<< <i>Thanks Tom This is a great site to gather info. from on countries around the Globe! >>
You're welcome ! I found it last night.
Tax rates are quite interesting eh? When I was living in Vietnam ( pre and post 9/11) there were no international flights back to the US for a period of months ( I "think" there were but all kinds of additional security and paperwork I "think"), to which I just passed and did what I think any American entrepreneur would do and that's start a business and move forward. How the heck was I supposed to know that it was against the law to do so on a tourist visa, with no license, etc etc. When the communist police came to my rented house in Saigon, I threw them out ( again, how was I supposed to know you're not supposed to throw them out? ). To make a long story short, I beleive I became the first American to sign a "free trade agreement" with a government entity in that country and which of course not only legitimized just about anything I wanted to do there ( I ran "American Coin Dealer wants to buy your gold and silver coin collections" for 6 months in Vietnam News ( again, how was I supposed to know that the collecting of gold and silver coins (paper and stamps were ok) was against the law!) and one of the provisions of the agreement was that I was legally exempt from ANY taxes and it was even specified in the agreement that any monies I collected in-country could be wire transferred to my account in Hong Kong.
It's written in English and Vietnamese and has the official seal. And as an American married to a Vietnamese there was also an additional provision allowing me to own property there ( which even I wouldn't have the lasseiz faire chutzpah to do there).
GW Bush signed the official free trade agreement with that country right around the same time. But that was started in 1995 under clinton.
What I'm saying is that even in the worst of places from an economic freedom standpoint, deals can be struck which are not mentioned in this index. By the way and FYI, at this point, the HIGHEST tax rates in Vietnam, a communist country are actually LESS by a percent or two after factoring deductions etc than federal, state and local taxes here.
Oh and how do people price and pay for real estate there? In the form of "taels' of gold. There's an official price, and then there's the real price you pay without reporting it. Gold and cash are the mediums of exchange.
earlygold...so what happened with the effort to buy collections via the newspaper? I have dreamed of doing that in bolivia or peru or some out of the way place to see if I could get some good coins.
<< <i>earlygold...so what happened with the effort to buy collections via the newspaper? I have dreamed of doing that in bolivia or peru or some out of the way place to see if I could get some good coins. >>
I was able to see a collection up in Hue. It was very much like a cloak and dagger movie. Incredible collection of ancient Vietnamese gold coins that I would have put 7 figures on easy. I tried and failed to convince the owner to get the coins out of the country to meet me at my bank in Bangkok where I would have arranged a wire transfer or as I told him, paid him cash on a silver platter.
We're still in touch. Maybe I should offer cash on a gold platter?
I saw several other collections, all fake though.
I'm very well known there and you never know what will happen in the future.
FYI...this appeared on the drudge report today. Not particularly unexpected news for us.
The job losses have accelerated and moved into unexpected new sectors as the trade deficit -- which reflects the gap between imports and exports -- with China skyrocketed to a record $124 billion in 2003, report author and EPI senior international trade economist Robert Scott said.
"The assumptions we built our trade relationship with China on have proved to be a house of cards. Everyone knew we would lose jobs in labor-intensive industries like textiles and apparel, but we thought we could hold our own in the capital-intensive, high-tech arena," Scott said in a statement.
The report puts a large portion of the blame for the growing U.S. trade deficit with China on that country's "refusal to revalue its exchange rate."
Well I was reading up on all the predictions and ran across this amazing quote from Goldsaint:
"The wealthy are being systematically backed into a corner by our government. They are paying double their share of taxes. They are facing frivolous lawsuits by the greedy, in ever growing numbers. Their businesses dealings are being saddled with onerous Patriot Act and Sarbanes-Oxley Act requirements that often take so much time and cost so much money that otherwise profitable deals end up costing money, if they happen at all. And, their property is being confiscated (forfeited) by the government at an ever increasing rate. Everything for which they have worked so hard, is now being threatened by the same government, whose job it is to protect citizens from just those types of abuses."
After I stopped laughing I realized that he was serious. I suppose the absolute and total screwing of the working class in this country cannot be accomplished unless lies like this are accepted as fact, so people like GoldSaint are working hard to brainwash the ever gullible population into believing the rich are the victims. Here are the REAL facts, they are not subject to dispute by anyone:
After World War II, the top federal tax rate was 90% for the richest Americans and wealth disparity was at an all time low following the war and the Great Depression. The great Reagan supply side economics LIE predicted an economic disaster of epic proportions, but what actually happened was an incredible boom economy that lasted until 1957. The top tax rate is now 35% and has been dropping steadily for decades. Under George Bush, dividend taxes and capital gains taxes have been slashed with 5 and 15% caps in effect. There has never been a time in history more favorable to investment income and Bush promises further cuts. Under Bush the inheritance tax has been drastically cut and is on schedule for complete elimination by the year 2010. Currently if your estate is worth 1.5 million or less your estate is not taxed.
Oh yeah, Bush has recently proposed tax reform. If you're currently being paid wages, get ready to bend over again. If you're either a corporate rapist or independently wealthy it's time to buy a new boat.
"...reality has a well-known liberal bias." -- Stephen Colbert
“Well I was reading up on all the predictions and ran across this amazing quote from Goldsaint:”
“After I stopped laughing I realized that he was serious. I suppose the absolute and total screwing of the working class in this country cannot be accomplished unless lies like this are accepted as fact, so people like GoldSaint are working hard to brainwash the ever gullible population”
Iwog, First of all Sir it is not my intention, and I would have nothing to gain, by brainwashing anyone. If you read this post in total you would see that the point of the post was to give a little advance warning to all the hard working middle class here, that if a majority of the wealthy tax payers in the country leave, they will be assuming the tax burden left behind. This information came from the U.S. Census Bureau which like all government agencies makes many mistakes, but even plus or minus 10% , I think my point about many wealthy people leaving the country because they were being over taxed is correct.
It is certainly not the case that middle America is also not being over taxed also, in fact I have already made the point in other posts here. Middle class working Americans are paying nearly 60% of every dollar they earn in one type of tax or another.
So again my point is that if all the rich people leave, who is left to pay the taxes they were paying?
According to the US Census Bureau, as reported in the "2000 Statistical Yearbook of the Immigration and Naturalization Service" (6.2 MB download), by the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services (BCIS), formerly the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), the wealthy are leaving the United States in record numbers. According to that report, in 2002, roughly 363,000 US citizens and permanent residents quietly left the United States permanently. Now granted, not all of those 363,000 expatriates were rich. But, think about it. How many do you think were poor?... How many do you think were even middle class?
Euro Trash Even drug dealers are giving up on the dollar. By Daniel Gross
"The dollar's decline against the euro shows no sign of ending. Clearly, currency traders have made a long-term judgment about the relative value of the currencies of the Old and New Worlds. That sounds bad enough. But now there are signs that we're losing some of the most devoted fans of the greenback: drug dealers, Russian oligarchs, and black-market traffickers of all kinds.
James Grant, of Grant's Interest Rate Observer, whose animadversions about the dollar and other subjects are as droll as they are pricey, highlighted the latest indignities to befall the once-mighty dollar in his Dec. 17 issue. (Alas, it's not available on the Web.)
People the world over-central banks, companies, and individuals-like to hold the dollar. It's stable, liquid, easily convertible, and never goes out of style. The dollar is popular in the official global economy-the money that changes hands through computer terminals, checks, and wire transfers. But it has also been extremely popular in the world's vast cash economy. For American tourists, Chinese smugglers, Ukrainian arms dealers, and African dictators, the dollar has long been the currency of choice. The fearful and shady, those who subsist on tourism, and residents of countries with unstable domestic currencies love the greenback. Citing Federal Reserve estimates, Grant writes that "between 55% and 70% of the $703 billion of U.S. currency outstanding circulates outside the 50 states."
The United States benefits greatly from the fact that the dollar is the world's reserve currency. Many of the $100 bills circulating throughout the globe are essentially loans that we never have to pay back. Americans use them to buy goods, services, or other currencies. But many of those bills never return to our shores to be redeemed for anything we make or produce. Instead, they stay under mattresses in Bogotá, circulate in Iraq, and are stashed in bank accounts around the world.
But among a subset of global cash connoisseurs, the dollar is losing ground to the euro-and it has nothing to do with concerns over U.S. multilateralism. First, the euro zone has been expanding with the addition of new countries and the continued integration between Eastern and Western Europe. So there are simply more people who accept and use euros now. Since 2002, the growth rate of euros in circulation has far outpaced that of dollars. Add in the euro's recent strength against the dollar, and the case for Eastern Europeans and euro-neighbors to use euros becomes more compelling. In the 1990s, the dollar was remarkably popular in Russia, where residents had long been deprived of coveted Western imports. But between January 2002 and August 2004, Grant notes, the percentage of private Russian currency transactions employing the dollar fell from 94.1 percent to 84 percent while the euro's share rose from nothing to about 15 percent.
Finally, in the past two years, euros have also become easier to carry, store, and hide than dollars. Generally, the largest denomination of U.S. currency readily available is the $100 bill. But in the past two years, the European Central Bank has started to print 200-euro and 500-euro bills. These larger bills thus allow for the concentration of wealth in smaller packages. At today's rates, a 500-euro note is worth $682.
So if you wanted to, say, hide cash by swallowing it temporarily, euros would the obvious (and more comfortable) way to go. And indeed, as Grant notes, in October a drug mule traveling from Spain to Colombia was found to have an unexpected form of contraband in his stomach: $197,000 in euro notes. The same month, Fidel Castro declared that the dollar, which is tolerated as a means for Cuban-Americans to support their relatives in Cuba, was officially currency non grata and that the euro was most welcome.
For most products, losing international drug cartels and corrupt Third World dictators as customers would seem to be a desirable outcome. But these guys represent part of our long-standing and faithful base. If you think pundits are fretting about the slumping dollar now, just imagine what might happen if we start to lose the arms dealers."
