chile than Brazil--we know from past articles that Brazil's population is just as crazy about over-spending as we are. Besides, Brazil has a dictator, while Chile has an elected president.
8. Some of the greatest fortunes in the world will be made in international ETFs!
Okay--this is where I get off the train. The original article recommends specific ETFs, but I want you to do your homework and find YOUR OWN investments. Beware that ETFs cannot be placed in an IRA account, but CAN be placed in a Roth account, and may not be as tax-friendly to you if bought outside Roth accounts.
Sunday, August 22, 2010
How I (Almost) Saved the Earth
From the Wall St. Journal. A particularly funny Dilbert-ish article about the follies of going green. One lesson: you can't get there from here.
"My point is that being green is hard. My wife and I recently built what is arguably the greenest home for miles around. OK, stop. This is a good time to define "green."
The greenest home is the one you don't build. If you really want to save the Earth, move in with another family and share a house that's already built. Better yet, live in the forest and eat whatever the squirrels don't want. Don't brag to me about riding your bicycle to work; a lot of energy went into building that bicycle. Stop being a hypocrite like me.
I prefer a more pragmatic definition of green. I think of it as living the life you want, with as much Earth-wise efficiency as your time and budget reasonably allow."
...
"...there is no way to model the entire home's energy efficiency before it is built. It's as much guessing as engineering. Every home is unique. You can't be sure if, let's say, a whole house fan in the attic is worth the extra expense, assuming you do everything else right. We opted for the fan, which is designed to efficiently draw in the cool evening air. In practice, we don't use it because it makes a hum that I barely notice but my wife doesn't want to hear. I did not see that coming."
To sum up, you only need to worry about the things you can control: roof materials, window location, amount of insulation, type of grass in the yard (if that's an issue--St. Augustine never needs watering, because it draws moisture from the air), and a properly-sized HVAC unit (call an expert for this one). Appliances didn't even enter into this story, but that's another area you can control.
"My point is that being green is hard. My wife and I recently built what is arguably the greenest home for miles around. OK, stop. This is a good time to define "green."
The greenest home is the one you don't build. If you really want to save the Earth, move in with another family and share a house that's already built. Better yet, live in the forest and eat whatever the squirrels don't want. Don't brag to me about riding your bicycle to work; a lot of energy went into building that bicycle. Stop being a hypocrite like me.
I prefer a more pragmatic definition of green. I think of it as living the life you want, with as much Earth-wise efficiency as your time and budget reasonably allow."
...
"...there is no way to model the entire home's energy efficiency before it is built. It's as much guessing as engineering. Every home is unique. You can't be sure if, let's say, a whole house fan in the attic is worth the extra expense, assuming you do everything else right. We opted for the fan, which is designed to efficiently draw in the cool evening air. In practice, we don't use it because it makes a hum that I barely notice but my wife doesn't want to hear. I did not see that coming."
To sum up, you only need to worry about the things you can control: roof materials, window location, amount of insulation, type of grass in the yard (if that's an issue--St. Augustine never needs watering, because it draws moisture from the air), and a properly-sized HVAC unit (call an expert for this one). Appliances didn't even enter into this story, but that's another area you can control.
U.N. Board Could Rein In $2.7 Billion Carbon Market
From Yahoo Science. It seems the inevitable happened--someone figured out how to game the system.
"...the executive board of the U.N.'s Clean Development Mechanism said that five chemical plants in China would no longer qualify for funding as so-called carbon offset credits until the environmentalists' claims can be further investigated."
...
"...environmentalists say rich nations could be wasting billions of dollars on what some are calling "perverse financial incentives," because some of the largest projects funded by the U.N.-managed CDM are a golden goose for chemical makers without making meaningful cuts in emissions."
...
"The chemical makers are paid as much as $100,000 or more for every ton they destroy of a potent greenhouse gas, HFC-23. The price for destroying it is based on its being 11,700 times more powerful as a climate-warming gas than carbon dioxide.
But that gas is a byproduct of an ozone-friendly refrigerant, HCFC-22, which those chemical makers also are paid to produce under the U.N.'s ozone treaty. Environmentalists say there is so much money in getting rid of HFC-23 that the chemical makers are overproducing HCFC-22 to have more of the byproduct to destroy.
"The evidence is overwhelming that manufacturers are creating excess HFC-23 simply to destroy it and earn carbon credits," said Mark Roberts of the Environmental Investigation Agency, a research and advocacy group. "This is the biggest environmental scandal in history and makes an absolute mockery of international efforts to combat climate change."
It sounds like the U.S. farmers who are getting paid by our government NOT to grow anything, as well as farmers who get paid by the government to grow only specific crops. Wherever there's a regulation of some sort, there's a way around it--give it time.
"...the executive board of the U.N.'s Clean Development Mechanism said that five chemical plants in China would no longer qualify for funding as so-called carbon offset credits until the environmentalists' claims can be further investigated."
...
"...environmentalists say rich nations could be wasting billions of dollars on what some are calling "perverse financial incentives," because some of the largest projects funded by the U.N.-managed CDM are a golden goose for chemical makers without making meaningful cuts in emissions."
...
"The chemical makers are paid as much as $100,000 or more for every ton they destroy of a potent greenhouse gas, HFC-23. The price for destroying it is based on its being 11,700 times more powerful as a climate-warming gas than carbon dioxide.
But that gas is a byproduct of an ozone-friendly refrigerant, HCFC-22, which those chemical makers also are paid to produce under the U.N.'s ozone treaty. Environmentalists say there is so much money in getting rid of HFC-23 that the chemical makers are overproducing HCFC-22 to have more of the byproduct to destroy.
"The evidence is overwhelming that manufacturers are creating excess HFC-23 simply to destroy it and earn carbon credits," said Mark Roberts of the Environmental Investigation Agency, a research and advocacy group. "This is the biggest environmental scandal in history and makes an absolute mockery of international efforts to combat climate change."
It sounds like the U.S. farmers who are getting paid by our government NOT to grow anything, as well as farmers who get paid by the government to grow only specific crops. Wherever there's a regulation of some sort, there's a way around it--give it time.
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
Research Challenges Long-Held Beliefs in Calcium, Fat
From Blue Ridge Now. Like we WAPF readers didn't already know this!
"A recent review in the British journal BMJ (Aug. 7) has challenged the general assumption that calcium supplements are safe. The investigators analyzed 11 well-controlled studies involving more than 12,000 subjects. They found that people assigned to take calcium were nearly 30 percent more likely to have a heart attack than those taking placebo pills. Although the absolute increase is not great, so many people take calcium tablets that the overall number of excess heart attacks could be quite high."
So much for calcium and osteoporosis. Osteoporosis is a HORMONE deficiency and not a calcium deficiency, and swallowing all the calcium pills in the world (especially after menopause) isn't going to change that. After menopause, it's recommended to get your calcium from food sources rather than pills, because of digestibility issues--as we age, we produce less stomach acid, and digestion gets more difficult. If for some reason you can't eat the calcium-rich foods due to allergies, diabetes, etc., then add PANCREATIN (digestive aid) to your pill regimen.
