01.19.09
Posted in Health Care, International News at 5:54 pm by Kelli Slimp
Cancer cases and deaths worldwide should double by 2030, making cancer instead of heart disease the leading world killer by 2010, according to a recent study by the World Health Organization.
The rise in popularity of smoking in developing countries like China and India is partially to blame for cancer’s vigorous onslaught. Indeed, nearly 40% of the world’s smokers reside in these two countries combined.
Better and more accurate diagnoses of cancer, as well as the reduction in infectious diseases because of more available medicines, are also to thank for the shift in cancer’s numbers. And of course, better medicines also leaves more people around to get cancer.
This is an even more devastating problem in developing nations, where families will not have the funds needed for cancer treatment.
Xiao Shuiyuan of China’s Central South University and Matthew Korman of Stanford University in the United States state China’s plight bluntly: “If present smoking trends continue, 100 million Chinese men will die (of smoking-related causes) between 2000 and 2050, with many of their family members squandering life savings in desperate attempts at treatment.”
Share This
Permalink
01.16.09
Posted in Economics, Financial Advice, Investing at 12:19 pm by Kelli Slimp
Obviously, the thought of leaving one’s job and retiring with only savings as income during these unstable financial times has the soon-to-be-retiring baby boomers generation thinking twice about leaving the rat race. Retirement can be achieved, however, with smart planning and a common sense approach to spending.
Taking stock of what one actually needs is the first step. In this age of do-it-yourself warehouses and home improvement shows galore, it’s appalling how many people are unable or unwilling to mow their own yards, fix their own fences or mend their own leaks. Shearing costs such as that gym membership, media subscriptions and television services can also help, and you can make major cuts in your budget by selling that second car, or the house that’s become too big to maintain.
Working longer and leaving the retirement accounts untouched can also mean a more stable retirement. Even working one or two more years can improve your retirement prospects, not to mention that Social Security benefits will also increase by 7 to 8 percent for each year you postpone claiming between ages 62 and 70.
Talking to a professional is always a good idea, and you should make regular appointments with your financial adviser every 30 or 50 days. It’s also important to stick to your original financial plan. Studies show that in the past three months, about 68% of Americans have not altered their savings and investment plans, and analysts agree that the “tortoise” as opposed to the “hare” approach is best. Michael Kresh, a certified financial planner and the author of You Can Afford to Retire says, “Watchful waiting, no matter how deeply your portfolio dips, is still the best option.”
Share This
Permalink
Posted in Economics, US Market News, US News at 12:10 pm by Kelli Slimp
Raising California’s taxes might be the quick fix their budget needs, but considering the already astronomical cost of living in the Golden State and the current nationwide recession, taking more money from the public’s pockets is not wise. The budget could be met with drastic reduction of government spending, but again, it’s a tough call, as cutting the “bells and whistles,” as advocated by California Republican Jeff Denham most likely translates to the cutting of middle class jobs. My vote would be to raise taxes marginally and strictly temporarily, and cut the outside layer of fat from their swollen budget.
For additional information on this topic, visit: http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20081210/ts_csm/abellyup
Share This
Permalink
12.10.08
Posted in Misc Topics (World Affairs, Travel, Food, Fun, etc) at 9:47 am by Elissa Gordon
Did you know that the most dangerous job in the United States is commercial fishing? Matt Kirdahy’s article, “America’s Most Dangerous Jobs” explains the potential safety issues involved in these jobs. Work-related fatalities have fallen 6% in the last year; this statistic sounds like improved safety standards have been working, but part of this reduction is unfortunately probably due to unemployment. Still, higher safety standards have been making a difference. According to Frank Kenna III, president of the Marlin Company, it obviously isn’t simple concern for their employees that have been motivating employers to encourage safety standards. He says, “We like to think it’s altruism, and in some cases it is…But most [employers] do it for economic reasons.”
So, what these most dangerous jobs? Here are the top five. Also worth mentioning is that police officers have the 10th most dangerous job.
1. Fishers and related workers top the list, with 112 deaths per 100,000workers. Larry Simns, one of the founders of Commercial Fishers of America says of commercial fishermen, “They all know the risks. There’s a chance of getting killed, but you don’t put a lot of emphasis on that. You’re just extra cautious because you know you can’t just get off the boat and walk home if something goes wrong.”
2. The second most dangerous job is logging. 87 out of 100,000 workers died in this profession; when you consider that these workers are often 100 feet in the air and that they contend with wind and other concerns, their position on the list is not that surprising.
