Caution!! It's happening again. In a previous post I mentioned the technique of extending a savings or an expense over a longer period of time to make the number appear and sound more significant.
This larger number is always stated after the base number and this is done because you are more likely to remember the last thing you heard.
So, here's how it works, "We'll save 5 million dollars annually, which will be 50,000,000 over a ten year period".
A candidate whose term is 4 years likes to do this because it creates the impression that the larger number will be the outcome during THEIR 4 year term.
We are constantly being influenced by educated, clever communicators.
Listen CAREFULLY !! Think Critically !!
Monday, October 15, 2012
Who Benefits the Most ?
Answer the question for yourself.
Here are some possiblities:
Here are some possiblities:
- Me
- Large Corporations
- The rich
- The poor
- The middle
I suggest you consider use of roads, rail, air, parks, mail and other services, banks, investment vehicles, etc., etc.
Who DOES benefit the most from our society, it's economic system, it's government.
Feel free to post an answer in the comment section.
Jack
Saturday, October 13, 2012
Who Benefits
Who has benefited the MOST from the war's in Iraq & Afganistan?
PEOPLE WITH MONEY
THE RICH
BIG CORPORATIONS
Increase taxes on the rich? You BETCHA !!!
CASE CLOSED!!!!!
PEOPLE WITH MONEY
THE RICH
BIG CORPORATIONS
Increase taxes on the rich? You BETCHA !!!
CASE CLOSED!!!!!
Taxing the "Rich"
A case for higher taxes on the wealthy. No data is used in this analysis, it is purely opinion.
IF, and this seems to be the case, one or two or twenty percent of taxpaying Americans control 90-98 percent of the country's wealth, why SHOULDN'T they pay more taxes and carry more of the societal burden. MORALS and ETHICS are at the basis of this argument.
My brother's point of view. "It's MINE, I MADE IT FROM MY OWN EFFORT, NOBODY GAVE IT TO ME, IT'S MINE AND I WANT TO KEEP IT ALL." Sort of an AMORAL point of view, but there you have it. BTW he's been physically disabled since he was 21 yrs old and never took a dime in federal assistance or public charity.
Fair enough. Can't really argue with the logic when you get right down to it.
BUT, consider this! 35% of 100 dollars is 35 dollars, right? So I have 65 dollars left to live on.
35% of 1,000,000 is 350,000 dollars and I have 650,000 left to live on. Man, it's hard not to be a smartass as I type this.
Now we are ONLY talking about INCOME. I EARN 1,000,000 EVERY YEAR.
So what do I get for my 35 or 350,000 dollars? The guy with 35 dollars gets to eat and live.
The guy with 350,000 has a little left over after food and clothes (really nice food and really nice clothes).
Both guys can INVEST THEIR MONEY. America, EQUALITY. OK, let's play with that idea.
So the guy with 65 dollars can buy a 25 dollar US savings bond and have 40 dollars left to live on.
The guy with 650,000 can buy a 250,000 treasury bond, or a corporate bond that will pay him some interest each year.
Each person invests the same percent of their income and who makes the most from their investment.
Both guys get to fly in the same air, drive on the same federally funded highway system, live in the same free and democratic country, etc, etc, etc.
You could make the case quite easily, I believe, that the guy who contributes the 35 dollars gets a bigger bang for his buck, and they BOTH have the same opportunity to invest. See? This is where the LOGIC falls apart and morals and ethics begins to take over.
The one guy has SOOOO MUCH, couldn't/ shouldn't he just pay a little more?
Well, when you go to the voting booth, Nov. 6th, that's one of the big questions you have to ask yourself.
Each party has been very clear on where they stand on that issue.
IF, and this seems to be the case, one or two or twenty percent of taxpaying Americans control 90-98 percent of the country's wealth, why SHOULDN'T they pay more taxes and carry more of the societal burden. MORALS and ETHICS are at the basis of this argument.