"Another recent study casts doubt on the superiority of the “prudent diet” for preventing heart disease (Annals of Internal Medicine, Aug 3). For decades, Americans have been urged to eat less fat, especially saturated fat, in an effort to control weight and reduce the risk of heart disease. But a new study compared the effects of an Atkins-style, low-carb diet with a low-calorie, low-fat diet in 300 volunteers for two years.
Both groups lost about the same amount of weight, about 15 pounds at the end of the study. The real surprise was that the low-carb (higher fat) diet produced greater improvement in key cardiovascular risk factors, particularly good HDL cholesterol and blood pressure."
This does not surprise me, because carbs = sugar when broken down. The more sugar you have in your system, the more likely you're going to develop a sugar-induced problem, such as heart ailments, diabetes, hypertension, cancer, etc. Looking at this, we should all be cutting down (drastically) our sugar intake rather than resorting to statins to make up for our sins. The only sugars that should pass our lips is the kind nature created: fruits and vegetables. Grains are unnecessary and should be left for the birds. Grain-fed meat should be left for those who can't afford grass-fed meat, but then if ALL meat (excluding birds--they don't eat grass) were grass-fed, it would be cheaper for everyone.
"A recent review in the British journal BMJ (Aug. 7) has challenged the general assumption that calcium supplements are safe. The investigators analyzed 11 well-controlled studies involving more than 12,000 subjects. They found that people assigned to take calcium were nearly 30 percent more likely to have a heart attack than those taking placebo pills. Although the absolute increase is not great, so many people take calcium tablets that the overall number of excess heart attacks could be quite high."
So much for calcium and osteoporosis. Osteoporosis is a HORMONE deficiency and not a calcium deficiency, and swallowing all the calcium pills in the world (especially after menopause) isn't going to change that. After menopause, it's recommended to get your calcium from food sources rather than pills, because of digestibility issues--as we age, we produce less stomach acid, and digestion gets more difficult. If for some reason you can't eat the calcium-rich foods due to allergies, diabetes, etc., then add PANCREATIN (digestive aid) to your pill regimen.
"Another recent study casts doubt on the superiority of the “prudent diet” for preventing heart disease (Annals of Internal Medicine, Aug 3). For decades, Americans have been urged to eat less fat, especially saturated fat, in an effort to control weight and reduce the risk of heart disease. But a new study compared the effects of an Atkins-style, low-carb diet with a low-calorie, low-fat diet in 300 volunteers for two years.
Both groups lost about the same amount of weight, about 15 pounds at the end of the study. The real surprise was that the low-carb (higher fat) diet produced greater improvement in key cardiovascular risk factors, particularly good HDL cholesterol and blood pressure."
This does not surprise me, because carbs = sugar when broken down. The more sugar you have in your system, the more likely you're going to develop a sugar-induced problem, such as heart ailments, diabetes, hypertension, cancer, etc. Looking at this, we should all be cutting down (drastically) our sugar intake rather than resorting to statins to make up for our sins. The only sugars that should pass our lips is the kind nature created: fruits and vegetables. Grains are unnecessary and should be left for the birds. Grain-fed meat should be left for those who can't afford grass-fed meat, but then if ALL meat (excluding birds--they don't eat grass) were grass-fed, it would be cheaper for everyone.
Using EnergyStar Efficiency Ratings to Save Energy? Think Again
From Daily Finance. I wrote about this before here.
"Created in 1992, the distinctive blue stickers indicate that a device uses 20%-30% less electricity than mandated by federal standards. Within the last two years, however, the program has come under attack for making dubious claims, mislabeling its products, or insufficiently verifying manufacturers' claims.
The first chink in the Energy Star brand came late in 2008, when the EPA's Inspector General found that the many of the program's alleged benefits could not be demonstrated. In 2006, for example, Energy Star claimed to have reduced carbon waste by 37 million metric tons and saved consumers $14 billion in electric costs. The Inspector General's office found that these claims were unproven, and that the EPA had relied upon "unverified third-party reporting." This latter finding was to prove particularly damaging: ApplianceAdvisor noted that (among other problems) much of the Energy Star testing was conducted by appliance manufacturers who had a vested interest in getting the program's coveted blue label -- and charging customers extra money for it."
...
"Earlier this year, Congressional auditors submitted twenty fictitious appliances for Energy Star certification. The whimsical products -- including a gasoline-powered alarm clock, an air filter with attached feather duster, and a metal roof panel -- were submitted with insufficient documentation and no third-party verification of their energy consumption claims. Yet fifteen were granted Energy Star verification, often within days of the request. Of the five that didn't get the certification, only two were rejected by the program. The other three were voluntarily withdrawn."
What do you think goes on over at Consumer Labs? The exact same thing, only it charges you for info access.
Here's what I wrote about a way to find up-to-date, accurate, actually-tested info on appliances:
"Created in 1992, the distinctive blue stickers indicate that a device uses 20%-30% less electricity than mandated by federal standards. Within the last two years, however, the program has come under attack for making dubious claims, mislabeling its products, or insufficiently verifying manufacturers' claims.
The first chink in the Energy Star brand came late in 2008, when the EPA's Inspector General found that the many of the program's alleged benefits could not be demonstrated. In 2006, for example, Energy Star claimed to have reduced carbon waste by 37 million metric tons and saved consumers $14 billion in electric costs. The Inspector General's office found that these claims were unproven, and that the EPA had relied upon "unverified third-party reporting." This latter finding was to prove particularly damaging: ApplianceAdvisor noted that (among other problems) much of the Energy Star testing was conducted by appliance manufacturers who had a vested interest in getting the program's coveted blue label -- and charging customers extra money for it."
...
"Earlier this year, Congressional auditors submitted twenty fictitious appliances for Energy Star certification. The whimsical products -- including a gasoline-powered alarm clock, an air filter with attached feather duster, and a metal roof panel -- were submitted with insufficient documentation and no third-party verification of their energy consumption claims. Yet fifteen were granted Energy Star verification, often within days of the request. Of the five that didn't get the certification, only two were rejected by the program. The other three were voluntarily withdrawn."
What do you think goes on over at Consumer Labs? The exact same thing, only it charges you for info access.
Here's what I wrote about a way to find up-to-date, accurate, actually-tested info on appliances:
"If you are looking for appliances MORE efficient than the much-touted Energy Star ones, go here to ACEEE--they actually give you performance numbers to look for, instead of government-created performance ratings from well-lobbied companies. Energy Star appliances are only about 20% more efficient than their predecessors--close enough for government work, right? There's better out there if you can (and want to) afford it, and ACEEE ratings can give you as much as 50% more efficiency."
