Spending more money

In 2007, the United States fell behind eleven other nations in the percentage of adults, ages 25 to 34, with an associate degree or higher. The top four were Canada (55.8 per cent), South Korea (55.5 per cent), Russia (55.5 per cent) and Japan (53.7 per cent). America (40.4 per cent) slightly trailed Australia (40.7 per cent). The data greatly exercised many politicians, starting with President Obama. Their argument is venerable: the country needs more people with college diplomas because our economic future depends upon highly skilled executives and workers, able to compete in a global economy. In short: more diplomas, more cash. Higher education apparently has no higher goal.

Why have we failed to produce more college graduates with all those "necessary" skills? On the surface, it seems to be the fault of high school teachers. This year, nationally, only 24 per cent of the high school students who took the ACT college entrance exam had the skills to pass first year college courses. Composite scores have fallen since 2007. Many high schools now offer a core curriculum designed to prepare those going on to college by requiring four years of English and three years each of math, science and social studies. Among those who took these special courses, however, only 29 per cent proved ready for college work.

Why not just spend more money on education? That's the emphasis of the Obama Administration. Well, how much is "more"? And where is the evidence that greater funding enhances test scores? Much of what Washington is now doing involves ties between Democrats and teachers' unions. It's a financial well that is never full. Just a few more billion dollars, the educators and politicos declare, and...and what?

It should be apparent that much of the problem facing high school teachers is social, economic, and moral. What can a teacher or a school do, for example, about students from broken homes, living in poverty, and swallowed up by the anti-intellectualism displayed in the media and by their peers? How can you raise the achievement levels of people who may well lack the basic intelligence to succeed in class? What can be done with those who would rather work off campus than study?
Increase teacher pay? Build larger, technologically sophisticated schools? Offer smaller classes? Inflate grades and lower academic standards to build student self-esteem? Harass or fire teachers who are not popular or whose students are not passing tests? Set state and national achievement goals? It has all been tried, and the results are abysmal.

Stephanie Banchero of the Wall Street Journal wrote recently, "there is still no solid evidence on how best to boost achievement." I would omit the word "best".

College professors are also under fire. A great many universities, colleges, and junior colleges in this country will admit students of any sort to bring in more money and boost the body count; in the American tradition, bigger is better. When large numbers of marginal students drop out or flunk out, the campuses are criticized for failing to meet the needs of young people and endangering the nation's future. Predictably, campus administrators assure state and federal government officials and private donors that if they only had better financial support more degrees could be awarded and all those "highly skilled" jobs of the future could be filled.

The University of Wisconsin System is a case in point. The system is huge, encompassing 13 four-year institutions, 13 community colleges, and a statewide extension network. Together they enroll more than 178,000 students and receive $1.1 billion annually from state taxpayers. Its leaders are requesting a budget increase this year of $86.3 million from the cash-strapped legislature. (The state faces a $2.5 billion budget deficit in the next two years, despite recent hikes in taxes and fees amounting to $5 billion.) To attract support, UWS floated a proposal in April to boost the number of degrees by 30 per cent over the next 15 years. The cost of the venture for the first two years is $22.6 million. In short, they are saying, Give us more money and there will be more diplomas.

System officials are vague about how they arrived at the $22.6 million figure and what exactly will be done to create a skilled labor force. We are told that the funds would pay for supporting more than 5,900 additional undergraduates, including more than 2,200 who would have normally dropped out after their freshman year. The proposal includes $10 million for grants designed to assist students from families earning less than $60,000 a year.

So, in some mysterious way, UWS top brass will admit more of the poor (many of its campuses already have largely open admission policies), retain dropouts, and see that almost everyone graduates. It sounds like a deal no one could refuse. Until you think about it.

One wonders how current academic standards will fare by admitting more people who are not currently attracted by higher education. An even larger mystery is how the campuses will make sure that such people get a diploma. Won't a larger number of silly courses and majors (e.g. turf management, film studies, mass communications, sports psychology) have to be created and expanded? And if that step is taken, how will it meet the future need for a skilled workforce?

Proponents of awarding a larger number of diplomas have nothing more sophisticated in their arsenal than the well-documented connection between college degrees and prosperity. They don't address the hard question about what majors are making the most money. (Will the new people study engineering or medicine?) They don't discuss the ability, motivation, and socio-economic realities of those who are to be recruited and retained. Nor do they want to talk about academic quality and grade inflation. Only about a third of the nation's faculty positions are tenure-track, meaning that underpaid graduate students and ad hoc professors, desperate to be popular and employed full-time, handle much of the teaching on many campuses. How eager will they be to flunk anyone in an environment that emphasizes a higher graduation rate?

