<< <i>The annual World Wealth Report, released Thursday by Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc. and the Capgemini Group consulting firm, found that there were 8.3 million people worldwide with $1 million or more in financial assets at the end of 2004, up from 7.7 million a year earlier. >>
This means if you own an apartment building worth 1.4 million and you have a loan of 1.3 million, you qualify. Pretty common in CAL.
Real estate wasn't considered in this study. It's talking about liquid assets such as stock, bonds, and cash. Here's the link.
Once again I need to point out that you cannot aquire wealth in this country beyond the 2-4% growth in the economy without taking it from someone else.
"...reality has a well-known liberal bias." -- Stephen Colbert
I'm not complaining about capitalism. While one individual is rising someone else is retiring, gambling, dying, or giving up wealth to make up for it. It's called life.
The dangerous thing is the general trend of all the wealth flowing to the top and increasing wealth disparity. For anyone who agrees with this system, understand that its been tried before and ALWAYS results in the same end. A tiny aristocracy at the top and the vast majority of people living in absolute poverty. When was the last time you played a Monopoly game and there was a tie?
Progressive taxes and regulations on business are required but are being systematically removed. It's only a matter of time.
"...reality has a well-known liberal bias." -- Stephen Colbert
Not everyone should prosper. If you work hard and take chances then you should be rewarded. If you sit by and skim from everyone else then you should dig a hole and throw yourself in.
The dangerous thing is the general trend of all the wealth flowing to the top and increasing wealth disparity. For anyone who agrees with this system, understand that its been tried before and ALWAYS results in the same end. A tiny aristocracy at the top and the vast majority of people living in absolute poverty
This has been the demise of many civilizations. And it probably will be ours also, however I do not think it will be in the next few generations. I believe CHINA has to fear this much more than the USA. The gap between rich and poor is astronomical and combined with a repressive government it will lead to upheaval. This I do think will happen in our lifetimes.
By EILEEN ALT POWELL, AP Business Writer 22 minutes ago
NEW YORK - A strong global economy gave 600,000 people an entree last year into a highly envied group: the world's millionaires.
The annual World Wealth Report, released Thursday by Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc. and the Capgemini Group consulting firm, found that there were 8.3 million people worldwide with $1 million or more in financial assets at the end of 2004, up from 7.7 million a year earlier.
Their total wealth rose 8.2 percent to $30.8 trillion in 2004, giving them control of nearly a quarter of the world's financial assets, according to Petrina Dolby, vice president of Capgemini's wealth management practice. The 8.2 percent increase was the strongest since an identical 8.2 percent rise in 1999, she said.
Not surprisingly, the expansion of the millionaire class was especially strong in North America because of the solid economic growth last year in both the United States and Canada.
"Significantly, North America surpassed Europe both in total high net worth individuals population and wealth for the first time since 2001," when North American investors were hard-hit by the bursting of the technology stock bubble and the terror attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon. The Asia-Pacific region also showed strong growth.
According to the latest figures, the number of high net worth individuals included 2.7 million in North America with a total of $9.3 trillion in assets; 2.6 million in Europe with $8.9 trillion; 2.3 million in the Asia-Pacific region with $7.2 trillion; 300,000 in Latin America, including Mexico, with $3.7 trillion; 300,000 in the Middle East with $1 trillion; and 100,000 in Africa with $700 billion.
The study also looked at what it termed "ultra high net worth individuals," who have at least $30 million in financial assets.
Their ranks increased by 6,300 individuals, or 8.9 percent, in 2004 to 77,500 worldwide, the study said.
Although the international economy was growing rapidly last year, the world's millionaires were more cautious in their investment and asset allocation strategies, the study said.
"With returns drifting lower and market volatility increasing in 2004, high net worth individuals leveled off their commitments to equities," it said.
The wealthy decreased their stock holdings to 34 percent last year from 35 percent in 2003 and increased their fixed-income investments to 27 percent last year from 25 percent the year before. Their other holdings in 2004 were 12 percent in cash and other liquid investments, 13 percent in real estate and 14 percent in "alternative" investments such as hedge funds and commodities.
The real estate portion of their holdings was down from 17 percent in 2003, the report said.
"We believe this relatively low allocation rate signals high net worth individuals' desires to harvest returns from now premium-priced (real estate) holdings to direct profits into other asset classes," the report said.
Although the global economic expansion has begun slowing, the study still predicts 6.5 percent growth over the next five years — enough to create many more millionaires, especially in North America.
It forecasts that by 2009, the high net worth individuals will have amassed $42.2 trillion in assets. By region, it will include $13.9 trillion in North America, $10.7 trillion in Europe, $10.1 trillion in the Asia-Pacific region, $5 trillion in Latin America, $1.5 trillion in the Middle East and $900 billion in Africa.
<< <i>Besides, a million just isn't in the "wealthy" class anymore. >>
For a college student like myself, who has $2,000 in the bank, $3500 in loans, and would be VERY comfortable on $20,000 a year, a million dollars is a great deal of money. Depends on what part of the country you live in. A million in Louisiana lasts a LOT longer and buys a LOT more than a mil in CA.
I heard they were making a French version of Medal of Honor. I wonder how many hotkeys it'll have for "surrender."
<<<<The whole mess is your MOM'S fault. Remember how the ole harpy useta tellya to eatcher dinner cuz there was thousands of kids STARVING in China?>>>>
You must be very young.
My Mom told me there was thousands of kids starving in Europe.
"Once again I need to point out that you cannot aquire wealth in this country beyond the 2-4% growth in the economy without taking it from someone else."
This is actually not true.
One can point to many specific examples where one can grow wealth faster than the US economy as a whole without taking from others in this country. Two relatively easy examples: (a) if I go to work in a foreign country, build a successful business, and repatriate funds to the US, and, (b) if I buy a house, work diligently on weekends improving the house and grounds, and sell it for a considerable profit. In both cases, I believe my increase in wealth will be off the Fed's radar, and will not cause them to put the brakes on the economy, which I believe is the mechanism by which you feel my gain impacts other people's prospects.
With regard to the more general argument, in the case that an individual brings innovations to the economy which materially increase productivity, they could also create a win-win situation -- ie, a situation where both the individual and the populace as a whole see an increase in wealth that is higher than the 2 - 4 % norm that you refer to.
<< <i>The dangerous thing is the general trend of all the wealth flowing to the top and increasing wealth disparity. For anyone who agrees with this system, understand that its been tried before and ALWAYS results in the same end. A tiny aristocracy at the top and the vast majority of people living in absolute poverty
This has been the demise of many civilizations. And it probably will be ours also, however I do not think it will be in the next few generations. I believe CHINA has to fear this much more than the USA. The gap between rich and poor is astronomical and combined with a repressive government it will lead to upheaval. This I do think will happen in our lifetimes. >>
Nah no chance. The masses there have been sufficiently dumbed down to where the vast majority of people more closely resemble sheep than anything else. Individuality is virtually extinct.
As its getting real close to being that way here as well, but in the case of China, it's been thousands of years of similar dynamics in how people view individualism.........freedom.
And as a comparison to here, there was a revolution over taxation and the confiscation of guns. Do you think the founders would have ever believed that people here could actually justify this government stealing as much as they do without so much as a whimper from most people? Now imagine that for just another decade ( here) and then imagine China with 6,000 years.
<<<<The whole mess is your MOM'S fault. Remember how the ole harpy useta tellya to eatcher dinner cuz there was thousands of kids STARVING in China?>>>>
You must be very young.
My Mom told me there was thousands of kids starving in Europe.
Now I tell my kids that there are thousands of kids starving ........................in LA.
So why is it that everything seems more expensive when the government and Wall-Street keep saying there is no INFLATION?
Walter J. "John" Williams
Payments to Social Security Recipients Should be 43% Higher
Inflation, as reported by the Consumer Price Index (CPI) is understated by roughly 2.7% per year. This is due to recent redefinitions of the series as well as to flawed methodologies, particularly adjustments to price measures for quality changes. The concentration of this installment on the quality of government economic reports will be first on CPI series redefinition and the damages done to those dependent on accurate cost-of-living estimates, and on pending further redefinition and economic damage.