Monday, August 16, 2010
Reverse Menu Planning
From the Dollar Stretcher. Apparently, this is what I've been doing the whole time--I thought I just had a menu planning-deficient gene!
"What is reverse menu planning? Instead of planning a menu and then shopping, you first take an inventory of what you have on hand, then plan a menu using those items. This method also takes some time, but it's well worth the effort and you save the time you would have spent matching the specials up to coupons and shopping at the grocery!
First of all, you are going to spend a lot less money, maybe nothing if you use what you have on hand instead of making your normal weekly shopping trip. Call me crazy, but every penny Mrs. Roy doesn't spend goes to the bottom line at my house. If you have been in the coupon-clipping, match with a sale, buy the loss leader mode for a while, it is going to be hard to break the habit and stay home this week. Try to remember that all sales are on a cycle; it will come on sale again. And no matter what is on sale this week, free is cheaper.
With reverse menu planning, you don't have to worry about freezer burn burning up your good bargains. I don't know about you, but sometimes Mrs. Roy forgets what is in my freezer. We actually have three freezers, so that makes it even harder. Other than the Skinny Cow ice cream (Mrs. Roy always knows exactly where that is!), some things have a tendency to hang out in my freezers longer than they should. A periodic reverse menu inventory helps me keep food from getting too old to use.
Taking inventory of the refrigerator means you are going to have to take a hard look at the types of things you stash and forget. Hopefully, there won't be too many science projects growing in there and you will be able to figure out how to use the last piece of that chunk of cheddar, half a head of cabbage, and that little dab of tomato paste. Be honest with yourself; if your family doesn't eat leftovers, don't wrap them up and stick them in the refrigerator to die a slow, painful death. Just toss them after dinner. It may be wasteful, but at least it's honest. Or start a soup bucket in your freezer. That's an airtight container where you dump the extra green beans, macaroni, tomatoes, etc. until you have enough to make a big pot of vegetable soup.
When Mrs. Roy inventories the pantry, I always find things that I don't remember buying and don't like to eat so those things go in a bag for the food pantry. In other words, my family and someone else's family benefit from this reverse menu planning process.
Once you know what you have on hand, the next step is really fun. You start making menus based on what you have! Mrs. Roy usually ends up with at least a dozen or so meals that require little or no supplementing from the grocery store. I post the list on the refrigerator and then mark them off as we eat our way through the list."
This is how I operate--I emphasize on stocking the pantry cheaply, THEN worry about what we're going to have for dinners. Since I now have a vast array of choices ALREADY IN MY HOME, I don't really have to "plan" anything, but instead just have to choose.
"Reverse menu planning is always a learning experience for me. When I see the store brand pudding we tried but didn't like, I learn to stick to the other brand. If there is half a head of cabbage melting in the bottom of the produce drawer, Mrs. Roy will remember to buy less next time. There's no sense going to the bread store and stocking up if the extras get freezer burn before we can eat them. Half a bag of onions or potatoes with sprouts coming out of the eyes means Mrs. Roy bought more than we could eat. I'll take those lessons with me the next time I shop for groceries.
Reverse menu planning is a great habit to have for when there is more month than money. Reverse menu planning will give you a real sense of accomplishment. You will be saving money. You will be making good use of the things you've already spent your family's money buying. And you will be a good steward by using what you have instead of buying more."
Ahhh...now I can sleep better.
"What is reverse menu planning? Instead of planning a menu and then shopping, you first take an inventory of what you have on hand, then plan a menu using those items. This method also takes some time, but it's well worth the effort and you save the time you would have spent matching the specials up to coupons and shopping at the grocery!
First of all, you are going to spend a lot less money, maybe nothing if you use what you have on hand instead of making your normal weekly shopping trip. Call me crazy, but every penny Mrs. Roy doesn't spend goes to the bottom line at my house. If you have been in the coupon-clipping, match with a sale, buy the loss leader mode for a while, it is going to be hard to break the habit and stay home this week. Try to remember that all sales are on a cycle; it will come on sale again. And no matter what is on sale this week, free is cheaper.
With reverse menu planning, you don't have to worry about freezer burn burning up your good bargains. I don't know about you, but sometimes Mrs. Roy forgets what is in my freezer. We actually have three freezers, so that makes it even harder. Other than the Skinny Cow ice cream (Mrs. Roy always knows exactly where that is!), some things have a tendency to hang out in my freezers longer than they should. A periodic reverse menu inventory helps me keep food from getting too old to use.
Taking inventory of the refrigerator means you are going to have to take a hard look at the types of things you stash and forget. Hopefully, there won't be too many science projects growing in there and you will be able to figure out how to use the last piece of that chunk of cheddar, half a head of cabbage, and that little dab of tomato paste. Be honest with yourself; if your family doesn't eat leftovers, don't wrap them up and stick them in the refrigerator to die a slow, painful death. Just toss them after dinner. It may be wasteful, but at least it's honest. Or start a soup bucket in your freezer. That's an airtight container where you dump the extra green beans, macaroni, tomatoes, etc. until you have enough to make a big pot of vegetable soup.
When Mrs. Roy inventories the pantry, I always find things that I don't remember buying and don't like to eat so those things go in a bag for the food pantry. In other words, my family and someone else's family benefit from this reverse menu planning process.
Once you know what you have on hand, the next step is really fun. You start making menus based on what you have! Mrs. Roy usually ends up with at least a dozen or so meals that require little or no supplementing from the grocery store. I post the list on the refrigerator and then mark them off as we eat our way through the list."
This is how I operate--I emphasize on stocking the pantry cheaply, THEN worry about what we're going to have for dinners. Since I now have a vast array of choices ALREADY IN MY HOME, I don't really have to "plan" anything, but instead just have to choose.
"Reverse menu planning is always a learning experience for me. When I see the store brand pudding we tried but didn't like, I learn to stick to the other brand. If there is half a head of cabbage melting in the bottom of the produce drawer, Mrs. Roy will remember to buy less next time. There's no sense going to the bread store and stocking up if the extras get freezer burn before we can eat them. Half a bag of onions or potatoes with sprouts coming out of the eyes means Mrs. Roy bought more than we could eat. I'll take those lessons with me the next time I shop for groceries.
Reverse menu planning is a great habit to have for when there is more month than money. Reverse menu planning will give you a real sense of accomplishment. You will be saving money. You will be making good use of the things you've already spent your family's money buying. And you will be a good steward by using what you have instead of buying more."
Ahhh...now I can sleep better.
Friday, August 13, 2010
Fed Policymakers Screw It Up Again!
From Martin Weiss Research. This is all that stands in the way between us and the light at the end of the tunnel mentioned in the previous article (the corporate comeback).
"This week, policymakers met in D.C. and decided to fire up the printing presses. Led by “Helicopter Ben” Bernanke, they pledged to buy new Treasury securities whenever old Treasuries or mortgage securities matured or were paid off.