3. Aircraft Pilots and Flight Engineers - 67 deaths out of 100,000 workers.
4. Iron and Steel Workers - 45 deaths out of 100,000 workers.
5. Farmers and Ranchers - 38 deaths out of 100,000.
Share This
Permalink
11.11.08
Posted in Economics, US News at 12:29 pm by Elissa Gordon
Is Barack Obama really running for Redistributionist-in-Chief as John McCain suggested last Tuesday? Bill Sammon recently posted an article on FOXnews.com implying that McCain’s description might not be that far off. Although Obama denies being a socialist and has somehow managed to come across as a political moderate, Sammon points to Obama’s background and his National Journal Magazine rating of being the most liberal member of the Senate.
Sammon quotes Obama, who commented on his years at Occidental College in his memoir, “Dreams From My Father.” Obama said, “To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully. The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists.” Marxist professors? That does have an unsettling ring to it, but still, to be fair, Obama’s current stance cannot be entirely judged by his choice of professors in college.
If Sammon would’ve left it at that, this article could’ve been a pretty weak attempt at name calling. But he goes on to discuss the fact that Obama actually chose to launch his political career in the Chicago living room of domestic terrorist Bill Ayers. Ayers, who declared in 2002, “I am a Marxist”, joins Obama in refusing to discuss the meeting. And, of course, there is the black liberation theology of Obama’s anti-American pastor, the controversial Jeremiah Wright. Sammon indicates that this black liberation theology is partly based on Marxism.
While Obama and Ayers both shy away from addressing that 1995 meeting, Obama has referred to Ayers as “just a professor of English in Chicago” and “just a guy who lives down the street.” Obama and Ayers worked together on education reform in Chicago. Hundreds of thousands of dollars went to the Small Schools Workshop under the watchful eye of Obama, chairman of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. The Small Schools Workshop program was co-directed by Ayers. Calling Obama a socialist based only on his association with Ayers may not be that accurate and Obama supporters are quick to point out that we cannot judge someone based solely on his connections. It is not as though Obama has one or two friends who happen to be socialist, though. Throughout his career, he has deliberately surrounded himself with self-described socialists and Marxists.
Another unsettling issue is that Obama and Biden do not seem to be on the same page concerning socialist statements. Obama told the now infamous Joe “the Plumber” Wurzelbacher that he intends to “spread the wealth around.” Biden directly contradicted Obama when he was asked by a news anchor how Obama avoided being a Marxist if he believed in “spreading the wealth.” Biden replied, “He is not spreading the wealth around. Are you joking? Is this a joke? Or is that a real question? It’s a ridiculous comparison.” Was Biden attempting damage control or did he mean that Obama had changed his mind? These running mates might want to work on their communication skills before making public statements about socialism. Or maybe they should have done that before running together?
I think that Sammon makes a pretty good case here for Obama’s socialist tendencies. You can check out his article, “Obama Affinity to Marxists Dates Back to College Days” and see what you think at http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/28/obama-affinity-marxists-dates-college-days/#
Share This
Permalink
11.10.08
Posted in Economics, Financial Advice, Investing, Taxes at 12:21 pm by Elissa Gordon
Do wealthy people need to pay more income tax? Warren Buffet seems to think that they do, and since he is definitely wealthy, his opinion seems important. Warren Buffet said, “I’m paying the lowest tax rate I’ve ever paid in my life. Now that’s crazy.” So, even Warren Buffet is willing to pay higher taxes. Does this support higher tax advocates?
In his article appropriately titled, “Warren Buffet is Wrong on Taxes”, Brian Sullivan gives an emphatic “no.” While Buffet may pay a lower tax rate than his secretary who makes about $60,000 a year, increasing taxes for the higher income bracket wouldn’t affect him that much anyway. Income tax, by definition, taxes income. Buffet’s money is mainly derived from Berkshire Hathaway stock. Sullivan informs us that Buffet’s tax rate is 17.7%. He pays the 15% tax on capital gains. As this article states, income tax increases will mainly affect those making an ordinary monthly paycheck, not wealthy investors like Buffet.
I seriously doubt that Buffet would approve of increasing the 15% tax rate on capital gains, so I must agree with Sullivan here. Buffet’s statements about approving a higher tax rate sound quite generous, but perhaps the thoughts of higher income people earning a monthly paycheck would be a better indicator of public opinion.