The CPI was designed to help businesses, individuals and the government adjust their financial planning and considerations for the impact of inflation. The CPI worked reasonably well for those purposes into the early-1990s. In recent years, however, the reporting system has succumbed to pressures from miscreant politicians, who were and are intent upon stealing income from social security recipients, without ever taking the issue of reduced entitlement payments before the public or Congress for approval.
Changes made in CPI methodology during the Clinton administration have understated inflation significantly, and, through a cumulative effect, have reduced current social security payments by 30% from where they would have been otherwise. That means Social Security checks would be 43% higher. In like manner, anyone involved in commerce, who relies on receiving payments adjusted for the CPI, has been similarly damaged. On the other side, if your are making payments based on the CPI (i.e., the federal government), you are making out like a bandit.
Behind this movement were financial luminaries Michael Boskin, then chief economist to the first Bush administration, and Alan Greenspan, Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
Although the ensuing political furor killed consideration of Congressionally mandated changes in the CPI, the BLS quietly stepped forward and began changing the system, anyway, early in the Clinton administration.
Up until the Boskin/Greenspan agendum surfaced, the CPI was measured using the costs of a fixed basket of goods, a fairly simple and straightforward concept. The identical basket of goods would be priced at prevailing market costs for each period, and the period-to-period change in the cost of that market basket represented the rate of inflation in terms of maintaining a constant standard of living.
The Boskin/Greenspan argument was that when steak got too expensive, the consumer would substitute hamburger for the steak, and that the inflation measure should reflect the costs tied to buying hamburger versus steak, instead of steak versus steak. Of course, replacing hamburger for steak in the calculations would reduce the inflation rate, but it represented the rate of inflation in terms of maintaining a declining standard of living. Cost of living was being replaced by the cost of survival. The old system told you how much you had to increase your income in order to keep buying steak. The new system promised you hamburger, and then dog food, perhaps, after that.
Shortly after Clinton took control of the White House, however, attitudes changed. The BLS initially did not institute a new CPI measurement using a variable-basket of goods that allowed substitution of hamburger for steak, but rather tried to approximate the effect by changing the weighting of goods in the CPI fixed basket. Over a period of several years, straight arithmetic weighting of the CPI components was shifted to a geometric weighting.
The results have been dramatic. The compounding effect since the early-1990s has reduced annual cost of living adjustments in social security by a total of 30%.
<< <i>The dangerous thing is the general trend of all the wealth flowing to the top and increasing wealth disparity. For anyone who agrees with this system, understand that its been tried before and ALWAYS results in the same end. A tiny aristocracy at the top and the vast majority of people living in absolute poverty
This has been the demise of many civilizations. And it probably will be ours also, however I do not think it will be in the next few generations. I believe CHINA has to fear this much more than the USA. The gap between rich and poor is astronomical and combined with a repressive government it will lead to upheaval. This I do think will happen in our lifetimes. >>
Nah no chance. The masses there have been sufficiently dumbed down to where the vast majority of people more closely resemble sheep than anything else. Individuality is virtually extinct.
As its getting real close to being that way here as well, but in the case of China, it's been thousands of years of similar dynamics in how people view individualism.........freedom.
And as a comparison to here, there was a revolution over taxation and the confiscation of guns. Do you think the founders would have ever believed that people here could actually justify this government stealing as much as they do without so much as a whimper from most people? Now imagine that for just another decade ( here) and then imagine China with 6,000 years.
Tom >>
Yes, I think this is'was true. It is easy to influence people when the only voice they hear is your own. However the internet has made information available to anyone. Granted the rural Chinese dont have a pot to pi$$ in but they do have friends in the cities and word spreads quickly.
Tianamen (sp)? Square was a start. Imagine if that happened in every large city simultaneously. I think it would be very hard for the Chinese govt to explain the deaths of 10's of thousands of demonstrators to the rest of the world. A caged dog that is beaten will only remain loyal to its master for so long.
<< <i>The dangerous thing is the general trend of all the wealth flowing to the top and increasing wealth disparity. For anyone who agrees with this system, understand that its been tried before and ALWAYS results in the same end. A tiny aristocracy at the top and the vast majority of people living in absolute poverty
This has been the demise of many civilizations. And it probably will be ours also, however I do not think it will be in the next few generations. I believe CHINA has to fear this much more than the USA. The gap between rich and poor is astronomical and combined with a repressive government it will lead to upheaval. This I do think will happen in our lifetimes. >>
Nah no chance. The masses there have been sufficiently dumbed down to where the vast majority of people more closely resemble sheep than anything else. Individuality is virtually extinct.
As its getting real close to being that way here as well, but in the case of China, it's been thousands of years of similar dynamics in how people view individualism.........freedom.
And as a comparison to here, there was a revolution over taxation and the confiscation of guns. Do you think the founders would have ever believed that people here could actually justify this government stealing as much as they do without so much as a whimper from most people? Now imagine that for just another decade ( here) and then imagine China with 6,000 years.
Tom >>
Yes, I think this is'was true. It is easy to influence people when the only voice they hear is your own. However the internet has made information available to anyone. Granted the rural Chinese dont have a pot to pi$$ in but they do have friends in the cities and word spreads quickly.
Tianamen (sp)? Square was a start. Imagine if that happened in every large city simultaneously. I think it would be very hard for the Chinese govt to explain the deaths of 10's of thousands of demonstrators to the rest of the world. A caged dog that is beaten will only remain loyal to its master for so long. >>
You are thinking like a westerner, or better than that you are thinking the way an old fashioned American used to think. But it's China and Tianamen was NOT a protest for what you may have heard it was for. Nothing of the sort actually. You think it was for freedom?
Nope.
Dogs bite back. Brainwashed humans don't. They collapse inside and justify what's happening, believe in what's happening or just go with it.
You will never see a revolution against socialism in Asia start in China.
I think you might see one in Vietnam first though, and that could spark a change in the region just like what Poland started in eastern Europe.
The Viets have the balls.
Far as the net is concerned , MOST if not all "questionable" sites of information come up as "page cannot be displayed" in all Asian countries. Not just China. You'll never see a mass media which openly disagrees with ANY US President either. So freedom of the press? Ha!
Goldsaint, besides hamburger for steak (substitution factors) the other major change of the later 1990's is the use of hedonics or quality factors. If something becomes more efficient or offers more bang for the buck, the price is adjusted downward even if the real price is unchanged. Hedonics are used with washing machines, clothes dryers, college text books, DVD's, camcorders, microwave ovens, refridgerators, computers, and many other higher tech equipment. Bet you didn't know that the price of dryers may have fallen 20% because they are now 20% better. The price out the door is unchanged however but your pleasure has improved immensely. Have to account for that somehow per the B(L)S.
And don't forget that in 1983-85, after living with crazy high CPI numbers in the high teens for a few years, something had to be done. So they axed the price of homes and replaced them with an equivalent rent. Hence 30% of the total CPI is based on a supposition that 70% of the homes in the US "rent" their houses rather than own them. Between home rentals, durable goods with quality factors, and substitution issues, I'd say about 50% of the CPI is tied up in items that don't change (i.e. don't tend to go up much in price). Try moving an average when 50% of it is defined to be a lead weight. You need twice the change to produce a previous result.
I hear and respect what you are saying. But I still believe within the next generation there will be a major change in the Chinese government. As their economy matures they will go though the same pains as all others have. Socialism in its purest form is a very strong form of government. The trick is to keep it pure. The contaminent is always money. And China is printing it. Not everyone is brainwashed and one worm can spoil the entire basket. I believe it will only be a matter of time.
Well Mr cohodk, I don't know where you come up with socialism being a strong government. It's certainly the most immoral form of rule there is as there is nothing peaceful about ruling by force, and nothing voluntary or free in that ideology.