You won't win that. There's way more selfish socialists here than there are people who are interested in Freedom and being productive unfortunately. And most of them don't even have the slightest clue as to what built this place to begin with and what's forcing anyone with half a bank account to seek safety elsewhere nowadays. These are the same type people I would see clamoring on street corners with flyers in their hand in HCMC almost every saturday. At least there however and believe it or no the numbers of those types are "dwindling" whereas it seems to be going the other way here.
Thankfully, there's still HK for bank accounts which are pretty darn out of reach.
The level of spending/theft from this government is going up. As Otis would say, you "gotsta" do what you "gotsta" do.
I've started building gold coin collections with 2 new people in the last couple of months whose primary interest was 'confidentiality". I think we'll see more of that as time ticks on as well.
The right generally uses character assassination to try and destroy their opponent's credibility instead of addressing anything actually discussed.
I've built a business from the ground up and have several employees under me. Calling me a socialist is moronic at best, but apparently all you have at your disposal. Congratulations mrearlygold for proving you don't have the slightest clue about which you speak.
GoldSaint, I have no idea why you would open a post talking about the top 1% then when challenged switch the topic to a discussion of the middle class. They are completely seperate arguments. I agree that the middle class is being sysematically eliminated by the new aristocracy because in a world of giant corporations they are simply not needed. The RICH however, that top 1% that you were INITIALLY discussing couldn't be happier with the business climate in America.
"...reality has a well-known liberal bias." -- Stephen Colbert
<< <i>The right generally uses character assassination to try and destroy their opponent's credibility instead of addressing anything actually discussed.
I've built a business from the ground up and have several employees under me. Calling me a socialist is moronic at best, but apparently all you have at your disposal. Congratulations mrearlygold for proving you don't have the slightest clue about which you speak.
First you would have to understand the underlying principles of socialism which obviously you don't.
Anyone who advocates the taking by force of anyones earnings is a socialist.
Good.....I'm glad you actually decided to try and debate a point instead of shooting off a blind assertion then running.
Using your definition of Socialist, "Anyone who advocates the taking by force of anyones earnings is a socialist.", then everyone in this country who supports taxation of any kind is a socialist. In fact, using mrearlygold's definition of socialism, every country in the modern world is socialist. In fact the only person who would NOT be a socialist would be an anarchist.
Now that we've used your stupid definition of socialist which isn't correct, lets look at the REAL definition of socialism:
Webster - 1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods. 2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state. 3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done.
Unbelievable and very sad. Mrearlygold is a good representation of the modern right wing.
I do NOT advocate collective or governmental ownership of production and distribution of wealth. I do NOT advocate the elimination of private property. I do NOT subscribe to a Marxist government model. I am not a socialist in any sense or definition of the word and ignorant jerks who try to label liberals as socialists are lying because they have no valid position.
I DO advocate responsible tax policy. I DO advocate higher tax brackets for wealthy Americans. (The current top tax rate of $319,000 income is a national outrage) I DO advocate estate taxes. I DO advocate new rules to prevent large corporations from screwing over workers. (Enron, Worldcom, etc.) If you want to attack these points, go ahead. I doubt your ability to do more than label.
"...reality has a well-known liberal bias." -- Stephen Colbert
Iwog, since you've now proven my point that you are in fact an ignoramous by calling me stupid, this debate will never take place as it's way over your head.
It seems there are a lot of valid points about the state of the economy on both sides of the issue and we're all a little too set in our views to see each others main points. Some of the disagreement is on semantics too. All economies exist on a continuum of socialism or being totally free and having no taxes. Statements which have no validity often have much validity when seen from another perspec- tive.
It can be much easier to see a point if you read between the lines.
To keep this post on topic, I'll predict we're on a short term trend toward a more free economy in a continuing bear market away from it.
Iwog, I will agree that my post might be a little long and rambling so please allow me to give you just the facts,
The top-earning 1% of US taxpayers pay one third (33.9%) of all federal individual income taxes collected.
The top-earning 1% of taxpayers (1.28 million taxpayers) earned 16.1% of the income.
Forget about the federal tax rates you keep quoting and look at the big picture of people paying 60% of every dollar they make in taxes and fighting inflation at the same time.
Starting in 2000, and continuing on for the last three years hundreds of thousands of the people paying the majority of the taxes have decided to leave, and not pay anymore.
It will not take long to get all the biggest taxpayers moved to other countries if hundreds of thousands move each year.
Lets pick a number and say 80% of the 1,280,000 top earners leave, that’s 1,024,000. So if they we paying 33.9 percent of the taxes and 80% leave then 26.4 percent of the taxes they were paying go unpaid.
Since our governments at all levels refuses to reduce their size, and expenditures, someone must take up the slack and pay for the 26.4% that the wealthy left behind. That someone Sir, is YOU!
“I agree that the middle class is being systematically eliminated by the new aristocracy because in a world of giant corporations they are simply not needed. The RICH however, that top 1% that you were INITIALLY discussing couldn't be happier with the business climate in America.”
With out getting into a long drawn out argument on politics, I might suggest to you that you throw away the Hilary Clinton play book with its detail chapters on “Giant Corporations.”
Just who do you think are the owners of these Giant Corporations? There is not a General named Motors. These Giant Corporations are own by us, by the middle class, and upper middle class, Americans that pour billions of dollars each year into the stock market via their retirement plans, IRS’S and personal investments. Surely you have not been convinced that 1,280,000 wealthy Americans own all of the Giant Corporations in this country?
Mrearlygold, when you learn to look up words in a dictionary instead of making up your own definitions, then we'll talk. Your comment:
Anyone who advocates the taking by force of anyones earnings is a socialist.
is moronic and entirely wrong. And for the record, it doesn't depend on your point of view. SOCIALISM cannot exist in any economic system that guarantees private ownership of property and business, and unless someone has said otherwise, NO ONE HERE is pushing a socialist agenda! I think MrEarlygold knows this even if he can't define socialism, but decided to use the common right wing tool of character assassination anyway to push HIS agenda and discredit myself and others. Before common ground is sought, intellectually corrupt childish people like this need to be delt with and put in back in their box.
The real issue here isn't politics anyway. It's wealth redistribution. Conservatives vehemently hate the idea of any system that would divert wealth from the rich to the lower classes, and have therefore demonized the term. Interestingly enough this doesn't apply to the redistribution of wealth from the working class to the rich; a process that has been continuing for several decades now as wealth disparity continues to grow and our pro-business government removes checks and balances.
Anyway here is my economic prediction. Our nation will eventually lose control of the national debt. Bill Clinton was president during the perfect economic storm; a giant boom economy combined with a long period of declining interest rates, and was therefore able to halt deficit spending for 2 years. George Bush however has accelerated the growth of the national debt and persued a weak dollar policy that can only end with inflation and skyrocketing interest rates. Although the debt might be managable when financed by 2-5% treasury bills, this government will not be capable of paying this debt in a 10% environment and will eventually be forced to devalue the currency. When this happens it will no longer be a debate about a Bull vs. Bear market in metals, it will be a question of who survives because they have hard assets and who is bankrupt. Today's trade deficit numbers are just more fuel on the fire.
"...reality has a well-known liberal bias." -- Stephen Colbert
Here's the story on small business ownership, I had mine for 10 years and it is certainly nothing to aspire to. Every company that can is getting off shore or at the least outsourcing, maybe just going on line/ala ebay or the like, or hiding alltogether. Small business was once thought of as the incubator of future corporations and everyone wanted to own their own business, to be independent. Small business, like the middle class has become the most preyed upon population in the country. Here's a taste...
Income tax, Schedule C Self Employment tax Social Security tax Medicare tax Workmen's Compensation tax State Business Sales tax City Sales Tax City Personal Property tax City Business Property tax County Business Property tax County Personal Property tax School District tax Improvement District tax Unemployment tax
All this before you get to:
General Liability Insurance Professional Liability Insurance Medical Insurance Retirement Contribution CPA Expense IRS Audit expenses Attorney's fees...all the vehicle taxes and fees, and the list goes on and on.
You may also note that none of the above items have anything to do with providing a service or enterprise, aka a small business.
Things have changed and are evolving. The American labor market is being redisbributed and job skills are changing. When small businesses and the middle class become something other than fresh meat on a pointed stick, and they become something other than a cash cow that exist as tax magnets for whomever can think of a way to get into their pockets, then we will start seeing a better distribution of wealth. I will say this though, having traveled the world from south america to the far east, we still have it so much better than anyone else that it is hard to moan too much. So, griping is an american right but our circumstances certainly aren't that dire. After all, we get to collect coins!
First you would have to understand the underlying principles of socialism First you would have to understand the underlying principles of socialism Keyword is not socialism. B comes after A. 2+2=4 Now try using a brain.
Can someone please translate this for me? My university economics course must have left something out because he sounds like he's a raving lunatic.
"...reality has a well-known liberal bias." -- Stephen Colbert
I have enjoyed reading this thread, but there's jest something this poor 'ole Texan just cain't unnerstand........
This Iwog fella, every post he appears to have made is blank on my page. Now I figured that perhaps it jest might be my browser as I shore don't cotton to that there IE thingy too much. Anyways, I went ahead and tried it too. Tried a few different flavors of browsers and ya know what? His posts are all blank no matter what I try to do to see 'em.
What am I missing here?
It sure couldn't be possible that he has retracted every single post he's made could it? I mean, if he was retracting them all along, why whould he keep posting more of em?
Somebody help me out here, please. Thank ye.
"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
I would suggest that owning a small business is something to aspire to. Yes, there are many taxes and fees associated with any business. The key is providing a service or product that people want. My nephew began a small business about 18 months ago after working for some people in his industry and making them a nice profit.
He now has 14 employees and is growing his financially oriented business every month. The key is to have other people make money for you. If you generate more revenue than each incremental employee costs, the profits can escalate fairly quickly. Also, there are benefits once you reach a certain point. You get fairly generous write offs for a variety of expenses, including automobile, travel, food, not to mention the ability to sock away some nice dollars in a variety of retirement accounts. This all presupposes that you have a strong cash flow and are growing.