That means instead of shrinking its $2.05 trillion portfolio, the Fed will maintain it by purchasing an estimated $10 billion to $20 billion per month in Treasuries. It’s focusing on securities with maturities between two years and ten years."
...
"Heck, the Fed itself all but admitted its efforts have been a dismal failure.
In the post-meeting statement on Tuesday, the Fed said:
“The pace of recovery has slowed in recent months. Housing starts remain at a depressed level.”
The statement went on to say that household spending “remains constrained by high unemployment, modest income growth, lower housing wealth and tight credit.”
In other words, the economy is rolling over! And in what must be one of the most UNDER-reported stories of the year, researchers at the San Francisco Fed just announced that there’s a “significant” chance the economy will tip back into recession."
...
"What nobody in D.C. will tell you … but I will … is that a big economic slowdown is already baked in. There is nothing the Fed can do … nothing Congress can do … nothing the Obama administration can do … to prevent it.
The massive, reckless credit bubble that built up over the past couple of decades needs to be unwound. If you prefer the jargon term, it’s “deleveraging” — and it’s something we’re just going to have to get used to."
Same story, different day...what prolonged the recovery out of the Great Depression was government interference--much like what's going on now. If the government would just stop and get out of the way, business (the usual savior in any downturn) will step in to fill the spending gap with new orders for supplies, stock, and/or people to handle the new incoming orders.
As of yesterday, we had a teacher/union employee bailout with money to the states, a proposed program to (again) send seniors a $250 check, and there's talk about a government plan to pay unemployed people's mortgages for the next two years in the 17 hardest-hit states for foreclosures, as well as a new cash-for-clunkers deal, extending unemployment bennies yet again, and we've already had an extension of the unemployment bennies, Atlanta getting bombarded by 30,000 zombies looking for public housing (and there was only 13,000 applications for some 400+ possible openings next year), higher unemployment rates, higher foreclosure rates...all this in top of the proposed VAT tax, transaction tax, HCR "tax", higher income taxes, higher dividend and capital gains taxes, and inflation looming on the horizon.
Do you see a pattern here? Any sort of path to success, Obama's put a roadblock on with taxes--real or proposed. Any sort of path to dependency, Obama's funded with borrowed money and open arms, and the Fed is complicit in his ultimate plans.
By throwing out all this money, he's accomplishing two things: buying votes (for himself or the Democrats as a whole--he's worried about the midterm and 2012 elections), and creating dependency to accumulate power.
Screw up? No--it's the plan. Now all they need to do is figure out how to separate us from our pantries, gardens, emergency funds, paid-off debt, and self-made jobs. My guess is that's where the jack-booted thugs come in--during the Depression, house-to-house inspections were done, and any food deemed "excess" was removed and redistributed. I see that as the only way to separate us from our pantries--they did it once, and may do it again if desperate enough. Luckily, his term is almost half over, and time may not be on his side.
"This week, policymakers met in D.C. and decided to fire up the printing presses. Led by “Helicopter Ben” Bernanke, they pledged to buy new Treasury securities whenever old Treasuries or mortgage securities matured or were paid off.
That means instead of shrinking its $2.05 trillion portfolio, the Fed will maintain it by purchasing an estimated $10 billion to $20 billion per month in Treasuries. It’s focusing on securities with maturities between two years and ten years."
...
"Heck, the Fed itself all but admitted its efforts have been a dismal failure.
In the post-meeting statement on Tuesday, the Fed said:
“The pace of recovery has slowed in recent months. Housing starts remain at a depressed level.”
The statement went on to say that household spending “remains constrained by high unemployment, modest income growth, lower housing wealth and tight credit.”
In other words, the economy is rolling over! And in what must be one of the most UNDER-reported stories of the year, researchers at the San Francisco Fed just announced that there’s a “significant” chance the economy will tip back into recession."
...
"What nobody in D.C. will tell you … but I will … is that a big economic slowdown is already baked in. There is nothing the Fed can do … nothing Congress can do … nothing the Obama administration can do … to prevent it.
The massive, reckless credit bubble that built up over the past couple of decades needs to be unwound. If you prefer the jargon term, it’s “deleveraging” — and it’s something we’re just going to have to get used to."
Same story, different day...what prolonged the recovery out of the Great Depression was government interference--much like what's going on now. If the government would just stop and get out of the way, business (the usual savior in any downturn) will step in to fill the spending gap with new orders for supplies, stock, and/or people to handle the new incoming orders.
As of yesterday, we had a teacher/union employee bailout with money to the states, a proposed program to (again) send seniors a $250 check, and there's talk about a government plan to pay unemployed people's mortgages for the next two years in the 17 hardest-hit states for foreclosures, as well as a new cash-for-clunkers deal, extending unemployment bennies yet again, and we've already had an extension of the unemployment bennies, Atlanta getting bombarded by 30,000 zombies looking for public housing (and there was only 13,000 applications for some 400+ possible openings next year), higher unemployment rates, higher foreclosure rates...all this in top of the proposed VAT tax, transaction tax, HCR "tax", higher income taxes, higher dividend and capital gains taxes, and inflation looming on the horizon.
Do you see a pattern here? Any sort of path to success, Obama's put a roadblock on with taxes--real or proposed. Any sort of path to dependency, Obama's funded with borrowed money and open arms, and the Fed is complicit in his ultimate plans.
By throwing out all this money, he's accomplishing two things: buying votes (for himself or the Democrats as a whole--he's worried about the midterm and 2012 elections), and creating dependency to accumulate power.
Screw up? No--it's the plan. Now all they need to do is figure out how to separate us from our pantries, gardens, emergency funds, paid-off debt, and self-made jobs. My guess is that's where the jack-booted thugs come in--during the Depression, house-to-house inspections were done, and any food deemed "excess" was removed and redistributed. I see that as the only way to separate us from our pantries--they did it once, and may do it again if desperate enough. Luckily, his term is almost half over, and time may not be on his side.
Thursday, August 12, 2010
Is Corporate America Rusting Away?
From MSN Money. Read the full article--there's light inside the tunnel.
"During the Great Recession, corporate executives, burned by the tech spending boom of the 1990s and frightened by the financial crisis of 2008, unleashed the heavy artillery on their own expense lines.
The result was one of the deepest and most prolific cost-cutting campaigns ever. Far more jobs were cut than the decline in economic output justified. And capital investment fell by more than twice the historical average given the depth of the recession.
In fact, CEOs have under-invested to such an extent that over the past year the manufacturing capacity of the United States has been shrinking at a record pace, hampering the economy's ability to recover and expand."
...
"The good news: Things are starting to change. As I discussed in a recent column, CEOs have become much more optimistic over the past few months, with the gap between consumer and CEO confidence reaching record levels. (Read "Why are CEOs so cocky these days?")
As a result, businesses are spending on new equipment at the fastest rate since 1995. According to Merrill Lynch economists, most of these investments are replacement purchases, equipment bought to replace what's broken or outdated. This has helped stop the bleeding: June marked the first month in two years in which the country's manufacturing base didn't shrink on a month-over-month basis.