There already has been a change in government in China . And there will be more change I'm sure. It's just not coming becuase of anything then people want or will do. It's simply because there's greater amounts the Chinese government can steal by making said changes.
Just like there's been a change in Vietnam which I'm more intimately familiar with. And the overall change is to get out of peoples way although both places have a long long way to go. But they seem to be at least pointed in the right direction while this place is in the opposite direction.
Im not talking about morals. The system of government where everyone works for the common good and all are on an even footing is the fairest and "best" form of government. I am not saying China practices this "pure socialism" as there clearly are those that do not work for the common good and are not on equal footing. This is precisely where Russia failed. And China is destined for failure also.
<< <i>Im not talking about morals. The system of government where everyone works for the common good and all are on an even footing is the fairest and "best" form of government. I am not saying China practices this "pure socialism" as there clearly are those that do not work for the common good and are not on equal footing. This is precisely where Russia failed. And China is destined for failure also. >>
OK, obviously you don't have a clue as to what socialism is. I guess your type of person, despite never being there would say the kinds of things you say and obviously people like you think it's ok for other people to work, have their income stolen and redistributed to people like you. And you say your not talking about morals. Are you 12 years old?
People like you are the reason why a place like this doesn't even resemble what it used to be and is marching right along that socialist path.
<< <i>The system of government where everyone works for the common good and all are on an even footing is the fairest and "best" form of government. >>
<< <i>The system of government where everyone works for the common good and all are on an even footing is the fairest and "best" form of government. >>
The public school system has failed us. >>
I am saying that this form of govt does NOT exist. However it would be nice if it did.
And yes the public and parochial school systems are worthless.
Socialism gives absolutely no incentive for hard work, therefore is kinda stupid and will always fail in the long run. Anyone who thinks that humans are selfless enough to donate all their efforts to the whole instead of taking advantage of the system hasn't observed real humans in the wild. People will practically kill to get a better car than the Jones next door, but if everyone gets the same car regardless there is no reason to do anything other than work as little as you can get away with. Socialism doesn't work, hasn't worked, and will screw up our economy even more. It is not a sustainable system.
Pure capitalism doesn't work either and is also kinda stupid. Only one person can win a Monopoly game because wealth = power. The more power you gain, the more power you can wield against the competition. With a lack of government oversight, only ONE company will exist in the end and will dictate all the market conditions including who works and for what wage. We already tried this one 100 years ago and it resulted in 60 hour work weeks for children and company run sweatshops with a terrible standard of life. During this time THERE WAS AN ECONOMIC DEPRESSION EVERY 20 YEARS! This is not a sustainable system either.
Isn't it obvious? We need a balance between socialism and capitalism. The aquisition of wealth needs to be restrained but not too much. Corporations need to have regulations but not so many they can't "win" a market. Tax policy should allow an individual to become rich, but not to the point of being worth more than most of the world's nations. I think the wealth of the United States since World War II makes all of this obvious. Sadly the current administration doesn't get it. We're headed back torward aristocracy and robber barrons.
"...reality has a well-known liberal bias." -- Stephen Colbert
No it hasn't , the concept was a failure. You can't teach people who don't WANT to learn. School is an OBLIGATION, students are RARELY expelled. It requires no effort and the ones who don't want to be there disrupt the others so they learn nothing too. Then we dummy down the curriculum so those who don't want to be there can keep up without effort.
Now we try to use it to push the "social" agendas and provide little security for the physically weaker who often make the best students.
The system need to dump the losers about the 8th grade. Time to stop babysitting thse who don't want to give the effort.
<< <i>Im not talking about morals. The system of government where everyone works for the common good and all are on an even footing is the fairest and "best" form of government. I am not saying China practices this "pure socialism" as there clearly are those that do not work for the common good and are not on equal footing. This is precisely where Russia failed. And China is destined for failure also. >>
OK, obviously you don't have a clue as to what socialism is. I guess your type of person, despite never being there would say the kinds of things you say and obviously people like you think it's ok for other people to work, have their income stolen and redistributed to people like you. And you say your not talking about morals. Are you 12 years old?
People like you are the reason why a place like this doesn't even resemble what it used to be and is marching right along that socialist path.
End of conversation with you. >>
MREARLYGOLD,
The school system has obviously failed you as I dont believe you know how to read. I NEVER said that the socialism that China practices is good. In fact I said it will fail.
What I am saying is that a "pure" system of socialism is good. It would be a utopia. This obviously can not ever happen because humans are controlled by their emotions--greed, envy, passion, ect. You are obviously close to the situation and see the harm/damage that is inflicted on the people by "bad" socialism. I think you are confused by the true nature of socialism as there has never been a "pure" system in mankind's history due the emotional stimulus of humans.
And also, you have no idea who I am, where I have been, or my experiences. Perhaps if you thought with much less emotion you would not make absurd statements like this---People like you are the reason why a place like this doesn't even resemble what it used to be and is marching right along that socialist path
cohodk I know all about people like you. You are a detriment to every man, woman and chile who holds freedom dear, Insomuch as knowing you "personally", you've said all I need to know in order to judge you the way I have, as an enemy of liberty.
How? By the statements you made. I didn't make them. You did.
Now please, ignore me, I will do the same towards you.
To get back on topic--- Govt data released this morning---
PPI -0.6% vs -0.2% consensus Core PPI +0.1% vs +0.2% consensus
While you may not agree with the way the govt compiles these numbers--I do not completely--- you must still use them. The bond market surely is using them pushing the 30yr yield to 4.41%. Up from 4.18% just last week. The dollar is stronger today. There has also been rumor that some major players in the currency market who have been short the dollar are covering--Buffett?. Not only are they covering but they are buying puts on other currencies. It appears the demise of the dollar has been exaggerated.
The idea that public schools exist to push social agenda is way overblown. All the hype you hear about sex education, condoms, homosexuality and the like might take a single day or two out of the year at most and usually only for specific grades. I consider religion a much larger threat to education with creationist nonsense at the top of the list.
As far as protecting kids I'm all for making schools safer. I think that some teachers are afraid of their students because of lawsuits and unreasonable parents. Fixing the civil courts is a whole other topic.
"...reality has a well-known liberal bias." -- Stephen Colbert
Tom.....You really crack me up. I can guarantee you that you are not a bigger defender of liberty than myself. As I have stated before you know nothing about my background. I have been called much worse by much better. I could go on with many reasons why I think "YOU" are responsible for the present state of this Unites States but this thread has obviously gone way off track. I will be more than happy to ignore you.
Wow, too bad I didn't keep up with this thread. There are many interesting arguments. I read the first few pages when they started then picked up today by reading the last page.
I took issue with Iwog on wealth creation then Higashiyama points out a few ways wealth can be created without diminishing the wealth of others. I see it here in the Silicon Valley where good ideas create more productive ways of doing things and, if the timing is right, also creates great wealth for those who turn the ideas into products.
Then there is the system of gov't issue. My dad was a great proponent of socialism until he saw what happens in practice. Some problems are that you need people to run the gov't and power corrupts. Others are it is impossible to predict the future so any planned economy is sure to be inefficient. Personally I think a democratic capitalistic system works better than any other system tried so far. I do believe there needs to be a level playing field so believe in laws that help regulate business and encourage competition.
My main reason for getting back into this thread was to mention that my mindset has changed recently. I'm now thinking it could be possible oil will continue to be expensive for a very long time. That suggests inflation will get worse. So I have bought a bit of gold.
I like having lots of different investments because if any one of them is successful (even if all others are failures) I can tell my wife how smart I am to have a winning investment.
Absolutely. All one has to do is walk the halls of any school and they will see that the teachers are strictly guiding the kiddies to independent thinking and sound moral judgement. All they harp on is reading, writing, and arithmetic. They soundly THRASH any student who veers off on some silly "diversity", "esteem" or "equality" tangent. LOGIC is their byword.
This is a rather bizzare response to my statment. Assuming you were being sarcastic, you think that students who advocate diversity, esteem, and equality should be soundly thrashed. In another insane point, you think a public school is a place to teach "sound moral judgement" THEN go on to state that school is only a place for reading, writing, and arithmatic. Do you now, or have you ever known what you were talking about?