Dont forget that most large companies began small. It is a difficult path, and sometimes being in the right place at the right time is more important than strategy. There is a huge upside if you can get to a certain size. It is very similar to farming, you need to grow to a minimum size to achieve economies of scale and the single proprietor business with few employees is one of those models that struggles.
Retired United States Mint guy, now working on an Everyman Type Set.
Deadhorse, perhaps an education would help with those big words.
Deepcoin, it's difficult but entirely possible to grow a small business in this country. I've done it myself and have done quite well. I also have no problems with the government relaxing regulation and taxes to make it easier for people to make a profit. The problem is that the current administration cannot tell the difference between a mom and pop restaurant and a billion dollar telecommunications corporation.
Goldsaint, you're confusing theory with reality. The owners of a major corporation ON PAPER are shareholders. It's the top management however that steal corporate assets and rape the company for all it's worth. Don't believe me? The CEO of SBC, Ed Whitacre, was paid almost $25 million dollars in 2003. This is after the stock declined three straight years, a 7% general company layoff, and a cut in medical benefits for all SBC workers. Ed Whitacre has been paid more than 100 million dollars in the last 5 years and has been raping SBC for all its worth while SCREWING shareholders out of billions. Do you still think the middle and upper class own SBC? May I suggest you wake up?
Now you attempted to slander me by invoking Hillary Clinton? I've never read Hillary Clinton but if you support a system that allows the raping of America like the example I posted above, you're a bigger threat to this country than Bin Laden. In fact, your scare story about the rich leaving this country in droves is the most absurd nonsense I've heard in a LONG time.
"...reality has a well-known liberal bias." -- Stephen Colbert
Iwog, This is a perfect example of the party line attacking some company you know nothing about , so here Sir are the facts, not some story you heard about how bad the guy at SBC is. The stock has not declined for three years, its 52 week range is $22.98 to $27.29 and it is currently trading at $24.81. Its current yield is 5.23% on its dividend, not bad considering the banks are paying 2% on C.D.’s. Mr. Whitacre and his entire management team own less than 1% of the shares, and small investors with holdings in mutual funds or out right ownership own way over voting control. I assume that if they thought Mr. Whitacre was doing a poor job running this 20 Billion dollar plus company they would kick him out.
52wk Range: 22.98 - 27.29
Prev Close: 24.81
Div & Yield: 1.29 (5.23%)
PERIOD ENDING 31-Dec-03 31-Dec-02 31-Dec-01 Total Revenue 40,843,000 43,138,000 45,908,000 Cost of Revenue 16,653,000 - -
Gross Profit 24,190,000 43,138,000 45,908,000
% of Shares Held by All Insider and 5% Owners: 1% % of Shares Held by Institutional & Mutual Fund Owners: 55% % of Float Held by Institutional & Mutual Fund Owners: 55% Number of Institutions Holding Shares: 10
TOP INSIDER & RULE 144 HOLDERS
Holder Shares Reported WHITACRE, EDWARD E. JR 1,951,129 31-Dec-04 ELLIS, JAMES D. 484,994 31-Dec-04 KAHAN, JAMES S. 251,689 31-Dec-04 STEPHENSON, RANDALL L. 152,129 31-Dec-04 ATTERBURY, JOHN H. III 145,155 31-Dec-04
TOP INSTITUTIONAL HOLDERS
Holder Shares % Out Value* Reported Capital Research and Management Company 214,153,000 6.46 $5,557,270,350 30-Sep-04 FMR Corporation (Fidelity Management & Research Corp) 205,378,987 6.19 $5,329,584,712 30-Sep-04 Barclays Bank Plc 117,312,197 3.54 $3,044,251,512 30-Sep-04 State Street Corporation 104,400,458 3.15 $2,709,191,885 30-Sep-04 Vanguard Group, Inc. (The) 69,960,536 2.11 $1,815,475,909 30-Sep-04 Morgan Stanley 46,618,247 1.41 $1,209,743,509 30-Sep-04 Citigroup Inc. 44,193,988 1.33 $1,146,833,988 30-Sep-04 Northern Trust Corporation 42,113,024 1.27 $1,092,832,972 30-Sep-04 Mellon Bank, N.A. 35,678,179 1.08 $925,848,745 30-Sep-04 Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft 28,958,157 0.87 $751,464,174 30-Sep-04
TOP MUTUAL FUND HOLDERS
Holder Shares % Out Value* Reported Investment Company of America 61,450,000 1.85 $1,594,627,500 30-Sep-04 Washington Mutual Investors Fund 55,700,000 1.68 $1,445,415,000 30-Sep-04 Income Fund of America Inc 32,055,000 0.97 $831,827,250 30-Sep-04 Fidelity Growth & Income Portfolio 31,541,300 0.95 $799,256,522 31-Jul-04 Vanguard 500 Index Fund 31,008,578 0.94 $804,672,599 30-Sep-04 Fidelity Dividend Growth Fund 30,266,391 0.91 $766,950,329 31-Jul-04 College Retirement Equities Fund-Stock Account 21,561,124 0.65 $559,511,167 30-Sep-04 Capital Income Builder, Inc. 20,485,000 0.62 $531,585,750 30-Sep-04 Fidelity Magellan Fund Inc 16,177,214 0.49 $419,798,703 30-Sep-04 Fidelity Equity-Income Fund 16,132,044 0.49 $408,785,985
You get fairly generous write offs for a variety of expenses, including automobile, travel, food,
I sincerely hope you're not basing the argument on fake business expenses - i.e. accidentally charging personal car mileage as "business" miles?
'Cause last time I rode around the lake in a boat I thought for a few moments about becoming a bigger business - did that make the trip business mileage?
Deadhorse, you may want to look at it in the point of reference Iwog was speaking of to get a more accurate picture. I may be wrong but look at the compensation Whitacre is receiving during that time frame. they reward Whitacre for how the company is performing but meanwhile they screw employees
<< <i>Ed Whitacre, was paid almost $25 million dollars in 2003. This is after the stock declined three straight years, a 7% general company layoff, and a cut in medical benefits for all SBC workers. Ed Whitacre has been paid more than 100 million dollars in the last 5 years >>
the company is saying, let's screw the working folk yet but lets reward the chairman of the board? am i repeating myself, sorry.
Just who do you think are the owners of these Giant Corporations? There is not a General named Motors.
True - HOWEVER - let's not be ridiculous and pretend like the middle class has any control. Who tells the Mutual Fund and Institutions how to vote proxies? The facts are borne out every time a shareholder proxy vote, which does something good like put onus on Executives to earn their keep - they are defeated. Proxy vote after proxy vote that benefits the middle class is defeated.
AND - recall how that shortly after the Enron debacle, corporate Board's came under fire for not doing anything (and yet the Members collect 6 figure salaries for it). The response I will never in my life forget: "If Board Members had to do anything, no one would want the job."
Really? Post it on Monster.com and see if I apply.
Goldsaint, you posted a bunch of numbers but totally ignored by point. PLEASE stop trying to cover your ass and try and understand what I'm saying.
SBC has performed HORRIBLY in the past 5 years. BLOODY AWFUL returns for anyone investing in the company. You think I am blowing smoke?? SBC shares went from a high of $59.00 a share near the end of 2000 to about $25 a share this year representing a loss of billions of dollars of equity for shareholders. In fact, SBC shares have lost value in 2001, 2002, 2003, and only managed a tiny gain for 2004.
EVERY SHAREHOLDER who has been invested in SBC over the last 5 years has lost money in the company. EVERY SHAREHOLDER who bought shares 2,3, and 4 years ago has lost money. Meanwhile, your hero Ed Whitacre has pocketed WELL over 100 million dollars in the same time frame. He's paid between 20 and 28 million EVERY YEAR and continues to rape this company for all it's worth. This is okay with you? The owners of the corporation lose money while the upper management gets insanely rich, and the working class employees get laid off and their benefits cut.
Stop playing games and look at what's happening.
"...reality has a well-known liberal bias." -- Stephen Colbert
It's one thing to rightly complain about the nutty CEO salaries of the past few years. But let's not use a 5 year window that covers the stock market crash of 2000-2001 as the benchmark for performance. So what if SBC went from $59 to $25. Many fine companies got decimated along with the chaff. The whole market was puffed up. A 3 year window makes more sense to me following a singularity that occurred in 2000-2001.
My own company went bankrupt and the stock went from $14 a share to 1 cent a share from 1999-2004. It had nothing to do with who was in charge in those 5 years. In fact had more to do with who was in charge in 1995-1999 and set things up poorly for the final blow. 9-11 and a recession didn't help either. Let's not lose sight of common sense when analyzing things.
Was there a stock market crash in 2002 when SBC dropped from $37 to $27? Was there a stock market crash in 2003 when SBC hit $20 a share? Are we forgetting that the Dow Jones of which SBC is a member has only lost about 25% from its high while SBC is down almost 60%???? STOP MAKING EXCUSES!
SBC has a 5 year track record of horrible performance and Ed Whitacre has stolen over $100 million from the company while shareholders have LOST money and most of its employees have suffered either layoffs or cuts in pay and benefits. This is your free market economy folks. Oh yeah, don't forget that anyone who disagrees is a socialist........
"...reality has a well-known liberal bias." -- Stephen Colbert
Hey Roadrunner, the stock market is a leading indicator of investor expectations, not a trailing one.
Blaming Clinton is typical of the conservative playbook but as usual they are intellectually bankrupt. When I point out that the same logic means Reagan was to blame for the 1992 recession that put Clinton in office as well as the 1987 stock market crash, the conservative generally cries and goes home. But we wern't talking about politics right Roadrunner? We were examining how a market devoid of regulation can destroy the economy. I wonder which party that applies to more?