In Wisconsin, the case for more degrees is especially weak, for the problem here is not that we are graduating too few but that too many graduates leave the Badger State to go elsewhere. From 1989 through 2006, according to education policy analyst Thomas G. Mortenson, some 506,000 bachelor's degrees were awarded in Wisconsin. But from 1989 through 2007 the state suffered a net-migration of 128,492 people with bachelor's degrees. Mortenson reports that only six states suffered the loss of more graduates than Wisconsin.

Today, 25 per cent of state residents have a bachelor's degree or higher. That's about two percentage points lower than the national average. Ah, but for only $22.6 million, the University of Wisconsin System will begin a project to grant more diplomas. How exactly? And if that is achieved, how will anyone keep the graduates in the state? And if they stay, how will we know that they are "highly skilled" and ready to boost the economy?

It's all so glib and cynical. Taxpayers deserve better from people with diplomas.

Source

Americans spend money

Source

February 10, 2008

Spend all my money

Drake Bennett has an interesting and nuanced article in the Boston Globe Ideas section on money and happiness. To make a long story short, money can buy us some happiness, but only if we spend our money properly. Instead of buying things, we should buy memories:

A few researchers are looking again at whether happiness can be bought, and they are discovering that quite possibly it can - it's just that some strategies are a lot better than others. Taking a friend to lunch, it turns out, makes us happier than buying a new outfit. Splurging on a vacation makes us happy in a way that splurging on a car may not.

"Just because money doesn't buy happiness doesn't mean money cannot buy happiness," says Elizabeth Dunn, a social psychologist and assistant professor at the University of British Columbia. "People just might be using it wrong."

Dunn and others are beginning to offer an intriguing explanation for the poor wealth-to-happiness exchange rate: The problem isn't money, it's us. For deep-seated psychological reasons, when it comes to spending money, we tend to value goods over experiences, ourselves over others, things over people. When it comes to happiness, none of these decisions are right: The spending that make us happy, it turns out, is often spending where the money vanishes and leaves something ineffable in its place.

Any attempt to put these findings into practice, however, has to contend with the subtle but powerful ways money itself channels our thinking, and the ways it plays on human attitudes about sharing and scarcity. Recent studies have suggested that merely thinking about money makes us more solitary and selfish, and steers us away from the spending that promises to make us happiest.

Why don't things make us happy? The answer, I think, has to do with a fundamental feature of neurons: habituation. When sensory cells are exposed to the same stimulus over and over again, they quickly get bored and stop firing. (That, for instance, is why you don't feel your underwear.) This makes sense: the brain is an efficient organ, most interested in the novel and new. If we paid attention to everything, we'd quickly be overwhelmed by the intensity of reality. Unfortunately, the same logic applies to material objects. When you buy a shiny new Rolex watch, that watch might make you happy for a few days, or maybe even a week. Before long, however, that expensive piece of jewelery becomes just another shiny metal object - your pleasure neurons have habituated to the luxury good. (Of course, your Rolex can become a problem for everybody else, since it raises the material expectations of all those poor souls wearing less expensive watches. These people now feel inferior, since their Timex has been devalued by the costlier item. [Such luxury items are known as "positional goods," since part of their appeal is that they signal your social position.] Multiply this same psychological phenomenon across a full range of consumer products - from clothes to cars, stereos to shoes - and you can begin to see the "hedonic treadmill" that afflicts people in developed countries. Not only do their brain cells automatically adapt to their state of wealth, but those same neurons are constantly being bombarded with a new set of expensive expectations. Of course, not everybody can afford a Rolex or a Lexus, which means that we are constantly being disappointed.)

That, in a nutshell, is why material possessions don't make us happy. As Bennett points out, however, investing in pleasant experiences is a much better alternative:

Money spent on experiences - vacations or theater tickets or meals out - makes you happier than money spent on material goods. Leaf Van Boven, an associate psychology professor at the University of Colorado, and Thomas Gilovich, chair of the psychology department at Cornell University, have run surveys asking people about past purchases and how happy they made them.

"We generally found very consistent evidence that experiences made people happier than material possessions they had invested in," says Van Boven.

Why? For one thing, Van Boven and Gilovich argue, experiences are inherently more social - when we vacation or eat out or go to the movies it's usually with other people, and we're liable also to relive the experience when we see those people again. And past experiences can work as a sort of social adhesive even with people who didn't participate with us, providing stories and conversational fodder in a way that a new watch or speedboat rarely can.

In addition, other work by Van Boven suggests that experiences don't usually trigger the same sort of pernicious comparisons that material possessions do. We like our car less whenever we catch a glimpse of our neighbor's newer, nicer car, but we don't like our honeymoon any less because our neighbor went on a fancier one.

Another virtue of experiences is that, while material things get diminished over time (we habituate to the pleasure, and then have to deal with the inevitable repairs), pleasant memories tend to become more pleasant. We forget about the delayed flights and jet lag but remember the lush rainforest hike, or the fancy meal in Paris. The vacation might be long gone but it's still making us happy.