Teachers happen to be as diverse as the general population. In High School, I had a fundamentalist Christian science teacher who said IN CLASS that anyone who accepted evolution was an idiot, and he repeated things like that on several occasions. If you judge schools by my single example, public schools are the domain of religious zealots who try and brainwash kids into their own personal religious dogma. DO NOT trust extremist hype from ANY source.
"...reality has a well-known liberal bias." -- Stephen Colbert
Hey Carl, Gee you guys in CA are going to really pay for your gasoline as time goes on, maybe $3.50 per gallon by the end of next year. Here is an interesting analysis by Boone Pickens at a recent conference.
5/5/2005 “Let me tell you some facts the way I see it," he began. "Global oil (production) is 84 million barrels (a day). I don't believe you can get it any more than 84 million barrels. I don't care what (Saudi Crown Prince) Abdullah, (Russian Premier Vladimir) Putin or anybody else says about oil reserves or production. I think they are on decline in the biggest oil fields in the world today and I know what's it like once you turn the corner and start declining, it's a tread mill that you just can't keep up with.
So, when you start adding the reserves in these countries, you're not even replacing what you're taking out.
Let me take you to another situation quickly. 84 million barrels a day times 365 days is 30 billion barrels of oil a year that we're depleting. All of the world's (oil) industry doesn't even come close to replacing 30 billion barrels of oil. We don't spend enough money to even give ourselves a chance to replace 30 billion barrels. It may be because the prospects are not there. I rather imagine that's what the answer is to that.
So, if you accept that 84 million barrels a day is all the world can (produce), and then look at refining capacity, I think it's just a coincidence that refining capacity... world capacity... is 84 million barrels a day. So, we're in balance: 84, 84.
Now you see the projections for the fourth quarter of '05, I mean like tomorrow; it is 86 to 87 million barrels of oil a day required. China (and) India (are) growing fast. Our economy is going down a little bit, but it doesn't seem to be shutting off demand for gasoline, oil, natural gas, whatever. But around the world... just assume that the (U.S.) economy is slowing, but China is still ramped up; it is still 86, 87 million for the fourth quarter.
I think oil will be $60 by the end of the year. You're going to see $3 gasoline twelve months from today, or some time during that period."
I took issue with Iwog on wealth creation then Higashiyama points out a few ways wealth can be created without diminishing the wealth of others. I see it here in the Silicon Valley where good ideas create more productive ways of doing things and, if the timing is right, also creates great wealth for those who turn the ideas into products.
Wealth cannot be created without taking it from others BEYOND THE STATE ALLOWED 2-4%, and you need to look no further than the growth in the economy to prove it. IF the economy is only allowed to grow 2-4% a year (true statment) then how can you gain wealth independently of everyone else? This is a difficult concept that took me awhile to grasp but I'll try and provide an example.
If you go into the Sierra Nevada and find a gold nugget, you might think you have gained wealth without taking it from someone else. The fallacy of this is that taking a rock home does NOT represent wealth because it does not add or subtract from the economy and doesn't turn into wealth (defined as the ability to get things) until you sell it. Once you sell your gold nugget, the worldwide supply of gold increases by a small amount. Since you've now increased the supply, the price falls a tiny bit and everyone ELSE who owns a gold nugget has now LOST wealth because of your efforts.
If you go into the forest, cut down a tree, and make a chair out of it one might assume you've created wealth independent of the rest of the world. Incorrect. The rest of the world has lost a tree. (making the expense of gaining additional trees higher thus taking wealth from the other chair makers) In addition, if you sell your chair you have also dropped the average price of chairs. The sum of ALL these transactions is currently measured as the Gross Domestic Product. The increase in the GDP approximates the nation's population growth and therefore you CANNOT create wealth without taking it from someone else.
Addressing Higashiyama's points: He stated that if you leave the country, start a business on foreign soil, then send the money home you are creating wealth independent of the GDP. I DO agree that you can increase the nation's wealth by taking it from overseas however he is ignoring the net effect on the economy which includes selling your foreign currency to buy dollars. You are therefore increasing the money supply and inflating the currency, which IS calculated in the GDP.
Innovation however is NOT independent of the GDP because the products of innovation are bought and sold just like the rest of the economy. In fact a large part of the boom economy of the late 90's was due to a technology explosion fueled by the internet, and for a short period the economy grew faster than the historical 2-4%. This caused the feds to put on the brakes by increasing interest rates. Also remember that for every innovation, the techology that it replaces is abandoned and people who previously were responsible for the old technology will lose wealth accordingly.
I am not a socialist/communist and I do believe that every human as the right to compete and take wealth from someone else PROVIDED that there are rational limits and checks to this process. Massive amounts of cash in the hands of a very few is damaging to the economy and will lead to another depression. There is no legitimate reason why Bill Gates should be allowed to aquire 50 billion dollars for his personal use, when his standard of living would be identical had he only profited about 100 million or so. Moderation is always good.
"...reality has a well-known liberal bias." -- Stephen Colbert
Yup. And another problem is when certain people aren't allowed to prosper, while others are preferentially benefitted. It's fundamentally wrong to say "You are a car mechanic, you cannot prosper" and then say to someone else "You are a computer mechanic, we dictate that you to prosper."
Wealth is the result of enlightened self interest. Anytime a trade is made both parties in the trade should profit and this total profit is wealth. Wealth is also destroyed in wars, accidents, and as a result of consumption. So long as more wealth is created than de- stroyed then living standards increase.
Iwog, I really enjoy reading your input here. Having said that, let me disabuse you of your notions regarding the public school system.
I speak not as a teacher(God forbid), but as someone who has worked directly for years with one of the largest public school systems in the US.
Half of the time is spent on social engineering, sorry, but that's the sad truth. Only about 25 % is spent on the three R's. The rest is spent on training the kids to pass the tests required, not learning, but simply how to pass the tests so the children's performance reflects positively on the teachers.
Add in the problems with the bilingual situations, the gangs and violence, etc. and the fact is that the public schools of today are a miserable failure. I place this blame on the Federal Government taking over and mandating certain programs when in reality, the schools should be handled at the state and local level. I also blame the teacher's union, they care far more about keeping a bad teacher employed than they do about the education of the children.
Just recently, the Houston School System decided to drop Texas history from the curriculum. The reason? They were worried about offending the illegal Mexican students. The Alamo can never be spoken about by a Houston teacher again. PC nonsense run amuck. However, entire semesters are conducted in gay and lesbian understanding and how that is a perfectly normal lifestyle choice. I won't argue whether it's a normal choice or not, but it certainly doesn't merit an entire semester at the expense of civics, history, math, english, etc. Religeous tolerance is also a big subject matter, but only with regards to Islam. Christianity, Judaism, Bhuddism, Hinduism, Catholicism, etc. are pretty much banned as far as discussion and tolerance. Christianity is the huge no-no.
The fact is, the minority drop out rate after 9th grade is over 50%. Hardly what I would call acceptable.
Oh yes, they were cooking the books for years and had listed it as less than 5%, but they got caught in an audit a couple of years ago. Their solution? Higher taxes with no accoutability. It's an unmitigated disaster!!
Any teacher mentioning creation will be suspended immediately, evoluton is the only thing allowed to be taught in science classes. It's as if there is no other opinion in existance. I'm surprised they haven't gotten around to censoring the dictionaries yet. So many words are not allowed to be spoken that they'll probably get around to it sooner than later.
I have come to believe that social engineering and dumbing down the populace is their primary goal.
"Lenin is certainly right. There is no subtler or more severe means of overturning the existing basis of society(destroy capitalism) than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and it does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose." John Marnard Keynes, The Economic Consequences of the Peace, 1920, page 235ff
Ideas come cheaply. They can greatly improve the quality and quantity of life. A few people invent lasers, now millions have their sight improved without out glasses, and billions experience higher quality music and video more cheaply. I am alive because some people figured out how to do open heart surgery and replace my heart valve with an artificial one. The improvement in productivity is large. The improvement in standard of living is large too. These ideas have improved things of billions of people while forcing a handful to change their business, the net gain is huge.