We've yet to see expansionary investments, purchases that allow businesses to produce more. But assuming the trend continues, the country's production capacity will start growing again.
And history shows that when businesses splurge on capital expenditures, or cap-ex, new jobs tend to follow. That's just the thing to kick-start a drop in the stubborn unemployment rate, spur consumer spending and send stocks skyward."
This is what we're NOT being told--in spite of Obama's desperate attempt to choke the shit out of our economy, business is investing anyway, because they have the cash to do so. My only concern is this: are they investing in HUMAN capital, or are they investing in ROBOT capital instead? Robots don't need wages, salaries, bathroom breaks, smoke breaks, work laws, time off, vacations, maternity leave, sick leave, paid training, or time and money to go to conferences, meetings away from the office, trade shows, or have to worry about such things as PR, expanding markets and market share, the bottom line, stock price, on-time deliveries, showing up (on time) for work, workplace ethics...and let's not forget payroll taxes--robots don't need Social Security, Medicare, or unemployment. There'd be nobody to tax except the few people in charge, and this is another way we can MAINTAIN control of congressional spending...that is, unless a personal property tax is extended to include robots as "computers." Let's not get ahead of ourselves here.
Like Warren Buffet says, "Buy when others are selling, and sell when others are buying."
Right now, nobody's buying, so now's the time to buy. In case you hadn't noticed, there's blood in the streets.
...
"So today, as we transition to a new period of growth, households will have to repent for the debt-fueled sins of the previous business cycle. As debt is reduced over the coming years and savings are rebuilt, consumer spending is expected to remain weak. There will be far fewer discussions of the rise of "aspirational consumers" snapping up Coach purses or luxury homes from Toll Brothers.
Instead, the next cycle will be led by businesses, which aren't encumbered by big debts and are poised to re-assume a leadership role. There will be talk of technology upgrades, new machinery and expanded production. Get ready, because the economy of the 2010s is shaping up to look a lot like that of the 1990s. And that means job growth should be more robust and more broadly distributed across the economy; we won't see a concentration in construction or real estate, for instance."
...
"...businesses pinched pennies just like consumers did in the recession, trying to eliminate debt while spending only on what they truly needed. But businesses are in a better financial position than a lot of families -- and the proverbial roof is leaking, so they'll be forced to spend to replace obsolete equipment, at the very least. Growth will require even more investment."
...
"But you can take a good thing only so far. Executives are starting to realize that pinching pennies won't work anymore. Increased investment is required to grow revenue and maintain profitability.
In the words of Deutsche Bank economist Joseph LaVorgna: "If companies do not reinvest, the capital stock will continue to shrink, and companies will not be able to maintain robust productivity gains." With back orders growing and wait times increasing, companies will lose out to competitors unless money is spent to increase production.
And that spending of money is precisely what's happening."
...
"In LaVorgna's words, "The longer companies wait to undertake cap-ex, the more their existing capital infrastructure will deteriorate, and the more these companies will ultimately have to spend to upgrade it." The evidence suggests those in the corner suites aren't waiting any longer."
...
"The record decline in America's productive capacity is just another example of how unusually deep and painful the Great Recession was. For many, this plays into fears that we're declining as a nation. After all, it's clear we're rotting away from the inside.
But that's the wrong conclusion. The evidence suggests that businesses, flush with cash and enjoying a resurgence of new orders, have realized what will happen if they don't reinvest. They'll miss out on the recovery, and profits will suffer. And that means our factories, computer systems and assembly lines are due for a modernization that will reinforce our place as the world's most competitive economy."
Once Obama figures out how to politically capitalize on this info, you'll be hearing more about it from the horse's mouth. Right now, we're not supposed to know--it's a sign of failure in his attempt to socialize this country, and we're supposedly too stupid to figure this out on our own. We fought back, are still fighting back, and winning.
Continue filling your pantry, emergency fund, retirement account(s), paying off debt, improving your garden(s), and upgrading your home while the dollars are cheap, and prices still low. We radical homemakers will certainly have earned our place in the victory parade.
"During the Great Recession, corporate executives, burned by the tech spending boom of the 1990s and frightened by the financial crisis of 2008, unleashed the heavy artillery on their own expense lines.
The result was one of the deepest and most prolific cost-cutting campaigns ever. Far more jobs were cut than the decline in economic output justified. And capital investment fell by more than twice the historical average given the depth of the recession.
In fact, CEOs have under-invested to such an extent that over the past year the manufacturing capacity of the United States has been shrinking at a record pace, hampering the economy's ability to recover and expand."
...
"The good news: Things are starting to change. As I discussed in a recent column, CEOs have become much more optimistic over the past few months, with the gap between consumer and CEO confidence reaching record levels. (Read "Why are CEOs so cocky these days?")
As a result, businesses are spending on new equipment at the fastest rate since 1995. According to Merrill Lynch economists, most of these investments are replacement purchases, equipment bought to replace what's broken or outdated. This has helped stop the bleeding: June marked the first month in two years in which the country's manufacturing base didn't shrink on a month-over-month basis.
We've yet to see expansionary investments, purchases that allow businesses to produce more. But assuming the trend continues, the country's production capacity will start growing again.
And history shows that when businesses splurge on capital expenditures, or cap-ex, new jobs tend to follow. That's just the thing to kick-start a drop in the stubborn unemployment rate, spur consumer spending and send stocks skyward."
This is what we're NOT being told--in spite of Obama's desperate attempt to choke the shit out of our economy, business is investing anyway, because they have the cash to do so. My only concern is this: are they investing in HUMAN capital, or are they investing in ROBOT capital instead? Robots don't need wages, salaries, bathroom breaks, smoke breaks, work laws, time off, vacations, maternity leave, sick leave, paid training, or time and money to go to conferences, meetings away from the office, trade shows, or have to worry about such things as PR, expanding markets and market share, the bottom line, stock price, on-time deliveries, showing up (on time) for work, workplace ethics...and let's not forget payroll taxes--robots don't need Social Security, Medicare, or unemployment. There'd be nobody to tax except the few people in charge, and this is another way we can MAINTAIN control of congressional spending...that is, unless a personal property tax is extended to include robots as "computers." Let's not get ahead of ourselves here.
Like Warren Buffet says, "Buy when others are selling, and sell when others are buying."
Right now, nobody's buying, so now's the time to buy. In case you hadn't noticed, there's blood in the streets.
...
"So today, as we transition to a new period of growth, households will have to repent for the debt-fueled sins of the previous business cycle. As debt is reduced over the coming years and savings are rebuilt, consumer spending is expected to remain weak. There will be far fewer discussions of the rise of "aspirational consumers" snapping up Coach purses or luxury homes from Toll Brothers.