"...reality has a well-known liberal bias." -- Stephen Colbert
Deadhorse, you may want to look at it in the point of reference Iwog was speaking of to get a more accurate picture. I may be wrong but look at the compensation Whitacre is receiving during that time frame. they reward Whitacre for how the company is performing but meanwhile they screw employees
<< <i>Ed Whitacre, was paid almost $25 million dollars in 2003. This is after the stock declined three straight years, a 7% general company layoff, and a cut in medical benefits for all SBC workers. Ed Whitacre has been paid more than 100 million dollars in the last 5 years >>
the company is saying, let's screw the working folk yet but lets reward the chairman of the board? am i repeating myself, sorry. >>
I'd be more than happy to look at whatever. I wasn't kidding. Well I was doing it in a kidding manner, but I cannot see any of Iwog's posts.
Where there should be a message, it is simply blank. Everything else about the page is the same, it's just that for every Iwog post there is a blank space, an empty frame, whatever you want to call it.
I am dead serious about this. Sort of makes reading this thread like listening to only one end of a phone conversation.
"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
Gentlemen, these are foolish arguments about CEO pay, declining stock prices in companies that lay off middle class workers so that management can make more money etc. All of these issues are a matter of free will, or choice, on the part of the workers as well as the shareholders. There is no point in complaining about something you can change. If you work for a company you hate you can leave. If you are invested in a company where you get no vote, and you think the management is over paid, you can sell. Why anyone who would spend any time worrying about someone that has a choice in their investments, or their employment, when this is their choice is beyond my comprehension.
The matter of over taxation is a totally different issue; you have no choice other than prison or confiscation. The next time you go to fill up your car tell he clerk you are not paying that gas tax, guess what, no gas. Try to tell your local tax people that you are not going to pay your real estate taxes, and guess what they confiscate your house, tell the IRS your are no longer going to pay your income tax, and you go strait to jail.
What exactly happens to you if you sell your SBC stock and buy bonds? What happens if you leave a job, and go to another company?
As I have already pointed out, there is only one choice open to you that can be a choice on your part if you don’t like the way the country is being run, and all of your hard earned money is being systematically confiscated by the government, you can leave, and hundreds of thousands are doing that each year.
Shareholders in widely held corporations have no vote. Technically if 50%+ of the voting shares got together they could fire the board, but the laws in this country allow a board of directors to issue ballots any way they want and they NEVER allow a choice. This is more than simple apathy on the part of the shareholders, it would be like holding a federal election for president and only printing ONE name on the ballots. Yes the voter can write in a candidate, but the reality is that shareholders in widely held corporations are powerless.
Anyway the point about being able to sell your SBC stock is correct. I'm more concerend with the employees who contribute 20 years of their lives to help build a company, then is terminated without pension. The standard conservative lie is that in a free market, this is required to keep a business competitive. The truth is that Ed Whitacre needed 25 million dollars this year, so five hundred $50,000 a year employees needed to be sacrificed on the free market altar.
Pretty good living for an incompetent CEO eh?
"...reality has a well-known liberal bias." -- Stephen Colbert
Here is yet another breaking corporate story with some real down side for the American workers. On a special report on Fox today there was a short, but disturbing, 15 minute discussion on the coming crisis in Corporate pension funds. This disaster could make the S&L crisis look small.
According to the report the top 100 companies in the U.S. now have an average of pension fund obligations of 3 billion each.
It seems many of these companies followed the Federal Governments lead, and rather than saving and investing for these obligations, they just allow current workers to pay in for retiree’s.
At GM for example the company had to borrow 1.8 Billion dollars in 2004 just to meet its obligations. It seems GM never counted on losing its 40% market share of the car business, which has now drop to 25%. GM now has one employee paying into its retirement program for every 2 retirees.
The Fox report said that Bush would tackle this problem first before S.C. He does not want taxpayers to be responsible for these failing pension funds. The Federal Pension Guarantee fund that is suppose to cover failing Corporations is now 28 Billion dollars in the hole.
It seems that taxpayers in general will either pick up these costs or many pensions will have to be reduced, or eliminated. In addition these obligation may become a big drag on stock market prices if Corporations must eliminate dividends to pay pensions.
<< <i>All of these issues are a matter of free will, or choice, on the part of the workers as well as the shareholders. There is no point in complaining about something you can change. >>
Some very wise thoughts there. Too many spend their life complaining about things they can't change. If those same people would spend that same time working on things they can change, their lives could be so different.
Some of us tried to change things, but Bush was re-elected anyway.
An unregulated free market does NOT work. It didn't work 100 years ago, it didn't work in 1929 and it doesn't work now. People who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it and are usually Republican.........
"...reality has a well-known liberal bias." -- Stephen Colbert
It seems to me that most reasonable people would relent to the point about being forced to say in jobs they hate, or owning stock in companies where they think they are getting ripped by management. The issue in my last post though is a totally different story. In the case of S.C. most people paying any attention over the last decade had to figure that many would never get out what they put in. My opinion is that is why there was so much gambling in the stock market. In addition anyone who trusts these guys in Washington to keep over 50% of their promises is very naive, but to me the corporate pension fund should be a totally different story. Sure companies go bankrupt, and not much can be done in that situation, but this is really a crime for people that worked their entire lives at a company to get screwed out of their retirement.
Here is an additional question, where were the Unions while these companies were spending their employees retirement money? In the case of large public companies the balances for retirement funds are disclosed in each 10K. Was it so hard for the Unions to say, “hey bubba where are you keeping all of our guys pension money?”
On the other hand I think Bush is right, why should a retiree at IBM have his taxes increased to pay for a retiree at GM, if GM screws their people out of their pensions?
Food costs are only up 2.7% huh? What a laugh. I average 200/week at just Publix. Haven't figured the butcher, Asian market and eating out once a week yet.
Tom
Inflation on Fastest Pace Since 2000
55 minutes ago
By MARTIN CRUTSINGER, AP Economics Writer
WASHINGTON - Consumer prices jumped 3.3 percent last year as the biggest surge in fuel bills in 14 years pushed up inflation at the fastest pace since 2000, the government reported Wednesday. But in a sign that some relief may be on the way, retail prices fell by 0.1 percent in December, driven lower by the largest one-month drop in energy costs since July.
The Labor Department (news - web sites) said the 3.3 percent increase last year in its Consumer Price Index (news - web sites), the most closely watched barometer of inflation, was the biggest annual jump since a 3.4 percent rise in 2000. In 2003, consumer prices had risen just 1.9 percent.
The acceleration in price pressures last year was led by a 16.6 percent jump in energy costs, the biggest annual gain in 14 years — since an 18.1 percent surge in fuel bills in 1990, when supply disruptions related to Iraq (news - web sites)'s invasion of Kuwait roiled world oil markets.
Last year, sporadic attacks on Iraq's oil pipelines and continued worries about potential supply disruptions in other parts of the Middle East from terrorist attacks pushed oil prices to record levels, hitting $55 per barrel in October.
Economists hope that 2005 will turn out to be a calmer year on the energy front, but they concede that their forecast of falling prices is contingent on the absence of any serious supply disruptions.
"We think that oil will be receding from the highs of last year and this will produce a lower rate of inflation this year," said David Seiders, chief economist at the National Association of Home Builders. "But a different story on oil could change all of that."
Stocks were down slightly in late morning trading on Wall Street as the good economic news was outweighed by investor concerns about mixed corporate earnings reports.
Outside of the volatile areas of energy and food, so-called core inflation rose by a more moderate 2.2 percent last year, compared with a 1.1 percent increase in 2003.
In other economic news, the Commerce Department (news - web sites) reported that construction of new homes and apartments bounced back in December, topping off a year in which residential construction rose for a fourth straight year.
Housing starts climbed 10.9 percent in December and for the year were up 5.7 percent to an annual level of 1.953 million units. Housing construction has risen every year since dropping by 4.4 percent in 2000, helped by the lowest mortgage rates many Americans have experienced in their working lifetimes.
In a third report, new claims for unemployment benefits fell last week by the largest amount in more than three years, easing concerns that had been raised by increases in layoffs in the previous two weeks.
The Labor Department reported that 319,000 laid-off workers applied for jobless benefits last week, down by 48,000 from the previous week. That was the biggest drop since claims had a one-week decline of 77,000 in early December 2001, the first month after the 2001 recession ended and the economy began recovering from the September terrorist attacks.
The improvement in jobless claims was double what analysts had been forecasting and helped to alleviate worries that the jobs recovery could be faltering as layoffs rose for two consecutive weeks. Last year, the economy created 2.2 million jobs, the first annual increase in employment in three years, and forecasters believe the economy will create at least that many jobs in 2005.
The 0.1 percent decline in prices in December reflected a 1.8 percent drop in energy costs, the biggest improvement since a 1.9 percent increase in July. Energy had risen by a small 0.2 percent in November after having soared 4.2 percent in October, the month that crude oil prices hit an all-time high of $55 per barrel.
Food costs last month were unchanged and for the year climbed by 2.7 percent.
The Federal Reserve (news - web sites) increased interest rates five times last year, moving by a moderate quarter-point at each of its regular meetings beginning in late June. Many analysts believe that as long as price pressures outside of energy remain well-behaved the Fed will be content to keep nudging rates up at a moderate pace
CEO's are not part of a free market... they are the American Aristocracy.
When Enron went poo-poo, they paid millions of dollars in retention bonuses to keep the world's biggest losers from jumping ship.
When American Airlines' employees gave wage and benefits concessions, the next day their Executives voted themselves multi-million dollar retention bonuses. What free market would hire the flunkies away? There is an aristocracy, but no free market.
Funny that NFL teams did not line up to hire Coach Erickson, whose 49'er stunk up the league with the worst record this year. If he were a CEO he'd be getting a raise and a shinier car.
“When Enron went poo-poo, THEY paid millions of dollars in retention bonuses”
Fishcooker who is THEY.
“According to the report the top 100 companies in the U.S. now have an average of pension fund obligations of 3 billion each.” “At GM for example the company had to borrow 1.8 Billion dollars in 2004 just to meet its obligations. It seems GM never counted on losing its 40% market share of the car business, which has now drop to 25%. GM now has one employee paying into its retirement program for every 2 retirees.”
Here is a question I keep coming back to, for decades we have had very strong Unions in this country. Many of these Unions have billions of dollars in pension funds much of which is invested in the stock market, and huge amounts of power with Boards of directors. Just who is watching out for the American workers?Who is voting for the Boards that give the CEO'S the big bucks?