Can we do better? I think so. Are we limited to a %2-%4 improvement? I think not. However I can't prove it so must bow out of this argument.
GS: It seems the pressure on the oil supply, as Pickens says, is increasing. Ideas to replace global dependence on oil are happening, but not fast enough in my opinion. If so oil and gas will increase in price. If energy prices stay high or get higher inflation should increase. So I bought a bit of gold. I have cash too so if gold drops significantly from here I will buy more. And if it keeps going down I will tell my wife about a different investment that did work (I'm crossing my fingers hoping I will have at least one success!).
Every time the economy heats up, the fed slaps it down again by increasing interest rates. In this country, everyone is NOT allowed to prosper. You can only gain wealth at the expense of others.
Wealth redistribution has been repeatedly attacked by the right wing because policies designed to improve the average standard of living is anti-aristocracy. People who HAVE the money will do anything they can to keep it. Once you accept that you cannot gain wealth unless you take it from someone else, you can begin to see that a progressive tax and moderate wealth redistribution is the ONLY way to keep an economy going and to ensure a decent standard of living.
"...reality has a well-known liberal bias." -- Stephen Colbert
<< <i>Republicans give tax breaks to people so Rich they live off of Dividends. >>
That was hardly the case with the last Bush tax cuts.
And yes, Democrats think anybody making $75K or more is rich and just ripe for more taxes.
"Lenin is certainly right. There is no subtler or more severe means of overturning the existing basis of society(destroy capitalism) than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and it does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose." John Marnard Keynes, The Economic Consequences of the Peace, 1920, page 235ff
Comments
I've never been happier in my life. Optimistic!
How about you?
God Bless America!
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
<< <i>The annual World Wealth Report, released Thursday by Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc. and the Capgemini Group consulting firm, found that there were 8.3 million people worldwide with $1 million or more in financial assets at the end of 2004, up from 7.7 million a year earlier. >>
This means if you own an apartment building worth 1.4 million and you have a loan of 1.3 million, you qualify. Pretty common in CAL.
Coin's for sale/trade.
Tom Pilitowski
US Rare Coin Investments
800-624-1870
Once again I need to point out that you cannot aquire wealth in this country beyond the 2-4% growth in the economy without taking it from someone else.
The dangerous thing is the general trend of all the wealth flowing to the top and increasing wealth disparity. For anyone who agrees with this system, understand that its been tried before and ALWAYS results in the same end. A tiny aristocracy at the top and the vast majority of people living in absolute poverty. When was the last time you played a Monopoly game and there was a tie?
Progressive taxes and regulations on business are required but are being systematically removed. It's only a matter of time.
<< <i>
<< <i>without taking it from someone else. >>
Dang! I think I heard some cows complaining about that this morning.
Coin's for sale/trade.
Tom Pilitowski
US Rare Coin Investments
800-624-1870
Not everyone should prosper. If you work hard and take chances then you should be rewarded. If you sit by and skim from everyone else then you should dig a hole and throw yourself in.
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
This has been the demise of many civilizations. And it probably will be ours also, however I do not think it will be in the next few generations. I believe CHINA has to fear this much more than the USA. The gap between rich and poor is astronomical and combined with a repressive government it will lead to upheaval. This I do think will happen in our lifetimes.
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
By EILEEN ALT POWELL, AP Business Writer
22 minutes ago
NEW YORK - A strong global economy gave 600,000 people an entree last year into a highly envied group: the world's millionaires.
The annual World Wealth Report, released Thursday by Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc. and the Capgemini Group consulting firm, found that there were 8.3 million people worldwide with $1 million or more in financial assets at the end of 2004, up from 7.7 million a year earlier.
Their total wealth rose 8.2 percent to $30.8 trillion in 2004, giving them control of nearly a quarter of the world's financial assets, according to Petrina Dolby, vice president of Capgemini's wealth management practice.
The 8.2 percent increase was the strongest since an identical 8.2 percent rise in 1999, she said.
Not surprisingly, the expansion of the millionaire class was especially strong in North America because of the solid economic growth last year in both the United States and Canada.
"Significantly, North America surpassed Europe both in total high net worth individuals population and wealth for the first time since 2001," when North American investors were hard-hit by the bursting of the technology stock bubble and the terror attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon. The Asia-Pacific region also showed strong growth.
According to the latest figures, the number of high net worth individuals included 2.7 million in North America with a total of $9.3 trillion in assets; 2.6 million in Europe with $8.9 trillion; 2.3 million in the Asia-Pacific region with $7.2 trillion; 300,000 in Latin America, including Mexico, with $3.7 trillion; 300,000 in the Middle East with $1 trillion; and 100,000 in Africa with $700 billion.
The study also looked at what it termed "ultra high net worth individuals," who have at least $30 million in financial assets.
Their ranks increased by 6,300 individuals, or 8.9 percent, in 2004 to 77,500 worldwide, the study said.
Although the international economy was growing rapidly last year, the world's millionaires were more cautious in their investment and asset allocation strategies, the study said.
"With returns drifting lower and market volatility increasing in 2004, high net worth individuals leveled off their commitments to equities," it said.
The wealthy decreased their stock holdings to 34 percent last year from 35 percent in 2003 and increased their fixed-income investments to 27 percent last year from 25 percent the year before. Their other holdings in 2004 were 12 percent in cash and other liquid investments, 13 percent in real estate and 14 percent in "alternative" investments such as hedge funds and commodities.
The real estate portion of their holdings was down from 17 percent in 2003, the report said.
"We believe this relatively low allocation rate signals high net worth individuals' desires to harvest returns from now premium-priced (real estate) holdings to direct profits into other asset classes," the report said.
Although the global economic expansion has begun slowing, the study still predicts 6.5 percent growth over the next five years — enough to create many more millionaires, especially in North America.
It forecasts that by 2009, the high net worth individuals will have amassed $42.2 trillion in assets. By region, it will include $13.9 trillion in North America, $10.7 trillion in Europe, $10.1 trillion in the Asia-Pacific region, $5 trillion in Latin America, $1.5 trillion in the Middle East and $900 billion in Africa.
___
Coin's for sale/trade.
Tom Pilitowski
US Rare Coin Investments
800-624-1870
<< <i>Besides, a million just isn't in the "wealthy" class anymore. >>
For a college student like myself, who has $2,000 in the bank, $3500 in loans, and would be VERY comfortable on $20,000 a year, a million dollars is a great deal of money. Depends on what part of the country you live in. A million in Louisiana lasts a LOT longer and buys a LOT more than a mil in CA.
<<<<The whole mess is your MOM'S fault. Remember how the ole harpy useta tellya to eatcher dinner cuz there was thousands of kids STARVING in China?>>>>
You must be very young.
My Mom told me there was thousands of kids starving in Europe.
This is actually not true.
One can point to many specific examples where one can grow wealth faster than the US economy as a whole without taking from others in this country. Two relatively easy examples: (a) if I go to work in a foreign country, build a successful business, and repatriate funds to the US, and, (b) if I buy a house, work diligently on weekends improving the house and grounds, and sell it for a considerable profit. In both cases, I believe my increase in wealth will be off the Fed's radar, and will not cause them to put the brakes on the economy, which I believe is the mechanism by which you feel my gain impacts other people's prospects.
With regard to the more general argument, in the case that an individual brings innovations to the economy which materially increase productivity, they could also create a win-win situation -- ie, a situation where both the individual and the populace as a whole see an increase in wealth that is higher than the 2 - 4 % norm that you refer to.
