Posts
I just bought this at Amazon.com. Just trying to do my part to help out our economy by buying more stuff I don't actually need. I even used a credit card! Oh the humanity! It doesn't have anything at all to do with me being a 45 year old nerd, of that I somewhat assure you. ;)
Assuming I get properly trained in its use, this anonymous blogger will no doubt be able to get a high paying job as an anonymous security officer if the you know what really meets up with the fan. How cool is that?
Well, there you have it.
You can take questionable advice from a phaser toting anonymous blogger for free, or you can shell out the big bucks for this, this, or this wearing professional business suits. Tough call! Did I mention that I shave once a week or so whether I need it or not? Hey, at least I bathe daily. It's so hard to compete.
How to choose a financial planner
They charge just for their advice. Fee-only planners may charge a flat fee, a percentage of your investments - usually 1 percent - under their management or hourly rates starting at about $120 an hour. Still, you can generally expect to pay $1,500 to $5,000 in the first year, when you will receive a written financial plan, plus $750 to $2,500 for ongoing advice in subsequent years.
Damn. I really need to charge something apparently. Just think of the hand phasers I could hoard if I charged just 1% of the standard starting hourly rate ($1.20 an hour). Here's a sampling of the advice you could receive from my premium service.
Why the f**k are you spending THAT much money on financial advice? Over the course of 70 years, a 1% annual fee would see more than half of your entire nest egg gone (0.99^70 = 0.495).
At $1.20 an hour, I figure that's worth at least a penny. It didn't take me anywhere near the full hour to think it up. It was more like instinct. It just sort of came to me in a vision. Hahaha!
Picture retirement. There you are on your luxury yacht in the Bahamas. Your financial advisor sails up to you in the very same boat you have. You laugh. Looks like we did pretty well for ourselves you say. He replies, "Yep, I did just as well as you did. I really should thank you. You were my only client!"
And lastly, let's revisit this security job idea again. Based on where I see the economy headed I would think that security jobs would become more plentiful. Let's see if that theory holds weight.
BLS: Security Guards and Gaming Surveillance Officers
Employment of security guards is expected to grow by 17 percent between 2006 and 2016, which is faster than the average for all occupations. This occupation will have a very large number of new jobs arise, about 175,000 over the projections decade. Concern about crime, vandalism, and terrorism continues to increase the need for security. Demand for guards also will grow as private security firms increasingly perform duties—such as providing security at public events and in residential neighborhoods—that were formerly handled by police officers.
Wow. Amazingly blunt, isn't it?
15 comments:
A much better investment is lightsaber hilts. Drath Tyrannus' curved hilt saber (for makashi application) is way cooleer than stupid phaser!!!
Whats up Mark?
I wish I could spell but I am always in a hurry.
I want to be the first ever "3 in a row comment poster" here so be aware i took a humorous swipe at you tonight in my post! I was just kidding!
Does the phazer come with the earshattering "BOOM" of, lets say, a 12 gauge shotgun?
If so count me in : )
"...noisey cricket get wicked..."
Stag,
If you are going to be a security guard, I highly recommend this training video in non-lethal force:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxvuJU-yr5w&feature=related
Who know? It might work with parrots too.
GYSC,
The original Star Trek phaser is WAY cool, and so is the toy! I guess you are just going to have to trust me on that. ;)
watchtower,
The toy comes with a self destruct setting that scared my dog the first time I tried it. That said, it did not scare her twice. I should also mention that my girlfriend has a toy frog that jumps. The dog found that even more scary, lol.
mab,
The parrot has had a very rough week. She's been driven back and forth to the vet quite a bit and had TWO overnight stays. It partially explains my lack of posting. Further, I've even taken to turning the router off at night in case the whine it makes has been bothering her.
I think I'm in need of the vulcan neck pinch just to get some much needed sleep!
Stag,
Here's a pre-"helicopter" Bernanke speech. It's just as amusing as the "Great Moderation" tripe.
http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/speeches/2002/20021015/default.htm
At the end of the day the system demands debt growth. Everything else is secondary.
mab,
Nice find!