Share This
Permalink
11.05.08
Posted in Economics, Financial Advice, Savings at 9:22 am by John Clack
It is a common joke that the only market impervious to the economy is the tavern industry. When times are hard, people will drown their sorrows. When times are good, they celebrate with a drink. Other markets are not so lucky, and when the economy tanks, almost everyone suffers. However, in a cyclical economy with troughs and swells, there are bound to be industries that are counter-cyclical. One popular example is the collections industry. When everyone else is dodging lay-offs, those working as a repossessions agent are working overtime. Other examples might be education and fast food.
Daniel Gross of Newsweek asserts that our values as Americans also have cycles. He says in this week’s issue of the magazine that, relative to the economy, thriftiness is one of the counter-cyclical American values. “When the gross domestic product shrinks and bulls grow mute, Americans are called to rouse themselves from a consumption-induced daze and start saving and investing rather than borrowing and splurging,” writes Gross.
Daniel is right and the market corroborates him. Thrift stores across the nation have been flourishing in the down economy. Pat Binder, a franchisee of the Once Upon a Child resale chain, believes that she has seen a change, not just in the pace of business, but also in her customers’ attitudes. Some customers, putting items up for sale in the store, have become more abrupt in their approach to the business. “I guess they are much more in need of money,” says Binder, “rather than previously, it was just ‘extra.’” Binder says that the increased pace of business is not unique to her St. Louis stores. “Our field operations manager was in town last week and she said she has seen that same thing in all of her stores – she covers several states.”
Goodwill, on the other hand, has been having a difficult time in the economy. Because all of their stock is obtained through donations, Goodwill stores have found that while demand for the merchandise has increased, donations have decreased. In an article for the Charlotte Observer, Bo Hussey, a spokesman for Goodwill, said, “It’s not surprising, given the economy. People are buying fewer things and hanging on to their old stuff longer.”
Thrift has made a comeback in America, but there are many obstacles to sustaining these values, writes Gross. “Credit-card solicitations, ubiquitous casinos, state lotteries and payday lenders,” make saving difficult. He concludes, “For every Warren Buffett, patiently building a down-to-earth fortune by purchasing stocks with hard-earned money, there’s a Donald Trump, impatiently building glitzy over-the-top towers with cash borrowed from others.”
Check out Gross’ full article here: http://www.newsweek.com/id/165641
Share This
Permalink
11.03.08
Posted in Credit Cards, Debt Relief & Your Credit, Economics, Financial Advice at 10:47 am by Elissa Gordon
With the Federal Reserve cutting interest rates since September of 2007, it seems that credit card rates should be lower, but they’re not. Stacy Bradford’s article, “Cardholders Can’t Catch a Break” published on Yahoo! Finance explains why. Credit card rates are a way for banks to redeem some of the money that they are losing with mortgages. Daniel Ray, editor-in-chief of Creditcards.com said, “In many cases, the credit-card business is still profitable, but over there in the mortgage business it’s hurting, and the companies are looking for ways to make up that money”. The federal funds rate is down 3.25% while the average credit card rate is only down 1.32% to 13.75%. Bradford quotes Curtis Arnold, who says, “Consumers didn’t get anywhere near the relief they should.” Even with the Federal rate cut about two weeks ago, credit card rates are not expected to decline significantly.
If you have a fixed-rate card, as 43% of cardholders do, this may not seem like such a big deal. However, fixed-rate cardholders do not reap the benefits of a lower interest rate. In fact, whenever interest rates fall, banks will often change variable-rate cards to fixed-rate cards to avoid giving the lower rate. Thanks to the credit crunch, credit card issuers are raising rates more for customers with high credit risk. If your credit score is below 730, you fall into that category. Also, as Bradford points out, banks are decreasing credit lines, making it harder for borrowers to maintain a high credit score.
So, is there no hope for today’s credit card holders? Bradford concludes her article by suggesting that customers aggressively complain to their credit card companies about undeserved higher rates. Also, you can start shopping around for the lowest interest rate on Cardratings.com, or look for offers from credit unions. If your credit score is at least 730, your interest rate should be around 9%. Some of the highest rate credit cards right now include GM Flexible Earnings, the Wells Fargo Bank Home Rebate Card, the US Bank Visa Platinum Card, Steuben Trust Cash Rewards Visa Platinum, and the Evans National Bank Cash Rewards Visa Platinum Card.