When the 10K’S come out and the company says it is not putting back enough money for pensions why are the Unions not screaming to the Press?
When a companies financials come out and it says we produced 10 million widgets and the companies Union plant manager says whoa we only made 5 million how come the Union is not telling the stockholders.
“ CEO's are not part of a free market... they are the American Aristocracy.”
It seems to me there are lots of Aristocracies in this country.
OK, here's the news! Quotes from Warren Buffett today:
"I think, over time, unless we have a major change in trade policies, I don't see how the dollar avoids going down," the world's second-richest individual told CNBC television.
"I don't know when it happens. I don't have any idea whether it will be this month or this year or next year, but we are force-feeding dollars on to the rest of the world at the rate of close to a couple billion dollars a day, and that's going to weigh on the dollar."
Comments
Read it and weep http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/countries.cfm
Tom
Coin's for sale/trade.
Tom Pilitowski
US Rare Coin Investments
800-624-1870
This is a great site to gather info. from on countries around the Globe!
<< <i>Thanks Tom
This is a great site to gather info. from on countries around the Globe! >>
You're welcome ! I found it last night.
Tax rates are quite interesting eh? When I was living in Vietnam ( pre and post 9/11) there were no international flights back to the US for a period of months ( I "think" there were but all kinds of additional security and paperwork I "think"), to which I just passed and did what I think any American entrepreneur would do and that's start a business and move forward. How the heck was I supposed to know that it was against the law to do so on a tourist visa, with no license, etc etc. When the communist police came to my rented house in Saigon, I threw them out ( again, how was I supposed to know you're not supposed to throw them out?
It's written in English and Vietnamese and has the official seal. And as an American married to a Vietnamese there was also an additional provision allowing me to own property there ( which even I wouldn't have the lasseiz faire chutzpah to do there).
GW Bush signed the official free trade agreement with that country right around the same time. But that was started in 1995 under clinton.
What I'm saying is that even in the worst of places from an economic freedom standpoint, deals can be struck which are not mentioned in this index. By the way and FYI, at this point, the HIGHEST tax rates in Vietnam, a communist country are actually LESS by a percent or two after factoring deductions etc than federal, state and local taxes here.
Oh and how do people price and pay for real estate there? In the form of "taels' of gold. There's an official price, and then there's the real price you pay without reporting it. Gold and cash are the mediums of exchange.
Quite an experience let me tell ya.
Rgrds
Tom
Coin's for sale/trade.
Tom Pilitowski
US Rare Coin Investments
800-624-1870
<< <i>earlygold...so what happened with the effort to buy collections via the newspaper? I have dreamed of doing that in bolivia or peru or some out of the way place to see if I could get some good coins. >>
I was able to see a collection up in Hue. It was very much like a cloak and dagger movie. Incredible collection of ancient Vietnamese gold coins that I would have put 7 figures on easy. I tried and failed to convince the owner to get the coins out of the country to meet me at my bank in Bangkok where I would have arranged a wire transfer or as I told him, paid him cash on a silver platter.
We're still in touch. Maybe I should offer cash on a gold platter?
I saw several other collections, all fake though.
I'm very well known there and you never know what will happen in the future.
You never know
You should give it a shot.
Rgrds
Tom
Coin's for sale/trade.
Tom Pilitowski
US Rare Coin Investments
800-624-1870
The job losses have accelerated and moved into unexpected new sectors as the trade deficit -- which reflects the gap between imports and exports -- with China skyrocketed to a record $124 billion in 2003, report author and EPI senior international trade economist Robert Scott said.
"The assumptions we built our trade relationship with China on have proved to be a house of cards. Everyone knew we would lose jobs in labor-intensive industries like textiles and apparel, but we thought we could hold our own in the capital-intensive, high-tech arena," Scott said in a statement.
The report puts a large portion of the blame for the growing U.S. trade deficit with China on that country's "refusal to revalue its exchange rate."
"The wealthy are being systematically backed into a corner by our government. They are paying double their share of taxes. They are facing frivolous lawsuits by the greedy, in ever growing numbers. Their businesses dealings are being saddled with onerous Patriot Act and Sarbanes-Oxley Act requirements that often take so much time and cost so much money that otherwise profitable deals end up costing money, if they happen at all. And, their property is being confiscated (forfeited) by the government at an ever increasing rate. Everything for which they have worked so hard, is now being threatened by the same government, whose job it is to protect citizens from just those types of abuses."
After I stopped laughing I realized that he was serious. I suppose the absolute and total screwing of the working class in this country cannot be accomplished unless lies like this are accepted as fact, so people like GoldSaint are working hard to brainwash the ever gullible population into believing the rich are the victims. Here are the REAL facts, they are not subject to dispute by anyone:
After World War II, the top federal tax rate was 90% for the richest Americans and wealth disparity was at an all time low following the war and the Great Depression. The great Reagan supply side economics LIE predicted an economic disaster of epic proportions, but what actually happened was an incredible boom economy that lasted until 1957. The top tax rate is now 35% and has been dropping steadily for decades. Under George Bush, dividend taxes and capital gains taxes have been slashed with 5 and 15% caps in effect. There has never been a time in history more favorable to investment income and Bush promises further cuts. Under Bush the inheritance tax has been drastically cut and is on schedule for complete elimination by the year 2010. Currently if your estate is worth 1.5 million or less your estate is not taxed.
Oh yeah, Bush has recently proposed tax reform. If you're currently being paid wages, get ready to bend over again. If you're either a corporate rapist or independently wealthy it's time to buy a new boat.
“After I stopped laughing I realized that he was serious. I suppose the absolute and total screwing of the working class in this country cannot be accomplished unless lies like this are accepted as fact, so people like GoldSaint are working hard to brainwash the ever gullible population”
Iwog,
First of all Sir it is not my intention, and I would have nothing to gain, by brainwashing anyone. If you read this post in total you would see that the point of the post was to give a little advance warning to all the hard working middle class here, that if a majority of the wealthy tax payers in the country leave, they will be assuming the tax burden left behind. This information came from the U.S. Census Bureau which like all government agencies makes many mistakes, but even plus or minus 10% , I think my point about many wealthy people leaving the country because they were being over taxed is correct.
It is certainly not the case that middle America is also not being over taxed also, in fact I have already made the point in other posts here. Middle class working Americans are paying nearly 60% of every dollar they earn in one type of tax or another.
So again my point is that if all the rich people leave, who is left to pay the taxes they were paying?
According to the US Census Bureau, as reported in the "2000 Statistical Yearbook of the Immigration and Naturalization Service" (6.2 MB download), by the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services (BCIS), formerly the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), the wealthy are leaving the United States in record numbers. According to that report, in 2002, roughly 363,000 US citizens and permanent residents quietly left the United States permanently. Now granted, not all of those 363,000 expatriates were rich. But, think about it. How many do you think were poor?... How many do you think were even middle class?
Euro Trash
Even drug dealers are giving up on the dollar.
By Daniel Gross
"The dollar's decline against the euro shows no sign of ending. Clearly,
currency traders have made a long-term judgment about the relative value of
the currencies of the Old and New Worlds. That sounds bad enough. But now
there are signs that we're losing some of the most devoted fans of the
greenback: drug dealers, Russian oligarchs, and black-market traffickers of
all kinds.
James Grant, of Grant's Interest Rate Observer, whose animadversions about
the dollar and other subjects are as droll as they are pricey, highlighted
the latest indignities to befall the once-mighty dollar in his Dec. 17
issue. (Alas, it's not available on the Web.)
People the world over-central banks, companies, and individuals-like to hold
the dollar. It's stable, liquid, easily convertible, and never goes out of
style. The dollar is popular in the official global economy-the money that
changes hands through computer terminals, checks, and wire transfers. But it
has also been extremely popular in the world's vast cash economy. For
American tourists, Chinese smugglers, Ukrainian arms dealers, and African
dictators, the dollar has long been the currency of choice. The fearful and
shady, those who subsist on tourism, and residents of countries with
unstable domestic currencies love the greenback. Citing Federal Reserve
estimates, Grant writes that "between 55% and 70% of the $703 billion of
U.S. currency outstanding circulates outside the 50 states."
The United States benefits greatly from the fact that the dollar is the
world's reserve currency. Many of the $100 bills circulating throughout the
globe are essentially loans that we never have to pay back. Americans use
them to buy goods, services, or other currencies. But many of those bills
never return to our shores to be redeemed for anything we make or produce.
Instead, they stay under mattresses in Bogotá, circulate in Iraq, and are
stashed in bank accounts around the world.
But among a subset of global cash connoisseurs, the dollar is losing ground
to the euro-and it has nothing to do with concerns over U.S.
multilateralism. First, the euro zone has been expanding with the addition
of new countries and the continued integration between Eastern and Western
Europe. So there are simply more people who accept and use euros now. Since
2002, the growth rate of euros in circulation has far outpaced that of
dollars. Add in the euro's recent strength against the dollar, and the case
for Eastern Europeans and euro-neighbors to use euros becomes more
compelling. In the 1990s, the dollar was remarkably popular in Russia, where
residents had long been deprived of coveted Western imports. But between
January 2002 and August 2004, Grant notes, the percentage of private Russian
currency transactions employing the dollar fell from 94.1 percent to 84
percent while the euro's share rose from nothing to about 15 percent.
Finally, in the past two years, euros have also become easier to carry,
store, and hide than dollars. Generally, the largest denomination of U.S.
currency readily available is the $100 bill. But in the past two years, the
European Central Bank has started to print 200-euro and 500-euro bills.
These larger bills thus allow for the concentration of wealth in smaller
packages. At today's rates, a 500-euro note is worth $682.
So if you wanted to, say, hide cash by swallowing it temporarily, euros
would the obvious (and more comfortable) way to go. And indeed, as Grant
notes, in October a drug mule traveling from Spain to Colombia was found to
have an unexpected form of contraband in his stomach: $197,000 in euro
notes. The same month, Fidel Castro declared that the dollar, which is
tolerated as a means for Cuban-Americans to support their relatives in Cuba,
was officially currency non grata and that the euro was most welcome.