From your link...
"Though Campbell and Shiller were among those warning of a bubble in stock prices, and deserve credit for doing so, we should not lose sight of a simple quantitative point: According to their published article, their analysis of dividend-price ratios implied that, as of the beginning of 1997, the broad stock market was priced at three times its fundamental value (Campbell and Shiller, 1998, p. 13). At that time the Standard & Poor's 500 index was about 750, compared with a close of 842 on October 1 of this year. I do not know, of course, where the stock market will go tomorrow, much less in the longer run (that's really my whole point). But I suspect that Campbell and Shiller's implicit estimate of the long-run value of the market was too pessimistic and that, in any case, an attempt to use this assessment to make monetary policy in early 1997 (presumably, a severe tightening would have been called for) might have done much more harm than good."
A stock market growing at 10% per year for 11 1/2 years (early 1997 to late 2008, 1.1^11.5=2.99) should have risen by almost exactly "three times" its original value. In sharp contrast, the stock market was flat. Seems Campbell and Shiller were not too pessimistic after all. Perhaps they should have started an illusion of prosperity blog. I once thought I was becoming a pessimist too (and then the markets tanked).
"Part of the reason that the standard ratios were too pessimistic in 1997 was that at least some of the run-up in stock prices in the latter 1990s was apparently justified by fundamentals, as evidenced by the remarkable growth in output and productivity in recent years, the recent recession notwithstanding."
He needs to update that a bit to say the recent RECESSIONS notwithstanding. He could also mention that many Madoff investors thought the returns were "apparently justified by fundamentals" too. Oops!
"When this moral hazard is present, credit flows rapidly into inelastically supplied assets, such as real estate. Rapid appreciation is the result, until the inevitable albeit belated regulatory crackdown stops the flow of credit and leads to an asset-price crash. Bubbles of this type may be identifiable to some extent after they have begun..."
Ben "There is No Housing Bubble to Go Bust" (2005) Bernanke can't even spot those apparently.
Wow. Lots of "fun" stuff to read in those remarks.
He's make a heck of a brake inspector, lol.
"I do not know if your brakes are okay."
Stag,
I found the Bernanke speech fascinating too.
How about this bit of Bernanke "wisdom":
I mean that, as a general rule, the Fed will do best by focusing its monetary policy instruments on achieving its macro goals--price stability and maximum sustainable employment--while using its regulatory, supervisory, and lender-of-last resort powers to help ensure financial stability.
Best? Complete failure on all counts.
Price stability? Only if we exclude housing and even then CPI has swung from +5% to -1.7%. Not to mention energy/commodity prices have been frightfully volatile.
Maximum sustainably employment and financial stability? I don't even need to commment on those.
It's amazing how screwed up Bernanke's facts are too. For instance, he claims:
and someone who bought stock in early 1928 and sold in October 1930 would have almost broken even.
The reality is that someone who bought the S&P 500 in 1/28 and sold in 10/30 would have realized real gains of 6.74%, as inflation was -1.7% while dividends were ~ 5%.
Bernanke also talks about how real interest rates were very high as a result of fed actions during the late 1920s. How about today? According to a recent Bloomberg article, current real interest rates are almost double historical norms (3.72% 10 yr + negative 1.7% cpi).
The fed doesn't believe in leaning against asset bubbles? That seems to apply only when bubbles are inflating. According to the TARP Inspector General (Barofsky) we have 23+ trillion "leaning" against a deflating bubble!
Also, it seems totally unworkable that the fed (and CONgress) are silent on our wealth distribution. Bernanke of all people should know that poor wealth distribution was a major contributing cause of the GD. And the fed still won't fully address the leverage issue. Has increased financial leverage ever sustainably increased real output? Not that I can see. And if that is the case, it should never be allowed as the excess leverage always leads to disaster.