Source

Earn money on youtube

YouTube is probably one of the most popular services online. But, how do you incorporate its use in helping you to make money online?
1. Add Premium Partners’ Videos on Your Blog or Site. If you have an Adsense account, log in and get the code for ‘video units’. You can create a YouTube Video Player and customise it according to various categories, key words, and content providers.
2. Run affiliate ads on YouTube videos. Chris on Making Money Scoop has some tips on how to do this using various tools.
3. Provide regular quality video content. Perhaps, you can become a ‘premium’ publisher and Google will split ad revenues with you.
4. Start a video blog or site that features various YouTube content. These blogs and sites can be anything from cute animal videos to craft tutorials. Then, run relevant ads and affiliate programmes on your blog or site.
5. Accept direct ads on your YouTube content. If you upload your own videos on a regular basis and you have a decent following, you might want to accept ads on your videos.
6. Enrich your sales using YouTube videos. If you sell an item on an online shop and you are able to compliment your listings with YouTube videos, then it will be useful. Also, you can link to your sales page on your YouTube. This might help bring video viewers to visit your sales page.

So, do you use YouTube at all in your online business? Can you think of other ways to use YouTube videos to help you to make money online?

How the government spends money

Are you having a hard time paying your bills, making your mortgage payments, or putting your kids through college? You need to know how much of your hard-earned income the government is skimming off and diverting into handouts to immigrants and illegal aliens.



You can read the depressing details in the new 70-page document called "The Economic and Fiscal Impact of Immigration" written by Edwin S. Rubenstein. A Manhattan Institute adjunct fellow with a mile-long scholarly resume, he has been doing financial analysis ever since he directed the studies of government waste for the prestigious Grace Commission of 1984.

The bottom line, which you need to know for your own bottom line, is that U.S. taxpayers are giving more than $9,000 a year in cash or benefits to each immigrant, a third of whom are illegal aliens. That's $36,000 for each immigrant household of four.

Since the U.S. has 37 million immigrants, legal and illegal, the national cost was more than $346 billion last year, which was twice our fiscal deficit. The cost of immigrants is so high because, as Rubenstein writes, "Immigrants are poorer, pay less tax and are more likely to receive public benefits than natives."

Big Brother hasn't told you this bad news, perhaps because the government doesn't want you to know why your paychecks are shortchanged. Even the huge amnesty bill that was defeated last year didn't contain one word about its budgetary consequences.

The financial burden that immigrants impose on education starts with the 3.8 million K-to-12 students enrolled in more-expensive classes for the non-English-speaking. When we add up the costs of hiring specialized teachers, training regular teachers, student identification and assessment, and administration costs, the total amounts to an estimated $1,030 per pupil, or $3.9 billion.

Of the 48.4 million pre-K through 12 public school children, 9.2 million or 19 percent are immigrants or the children of immigrants. In the next few years, immigration will account for virtually all the increase in public school spending.

Look at the $1.5 billion cost of incarcerating 267,000 criminal aliens in federal prisons. That's not the worst of it; prison capacity is limited, so 80,000 to 100,000 other criminal aliens have been prematurely released to prowl our streets.

Criminals also impose heavy private costs on their victims. Rubenstein estimates the losses of income and property, hospital bills, and emotional suffering at $1.6 million per assault- or property-crime offender.
Rubenstein's report includes all sorts of costs that other observers conveniently ignore, such as the Earned Income Tax Credit. EITC gives an average cash payment of $1,700 per year to 1 in 4 immigrant households.
The emergency medical treatment given free to illegal aliens is another enormous cost, causing some hospitals and emergency rooms to close. Emergency means any complaint from hangovers to hangnails, gunshot wounds to AIDS.

Even after some restrictions were imposed in 1996, 24.2 percent of immigrant households receive Medicaid, whereas the figure for native-born Americans is 14.8 percent. Rubenstein calculates that Hispanics account for 19.2 percent of Medicaid enrollment, while they are 13.7 percent of the U.S. population.

The FHA has had a policy of increasing home ownership among low-income immigrants and therefore approved FHA mortgages on homes with a down payment of only $200 to $300 and marginal income. Since mortgagors have so little invested in the house, they can walk away from it when they can't meet the payments, and this has resulted in neighborhoods of abandoned, boarded-up housing.

Refugees are a large and growing fiscal burden because they become immediately eligible for generous taxpayer-paid benefits. Evidence shows they stay dependent on these programs and start chain-migrating relatives under the "family reunification" law.

The Interior Department spends millions of dollars to clean up the mountains of trash discarded by illegal aliens crossing into California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas.

Some immigration advocates peddle the notion that immigration will solve the future financial burdens of Social Security. Rubenstein shows how foolish is this prediction because today's low-wage workers will surely become tomorrow's expensive retirees.