For most products, losing international drug cartels and corrupt Third World
dictators as customers would seem to be a desirable outcome. But these guys
represent part of our long-standing and faithful base. If you think pundits
are fretting about the slumping dollar now, just imagine what might happen
if we start to lose the arms dealers."
You won't win that. There's way more selfish socialists here than there are people who are interested in Freedom and being productive unfortunately. And most of them don't even have the slightest clue as to what built this place to begin with and what's forcing anyone with half a bank account to seek safety elsewhere nowadays. These are the same type people I would see clamoring on street corners with flyers in their hand in HCMC almost every saturday. At least there however and believe it or no the numbers of those types are "dwindling" whereas it seems to be going the other way here.
Thankfully, there's still HK for bank accounts which are pretty darn out of reach.
The level of spending/theft from this government is going up. As Otis would say, you "gotsta" do what you "gotsta" do.
I've started building gold coin collections with 2 new people in the last couple of months whose primary interest was 'confidentiality". I think we'll see more of that as time ticks on as well.
Rgrds
Tom
Coin's for sale/trade.
Tom Pilitowski
US Rare Coin Investments
800-624-1870
I've built a business from the ground up and have several employees under me. Calling me a socialist is moronic at best, but apparently all you have at your disposal. Congratulations mrearlygold for proving you don't have the slightest clue about which you speak.
GoldSaint, I have no idea why you would open a post talking about the top 1% then when challenged switch the topic to a discussion of the middle class. They are completely seperate arguments. I agree that the middle class is being sysematically eliminated by the new aristocracy because in a world of giant corporations they are simply not needed. The RICH however, that top 1% that you were INITIALLY discussing couldn't be happier with the business climate in America.
If someone does not agree with what they say, they are labeled ignorant.
re-read all the messages and you will find this time and time again.
Gold is up today, time to post a new positive spin on gold and a negative on the dollar.
<< <i>The right generally uses character assassination to try and destroy their opponent's credibility instead of addressing anything actually discussed.
I've built a business from the ground up and have several employees under me. Calling me a socialist is moronic at best, but apparently all you have at your disposal. Congratulations mrearlygold for proving you don't have the slightest clue about which you speak.
First you would have to understand the underlying principles of socialism which obviously you don't.
Anyone who advocates the taking by force of anyones earnings is a socialist.
You didn't do that?
Coin's for sale/trade.
Tom Pilitowski
US Rare Coin Investments
800-624-1870
Using your definition of Socialist, "Anyone who advocates the taking by force of anyones earnings is a socialist.", then everyone in this country who supports taxation of any kind is a socialist. In fact, using mrearlygold's definition of socialism, every country in the modern world is socialist. In fact the only person who would NOT be a socialist would be an anarchist.
Now that we've used your stupid definition of socialist which isn't correct, lets look at the REAL definition of socialism:
Webster - 1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods. 2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state. 3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done.
Unbelievable and very sad. Mrearlygold is a good representation of the modern right wing.
I do NOT advocate collective or governmental ownership of production and distribution of wealth. I do NOT advocate the elimination of private property. I do NOT subscribe to a Marxist government model. I am not a socialist in any sense or definition of the word and ignorant jerks who try to label liberals as socialists are lying because they have no valid position.
I DO advocate responsible tax policy. I DO advocate higher tax brackets for wealthy Americans. (The current top tax rate of $319,000 income is a national outrage) I DO advocate estate taxes. I DO advocate new rules to prevent large corporations from screwing over workers. (Enron, Worldcom, etc.) If you want to attack these points, go ahead. I doubt your ability to do more than label.
Coin's for sale/trade.
Tom Pilitowski
US Rare Coin Investments
800-624-1870
sides of the issue and we're all a little too set in our views to see each others
main points. Some of the disagreement is on semantics too. All economies exist
on a continuum of socialism or being totally free and having no taxes. Statements
which have no validity often have much validity when seen from another perspec-
tive.
It can be much easier to see a point if you read between the lines.
To keep this post on topic, I'll predict we're on a short term trend toward a more
free economy in a continuing bear market away from it.
I will agree that my post might be a little long and rambling so please allow me to give you just the facts,
The top-earning 1% of US taxpayers pay one third (33.9%) of all federal individual income taxes collected.
The top-earning 1% of taxpayers (1.28 million taxpayers) earned 16.1% of the income.
Forget about the federal tax rates you keep quoting and look at the big picture of people paying 60% of every dollar they make in taxes and fighting inflation at the same time.
Starting in 2000, and continuing on for the last three years hundreds of thousands of the people paying the majority of the taxes have decided to leave, and not pay anymore.
It will not take long to get all the biggest taxpayers moved to other countries if hundreds of thousands move each year.
Lets pick a number and say 80% of the 1,280,000 top earners leave, that’s 1,024,000. So if they we paying 33.9 percent of the taxes and 80% leave then 26.4 percent of the taxes they were paying go unpaid.
Since our governments at all levels refuses to reduce their size, and expenditures, someone must take up the slack and pay for the 26.4% that the wealthy left behind. That someone Sir, is YOU!
“I agree that the middle class is being systematically eliminated by the new aristocracy because in a world of giant corporations they are simply not needed. The RICH however, that top 1% that you were INITIALLY discussing couldn't be happier with the business climate in America.”
With out getting into a long drawn out argument on politics, I might suggest to you that you throw away the Hilary Clinton play book with its detail chapters on “Giant Corporations.”
Just who do you think are the owners of these Giant Corporations? There is not a General named Motors. These Giant Corporations are own by us, by the middle class, and upper middle class, Americans that pour billions of dollars each year into the stock market via their retirement plans, IRS’S and personal investments.
Surely you have not been convinced that 1,280,000 wealthy Americans own all of the Giant Corporations in this country?
Anyone who advocates the taking by force of anyones earnings is a socialist.
is moronic and entirely wrong. And for the record, it doesn't depend on your point of view. SOCIALISM cannot exist in any economic system that guarantees private ownership of property and business, and unless someone has said otherwise, NO ONE HERE is pushing a socialist agenda! I think MrEarlygold knows this even if he can't define socialism, but decided to use the common right wing tool of character assassination anyway to push HIS agenda and discredit myself and others. Before common ground is sought, intellectually corrupt childish people like this need to be delt with and put in back in their box.
The real issue here isn't politics anyway. It's wealth redistribution. Conservatives vehemently hate the idea of any system that would divert wealth from the rich to the lower classes, and have therefore demonized the term. Interestingly enough this doesn't apply to the redistribution of wealth from the working class to the rich; a process that has been continuing for several decades now as wealth disparity continues to grow and our pro-business government removes checks and balances.
Anyway here is my economic prediction. Our nation will eventually lose control of the national debt. Bill Clinton was president during the perfect economic storm; a giant boom economy combined with a long period of declining interest rates, and was therefore able to halt deficit spending for 2 years. George Bush however has accelerated the growth of the national debt and persued a weak dollar policy that can only end with inflation and skyrocketing interest rates. Although the debt might be managable when financed by 2-5% treasury bills, this government will not be capable of paying this debt in a 10% environment and will eventually be forced to devalue the currency. When this happens it will no longer be a debate about a Bull vs. Bear market in metals, it will be a question of who survives because they have hard assets and who is bankrupt. Today's trade deficit numbers are just more fuel on the fire.
First you would have to understand the underlying principles of socialism First you would have to understand the underlying principles of socialism
Keyword is not socialism.
B comes after A.
2+2=4
Now try using a brain.
You don't even realize how ignorant you are which is really funny
Coin's for sale/trade.
Tom Pilitowski
US Rare Coin Investments
800-624-1870
Income tax, Schedule C
Self Employment tax
Social Security tax
Medicare tax
Workmen's Compensation tax
State Business Sales tax
City Sales Tax
City Personal Property tax
City Business Property tax
County Business Property tax
County Personal Property tax
School District tax
Improvement District tax
Unemployment tax
All this before you get to:
General Liability Insurance
Professional Liability Insurance
Medical Insurance
Retirement Contribution
CPA Expense
IRS Audit expenses
Attorney's fees...all the vehicle taxes and fees, and the list goes on and on.
You may also note that none of the above items have anything to do with providing a service or enterprise, aka a small business.
Things have changed and are evolving. The American labor market is being redisbributed and job skills are changing. When small businesses and the middle class become something other than fresh meat on a pointed stick, and they become something other than a cash cow that exist as tax magnets for whomever can think of a way to get into their pockets, then we will start seeing a better distribution of wealth. I will say this though, having traveled the world from south america to the far east, we still have it so much better than anyone else that it is hard to moan too much.
So, griping is an american right but our circumstances certainly aren't that dire. After all, we get to collect coins!
http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html
<< <i>curious to find out how everyone does on this quiz
http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html >>
I'm so far right I'm left. So I score "Rabid" Libertarian.
My wife who grew up in communist Vietnam scored solidly Libertarian.
But I usually direct people to http://www.lp.org
Where might I ask did you score Mr CS Coin?
Tom
Coin's for sale/trade.
Tom Pilitowski
US Rare Coin Investments
800-624-1870
Keyword is not socialism.
B comes after A.
2+2=4
Now try using a brain.
Can someone please translate this for me? My university economics course must have left something out because he sounds like he's a raving lunatic.
This Iwog fella, every post he appears to have made is blank on my page. Now I figured that perhaps it jest might be my browser as I shore don't cotton to that there IE thingy too much. Anyways, I went ahead and tried it too. Tried a few different flavors of browsers and ya know what? His posts are all blank no matter what I try to do to see 'em.
What am I missing here?
It sure couldn't be possible that he has retracted every single post he's made could it? I mean, if he was retracting them all along, why whould he keep posting more of em?
Somebody help me out here, please. Thank ye.