It take a village? Nope. It takes a highly educated village idiot. Greenspan and Bernanke and their obtuse views on credit were the easy button for wall street fraud.
A depression may have been averted on Wall Street, but Main Street is a different story.
As Schumpeter said, throughout history, almost all economic misery is caused by banker mischief. I'm so glad Bernanke is a student of eCONomic history.
mab,
"Also, it seems totally unworkable that the fed (and CONgress) are silent on our wealth distribution."
What really gets me is education. Bernanke seems to think that more education would actually reduce income and wealth inequality (even though the data shows these inequalities have been rising even as record numbers embrace college education). Many (if not most) of the jobs of the future do not require a degree though. Further, college is not cheap unless you already have money. The smartest will find a degree useful of course. The average might not.
It's just like most investments I guess. It (a college degree) really helped the early investors (such as my generation). It helped us stand out in the crowd. These days, most have college degrees. The crowd is now standing in the unemployment line (my girlfriend included).
In order to stand out in the crowd now it probably requires a PhD. Too bad there's no real need for millions more PhDs though. Near as I can tell, the world has plenty.
MBAs once stood out in the crowd. Based on the banking fallout, probably now have WAY too many of those.
The world is still cranking out computer programmers too. That seems destined for a serious glut, assuming we aren't already there.
Sorry I'm not posting much. It is insanely hot for Seattle right now AND my pet bird is back at the vet yet again for more testing. It's been a rough month.
Stag,
Bernanke seems to think that more education would actually reduce income and wealth inequality (even though the data shows these inequalities have been rising even as record numbers embrace college education).
The rise in inequality continues:
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=69
Much of the wealth garnered by the finance industry and asset holders since 1970 is what I term "inflation gathering".
Since 1970, annualized nominal GDP growth has been ~ 7%, while annualized CPI inflation has been ~ 4.5%. In other words about 65% of "growth" is inflation (not earned imo).
And to add insult to injury, CONgress and States have increased taxes on wages and CPI goods while decreasing taxes on assets such as stocks and real estate which gather inflation tax deferred.
Why did I choose 1970 for my starting data point? That's just before we abandoned the gold standard and officially adopted a policy of positive inflation.
The middle class and labor simply can't keep up. Yet Bernanke still claims we have to save wall st. in order to save main st. I just don't see it that way. I'd argue Bernanke is claiming we have to further decimate the middle class in order to save wall st.
I'm really struggling with the treasury/fed's logic too. In short, the government is gathering taxpayer wealth and handing it to finance so that finance can re-lend the same money back to the taxpayer at a higher interest rate. That process may save the system, but no way will it benefit the majority.
mab,
Your logic seems spot on to me.
Further, if 65% of the growth has been inflation which is exactly what the math shows, then we should feel very uneasy. In recent years, that remaining 35% has been on shaky ground (literally, since one epicenter of the housing bust was in California).
"And to add insult to injury, CONgress and States have increased taxes on wages and CPI goods while decreasing taxes on assets such as stocks and real estate which gather inflation tax deferred."
I'm looking at a receipt from 1998 as I type this (the first year I started saving receipts for future reference). The sales tax I paid was 8.6%. Now I'm looking at a receipt from 2009. The sales tax I paid was 9.5%.
Sales tax rates should not inflate. Total sales tax revenue should grow thanks to inflation anyway (and population growth too for that matter). If Washington State could survive by leeching 8.6% of purchases in the past, then it should survive by leeching 8.6% of purchases in the future. If it can't, then sales tax inflation must continue until the leech eventually kills the host. Any "smart" parasite knows not to increase the feeding to that point.
That said, I think the leech will someday kill the host. We're doing everything we can to increase the size of the leech and therefore it will naturally want to feed more. I just hope I die of natural causes before that point. There I go being all optimistic again. Hope! Bah!
you know when a post is good when the comments take longer to read then the actual blog post itself. ^_^
I should probably post more pictures of Star Trek equipment. ;)
Post a Comment