Share This
Permalink
10.20.08
Posted in Economics, International News, Investing, US Market News at 11:43 am by Elissa Gordon
A recent article by Jacob Weisberg entitled “Name That Economy” suggested that while the United States economy is obviously not an example of laissez-faire capitalism, socialism is also way off the mark when it comes to defining our economy. The US economy must logically be something between these two extremes, but how can we describe it? Weisberg addresses that question in his article.
Weisberg points out that at the beginning of the century, when the US thought about paying the National Debt, Alan Greenspan had an interesting point. If we paid off the national debt, the government surplus would be invested in private assets. That could be a problem. Does that sound like socialism? Would it contradict free market principles?
Greenspan certainly would not want to promote socialism, so he supported the Bush tax cuts. That was a good effort, perhaps, but it did not prevent the previous scenario from taking place. The Paulson plan froze interest rates of some borrowers and involved the Treasury in financial firms, which was exactly what Greenspan did not want to happen.
Capitalism isn’t really an accurate definition of the US economy right now. Maybe modified capitalism would be a good way of putting it. The government is protecting our economy from bad decisions of private finance. Laissez-faire capitalists we are not, but that does not mean that we’re even reluctant socialists. At least, not according to Weisberg.
Really, what you want to call the economy might depend on whether you’re on the right or the left. The right might prefer to call our economic situation socialism, while the left would probably call it corporatism, a merger of state and corporate power. Corporatism could mean that the largest industry is alongside the government, the economic philosophy of Fascist Italy. There are plenty of versions of corporatism. Vladimir Putin calls it authoritarian capitalism. In Latin America and Asia, there is crony capitalism, oil-state plutocracy and kleptocracy. Still, corporatism is an extreme way to describe our economy. Government favoritism of certain companies isn’t tolerated very well, and, as Weisberg says, “concern about moral hazard nearly sank the economy.”
Weisberg seems to be saying that we need to calm down and avoid extreme labels for the economy. He points out that we are not dirigisme, Charles de Gaulle’s approach in France, which means that the government directs certain resources to certain technologies (such as nuclear power). The Chinese model, mercantilism, where government owned enterprises serve the state doesn’t quite fit the bill either. Surely, there must be some term to describe the US economy.
Weisberg suggests that we have a mixed economy, leaning towards a social democracy as in Western Europe. Should we call it regulatory capitalism? Well, we could, because carefully enforcing strict capital requirements is a preventative measure for the future. To understand why this name doesn’t work, we must realize that aggressive financial innovation is pretty much what got us into this mess in the first place. Financial innovation was considered a good thing, but it hasn’t worked out too well. Life-jacket capitalism is probably the best definition of the US economy right now. Weisberg explains that the government must not only regulate the financial system, but also play an important role in guarding the financial market.
Share This
Permalink
10.18.08
Posted in Economics, Financial Advice, Investing, Stocks and Funds, US Market News at 8:39 am by Elissa Gordon
Linda Stern recently wrote an article for Newsweek entitled, “Making Money in this Market”. During this financial crisis, it’s interesting to look around and see how wealthy investors are reacting. Warren Buffet is still confidently investing. His Berkshire Hathaway company invested $3 billion into General Electric and $5 billion into Goldman Sachs. He said, “You want to be greedy when others are fearful…it’s that simple” and “We’re seeing stocks that are attractive right now.” 
Is it really that simple? Should average investors get busy buying stocks? Well, most investors aren’t exactly in Buffet’s situation. Besides the fact, they probably do not have the resources available that Buffet does. Stern points out that both Goldman and GE are paying him 10% interest on his investments. Her article continues to acknowledge that the average investor can’t invest like Buffet, but they can follow his example in some respects.
Living a thrifty lifestyle, investing in solid businesses with low debt and recognizable brand names and being patient while waiting for your investments to pay off are some of Stern’s suggestions for those using Buffet as a model. Also, being careful of fees and investing in Asia are good ideas. Finally, if you do not think you can read the market like Buffet, then why not just invest in Berkshire Hathaway, Buffet’s company?
Stern’s portrayal of Buffet suggests that he is “betting on the market to rebound.” Simple rules of business cycles mean that sometime in the future, financial health will return and Buffet, as well as those who follow his example, will be all the wealthier. This market rebound could take a while, so remember that you need to be able to afford a long term investment. Of course, if Paulson chooses to use taxpayer funds to buy Goldman and GE mortgage-backed securities, then Buffet will profit. Buffet anticipated a government bailout before investing that $5 billion into Goldman Sachs. Buffet’s general example is probably a good one for the average investor, especially the general thrifty lifestyle advice that Stern highlighted.
Share This
Permalink
« Previous entries