Another cost that few talk about is that immigrant workers depress the wages received by native-born Americans, and that causes a $100 billion shortfall in federal tax revenue. Harvard University Professor George Borjas found that each 10 percent increase in the U.S. labor force from immigration reduces wages of native-born Americans by 5.25 percent.

Some liberals are trying to tell us to fight a recession by bringing in more immigrants, but that would only raid the pockets of U.S. taxpayers to support more millions of non-taxpayers. It's hard to say which is more outrageous: the diversion of Americans' personal income into cash handouts to foreigners, or the federal government's policy of concealing the fiscal impact of immigration.

Source

Earning more money

Get paid for your opinions in focus groups 

But there’s another popular way to get paid for your opinions these days, and many people are earning full-time income doing it.

 

It’s called a focus group – and in fact, it’s been used for decades by marketing firms and other companies hoping to gain public opinion about new products, brand names and other subjects.

 

How do focus groups work?

When selected for a focus group, you are generally invited to meet in-person with a group of other people, generally coordinated by a market research firm. The meeting can last a few hours or all day, with lunch and short snack breaks.

 

Generally, the people coordinating the focus group will present certain products or subjects to the group. For example, they might even show a TV commercial that hasn’t yet been shown to the public. Participants in the group are then asked to talk to each other about the commercial, how they feel, what they think, etc. They may also be asked to write down their thoughts privately.

In general, there will be several people watching the focus group from the background, taking notes on what the participants say and do.

 

How much money can I make?

The money you make is generally dependent on how long the focus group lasts. For example, you might be paid anywhere from $100 to $500 for an all-day focus group – with free lunch, coffee, snacks, etc. Some may pay by the hour, between $10 to $40 an hour, again depending on how much “work” is involved.

 

How do I join a focus group?

A quick Google search for “focus groups” will reveal many different companies that specialize in helping people find focus groups in their area. Be sure to research each company carefully, as there are many imposters online that simply charge you to join their network but never actually find a focus group for you.

 

Also, keep in mind that many focus group companies may not select you if you have been in another focus group within the previous few months. However, many times, if the subject of the focus group is not at all related to the previous ones you’ve participated in, then you may be eligible.

 

Earning a full-time income from focus groups may take some time. But if you could use an extra few hundred dollars every once a while, it’s a great way to get an extra paycheck just for expressing your opinions.

Source

The debt people

Around 366 people a day entered insolvency during the third quarter of 2010. This is the sixth consecutive quarter that has seen personal insolvency levels in excess of 33,000. A record 6,900 people entered a Debt Relief Order (DRO) in the last three months, up 10 per cent on the record levels of Q2 2010. More than 13,100 people entered an Individual Voluntary Agreement (IVA), almost on a par with last quarter’s record total.



The UK remains on track to see a record 140,000 personal insolvencies this year, despite a slight fall in the latest quarterly totals.

Analysis of personal insolvency statistics by RSM Tenon Tracker, the real-time insolvency monitor, found that around 33,700 people entered personal insolvency during the third quarter of the year.


This represents a fall of three per cent compared to the previous three months, but is still far in excess of pre-credit crunch totals.



Key statistics



Around 366 people a day entered insolvency during the third quarter of 2010

This is the sixth consecutive quarter that has seen personal insolvency levels in excess of 33,000

Just over 13,600 people were declared bankrupt during the last quarter – the lowest level since the end of 2005

A record 6,900 people entered a Debt Relief Order (DRO) in the last three months, up 10 per cent on the record levels of Q2 2010

More than 13,100 people entered an Individual Voluntary Agreement (IVA), almost on a par with last quarter’s record total

Mark Sands , the Head of Bankruptcy at RSM Tenon, the UK’s seventh largest accountancy firm, commented on personal insolvency levels saying, “Personal insolvency levels fell by three per cent compared to the previous three months, the lowest quarterly total since Q2 2009.


“Personal insolvency levels have remained broadly consistent over the last eighteen months. We fully expect to see inflated annual insolvency levels last until the Olympics.


“If anything, people will face even greater difficulties in the coming months with public sector cutbacks likely to leave many people facing a period of unemployment and reduced wages. These new challenges will be a step too far for a significant number of people that have continued to struggle with debts that have been built up over several years.”


Bankruptcies fell to 2005 levels, down nine per cent on the previous quarter.


“With other options available, people have come to see bankruptcy as the last resort and are increasingly willing to consider other options to address their financial difficulties. As such, the dramatic fall in the number of bankruptcies actually has little bearing on overall personal insolvency totals,” sands noted. 


The popularity of Debt Relief Orders (DROs) continued to increase, up eight per cent on the previous quarter.


“With DROs being the cheap and cheerful option for people looking to resolve their financial difficulties, it is not surprising that people are using this method to write off their debts. DROs cost less than a sixth of the £600 needed to go bankrupt and do not require a court appearance or an interview with the Official Receiver. The continued increase in DROs also suggests that people are being more proactive in addressing their troubles before they spiral out of control and require more extreme solutions,” Sands added. 