<< <i>The dangerous thing is the general trend of all the wealth flowing to the top and increasing wealth disparity. For anyone who agrees with this system, understand that its been tried before and ALWAYS results in the same end. A tiny aristocracy at the top and the vast majority of people living in absolute poverty
This has been the demise of many civilizations. And it probably will be ours also, however I do not think it will be in the next few generations. I believe CHINA has to fear this much more than the USA. The gap between rich and poor is astronomical and combined with a repressive government it will lead to upheaval. This I do think will happen in our lifetimes. >>
Nah no chance. The masses there have been sufficiently dumbed down to where the vast majority of people more closely resemble sheep than anything else. Individuality is virtually extinct.
As its getting real close to being that way here as well, but in the case of China, it's been thousands of years of similar dynamics in how people view individualism.........freedom.
And as a comparison to here, there was a revolution over taxation and the confiscation of guns. Do you think the founders would have ever believed that people here could actually justify this government stealing as much as they do without so much as a whimper from most people? Now imagine that for just another decade ( here) and then imagine China with 6,000 years.
Tom
Coin's for sale/trade.
Tom Pilitowski
US Rare Coin Investments
800-624-1870
<<<<The whole mess is your MOM'S fault. Remember how the ole harpy useta tellya to eatcher dinner cuz there was thousands of kids STARVING in China?>>>>
You must be very young.
My Mom told me there was thousands of kids starving in Europe.
Now I tell my kids that there are thousands of kids starving ........................in LA.
Hmmmm..... sounds like you don't have a girlfriend?
Walter J. "John" Williams
Payments to Social Security Recipients Should be 43% Higher
Inflation, as reported by the Consumer Price Index (CPI) is understated by roughly 2.7% per year. This is due to recent redefinitions of the series as well as to flawed methodologies, particularly adjustments to price measures for quality changes. The concentration of this installment on the quality of government economic reports will be first on CPI series redefinition and the damages done to those dependent on accurate cost-of-living estimates, and on pending further redefinition and economic damage.
The CPI was designed to help businesses, individuals and the government adjust their financial planning and considerations for the impact of inflation. The CPI worked reasonably well for those purposes into the early-1990s. In recent years, however, the reporting system has succumbed to pressures from miscreant politicians, who were and are intent upon stealing income from social security recipients, without ever taking the issue of reduced entitlement payments before the public or Congress for approval.
Changes made in CPI methodology during the Clinton administration have understated inflation significantly, and, through a cumulative effect, have reduced current social security payments by 30% from where they would have been otherwise. That means Social Security checks would be 43% higher. In like manner, anyone involved in commerce, who relies on receiving payments adjusted for the CPI, has been similarly damaged. On the other side, if your are making payments based on the CPI (i.e., the federal government), you are making out like a bandit.
Behind this movement were financial luminaries Michael Boskin, then chief economist to the first Bush administration, and Alan Greenspan, Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
Although the ensuing political furor killed consideration of Congressionally mandated changes in the CPI, the BLS quietly stepped forward and began changing the system, anyway, early in the Clinton administration.
Up until the Boskin/Greenspan agendum surfaced, the CPI was measured using the costs of a fixed basket of goods, a fairly simple and straightforward concept. The identical basket of goods would be priced at prevailing market costs for each period, and the period-to-period change in the cost of that market basket represented the rate of inflation in terms of maintaining a constant standard of living.
The Boskin/Greenspan argument was that when steak got too expensive, the consumer would substitute hamburger for the steak, and that the inflation measure should reflect the costs tied to buying hamburger versus steak, instead of steak versus steak. Of course, replacing hamburger for steak in the calculations would reduce the inflation rate, but it represented the rate of inflation in terms of maintaining a declining standard of living. Cost of living was being replaced by the cost of survival. The old system told you how much you had to increase your income in order to keep buying steak. The new system promised you hamburger, and then dog food, perhaps, after that.
Shortly after Clinton took control of the White House, however, attitudes changed. The BLS initially did not institute a new CPI measurement using a variable-basket of goods that allowed substitution of hamburger for steak, but rather tried to approximate the effect by changing the weighting of goods in the CPI fixed basket. Over a period of several years, straight arithmetic weighting of the CPI components was shifted to a geometric weighting.
The results have been dramatic. The compounding effect since the early-1990s has reduced annual cost of living adjustments in social security by a total of 30%.
<< <i>
<< <i>The dangerous thing is the general trend of all the wealth flowing to the top and increasing wealth disparity. For anyone who agrees with this system, understand that its been tried before and ALWAYS results in the same end. A tiny aristocracy at the top and the vast majority of people living in absolute poverty
This has been the demise of many civilizations. And it probably will be ours also, however I do not think it will be in the next few generations. I believe CHINA has to fear this much more than the USA. The gap between rich and poor is astronomical and combined with a repressive government it will lead to upheaval. This I do think will happen in our lifetimes. >>
Nah no chance. The masses there have been sufficiently dumbed down to where the vast majority of people more closely resemble sheep than anything else. Individuality is virtually extinct.
As its getting real close to being that way here as well, but in the case of China, it's been thousands of years of similar dynamics in how people view individualism.........freedom.
And as a comparison to here, there was a revolution over taxation and the confiscation of guns. Do you think the founders would have ever believed that people here could actually justify this government stealing as much as they do without so much as a whimper from most people? Now imagine that for just another decade ( here) and then imagine China with 6,000 years.
Tom >>
Yes, I think this is'was true. It is easy to influence people when the only voice they hear is your own. However the internet has made information available to anyone. Granted the rural Chinese dont have a pot to pi$$ in but they do have friends in the cities and word spreads quickly.
Tianamen (sp)? Square was a start. Imagine if that happened in every large city simultaneously. I think it would be very hard for the Chinese govt to explain the deaths of 10's of thousands of demonstrators to the rest of the world. A caged dog that is beaten will only remain loyal to its master for so long.
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>The dangerous thing is the general trend of all the wealth flowing to the top and increasing wealth disparity. For anyone who agrees with this system, understand that its been tried before and ALWAYS results in the same end. A tiny aristocracy at the top and the vast majority of people living in absolute poverty
This has been the demise of many civilizations. And it probably will be ours also, however I do not think it will be in the next few generations. I believe CHINA has to fear this much more than the USA. The gap between rich and poor is astronomical and combined with a repressive government it will lead to upheaval. This I do think will happen in our lifetimes. >>
Nah no chance. The masses there have been sufficiently dumbed down to where the vast majority of people more closely resemble sheep than anything else. Individuality is virtually extinct.
As its getting real close to being that way here as well, but in the case of China, it's been thousands of years of similar dynamics in how people view individualism.........freedom.
And as a comparison to here, there was a revolution over taxation and the confiscation of guns. Do you think the founders would have ever believed that people here could actually justify this government stealing as much as they do without so much as a whimper from most people? Now imagine that for just another decade ( here) and then imagine China with 6,000 years.
Tom >>
Yes, I think this is'was true. It is easy to influence people when the only voice they hear is your own. However the internet has made information available to anyone. Granted the rural Chinese dont have a pot to pi$$ in but they do have friends in the cities and word spreads quickly.
Tianamen (sp)? Square was a start. Imagine if that happened in every large city simultaneously. I think it would be very hard for the Chinese govt to explain the deaths of 10's of thousands of demonstrators to the rest of the world. A caged dog that is beaten will only remain loyal to its master for so long. >>
You are thinking like a westerner, or better than that you are thinking the way an old fashioned American used to think. But it's China and Tianamen was NOT a protest for what you may have heard it was for. Nothing of the sort actually. You think it was for freedom?
Nope.
Dogs bite back. Brainwashed humans don't. They collapse inside and justify what's happening, believe in what's happening or just go with it.
You will never see a revolution against socialism in Asia start in China.
I think you might see one in Vietnam first though, and that could spark a change in the region just like what Poland started in eastern Europe.
The Viets have the balls.
Far as the net is concerned , MOST if not all "questionable" sites of information come up as "page cannot be displayed" in all Asian countries. Not just China. You'll never see a mass media which openly disagrees with ANY US President either. So freedom of the press? Ha!
I could go on but I think you get it.
Tom
Coin's for sale/trade.