Instead, the next cycle will be led by businesses, which aren't encumbered by big debts and are poised to re-assume a leadership role. There will be talk of technology upgrades, new machinery and expanded production. Get ready, because the economy of the 2010s is shaping up to look a lot like that of the 1990s. And that means job growth should be more robust and more broadly distributed across the economy; we won't see a concentration in construction or real estate, for instance."
...
"...businesses pinched pennies just like consumers did in the recession, trying to eliminate debt while spending only on what they truly needed. But businesses are in a better financial position than a lot of families -- and the proverbial roof is leaking, so they'll be forced to spend to replace obsolete equipment, at the very least. Growth will require even more investment."
...
"But you can take a good thing only so far. Executives are starting to realize that pinching pennies won't work anymore. Increased investment is required to grow revenue and maintain profitability.
In the words of Deutsche Bank economist Joseph LaVorgna: "If companies do not reinvest, the capital stock will continue to shrink, and companies will not be able to maintain robust productivity gains." With back orders growing and wait times increasing, companies will lose out to competitors unless money is spent to increase production.
And that spending of money is precisely what's happening."
...
"In LaVorgna's words, "The longer companies wait to undertake cap-ex, the more their existing capital infrastructure will deteriorate, and the more these companies will ultimately have to spend to upgrade it." The evidence suggests those in the corner suites aren't waiting any longer."
...
"The record decline in America's productive capacity is just another example of how unusually deep and painful the Great Recession was. For many, this plays into fears that we're declining as a nation. After all, it's clear we're rotting away from the inside.
But that's the wrong conclusion. The evidence suggests that businesses, flush with cash and enjoying a resurgence of new orders, have realized what will happen if they don't reinvest. They'll miss out on the recovery, and profits will suffer. And that means our factories, computer systems and assembly lines are due for a modernization that will reinforce our place as the world's most competitive economy."
Once Obama figures out how to politically capitalize on this info, you'll be hearing more about it from the horse's mouth. Right now, we're not supposed to know--it's a sign of failure in his attempt to socialize this country, and we're supposedly too stupid to figure this out on our own. We fought back, are still fighting back, and winning.
Continue filling your pantry, emergency fund, retirement account(s), paying off debt, improving your garden(s), and upgrading your home while the dollars are cheap, and prices still low. We radical homemakers will certainly have earned our place in the victory parade.
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
Ultimate Emergency Preparedness: 10 Surprisingly Collapsible Products Will Save You Space
From Popular Mechanics. Some of these are actually useful. Done in gallery format--you have to go there and see the pictures.
My faves are:
the house
the canoe
the smartbed
the picnic table
My faves are:
the house
the canoe
the smartbed
the picnic table
The Economy of the Garden Part 1
From the Huffington Post. I'll be watching for Part 2.
"It's been a truly liberating experience for me to eat a strawberry in the same place that it was born, only seconds after it was plucked. The fruit has no bar code, no USFDA information; it is not shrink-wrapped with thousands of others. No, it is a very specific strawberry from a very specific plant. Yes, it may look and taste like thousands of others, but it has a history and a location unlike all the rest. For me, this berry is a distinct piece of fruit. I have watched her for days, waiting till she's perfectly ripe, trying to get to her before the caterpillars do. And when I pick the strawberry up from her earthy beginnings, it feels like a holy moment: where earth, wind, sun, and water have come together to give me a piece of themselves. The tiny, misshapen berry becomes a celebration of life and new beginnings. Consumption becomes tied to the specifics of time and place. And this little suburban, freeway garden of mine begins to feel like holy ground. Yes, even against the backdrop of a land where nothing is sacred."
...
"The fast-food pace of our daily lives cannot replace the slow growth of the garden. When a product is stripped of our narrative, we lose a portion of our own story. We are reduced to an appetite and nothing more. Yes, every anonymous bar code has an intricate connection with the ongoing human story. I'm not trying to swim against the tides of capitalism. And I'm not against grocery stores. I'm simply stating that we lose a piece of our identity when we are reduced to an anonymous pocketbook with a mouth at the other end. The unique identity that every one of us possesses is directly tied to the way we spend our time and our money. Faceless consumerism is hard to call progress. My backyard garden reminds me that my plot is a part of the broader narrative, opening my eyes to the stories that don't fit into a sales tag. The garden reminds me that faceless capitalism alone might not be the best model for our human existence. Maybe the accelerating digital network is not the best soil for the human soul. I want to live with deeper roots even if it means a slower means of travel. Maybe I could spend a little more time in the garden and a little less time in the fast lane. I'm pretty sure that we could all use a little more dirt underneath our fingernails."
Well said.
"It's been a truly liberating experience for me to eat a strawberry in the same place that it was born, only seconds after it was plucked. The fruit has no bar code, no USFDA information; it is not shrink-wrapped with thousands of others. No, it is a very specific strawberry from a very specific plant. Yes, it may look and taste like thousands of others, but it has a history and a location unlike all the rest. For me, this berry is a distinct piece of fruit. I have watched her for days, waiting till she's perfectly ripe, trying to get to her before the caterpillars do. And when I pick the strawberry up from her earthy beginnings, it feels like a holy moment: where earth, wind, sun, and water have come together to give me a piece of themselves. The tiny, misshapen berry becomes a celebration of life and new beginnings. Consumption becomes tied to the specifics of time and place. And this little suburban, freeway garden of mine begins to feel like holy ground. Yes, even against the backdrop of a land where nothing is sacred."
...
"The fast-food pace of our daily lives cannot replace the slow growth of the garden. When a product is stripped of our narrative, we lose a portion of our own story. We are reduced to an appetite and nothing more. Yes, every anonymous bar code has an intricate connection with the ongoing human story. I'm not trying to swim against the tides of capitalism. And I'm not against grocery stores. I'm simply stating that we lose a piece of our identity when we are reduced to an anonymous pocketbook with a mouth at the other end. The unique identity that every one of us possesses is directly tied to the way we spend our time and our money. Faceless consumerism is hard to call progress. My backyard garden reminds me that my plot is a part of the broader narrative, opening my eyes to the stories that don't fit into a sales tag. The garden reminds me that faceless capitalism alone might not be the best model for our human existence. Maybe the accelerating digital network is not the best soil for the human soul. I want to live with deeper roots even if it means a slower means of travel. Maybe I could spend a little more time in the garden and a little less time in the fast lane. I'm pretty sure that we could all use a little more dirt underneath our fingernails."
Well said.
Beware the VAT--Why the Consumption Tax is Possible
From CNN/Fortune. As far as I can see, it's the only tax scheme that doesn't have a lobby against it, and would be the path of least resistance.
"Right now, the VAT appears so radical that it's gained little support in Congress and isn't even endorsed by the Obama administration. But (Congressman) Ryan told me that a VAT is far more likely than most Americans imagine. The reason isn't the one that many experts are forecasting -- that the Fiscal Commission appointed by President Obama will recommend the controversial levy. "I don't believe the Commission will advocate a VAT," Ryan told me, adding that he doesn't speak for his fellow members.