IVAs see a slight (two per cent) drop from last quarter’s record levels.


Sands pointed out that the continued popularity of IVAs will largely be defined by the impact that public sector cuts will have on employment levels.


“IVAs require a commitment to a payment plan, usually over five years, and are therefore dependant on people having a regular income. A dramatic increase in unemployment could therefore force people to turn to other solutions, such as bankruptcy, to address their financial difficulties,” he said.

Source  Cpifinancial.net

Distressed debt

"The best period for buying distressed debt in our careers was 12 to 18 months ago," declared Apollo Management’s Leon Black in February this year. "Now there are opportunities for restructurings on a selective basis but it is not as easy as it was a year ago." This view is supported by the drop in the S&P/LCD rate of default figures, which have seen the default rate for large US corporates slump from a peak of 11% in the fourth quarter of 2009 to 3.75% today.

But the story is very different in the mid-market, which has been left largely untouched by the revival in syndicated lending and the boom in high-yield bond issuance. While large and middle-market corporate default rates tracked each other relatively closely until mid-2009, the fall in large corporate defaults has been against a continued rise in mid-market casualties – with defaults in this part of the market now approaching 12%.

"Small corporations are where steep discounts still exist and this is where the opportunity in distressed investing is"

Patrick Flynn, Neuberger Berman Fixed Income

"One view is that the markets have fixed themselves and distress is over," says Patrick Flynn, managing director at Neuberger Berman Fixed Income in Chicago. "But smaller companies are too marginal for the high-yield market and banks are still not lending to them. Small corporations are where steep discounts still exist and this is where the opportunity in distressed investing is."

It seems that a fair number of investors agree with him. When Neuberger Berman announced its intention to float a distressed debt investment fund in April this year it was targeting $150 million. However, it attracted $197 million of interest. It is therefore now raising a second fund with a target of $75 million and is confident of exceeding this figure.

"There was a sense that the first fundraising was disrupted because of the sovereign debt crisis earlier this year," Flynn explains. "People want exposure to distressed opportunities and many prefer this structure to an LP structure [the limited life fund has a three-year investment period from the time of the IPO]."

Neuberger Berman is not alone in seeing the distressed debt opportunity as far from over. Hedge fund CQS recently spun off its distressed debt strategy as a standalone hedge fund after it returned 55% last year.

The new CQS Distressed Opportunities Fund manages about $50 million. Also in the US, asset managers Avenue Capital and Tennenbaum Capital announced plans to raise $3 billion and $1 billion respectively for distressed funds earlier this year.

In June European Credit Management announced that it had hired Milos Brajovic and Sohail Malik to launch and manage a new European Special Situations Credit Fund. Alchemy Partners, Oak Tree Capital Management, Intermediate Capital Group and Apollo Management have all raised new distressed funds focused on Europe this year. And Dubai-based Essdar Capital Managers (which is majority owned by the Abu Dhabi royal family) is planning a new $500 million fund to exploit distressed situations across the Gulf region.

With general consensus that the so-called ‘extend and pretend’ game has played itself out, these investors expect that the much-vaunted refinancing wall of 2013 to 2014 will provide rich pickings for them.

However with leveraged loans and high-yield bonds both enjoying a robust 2010, that refinancing requirement is not looking as bleak as it once was. According to Credit Suisse, $208 billion of leveraged loans larger than $500 million are due to mature between 2011 and 2014.

But $392 billion of leveraged loans smaller than $500 million are due to mature during the same period, many of which have little chance of being refinanced in either the syndicated loan or high-yield markets before then.

Institutional leveraged loan maturities

As of March 2010

Source: Credit Suisse

Best opportunities

It is for this reason that Flynn emphasizes that the small-cap sector is where the best opportunity lies: "The billions of dollars that have gone into distressed investing have gone to a few very large buyers which focus on large cap. They do not go down this small." The competition in the mid-market has historically come from bank prop desks and hedge funds.

Neuberger Berman is targeting its funds in the US and Canada, where lending to mid-market companies was dominated by CLOs before 2007.

"Between 50% and 60% of this market was CLOs as they had to show a high degree of diversification in their portfolios," says Flynn. Although he admits that "the easy money is in the rear-view mirror" he explains that evaluating the underlying assets can be far more straightforward in the mid-market as the capital structures are far simpler, with few of the intercreditor complexities that have plagued some of the larger distressed corporates. "The difference in the situation of large and small companies is the world that structured credit has made," he says.

There is no doubt that the days of 2008 when you could simply buy performing loans at 60 cents on the dollar and watch them trade back up to 80 cents later are long gone – this is the opportunity that firms such as Apollo Management took such advantage of and that Black was referring to earlier this year. But the number of firms still prepared to focus on the hard graft of corporate restructuring shows that plenty of opportunity – and distress – remains.