John Marnard Keynes, The Economic Consequences of the Peace, 1920, page 235ff
He now has 14 employees and is growing his financially oriented business every month. The key is to have other people make money for you. If you generate more revenue than each incremental employee costs, the profits can escalate fairly quickly. Also, there are benefits once you reach a certain point. You get fairly generous write offs for a variety of expenses, including automobile, travel, food, not to mention the ability to sock away some nice dollars in a variety of retirement accounts. This all presupposes that you have a strong cash flow and are growing.
Dont forget that most large companies began small. It is a difficult path, and sometimes being in the right place at the right time is more important than strategy. There is a huge upside if you can get to a certain size. It is very similar to farming, you need to grow to a minimum size to achieve economies of scale and the single proprietor business with few employees is one of those models that struggles.
Deepcoin, it's difficult but entirely possible to grow a small business in this country. I've done it myself and have done quite well. I also have no problems with the government relaxing regulation and taxes to make it easier for people to make a profit. The problem is that the current administration cannot tell the difference between a mom and pop restaurant and a billion dollar telecommunications corporation.
Goldsaint, you're confusing theory with reality. The owners of a major corporation ON PAPER are shareholders. It's the top management however that steal corporate assets and rape the company for all it's worth. Don't believe me? The CEO of SBC, Ed Whitacre, was paid almost $25 million dollars in 2003. This is after the stock declined three straight years, a 7% general company layoff, and a cut in medical benefits for all SBC workers. Ed Whitacre has been paid more than 100 million dollars in the last 5 years and has been raping SBC for all its worth while SCREWING shareholders out of billions. Do you still think the middle and upper class own SBC? May I suggest you wake up?
Now you attempted to slander me by invoking Hillary Clinton? I've never read Hillary Clinton but if you support a system that allows the raping of America like the example I posted above, you're a bigger threat to this country than Bin Laden. In fact, your scare story about the rich leaving this country in droves is the most absurd nonsense I've heard in a LONG time.
This is a perfect example of the party line attacking some company you know nothing about , so here Sir are the facts, not some story you heard about how bad the guy at SBC is. The stock has not declined for three years, its 52 week range is $22.98 to $27.29 and it is currently trading at $24.81. Its current yield is 5.23% on its dividend, not bad considering the banks are paying 2% on C.D.’s.
Mr. Whitacre and his entire management team own less than 1% of the shares, and small investors with holdings in mutual funds or out right ownership own way over voting control. I assume that if they thought Mr. Whitacre was doing a poor job running this 20 Billion dollar plus company they would kick him out.
52wk Range: 22.98 - 27.29
Prev Close: 24.81
Div & Yield: 1.29 (5.23%)
PERIOD ENDING 31-Dec-03 31-Dec-02 31-Dec-01
Total Revenue 40,843,000 43,138,000 45,908,000
Cost of Revenue 16,653,000 - -
Gross Profit 24,190,000 43,138,000 45,908,000
% of Shares Held by All Insider and 5% Owners: 1%
% of Shares Held by Institutional & Mutual Fund Owners: 55%
% of Float Held by Institutional & Mutual Fund Owners: 55%
Number of Institutions Holding Shares: 10
TOP INSIDER & RULE 144 HOLDERS
Holder Shares Reported
WHITACRE, EDWARD E. JR 1,951,129 31-Dec-04
ELLIS, JAMES D. 484,994 31-Dec-04
KAHAN, JAMES S. 251,689 31-Dec-04
STEPHENSON, RANDALL L. 152,129 31-Dec-04
ATTERBURY, JOHN H. III 145,155 31-Dec-04
TOP INSTITUTIONAL HOLDERS
Holder Shares % Out Value* Reported
Capital Research and Management Company 214,153,000 6.46 $5,557,270,350 30-Sep-04
FMR Corporation (Fidelity Management & Research Corp) 205,378,987 6.19 $5,329,584,712 30-Sep-04
Barclays Bank Plc 117,312,197 3.54 $3,044,251,512 30-Sep-04
State Street Corporation 104,400,458 3.15 $2,709,191,885 30-Sep-04
Vanguard Group, Inc. (The) 69,960,536 2.11 $1,815,475,909 30-Sep-04
Morgan Stanley 46,618,247 1.41 $1,209,743,509 30-Sep-04
Citigroup Inc. 44,193,988 1.33 $1,146,833,988 30-Sep-04
Northern Trust Corporation 42,113,024 1.27 $1,092,832,972 30-Sep-04
Mellon Bank, N.A. 35,678,179 1.08 $925,848,745 30-Sep-04
Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft 28,958,157 0.87 $751,464,174 30-Sep-04
TOP MUTUAL FUND HOLDERS
Holder Shares % Out Value* Reported
Investment Company of America 61,450,000 1.85 $1,594,627,500 30-Sep-04
Washington Mutual Investors Fund 55,700,000 1.68 $1,445,415,000 30-Sep-04
Income Fund of America Inc 32,055,000 0.97 $831,827,250 30-Sep-04
Fidelity Growth & Income Portfolio 31,541,300 0.95 $799,256,522 31-Jul-04
Vanguard 500 Index Fund 31,008,578 0.94 $804,672,599 30-Sep-04
Fidelity Dividend Growth Fund 30,266,391 0.91 $766,950,329 31-Jul-04
College Retirement Equities Fund-Stock Account 21,561,124 0.65 $559,511,167 30-Sep-04
Capital Income Builder, Inc. 20,485,000 0.62 $531,585,750 30-Sep-04
Fidelity Magellan Fund Inc 16,177,214 0.49 $419,798,703 30-Sep-04
Fidelity Equity-Income Fund 16,132,044 0.49 $408,785,985
You get fairly generous write offs for a variety of expenses, including automobile, travel, food,
I sincerely hope you're not basing the argument on fake business expenses - i.e. accidentally charging personal car mileage as "business" miles?
'Cause last time I rode around the lake in a boat I thought for a few moments about becoming a bigger business - did that make the trip business mileage?
Deadhorse, you may want to look at it in the point of reference Iwog was speaking of to get a more accurate picture.
I may be wrong but look at the compensation Whitacre is receiving during that time frame. they reward Whitacre for how the company is performing but meanwhile they screw employees
<< <i>Ed Whitacre, was paid almost $25 million dollars in 2003. This is after the stock declined three straight years, a 7% general company layoff, and a cut in medical benefits for all SBC workers. Ed Whitacre has been paid more than 100 million dollars in the last 5 years >>
the company is saying, let's screw the working folk yet but lets reward the chairman of the board? am i repeating myself, sorry.
Just who do you think are the owners of these Giant Corporations? There is not a General named Motors.
True - HOWEVER - let's not be ridiculous and pretend like the middle class has any control. Who tells the Mutual Fund and Institutions how to vote proxies? The facts are borne out every time a shareholder proxy vote, which does something good like put onus on Executives to earn their keep - they are defeated. Proxy vote after proxy vote that benefits the middle class is defeated.
AND - recall how that shortly after the Enron debacle, corporate Board's came under fire for not doing anything (and yet the Members collect 6 figure salaries for it). The response I will never in my life forget: "If Board Members had to do anything, no one would want the job."
Really? Post it on Monster.com and see if I apply.
CSC - average CEO pay increased over 63% during the 2001-2003 recession. But it was tough on them looking down on all the layoffs......
SBC has performed HORRIBLY in the past 5 years. BLOODY AWFUL returns for anyone investing in the company. You think I am blowing smoke?? SBC shares went from a high of $59.00 a share near the end of 2000 to about $25 a share this year representing a loss of billions of dollars of equity for shareholders. In fact, SBC shares have lost value in 2001, 2002, 2003, and only managed a tiny gain for 2004.
EVERY SHAREHOLDER who has been invested in SBC over the last 5 years has lost money in the company. EVERY SHAREHOLDER who bought shares 2,3, and 4 years ago has lost money. Meanwhile, your hero Ed Whitacre has pocketed WELL over 100 million dollars in the same time frame. He's paid between 20 and 28 million EVERY YEAR and continues to rape this company for all it's worth. This is okay with you? The owners of the corporation lose money while the upper management gets insanely rich, and the working class employees get laid off and their benefits cut.
Stop playing games and look at what's happening.
So what if SBC went from $59 to $25. Many fine companies got decimated along with the chaff. The whole market was puffed up.
A 3 year window makes more sense to me following a singularity that occurred in 2000-2001.
My own company went bankrupt and the stock went from $14 a share to 1 cent a share from 1999-2004. It had nothing to do with who was in charge in those 5 years. In fact had more to do with who was in charge in 1995-1999 and set things up poorly for the final blow. 9-11 and a recession didn't help either. Let's not lose sight of common sense when analyzing things.
roadrunner
SBC has a 5 year track record of horrible performance and Ed Whitacre has stolen over $100 million from the company while shareholders have LOST money and most of its employees have suffered either layoffs or cuts in pay and benefits. This is your free market economy folks. Oh yeah, don't forget that anyone who disagrees is a socialist........
Blaming Clinton is typical of the conservative playbook but as usual they are intellectually bankrupt. When I point out that the same logic means Reagan was to blame for the 1992 recession that put Clinton in office as well as the 1987 stock market crash, the conservative generally cries and goes home. But we wern't talking about politics right Roadrunner? We were examining how a market devoid of regulation can destroy the economy. I wonder which party that applies to more?
<< <i>Yahoo Finance -SBC
Deadhorse, you may want to look at it in the point of reference Iwog was speaking of to get a more accurate picture.
I may be wrong but look at the compensation Whitacre is receiving during that time frame. they reward Whitacre for how the company is performing but meanwhile they screw employees
<< <i>Ed Whitacre, was paid almost $25 million dollars in 2003. This is after the stock declined three straight years, a 7% general company layoff, and a cut in medical benefits for all SBC workers. Ed Whitacre has been paid more than 100 million dollars in the last 5 years >>
the company is saying, let's screw the working folk yet but lets reward the chairman of the board? am i repeating myself, sorry. >>
I'd be more than happy to look at whatever. I wasn't kidding. Well I was doing it in a kidding manner, but I cannot see any of Iwog's posts.