My brother's point of view. "It's MINE, I MADE IT FROM MY OWN EFFORT, NOBODY GAVE IT TO ME, IT'S MINE AND I WANT TO KEEP IT ALL." Sort of an AMORAL point of view, but there you have it. BTW he's been physically disabled since he was 21 yrs old and never took a dime in federal assistance or public charity.
Fair enough. Can't really argue with the logic when you get right down to it.
BUT, consider this! 35% of 100 dollars is 35 dollars, right? So I have 65 dollars left to live on.
35% of 1,000,000 is 350,000 dollars and I have 650,000 left to live on. Man, it's hard not to be a smartass as I type this.
Now we are ONLY talking about INCOME. I EARN 1,000,000 EVERY YEAR.
So what do I get for my 35 or 350,000 dollars? The guy with 35 dollars gets to eat and live.
The guy with 350,000 has a little left over after food and clothes (really nice food and really nice clothes).
Both guys can INVEST THEIR MONEY. America, EQUALITY. OK, let's play with that idea.
So the guy with 65 dollars can buy a 25 dollar US savings bond and have 40 dollars left to live on.
The guy with 650,000 can buy a 250,000 treasury bond, or a corporate bond that will pay him some interest each year.
Each person invests the same percent of their income and who makes the most from their investment.
Both guys get to fly in the same air, drive on the same federally funded highway system, live in the same free and democratic country, etc, etc, etc.
You could make the case quite easily, I believe, that the guy who contributes the 35 dollars gets a bigger bang for his buck, and they BOTH have the same opportunity to invest. See? This is where the LOGIC falls apart and morals and ethics begins to take over.
The one guy has SOOOO MUCH, couldn't/ shouldn't he just pay a little more?
Well, when you go to the voting booth, Nov. 6th, that's one of the big questions you have to ask yourself.
Each party has been very clear on where they stand on that issue.
Friday, October 12, 2012
Confused about the Candidates for President?
As I've often stated, I'm still not convinced that the vote for a presidential candidate amounts to much.
However, in an attempt to discover how much misinformation (We'd call it lying) was spouted by both vice-presidential candidates during the debate on Oct. 11, 2012 I came to the following obvious conclusion.
Vote with your gut. If you want to go one better than that you can use www.congress.org and check the past voting record of both men.
How they behaved in the past is a strong predictor of how they will behave in the future (thank you Dr.'s Skinner and Whaley).
Politics is not a "gentlemen's" sport.
However, in an attempt to discover how much misinformation (We'd call it lying) was spouted by both vice-presidential candidates during the debate on Oct. 11, 2012 I came to the following obvious conclusion.
Vote with your gut. If you want to go one better than that you can use www.congress.org and check the past voting record of both men.
How they behaved in the past is a strong predictor of how they will behave in the future (thank you Dr.'s Skinner and Whaley).
Politics is not a "gentlemen's" sport.
Thursday, October 11, 2012
Money
If you really want to learn about money, there is an excellent conspiracy theory book entitled "The Creature from Jekyll Island" by G. Edward Griffin. BTW, conspiracy theory is his phrase not mine.
None the less, it is an excellent narrative on money, how it came about and a full explanation of it.
I say all this to preface some questions.
First, is Gold valuable? Well, it has worth in terms of currencies. As I type the value of gold is $1,768.00 US dollars per ounce. But does gold in and of itself have any intrinsic value? You can ask the same question about anything. The answer is no. NOTHING has value except the value someone else places on it. I can make up thousands of examples and so can you. My car is only worth whatever someone else is willing to pay me for it or some institution is willing to loan me some currency using the car as collateral.
The intrinsic value of gold is and always has beenl based on it's scarcity. It is said that if you took ALL of the gold that has ever been mined and refined, it would NOT fill two Olympic sized swimming pools (164' X 25'; 88,000 cu.ft.). That's amazing, right?
So, now another bit of information. A few years ago, maybe two or three, the Saudis suggested using something other than the US dollar as the currency to value a barrel of oil. That is their way of saying let's see if we can make something other than the US dollar the "reserve currency" of the planet.