Source  Euromoney.com

Economy depression

The number of Americans filing for first-time unemployment benefits dropped to the lowest level in three months last week, according to a government report released Thursday.

There were 434,000 initial jobless claims filed in the week ended Oct.23, the Labor Department reported.

That was down 21,000 from a revised 455,000 in the previous week and the lowest level since the week of July 9.

Economists surveyed by Briefing.com had forecast new jobless claims to rise to 458,000.

The four-week moving average of initial claims, calculated to smooth out volatility, totaled 453,250, down 5,500 from the previous week's revised average of 458,750.

Jobless claims have been stuck in a tight range since last November, struggling to break out of the mid- to upper-400,000 range and even topping 500,000 in August.

So a reading in the lower-400,000's is a welcome improvement, said Tim Quinlan, economic analyst at Wells Fargo.

"We've been stuck in this band between 450,000 and 500,000 for most of 2010, so to break through that and get to 434,000 is definitely a step in the right direction," he said. "That said, we're still not yet at a level that would be consistent with private sector growth in employment."

Desperate for a holiday job

Quinlan said a level below 400,000 is typically associated with payroll growth, but that claims are likely to continue inching lower as employment picks up.

"One week does not a trend make, but the 4-week average is continuing to come down as well," he said. "We think we're probably on the verge of turning the corner to experiencing more broad-based job growth, though it's not going to be fast enough to bring us back to pre-recession levels right away."

Continuing claims: The number of people continuing to file unemployment claims for a second week or more fell to 4,356,000 during the week ended Oct. 16, the most recent data available. That's down 122,000 from a revised 4,478,000 the week before.

Economists were expecting continuing claims to edge down to 4,428,000.

The four-week moving average for ongoing claims fell by 38,500 to 4,447,250 from the preceding week's revised 4,485,750.

State by state: Jobless claims in 17 states fell by more than 1,000 in the week ended Oct. 16. Claims in California dropped the most -- by 13,701 -- which the state attributed to fewer layoffs in the service industry. Claims in North Carolina dropped 6,607, and claims in New York fell 6,382.

Source CNNMoney

Is the economy getting better?

Canada's economy rose 0.3 per cent in August following a 0.1 per cent drop in July, helped by oil and gas extraction, wholesale trade and manufacturing.

The figures released by Statistics Canada were in line with analysts' expectations.

The federal agency also said increases were recorded in the finance and insurance sector, construction and retail trade. Utilities and forestry decreased, while public-sector output was unchanged.

Mining and oil and gas extraction rose 0.5 per cent, wholesale trade rose 1.1 per cent and manufacturing grew 0.5 per cent.

The finance and insurance sector advanced 0.6 per cent, construction was up 0.4 per cent and retail trade edged up 0.1 per cent in August.

Sourse CBC

The end of money

This video introduces The End Of Money Kickstarter Project. The project is raising $20K for a video documentary, a book , and artwork for a movement..

Exxon mobil pay

Exxon Mobil has seen its latest quarterly profits jump 55% after it benefited from higher oil prices and increased production.

Exxon is benefiting from higher oil prices, which are also increasing the cost of petrol for drivers

The world's largest oil company made a net profit of $7.35bn (£4.6bn) in the three months to 30 September, up from $4.73bn for the same period in 2009.

Its revenues totalled $95.3bn, up 16% from a year before.

Exxon's results come on the same day that Anglo-Dutch oil group Shell reported profits of $3.5bn, up 17%.

The latest profits from Exxon beat market expectations.

Exxon chairman Rex Tillerson said the firm's oil production levels were 20% higher than a year ago.

He added that the strong results had come despite "continuing economic uncertainty".

Source

Gold vs silver

Moving away from worthless paper in our wallets has proven problematic


Once again I’m indebted to a reader for passing along a superlative concept and essay on a practical means of returning to “good money” (i.e. some sort of precious metals-based currency). While most precious metals commentators (including myself) strongly advocate the return to some sort of “gold standard”, devising a plausible process for moving away from the worthless paper we carry in our wallets today has proven problematic.


If we follow the path of “converting” fiat paper-currencies back to precious metals-backed money, we immediately see only two options. Either we get all of the world’s major currencies to simultaneously convert their paper-currencies (an extremely unlikely event), or we must do this in some step-by-step process – which must begin with the world’s “reserve currency” (currently the U.S. dollar).


In my own attempt to reconcile this enormous logistical issue, I previously proposed a two-stage process: first switching from the U.S. dollar to China’s Renminbi as the new reserve-currency, and then backing the Renminbi with gold. My reasoning was that if the two changes were instituted (more or less) simultaneously that there would be an horrific plunge in the U.S. dollar – as a world full of U.S. dollar-holders all sought to rid themselves of their inferior paper in favour of gold-backed Renminbi at the same time.