Where there should be a message, it is simply blank. Everything else about the page is the same, it's just that for every Iwog post there is a blank space, an empty frame, whatever you want to call it.
I am dead serious about this. Sort of makes reading this thread like listening to only one end of a phone conversation.
John Marnard Keynes, The Economic Consequences of the Peace, 1920, page 235ff
Gentlemen, these are foolish arguments about CEO pay, declining stock prices in companies that lay off middle class workers so that management can make more money etc. All of these issues are a matter of free will, or choice, on the part of the workers as well as the shareholders. There is no point in complaining about something you can change.
If you work for a company you hate you can leave. If you are invested in a company where you get no vote, and you think the management is over paid, you can sell.
Why anyone who would spend any time worrying about someone that has a choice in their investments, or their employment, when this is their choice is beyond my comprehension.
The matter of over taxation is a totally different issue; you have no choice other than prison or confiscation. The next time you go to fill up your car tell he clerk you are not paying that gas tax, guess what, no gas. Try to tell your local tax people that you are not going to pay your real estate taxes, and guess what they confiscate your house, tell the IRS your are no longer going to pay your income tax, and you go strait to jail.
What exactly happens to you if you sell your SBC stock and buy bonds?
What happens if you leave a job, and go to another company?
As I have already pointed out, there is only one choice open to you that can be a choice on your part if you don’t like the way the country is being run, and all of your hard earned money is being systematically confiscated by the government, you can leave, and hundreds of thousands are doing that each year.
Anyway the point about being able to sell your SBC stock is correct. I'm more concerend with the employees who contribute 20 years of their lives to help build a company, then is terminated without pension. The standard conservative lie is that in a free market, this is required to keep a business competitive. The truth is that Ed Whitacre needed 25 million dollars this year, so five hundred $50,000 a year employees needed to be sacrificed on the free market altar.
Pretty good living for an incompetent CEO eh?
On a special report on Fox today there was a short, but disturbing, 15 minute discussion on the coming crisis in Corporate pension funds. This disaster could make the S&L crisis look small.
According to the report the top 100 companies in the U.S. now have an average of pension fund obligations of 3 billion each.
It seems many of these companies followed the Federal Governments lead, and rather than saving and investing for these obligations, they just allow current workers to pay in for retiree’s.
At GM for example the company had to borrow 1.8 Billion dollars in 2004 just to meet its obligations. It seems GM never counted on losing its 40% market share of the car business, which has now drop to 25%. GM now has one employee paying into its retirement program for every 2 retirees.
The Fox report said that Bush would tackle this problem first before S.C. He does not want taxpayers to be responsible for these failing pension funds. The Federal Pension Guarantee fund that is suppose to cover failing Corporations is now 28 Billion dollars in the hole.
It seems that taxpayers in general will either pick up these costs or many pensions will have to be reduced, or eliminated. In addition these obligation may become a big drag on stock market prices if Corporations must eliminate dividends to pay pensions.
<< <i>All of these issues are a matter of free will, or choice, on the part of the workers as well as the shareholders. There is no point in complaining about something you can change. >>
Some very wise thoughts there.
Too many spend their life complaining about things they can't change.
If those same people would spend that same time working on things they can change, their lives could be so different.
An unregulated free market does NOT work. It didn't work 100 years ago, it didn't work in 1929 and it doesn't work now. People who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it and are usually Republican.........
It seems to me that most reasonable people would relent to the point about being forced to say in jobs they hate, or owning stock in companies where they think they are getting ripped by management. The issue in my last post though is a totally different story. In the case of S.C. most people paying any attention over the last decade had to figure that many would never get out what they put in.
My opinion is that is why there was so much gambling in the stock market. In addition anyone who trusts these guys in Washington to keep over 50% of their promises is very naive, but to me the corporate pension fund should be a totally different story.
Sure companies go bankrupt, and not much can be done in that situation, but this is really a crime for people that worked their entire lives at a company to get screwed out of their retirement.
Here is an additional question, where were the Unions while these companies were spending their employees retirement money? In the case of large public companies the balances for retirement funds are disclosed in each 10K. Was it so hard for the Unions to say, “hey bubba where are you keeping all of our guys pension money?”
On the other hand I think Bush is right, why should a retiree at IBM have his taxes increased to pay for a retiree at GM, if GM screws their people out of their pensions?
Tom
Inflation on Fastest Pace Since 2000
55 minutes ago
By MARTIN CRUTSINGER, AP Economics Writer
WASHINGTON - Consumer prices jumped 3.3 percent last year as the biggest surge in fuel bills in 14 years pushed up inflation at the fastest pace since 2000, the government reported Wednesday. But in a sign that some relief may be on the way, retail prices fell by 0.1 percent in December, driven lower by the largest one-month drop in energy costs since July.
Related Quotes
DJIA
NASDAQ
S&P 500
10588.89
2089.24
1190.61
-39.90
-16.80
-5.37
Delayed Data
Providers - Disclaimer
The Labor Department (news - web sites) said the 3.3 percent increase last year in its Consumer Price Index (news - web sites), the most closely watched barometer of inflation, was the biggest annual jump since a 3.4 percent rise in 2000. In 2003, consumer prices had risen just 1.9 percent.
The acceleration in price pressures last year was led by a 16.6 percent jump in energy costs, the biggest annual gain in 14 years — since an 18.1 percent surge in fuel bills in 1990, when supply disruptions related to Iraq (news - web sites)'s invasion of Kuwait roiled world oil markets.
Last year, sporadic attacks on Iraq's oil pipelines and continued worries about potential supply disruptions in other parts of the Middle East from terrorist attacks pushed oil prices to record levels, hitting $55 per barrel in October.
Economists hope that 2005 will turn out to be a calmer year on the energy front, but they concede that their forecast of falling prices is contingent on the absence of any serious supply disruptions.
"We think that oil will be receding from the highs of last year and this will produce a lower rate of inflation this year," said David Seiders, chief economist at the National Association of Home Builders. "But a different story on oil could change all of that."
Stocks were down slightly in late morning trading on Wall Street as the good economic news was outweighed by investor concerns about mixed corporate earnings reports.
Outside of the volatile areas of energy and food, so-called core inflation rose by a more moderate 2.2 percent last year, compared with a 1.1 percent increase in 2003.
In other economic news, the Commerce Department (news - web sites) reported that construction of new homes and apartments bounced back in December, topping off a year in which residential construction rose for a fourth straight year.
Housing starts climbed 10.9 percent in December and for the year were up 5.7 percent to an annual level of 1.953 million units. Housing construction has risen every year since dropping by 4.4 percent in 2000, helped by the lowest mortgage rates many Americans have experienced in their working lifetimes.
In a third report, new claims for unemployment benefits fell last week by the largest amount in more than three years, easing concerns that had been raised by increases in layoffs in the previous two weeks.
The Labor Department reported that 319,000 laid-off workers applied for jobless benefits last week, down by 48,000 from the previous week. That was the biggest drop since claims had a one-week decline of 77,000 in early December 2001, the first month after the 2001 recession ended and the economy began recovering from the September terrorist attacks.
The improvement in jobless claims was double what analysts had been forecasting and helped to alleviate worries that the jobs recovery could be faltering as layoffs rose for two consecutive weeks. Last year, the economy created 2.2 million jobs, the first annual increase in employment in three years, and forecasters believe the economy will create at least that many jobs in 2005.
The 0.1 percent decline in prices in December reflected a 1.8 percent drop in energy costs, the biggest improvement since a 1.9 percent increase in July. Energy had risen by a small 0.2 percent in November after having soared 4.2 percent in October, the month that crude oil prices hit an all-time high of $55 per barrel.
Food costs last month were unchanged and for the year climbed by 2.7 percent.
The Federal Reserve (news - web sites) increased interest rates five times last year, moving by a moderate quarter-point at each of its regular meetings beginning in late June. Many analysts believe that as long as price pressures outside of energy remain well-behaved the Fed will be content to keep nudging rates up at a moderate pace
Coin's for sale/trade.
Tom Pilitowski
US Rare Coin Investments
800-624-1870
An unregulated free market does NOT work.
CEO's are not part of a free market... they are the American Aristocracy.
When Enron went poo-poo, they paid millions of dollars in retention bonuses to keep the world's biggest losers from jumping ship.
When American Airlines' employees gave wage and benefits concessions, the next day their Executives voted themselves multi-million dollar retention bonuses. What free market would hire the flunkies away? There is an aristocracy, but no free market.
Funny that NFL teams did not line up to hire Coach Erickson, whose 49'er stunk up the league with the worst record this year. If he were a CEO he'd be getting a raise and a shinier car.
Fishcooker who is THEY.
“According to the report the top 100 companies in the U.S. now have an average of pension fund obligations of 3 billion each.”
“At GM for example the company had to borrow 1.8 Billion dollars in 2004 just to meet its obligations. It seems GM never counted on losing its 40% market share of the car business, which has now drop to 25%. GM now has one employee paying into its retirement program for every 2 retirees.”
Here is a question I keep coming back to, for decades we have had very strong Unions in this country. Many of these Unions have billions of dollars in pension funds much of which is invested in the stock market, and huge amounts of power with Boards of directors. Just who is watching out for the American workers?Who is voting for the Boards that give the CEO'S the big bucks?
When the 10K’S come out and the company says it is not putting back enough money for pensions why are the Unions not screaming to the Press?
When a companies financials come out and it says we produced 10 million widgets and the companies Union plant manager says whoa we only made 5 million how come the Union is not telling the stockholders.
“ CEO's are not part of a free market... they are the American Aristocracy.”
It seems to me there are lots of Aristocracies in this country.
"I think, over time, unless we have a major change in trade policies, I don't see how the dollar avoids going down," the world's second-richest individual told CNBC television.
"I don't know when it happens. I don't have any idea whether it will be this month or this year or next year, but we are force-feeding dollars on to the rest of the world at the rate of close to a couple billion dollars a day, and that's going to weigh on the dollar."
and I just wanted to be the 200th post to it...
The Whisker Cheek Collection - Top 50 Peace VAM Registry
Landmark Buffalo Collection