On the contrary, Ryan fears another path to the VAT. "It cannot pass without a fiscal crisis," he warns. "Our leaders are now courting one with big spending and by adding new entitlements. They know in the back of their minds that if a fiscal crisis comes, they can throw a VAT on top of that."
...
"The VAT's appeal is that it opens an enormous source of revenue while the income tax severely limits the amount of new money the government can collect. It's clear that the tax increases that the administration advocates won't come close to solving the debt problem. By its own estimates, the rate hike for high-earners planned for 2011 would reduce projected debt by just $620 billion, or a paltry 3% by 2020, and that's assuming the higher taxes do nothing to slow economic growth, a highly questionable assumption.
It's practically certain that a credit collapse is looming. The only question is when."
...
"The rub is that once a VAT becomes law, it's bound to grow far larger. And no country that has ever enacted a VAT has seen is repealed. "A VAT would permanently increase the size of government," says Foster. Indeed, it's been the engine that's raised government spending as a portion of national income, frequently to well over 50%, in every country that has one, from Germany to Japan.
Once the VAT gets its nose under the tent, the beast will follow."
This is what I'm afraid of--once the Congressional beast gets a taste of the wonderful food, they'll want more and more, and then we become Britain. Anybody with a job over in Europe either works for the government or has a business in the family that ONLY hires family.
Like the much-flaunted Fair Tax, there's nothing to stop the VAT from getting increased. Fair Tax would start out at 23%, but where would it end...100%? As for VAT, rumor has it starting out at 21%, but again, where would it end?
Fair Tax is aimed to replace all the other taxes we pay now. VAT is on top of what we pay now. Both can be easily gotten around with judicious use of thrift stores, yard sales, and the general use of used stuff in our lives--no more buying off-the-rack. Both tax plans would nuke our economy once the public learns how to avoid them. This is what Obama and his administration want to happen--nuke our economy to spread the wealth to current Third World countries.
Taken to the extreme outcome, I see us returning to England's feudal times, when we'd grow crops to pay our taxes--an actual job would be out of the question (given the hiring choices: government, Wall St., or family), yet we'd still be taxed on SOMETHING if not income...like assets. How would we pay these taxes without jobs? Just like the peasants did back in feudal times--with various crops.
Taken one step further, most of us would find a way to leave this country, returning it back to the wilderness (albeit developed now) we found some 200+ years ago. Obama's dream would be realized, and America would be completely collapsed.
It's not too late to stop this madness, and some of us are taking the initiative at the ballot box as we can.
"Right now, the VAT appears so radical that it's gained little support in Congress and isn't even endorsed by the Obama administration. But (Congressman) Ryan told me that a VAT is far more likely than most Americans imagine. The reason isn't the one that many experts are forecasting -- that the Fiscal Commission appointed by President Obama will recommend the controversial levy. "I don't believe the Commission will advocate a VAT," Ryan told me, adding that he doesn't speak for his fellow members.
On the contrary, Ryan fears another path to the VAT. "It cannot pass without a fiscal crisis," he warns. "Our leaders are now courting one with big spending and by adding new entitlements. They know in the back of their minds that if a fiscal crisis comes, they can throw a VAT on top of that."
...
"The VAT's appeal is that it opens an enormous source of revenue while the income tax severely limits the amount of new money the government can collect. It's clear that the tax increases that the administration advocates won't come close to solving the debt problem. By its own estimates, the rate hike for high-earners planned for 2011 would reduce projected debt by just $620 billion, or a paltry 3% by 2020, and that's assuming the higher taxes do nothing to slow economic growth, a highly questionable assumption.
It's practically certain that a credit collapse is looming. The only question is when."
...
"The rub is that once a VAT becomes law, it's bound to grow far larger. And no country that has ever enacted a VAT has seen is repealed. "A VAT would permanently increase the size of government," says Foster. Indeed, it's been the engine that's raised government spending as a portion of national income, frequently to well over 50%, in every country that has one, from Germany to Japan.
Once the VAT gets its nose under the tent, the beast will follow."
This is what I'm afraid of--once the Congressional beast gets a taste of the wonderful food, they'll want more and more, and then we become Britain. Anybody with a job over in Europe either works for the government or has a business in the family that ONLY hires family.
Like the much-flaunted Fair Tax, there's nothing to stop the VAT from getting increased. Fair Tax would start out at 23%, but where would it end...100%? As for VAT, rumor has it starting out at 21%, but again, where would it end?
Fair Tax is aimed to replace all the other taxes we pay now. VAT is on top of what we pay now. Both can be easily gotten around with judicious use of thrift stores, yard sales, and the general use of used stuff in our lives--no more buying off-the-rack. Both tax plans would nuke our economy once the public learns how to avoid them. This is what Obama and his administration want to happen--nuke our economy to spread the wealth to current Third World countries.
Taken to the extreme outcome, I see us returning to England's feudal times, when we'd grow crops to pay our taxes--an actual job would be out of the question (given the hiring choices: government, Wall St., or family), yet we'd still be taxed on SOMETHING if not income...like assets. How would we pay these taxes without jobs? Just like the peasants did back in feudal times--with various crops.
Taken one step further, most of us would find a way to leave this country, returning it back to the wilderness (albeit developed now) we found some 200+ years ago. Obama's dream would be realized, and America would be completely collapsed.
It's not too late to stop this madness, and some of us are taking the initiative at the ballot box as we can.
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
Home for Life
From the NY Times blog section.
"When did “rm w/a vu” turn into Viking range, cathedral ceiling, granite countertop and four-car garage? At what point did the house become more about the future tenant than the current resident? It’s hard to trace the moment, but let’s hope it’s passed. Because for too long, home design has been hijacked by the allure of resale value. Maybe now we can begin again to think of our houses not as investments but as homes."
...
"Today, it’s clear that resale should not have been so big a driver of residential design. After all, how often do people feel compelled to use their master suite lounge area — or, for that matter, their living room?
As one mortgage broker I recently spoke with observed, “The whole idea of buying with resale value in mind is gone. All the countertops, the backyards, all those things are meaningless."
...
"Perhaps recognizing that they’ll be staying in their homes longer, buyers are starting to look for universal design, ranging from wheelchair-accessible bathrooms to single-story homes — options that will allow them to “age in place” — in other words, move into a home they can grow old in. They want accessory dwellings (a k a granny flats) to accommodate rising numbers children moving home after college and aging parents needing care. So far, the market isn’t offering many of these, a lack one can chalk up somewhat to inertia but also to legitimate obstacles ranging from zoning and code restrictions to difficulties with financing."
...
"I have an old kitchen and not a whole lot of square footage, but I know all my neighbors, shop at locally-owned businesses without getting in the car, and water 15 different kinds of vegetables in my backyard with a simple “gray water” system that only recently became legal. These are things that make me want to stay where I am. What’s outside the front door is at least as important as what’s behind it."