The only alternative to that approach for converting fiat-paper to gold- or silver-backed money would be to attempt to ‘re-back’ the U.S. dollar with gold. There are even worse problems confronting this idea. To begin with, most people now believe that the U.S. only has a tiny fraction of the gold reserves it pretends to have. This is the only rational conclusion with respect to any person/entity whoclaims to hold much more of something than anyone else in the world – but refuses to ever let anyone see it.


With no official audit of the U.S. “gold reserves” having been conducted for more than fifty years (despite the relentless efforts of groups like GATA, and the indefatigable Ron Paul), the question has now become not “does the U.S. have as much gold as it claims?” but rather “does the U.S. own any gold, at all?” Compound that problem with the near-infinite trillions of dollars of debts and liabilities amassed by the U.S. government, and it is obvious that the only possible way that the U.S. paper-dollar could ever be converted back to good money would be after the inevitable national default of the U.S. government.


With no especially attractive ideas before us, this is what got me so excited when I read the thoughtful proposal of Hugo Salinas Price, the President of the Mexican Civic Association Pro Silver.  Readers may recall that Price spearheaded a drive within Mexico to return their own currency to a silver standard.


That movement eventually fizzled-out – undoubtedly in part due to the enormous pressure which the U.S. government would have applied to prevent this change. With the U.S.’s large population of Mexican migrants, there wouldimmediately have been a massive influx of that silver money into the U.S.


This would be followed by first the U.S.’s Latino population, and soon most Americans ditching their U.S. dollars in favor of Mexican silver-pesos. Not only would such a development be incredibly embarrassing to the U.S. government, but it would have accelerated the paper dollar’s devolution toward zero – through being rejected by the U.S.’s own, domestic population.


Price solves this problem with the innovative concept of having parallel currencies. To be fair, we can’t give Price all of the credit for this idea – since a similar concept has already been implemented in Indonesia. While the official paper-currency remains the “rupiah”, along-side the paper, government-minted gold “dinar” and silver “dirham” now also circulate in that economy.


A clip reporting on this development provided an anecdote from a middle-class Indonesian man, who opened his first bank-account in 2000, got himself a credit card and debit card – and then noticed how as soon as he allowed his wealth to be held by bankers that the purchasing-power of his paper-currency began rapidly declining.


In 2004, the man closed his bank account, and converted all his paper currency to gold and silver money. He reported that Indonesia’s inflation-rate soared to 20% shortly thereafter – and not only did his gold and silver money not lose any of its wealth (i.e. purchasing-power), but he earned a gain on his money (net of inflation) versus the value of the official paper.


It is in looking at how this Indonesian man (and his fellow-citizens) were completely shielded from the ravages of banker-produced inflation that we see the key to Price’s proposal. In order for gold and silver to function as parallel currencies, they must not be assigned some (arbitrary) “legal tender” denomination, but rather must be valued strictly according to the weight of the metal.


In theory, Canada and the U.S. also have “parallel currency systems”: both countries mint their own gold and silver coins. However, the arbitrary denominations of the coins are ridiculously (and deliberately) detached from the real world – with silver coins denominated at about 20% of the current value of the metal, while gold coins are denominated at less than 5% of their actual value. Obviously, the intention here is to greatly punish any Canadians or Americans seeking to emulate the economic liberty which exists in Indonesia.


Should we try to substitute gold and silver for the bankers’ worthless paper, not only are we instantly robbed of 80% (or more) of our wealth if we try to spend it as money, but our governments have instituted absurd and hypocritical “capital gains” tax rules. Our governments pretend that simply by choosing to preserve our wealth (in gold and silver) rather than to allow the bankers to steal roughly 10% of our wealth per year through their currency-dilution (i.e. inflation) that we have made a “capital gain” – simply from not losing any of our wealth.


This would be identical to going to all of our churches and charities and telling them that while they are exempt from “income taxation”, that because theirwealth wasn’t reduced by 20% per year (through taxation) like everyone else that this “windfall” represents a “capital gain” on all donations they receive. Obviously, the mere fact that we prevent ourselves from being robbed (by bankers) cannot constitute a “capital gain” in any fair and rational taxation system. For those interested in these taxation issues, I go into them in much greater detail in a previous commentary.


By valuing the gold/silver coins strictly by their weight, this allows gold and silver to exert their inherent characteristic as perfect vessels for preserving wealth. Here Price acknowledges the primary practical difficulty: with banker-inflation spiraling out of control, how do we maintain a fair-yet-flexible mechanism for exchanging and valuing gold and silver money?


When we previously had small-denomination coins made (partially) of silver, as soon as the value of the silver exceeded the “official” value of the coin as money, there was not only a problem with coins being melted-down for profit, but with our governments absorbing large losses from minting these coins.


