Thursday, December 1, 2011
Sunday, November 13, 2011
Friday, November 11, 2011
Thursday, November 10, 2011
Sunday, November 6, 2011
Thursday, October 27, 2011
Five ways the European debt crisis could affect the U.S.
Buy Netflix? A Bull vs. Bear Debate With a Cautionary Tale
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
Economic plans compared
7 Ways to Play Stocks Right Now
Monday, October 24, 2011
Stocks reach highest level since August - latimes.com
VP speaks in my home county
From: "Larry Trout"
'Biden:'We think the federal government in Washington, D.C., should say to the cities and states, look, we're going to give you some money so that you can hire back all those people. And the way we're going to do it, we're going to ask people who have a lot of money to pay just a little bit more in taxes....
No problem, says the vice president. We're going to "ask" people who have "a lot of money" to "pay just a little bit more" in taxes.
Where are these people? Evidently, not in York, Pa. But they're out there somewhere. Who has "a lot of money"? According to President Obama, if your combined household income is over $250,000 a year you have "a lot of money." Back in March, my National Review colleague Kevin Williamson pointed out that, in order to balance the budget of the United States, you would have to increase the taxes of people earning more than $250,000 a year by $500,000 a year.
Okay, okay, maybe that 250K definition of "bloated plutocrat" is a bit off. After all, the quarter-mil-a-year category includes not only bankers and other mustache-twirling robber barons, but also at least 50 school superintendents in the State of New York and many other mustache-twirling selfless public servants.
So how about people earning a million dollars a year? That's "a lot of money" by anybody's definition. As Kevin Williamson also pointed out, to balance the budget of the United States on the backs of millionaires you would have to increase the taxes of those earning more than 1 million a year by 6 million a year.'
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
Underlying inflation pressures ease
Sunday, October 16, 2011
Friday, October 14, 2011
Now I Get It: Here’s Why Apple Launched The iPhone 4S Instead Of The iPhone 5
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
Full Report: The Economic Elite Vs. The People of the United States of America
High-Upside Industrials To Buy On Dips
Monday, October 10, 2011
Monday, October 3, 2011
Thursday, September 29, 2011
Tuesday, September 27, 2011
Thursday, September 15, 2011
Thursday, September 1, 2011
What Would Paul Krugman Do?
Except that banks don't really loan currency that way. That is to say, banks don't really loan out their deposits of Federal Reserve Notes, but instead issue loans by expanding the money supply. Say that same $10,000 in hard currency is deposited into bank A, but this time, the bank doesn't just loan out $9,000, keeping $1,000 in reserve. Rather, the $10,000 in deposits is the reserve from which the bank can then loan out an additional $90,000. It is still meeting its requirement to keep 10% in reserve. So if the deposits don't account for the loans, where does that loaned "money" come from? Why, it is simply created out of thin air! The bank punches some keys on a computer and—POOF!—extra digits show up on a borrower's account statement. Neat trick, huh? That's the magic of fractional-reserve banking.
The bank hasn't turned on some printing press and created more Federal Reserve Notes to place in its vault to represent the amount of the loan, the $90,000. The "credit" was just signed into existence when the borrower put his John Hancock on the loan agreement. So the "money" that was "borrowed" never existed in the first place. But the borrower can still gobuy a car or a house or whatever, because the seller will accept those digital numbers being transferred to his or her own account as value for the item sold. Works great, doesn't it? Well, sure, except that the borrower now owes the principal plus interest on the "money" the bank "loaned" him by creating it out of thin air, and, of course, if he doesn't repay it, the bank will take the house he bought with the "money" he borrowed—which is to say, in either case, that the borrower must repay something of real value representing the fruit of his labor in return for having borrowed something of no real value representing no labor or production.
Sunday, August 28, 2011
Citibank "Rewards" Card.
While I am on this subject, Chase bank offered $100 for opening a credit card, a checking account, and a savings account. I did all three. I intend to close the savings account after 90 days because I had to put $10,000 in there, and they pay practically nothing in interest. I like their credit card and I am O.K. with their checking account.
Friday, August 5, 2011
Tuesday, August 2, 2011
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
Monday, July 25, 2011
Finding calm amid the August turbulence
The softer dollar saved the euro's bacon
Monday, June 6, 2011
Friday, May 13, 2011
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
David Sokol, long seen as a contender to take over as CEO of Berkshire Hathaway when Warren Buffett retires, resigned unexpectedly
Fwd: The Price of Taxing the Rich
'Nearly half of California's income taxes before the recession came from the top 1% of earners: households that took in more than $490,000 a year. High earners, it turns out, have especially volatile incomes—their earnings fell by more than twice as much as the rest of the population's during the recession. When they crashed, they took California's finances down with them..'
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Friday, March 11, 2011
Friday, February 25, 2011
Sunday, February 13, 2011
Motley Fool Launches A Mutual Fund, Forgets Being Hypocritical / Manipulative Aren’t Selling Points
Monday, January 17, 2011
Analyst weighs impact of Jobs' latest medical leave from Apple
Everything You Need To Know About Tim Cook
Sent from my iPhone
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Goldman Sachs admits it misled investors, pays $550M fine
got off easy ... that they are laughing all the way to the bank.
Likewise, I heard a socialist claim that Obama is in bed with Goldman