Tom Pilitowski
US Rare Coin Investments
800-624-1870
And don't forget that in 1983-85, after living with crazy high CPI numbers in the high teens for a few years, something had to be done. So they axed the price of homes and replaced them with an equivalent rent. Hence 30% of the total CPI is based on a supposition that 70% of the homes in the US "rent" their houses rather than own them. Between home rentals, durable goods with quality factors, and substitution issues, I'd say about 50% of the CPI is tied up in items that don't change (i.e. don't tend to go up much in price). Try moving an average when 50% of it is defined to be a lead weight. You need twice the change to produce a previous result.
Old CPI thread with breakdown of % weighting factors
roadrunner
I hear and respect what you are saying. But I still believe within the next generation there will be a major change in the Chinese government. As their economy matures they will go though the same pains as all others have. Socialism in its purest form is a very strong form of government. The trick is to keep it pure. The contaminent is always money. And China is printing it. Not everyone is brainwashed and one worm can spoil the entire basket. I believe it will only be a matter of time.
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
There already has been a change in government in China . And there will be more change I'm sure. It's just not coming becuase of anything then people want or will do. It's simply because there's greater amounts the Chinese government can steal by making said changes.
Just like there's been a change in Vietnam which I'm more intimately familiar with. And the overall change is to get out of peoples way although both places have a long long way to go. But they seem to be at least pointed in the right direction while this place is in the opposite direction.
Glad I'm 50.
Tom
Coin's for sale/trade.
Tom Pilitowski
US Rare Coin Investments
800-624-1870
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
<< <i>Im not talking about morals. The system of government where everyone works for the common good and all are on an even footing is the fairest and "best" form of government. I am not saying China practices this "pure socialism" as there clearly are those that do not work for the common good and are not on equal footing. This is precisely where Russia failed. And China is destined for failure also. >>
OK, obviously you don't have a clue as to what socialism is. I guess your type of person, despite never being there would say the kinds of things you say and obviously people like you think it's ok for other people to work, have their income stolen and redistributed to people like you. And you say your not talking about morals. Are you 12 years old?
People like you are the reason why a place like this doesn't even resemble what it used to be and is marching right along that socialist path.
End of conversation with you.
Coin's for sale/trade.
Tom Pilitowski
US Rare Coin Investments
800-624-1870
<< <i>The system of government where everyone works for the common good and all are on an even footing is the fairest and "best" form of government. >>
The public school system has failed us.
<< <i>
<< <i>The system of government where everyone works for the common good and all are on an even footing is the fairest and "best" form of government. >>
The public school system has failed us. >>
I am saying that this form of govt does NOT exist. However it would be nice if it did.
And yes the public and parochial school systems are worthless.
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
Pure capitalism doesn't work either and is also kinda stupid. Only one person can win a Monopoly game because wealth = power. The more power you gain, the more power you can wield against the competition. With a lack of government oversight, only ONE company will exist in the end and will dictate all the market conditions including who works and for what wage. We already tried this one 100 years ago and it resulted in 60 hour work weeks for children and company run sweatshops with a terrible standard of life. During this time THERE WAS AN ECONOMIC DEPRESSION EVERY 20 YEARS! This is not a sustainable system either.
Isn't it obvious? We need a balance between socialism and capitalism. The aquisition of wealth needs to be restrained but not too much. Corporations need to have regulations but not so many they can't "win" a market. Tax policy should allow an individual to become rich, but not to the point of being worth more than most of the world's nations. I think the wealth of the United States since World War II makes all of this obvious. Sadly the current administration doesn't get it. We're headed back torward aristocracy and robber barrons.
<< <i>The public school system has failed us. >>
No it hasn't , the concept was a failure. You can't teach people who don't WANT to learn. School is an OBLIGATION, students are RARELY expelled. It requires no effort and the ones who don't want to be there disrupt the others so they learn nothing too. Then we dummy down the curriculum so those who don't want to be there can keep up without effort.
Now we try to use it to push the "social" agendas and provide little security for the physically weaker who often make the best students.
The system need to dump the losers about the 8th grade. Time to stop babysitting thse who don't want to give the effort.
<< <i>
<< <i>Im not talking about morals. The system of government where everyone works for the common good and all are on an even footing is the fairest and "best" form of government. I am not saying China practices this "pure socialism" as there clearly are those that do not work for the common good and are not on equal footing. This is precisely where Russia failed. And China is destined for failure also. >>
OK, obviously you don't have a clue as to what socialism is. I guess your type of person, despite never being there would say the kinds of things you say and obviously people like you think it's ok for other people to work, have their income stolen and redistributed to people like you. And you say your not talking about morals. Are you 12 years old?
People like you are the reason why a place like this doesn't even resemble what it used to be and is marching right along that socialist path.
End of conversation with you. >>
MREARLYGOLD,
The school system has obviously failed you as I dont believe you know how to read. I NEVER said that the socialism that China practices is good. In fact I said it will fail.
What I am saying is that a "pure" system of socialism is good. It would be a utopia. This obviously can not ever happen because humans are controlled by their emotions--greed, envy, passion, ect. You are obviously close to the situation and see the harm/damage that is inflicted on the people by "bad" socialism. I think you are confused by the true nature of socialism as there has never been a "pure" system in mankind's history due the emotional stimulus of humans.
And also, you have no idea who I am, where I have been, or my experiences. Perhaps if you thought with much less emotion you would not make absurd statements like this---People like you are the reason why a place like this doesn't even resemble what it used to be and is marching right along that socialist path
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
How? By the statements you made. I didn't make them. You did.
Now please, ignore me, I will do the same towards you.
Coin's for sale/trade.
Tom Pilitowski
US Rare Coin Investments
800-624-1870
PPI -0.6% vs -0.2% consensus
Core PPI +0.1% vs +0.2% consensus
While you may not agree with the way the govt compiles these numbers--I do not completely--- you must still use them. The bond market surely is using them pushing the 30yr yield to 4.41%. Up from 4.18% just last week. The dollar is stronger today. There has also been rumor that some major players in the currency market who have been short the dollar are covering--Buffett?. Not only are they covering but they are buying puts on other currencies. It appears the demise of the dollar has been exaggerated.
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
As far as protecting kids I'm all for making schools safer. I think that some teachers are afraid of their students because of lawsuits and unreasonable parents. Fixing the civil courts is a whole other topic.
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
I took issue with Iwog on wealth creation then Higashiyama points out a few ways wealth can be created without diminishing the wealth of others. I see it here in the Silicon Valley where good ideas create more productive ways of doing things and, if the timing is right, also creates great wealth for those who turn the ideas into products.
Then there is the system of gov't issue. My dad was a great proponent of socialism until he saw what happens in practice. Some problems are that you need people to run the gov't and power corrupts. Others are it is impossible to predict the future so any planned economy is sure to be inefficient. Personally I think a democratic capitalistic system works better than any other system tried so far. I do believe there needs to be a level playing field so believe in laws that help regulate business and encourage competition.
My main reason for getting back into this thread was to mention that my mindset has changed recently. I'm now thinking it could be possible oil will continue to be expensive for a very long time. That suggests inflation will get worse. So I have bought a bit of gold.
I like having lots of different investments because if any one of them is successful (even if all others are failures) I can tell my wife how smart I am to have a winning investment.
All they harp on is reading, writing, and arithmetic. They soundly THRASH any student who veers off on some silly "diversity", "esteem" or "equality" tangent. LOGIC is their byword.
This is a rather bizzare response to my statment. Assuming you were being sarcastic, you think that students who advocate diversity, esteem, and equality should be soundly thrashed. In another insane point, you think a public school is a place to teach "sound moral judgement" THEN go on to state that school is only a place for reading, writing, and arithmatic. Do you now, or have you ever known what you were talking about?
Teachers happen to be as diverse as the general population. In High School, I had a fundamentalist Christian science teacher who said IN CLASS that anyone who accepted evolution was an idiot, and he repeated things like that on several occasions. If you judge schools by my single example, public schools are the domain of religious zealots who try and brainwash kids into their own personal religious dogma. DO NOT trust extremist hype from ANY source.