Here's an article I wrote along the same lines, only it came from the 'new lessons in higher education" angle. The pertinents:
"When did “rm w/a vu” turn into Viking range, cathedral ceiling, granite countertop and four-car garage? At what point did the house become more about the future tenant than the current resident? It’s hard to trace the moment, but let’s hope it’s passed. Because for too long, home design has been hijacked by the allure of resale value. Maybe now we can begin again to think of our houses not as investments but as homes."
...
"Today, it’s clear that resale should not have been so big a driver of residential design. After all, how often do people feel compelled to use their master suite lounge area — or, for that matter, their living room?
As one mortgage broker I recently spoke with observed, “The whole idea of buying with resale value in mind is gone. All the countertops, the backyards, all those things are meaningless."
...
"Perhaps recognizing that they’ll be staying in their homes longer, buyers are starting to look for universal design, ranging from wheelchair-accessible bathrooms to single-story homes — options that will allow them to “age in place” — in other words, move into a home they can grow old in. They want accessory dwellings (a k a granny flats) to accommodate rising numbers children moving home after college and aging parents needing care. So far, the market isn’t offering many of these, a lack one can chalk up somewhat to inertia but also to legitimate obstacles ranging from zoning and code restrictions to difficulties with financing."
...
"I have an old kitchen and not a whole lot of square footage, but I know all my neighbors, shop at locally-owned businesses without getting in the car, and water 15 different kinds of vegetables in my backyard with a simple “gray water” system that only recently became legal. These are things that make me want to stay where I am. What’s outside the front door is at least as important as what’s behind it."
Here's an article I wrote along the same lines, only it came from the 'new lessons in higher education" angle. The pertinents:
What if a house and land were given to you, upon high school graduation, instead of a college opportunity? Isn’t a house and some land the reason why we go to college in the first place? We go to college to secure higher-paying job skills, with the ultimate goal of owning a house along the way…but what if we STARTED with those goals fulfilled?
Granted, you’d have the chance to “get out of the county,” and learn more about the world around you while away in college, learn how to navigate societies and cultures, and learn about other viewpoints and beliefs. The ultimate goal of your being there at all would be to gain the means to get your own place with your own stuff—you’d just be able to get it faster with a higher-paying job.
If you started out true adult life with the house already in possession, though, you could afford to make different decisions regarding the rest of your life. Your main concern then would be how to keep the lights and heat on, and that wouldn’t take as much income as the standard method of doing things: having more stuff and servicing debt for years.
Choosing and maintaining a career would be far easier, in my mind, with less competition and steady demand…and you’d get to have a life outside work. Flying under the radar like this might just be the ticket to future generations’ well-being.
Friday, August 06, 2010
College Degrees That Don't Pay
From CNN Money. Done in gallery format.
I'd like to add one more to the list: nurse, with the exception of scrub nurse. A regular RN or BSN has to go through all kinds of schooling, get a degree, then continuing ed classes and refresher training, get re-certified all the time (at your expense) for all manner of things, put up with union crap, hospital administrator crap, Medicare and Medicaid crap, patient crap--all on top of a lousy $40k salary. The only way they actually make any money is to work loads of overtime religiously, or become a scrub nurse (basically a surgical assistant).
For all the time and money required just to continue to be able to call yourself a nurse, the pay just isn't worth it.
I have a nurse-relative who managed to strike a balance after riding the education/certification merry-go-round for years: become a hospice nurse. The pay is low, but so are the duties, the amount of crap you have to put up with, and the amount of ongoing education and certification required. You apparently spend more time entertaining the patient than actually treating him.
My nurse-relative takes her guitar to work with her. She's even produced a CD of songs that soothe the dying.
I'd like to add one more to the list: nurse, with the exception of scrub nurse. A regular RN or BSN has to go through all kinds of schooling, get a degree, then continuing ed classes and refresher training, get re-certified all the time (at your expense) for all manner of things, put up with union crap, hospital administrator crap, Medicare and Medicaid crap, patient crap--all on top of a lousy $40k salary. The only way they actually make any money is to work loads of overtime religiously, or become a scrub nurse (basically a surgical assistant).
For all the time and money required just to continue to be able to call yourself a nurse, the pay just isn't worth it.
I have a nurse-relative who managed to strike a balance after riding the education/certification merry-go-round for years: become a hospice nurse. The pay is low, but so are the duties, the amount of crap you have to put up with, and the amount of ongoing education and certification required. You apparently spend more time entertaining the patient than actually treating him.
My nurse-relative takes her guitar to work with her. She's even produced a CD of songs that soothe the dying.
Thursday, August 05, 2010
Quote of the Day...or Millenium
"For national and social disasters, for moral and financial evils, the cure begins in the household."
-Julia M. Wright, The Complete Home, 1879
Obama...you listening?
-Julia M. Wright, The Complete Home, 1879
Obama...you listening?
Tuesday, August 03, 2010
7 Reasons Not to Send Your Kid to College
From Daily Finance. The difference in income between a college grad and a kid with no college over a lifetime comes out the same if the kid is motivated, anxious to learn, and makes connections along the way.
The article suggests something we've already known here: college is (or can be) a waste of time and money. A good example: take a look around and see how many unemployed college grads there are, or how many college grads are now working for minimum wage.
The article suggests something we've already known here: college is (or can be) a waste of time and money. A good example: take a look around and see how many unemployed college grads there are, or how many college grads are now working for minimum wage.
Cancer Cells Slurp Up Fructose
From Yahoo Health. I knew high fructose corn syrup was bad for you--now here's proof!
"Tumor cells fed both glucose and fructose used the two sugars in two different ways, the team at the University of California Los Angeles found.
They said their finding, published in the journal Cancer Research, may help explain other studies that have linked fructose intake with pancreatic cancer, one of the deadliest cancer types.
"These findings show that cancer cells can readily metabolize fructose to increase proliferation," Dr. Anthony Heaney of UCLA's Jonsson Cancer Center and colleagues wrote."
...
"Tumor cells thrive on sugar but they used the fructose to proliferate. "Importantly, fructose and glucose metabolism are quite different," Heaney's team wrote."
All the more reason to cut back sugar--ALL FORMS OF IT.
"Tumor cells fed both glucose and fructose used the two sugars in two different ways, the team at the University of California Los Angeles found.
They said their finding, published in the journal Cancer Research, may help explain other studies that have linked fructose intake with pancreatic cancer, one of the deadliest cancer types.
"These findings show that cancer cells can readily metabolize fructose to increase proliferation," Dr. Anthony Heaney of UCLA's Jonsson Cancer Center and colleagues wrote."
...
"Tumor cells thrive on sugar but they used the fructose to proliferate. "Importantly, fructose and glucose metabolism are quite different," Heaney's team wrote."
All the more reason to cut back sugar--ALL FORMS OF IT.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