Next bit of information. It is arguably agreed that the planet has reached "Peak oil production". That means that we have discovered, produced, and refined as much petroleum as we ever will. From this day forward there will never be as much oil as there was yesterday and every drop we pump out of the ground is gone forever and never will be replaced.
What the hell does this have to do with money?! If oil becomes so rare why not make it the value of gold. Good question. Same for water, bread, food in general, air, etc. ad infinitum.
Today, as you would read in the book, currency is referred to as "fiat". That is to say if has no real, tangible value, save what a person gives it or a government decrees it to be.
The above was all preface to prepare you for the article below.
http://www.economist.com/node/21564236?fsrc=scn/fb/wl/pe/downwiththeprice
The planet has become a very intertwined place. I suggest that if you are really interested you should investigate what the world might be like without ANY oil or more realistically with just a small amount of oil.
None the less, it is an excellent narrative on money, how it came about and a full explanation of it.
I say all this to preface some questions.
First, is Gold valuable? Well, it has worth in terms of currencies. As I type the value of gold is $1,768.00 US dollars per ounce. But does gold in and of itself have any intrinsic value? You can ask the same question about anything. The answer is no. NOTHING has value except the value someone else places on it. I can make up thousands of examples and so can you. My car is only worth whatever someone else is willing to pay me for it or some institution is willing to loan me some currency using the car as collateral.
The intrinsic value of gold is and always has beenl based on it's scarcity. It is said that if you took ALL of the gold that has ever been mined and refined, it would NOT fill two Olympic sized swimming pools (164' X 25'; 88,000 cu.ft.). That's amazing, right?
So, now another bit of information. A few years ago, maybe two or three, the Saudis suggested using something other than the US dollar as the currency to value a barrel of oil. That is their way of saying let's see if we can make something other than the US dollar the "reserve currency" of the planet.
Next bit of information. It is arguably agreed that the planet has reached "Peak oil production". That means that we have discovered, produced, and refined as much petroleum as we ever will. From this day forward there will never be as much oil as there was yesterday and every drop we pump out of the ground is gone forever and never will be replaced.
What the hell does this have to do with money?! If oil becomes so rare why not make it the value of gold. Good question. Same for water, bread, food in general, air, etc. ad infinitum.
Today, as you would read in the book, currency is referred to as "fiat". That is to say if has no real, tangible value, save what a person gives it or a government decrees it to be.
The above was all preface to prepare you for the article below.
http://www.economist.com/node/21564236?fsrc=scn/fb/wl/pe/downwiththeprice
The planet has become a very intertwined place. I suggest that if you are really interested you should investigate what the world might be like without ANY oil or more realistically with just a small amount of oil.
Wednesday, October 10, 2012
Buttonwood: Voting with the wallet | The Economist
Does YOUR vote matter in a Presidential election?
Well, yes, but with certain provisions understood. I live in a state that almost always votes "Republican" in presidential elections. So should I vote and does my vote really count. Sure it counts and yes I should vote.
The state vote (how the electors are "obligated" to cast their vote) is determined by the precinct , county vote. So if your candidate has been successful in persuading folks at the local level then that will be reflected at the state level and ultimately in the electoral college.
By The Wazy: I still stand by my position that the office of president is the least important election we have. Representatives and Senators are FAR more important, in my opinion.
Buttonwood: Voting with the wallet | The Economist:
'via Blog this'
Well, yes, but with certain provisions understood. I live in a state that almost always votes "Republican" in presidential elections. So should I vote and does my vote really count. Sure it counts and yes I should vote.
The state vote (how the electors are "obligated" to cast their vote) is determined by the precinct , county vote. So if your candidate has been successful in persuading folks at the local level then that will be reflected at the state level and ultimately in the electoral college.
By The Wazy: I still stand by my position that the office of president is the least important election we have. Representatives and Senators are FAR more important, in my opinion.
Buttonwood: Voting with the wallet | The Economist:
'via Blog this'
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)