Gee you guys in CA are going to really pay for your gasoline as time goes on, maybe $3.50 per gallon by the end of next year.
Here is an interesting analysis by Boone Pickens at a recent conference.
5/5/2005
“Let me tell you some facts the way I see it," he began. "Global oil (production) is 84 million barrels (a day). I don't believe you can get it any more than 84 million barrels. I don't care what (Saudi Crown Prince) Abdullah, (Russian Premier Vladimir) Putin or anybody else says about oil reserves or production. I think they are on decline in the biggest oil fields in the world today and I know what's it like once you turn the corner and start declining, it's a tread mill that you just can't keep up with.
So, when you start adding the reserves in these countries, you're not even replacing what you're taking out.
Let me take you to another situation quickly. 84 million barrels a day times 365 days is 30 billion barrels of oil a year that we're depleting. All of the world's (oil) industry doesn't even come close to replacing 30 billion barrels of oil. We don't spend enough money to even give ourselves a chance to replace 30 billion barrels. It may be because the prospects are not there. I rather imagine that's what the answer is to that.
So, if you accept that 84 million barrels a day is all the world can (produce), and then look at refining capacity, I think it's just a coincidence that refining capacity... world capacity... is 84 million barrels a day. So, we're in balance: 84, 84.
Now you see the projections for the fourth quarter of '05, I mean like tomorrow; it is 86 to 87 million barrels of oil a day required. China (and) India (are) growing fast. Our economy is going down a little bit, but it doesn't seem to be shutting off demand for gasoline, oil, natural gas, whatever. But around the world... just assume that the (U.S.) economy is slowing, but China is still ramped up; it is still 86, 87 million for the fourth quarter.
I think oil will be $60 by the end of the year. You're going to see $3 gasoline twelve months from today, or some time during that period."
Wealth cannot be created without taking it from others BEYOND THE STATE ALLOWED 2-4%, and you need to look no further than the growth in the economy to prove it. IF the economy is only allowed to grow 2-4% a year (true statment) then how can you gain wealth independently of everyone else? This is a difficult concept that took me awhile to grasp but I'll try and provide an example.
If you go into the Sierra Nevada and find a gold nugget, you might think you have gained wealth without taking it from someone else. The fallacy of this is that taking a rock home does NOT represent wealth because it does not add or subtract from the economy and doesn't turn into wealth (defined as the ability to get things) until you sell it. Once you sell your gold nugget, the worldwide supply of gold increases by a small amount. Since you've now increased the supply, the price falls a tiny bit and everyone ELSE who owns a gold nugget has now LOST wealth because of your efforts.
If you go into the forest, cut down a tree, and make a chair out of it one might assume you've created wealth independent of the rest of the world. Incorrect. The rest of the world has lost a tree. (making the expense of gaining additional trees higher thus taking wealth from the other chair makers) In addition, if you sell your chair you have also dropped the average price of chairs. The sum of ALL these transactions is currently measured as the Gross Domestic Product. The increase in the GDP approximates the nation's population growth and therefore you CANNOT create wealth without taking it from someone else.
Addressing Higashiyama's points: He stated that if you leave the country, start a business on foreign soil, then send the money home you are creating wealth independent of the GDP. I DO agree that you can increase the nation's wealth by taking it from overseas however he is ignoring the net effect on the economy which includes selling your foreign currency to buy dollars. You are therefore increasing the money supply and inflating the currency, which IS calculated in the GDP.
Innovation however is NOT independent of the GDP because the products of innovation are bought and sold just like the rest of the economy. In fact a large part of the boom economy of the late 90's was due to a technology explosion fueled by the internet, and for a short period the economy grew faster than the historical 2-4%. This caused the feds to put on the brakes by increasing interest rates. Also remember that for every innovation, the techology that it replaces is abandoned and people who previously were responsible for the old technology will lose wealth accordingly.
I am not a socialist/communist and I do believe that every human as the right to compete and take wealth from someone else PROVIDED that there are rational limits and checks to this process. Massive amounts of cash in the hands of a very few is damaging to the economy and will lead to another depression. There is no legitimate reason why Bill Gates should be allowed to aquire 50 billion dollars for his personal use, when his standard of living would be identical had he only profited about 100 million or so. Moderation is always good.
Yup. And another problem is when certain people aren't allowed to prosper, while others are preferentially benefitted. It's fundamentally wrong to say "You are a car mechanic, you cannot prosper" and then say to someone else "You are a computer mechanic, we dictate that you to prosper."
in the trade should profit and this total profit is wealth. Wealth is also destroyed in wars,
accidents, and as a result of consumption. So long as more wealth is created than de-
stroyed then living standards increase.
I speak not as a teacher(God forbid), but as someone who has worked directly for years with one of the largest public school systems in the US.
Half of the time is spent on social engineering, sorry, but that's the sad truth. Only about 25 % is spent on the three R's. The rest is spent on training the kids to pass the tests required, not learning, but simply how to pass the tests so the children's performance reflects positively on the teachers.
Add in the problems with the bilingual situations, the gangs and violence, etc. and the fact is that the public schools of today are a miserable failure. I place this blame on the Federal Government taking over and mandating certain programs when in reality, the schools should be handled at the state and local level. I also blame the teacher's union, they care far more about keeping a bad teacher employed than they do about the education of the children.
Just recently, the Houston School System decided to drop Texas history from the curriculum. The reason? They were worried about offending the illegal Mexican students. The Alamo can never be spoken about by a Houston teacher again. PC nonsense run amuck. However, entire semesters are conducted in gay and lesbian understanding and how that is a perfectly normal lifestyle choice. I won't argue whether it's a normal choice or not, but it certainly doesn't merit an entire semester at the expense of civics, history, math, english, etc. Religeous tolerance is also a big subject matter, but only with regards to Islam. Christianity, Judaism, Bhuddism, Hinduism, Catholicism, etc. are pretty much banned as far as discussion and tolerance. Christianity is the huge no-no.
The fact is, the minority drop out rate after 9th grade is over 50%. Hardly what I would call acceptable.
Oh yes, they were cooking the books for years and had listed it as less than 5%, but they got caught in an audit a couple of years ago. Their solution? Higher taxes with no accoutability. It's an unmitigated disaster!!
Any teacher mentioning creation will be suspended immediately, evoluton is the only thing allowed to be taught in science classes. It's as if there is no other opinion in existance. I'm surprised they haven't gotten around to censoring the dictionaries yet. So many words are not allowed to be spoken that they'll probably get around to it sooner than later.
I have come to believe that social engineering and dumbing down the populace is their primary goal.
John Marnard Keynes, The Economic Consequences of the Peace, 1920, page 235ff
Can we do better? I think so. Are we limited to a %2-%4 improvement? I think not. However I can't prove it so must bow out of this argument.
GS: It seems the pressure on the oil supply, as Pickens says, is increasing. Ideas to replace global dependence on oil are happening, but not fast enough in my opinion. If so oil and gas will increase in price. If energy prices stay high or get higher inflation should increase. So I bought a bit of gold. I have cash too so if gold drops significantly from here I will buy more. And if it keeps going down I will tell my wife about a different investment that did work (I'm crossing my fingers hoping I will have at least one success!).
Wealth redistribution has been repeatedly attacked by the right wing because policies designed to improve the average standard of living is anti-aristocracy. People who HAVE the money will do anything they can to keep it. Once you accept that you cannot gain wealth unless you take it from someone else, you can begin to see that a progressive tax and moderate wealth redistribution is the ONLY way to keep an economy going and to ensure a decent standard of living.
Problem is defining who is Progressive and who is Regressive.
Democrats think anyone with a job is Rich.
Republicans give tax breaks to people so Rich they live off of Dividends.
<< <i>Republicans give tax breaks to people so Rich they live off of Dividends. >>
That was hardly the case with the last Bush tax cuts.
And yes, Democrats think anybody making $75K or more is rich and just ripe for more taxes.
John Marnard Keynes, The Economic Consequences of the Peace, 1920, page 235ff