Price’s solution to this problem is to have the value of these coins (i.e. their “price” in paper) be slightly higher than the current “spot” prices for the metals. Simultaneously, this eliminates the problem of coins disappearing from the system from being melted-down and allows the government to net a modest profit (or “seigniorage”).


Obviously this official price would have to be “pegged” at least on a monthly basis (and more often if/when the bankers’ currency-debasing accelerateseven further). Price acknowledges that this leaves one, remaining, unresolved issue: how do we handle the inevitable downward “hiccups” in price for gold and/or silver?


He is unequivocal: the “official” value of gold and/or silver money must neverbe reduced. Price observes that when a short-term decline in the price of gold creates a gap between the official price of bullion-money and the spot-price of the metals, themselves, all this means is a temporary increase in profits (for cash-strapped Western governments) and it means the people’s money actually becomes better than bullion itself.


Obviously, many readers not familiar with precious metals (and the monetary depravity of bankers) will be asking themselves “what happens if there is a large, permanent decline in the price of gold and/or silver?”


These readers must understand the fundamental equation here.


When the price of gold and silver rises, the vast majority of that increase is not an absolute increase in value, but only a relative increase in price – versus the paper currencies which are being so rapidly diluted. Indeed, “inflation” is nothing more than the speed with which the bankers are diluting their paper currencies.


Thus, asking what would happen if there was a large/permanent decrease in the price of gold or silver is an identical question to asking what would happen if there was a large/permanent decrease in banker money-printing? In other words, this is akin to asking “what if the Sun doesn’t rise tomorrow?” I’ll give regular readers a moment to recover from their laughter.


To illustrate my point, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke is about toannounce another $1 trillion (or so) in new money-printing for the sole purpose of creating inflation. Creating inflation through excessive money-printing is the primary means by which bankers have been stealing from the general population for centuries. They take full-value dollars from us (as “deposits”) and always give us back dollars which are worth much less (evenincluding the pitiful “interest” they pay us) – because every time we give the banks a dollar, they are allowed to print ten new “dollars”, lend that money to us, and charge us interest on it.


This also deals with the last possible objection to such a concept: what if governments deliberately set the official price of gold/silver money much too high – so that they could reap excessive profits?


Understand that artificially pegging the price of gold/silver too high equates to artificially creating deflation in our economies. Given that all of the bankers, and all of our governments who serve the bankers have already demonstrated that they are absolutely phobic toward deflation, this possibility also ranks right up there with “what if the Sun doesn’t rise tomorrow?”


Price stipulates that because of the relatively moderate price of silver, that it must be the first form of good money re-introduced into our monetary systems – as it is economically accessible to all of the people. This further reduces the possibility of our money “losing its value”, since everyone familiar with the silver sector is already aware that global inventories of silver have been nearly totally depleted – due to roughly fifty years of price-suppression. There is less refined silver in the world today (relative to the amount of gold) than at any other time in the nearly 5,000 years in which we have used these metals as money.


I can’t end this piece without taking a moment to note the “intimate relationship” between bankers and precious metals. One might even call it a “love/hate relationship”: they “love” to hold gold and silver themselves – but “hate” to see anyone other than bankers possess any of it.


Astute readers will have already deduced that even a parallel precious-metals monetary system would affect our beloved bankers adversely. Price has some thoughts on this, including one wickedly devious suggestion, and I have a “few” thoughts of my own on that subject. I’ll deal with those topics in a sequel: “Good Money and the Fall of Bankers”.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR


Jeff Nielson


Jeff Nielson is writer and editor for Bullion Bulls Canada. He obtained his law degree from the University of British Columbia, after "majoring" in economics. His investment portfolio is focused on gold and silver bullion, and Canadian mining companies.

Source  

Bucks Furniture

We have great pleasure in announcing this year's honorary awardees of Bucks New University UK

Former local headteacher receives honorary award 
Former local headteacher, Pam Holtom, who introduced the Parents as First Teachers (PAFT) programme into the UK, has received an honorary master’s from Bucks New University in recognition of her significant involvement in developing and delivering the scheme locally and elsewhere in the country.

University Council member recognised for dedicated service

Rupert Wheeler has received an honorary fellowship from Buckinghamshire New University in recognition of his strong commitment and support to the University Council. Rupert became involved with Bucks New University 20 years ago, first joining the Advisory Committee of the Faculty of Technology and introducing the Merlin Information Systems Prize. Eight years ago, he joined the University Council as an independent member, serving on the Audit, Governance, and Capital Projects Committees, and as a director of CRDM, the manufacturing subsidiary of the University, until its sale last year.

Lord Laming rewarded for a lifetime's achievements
The Lord Laming CBE DL has received an honorary degree from Buckinghamshire New University in recognition of his lifetime dedication and achievements in the field of social services and his patronage to numerous voluntary organisations. In recent years, Lord Laming has been heavily involved with a number of charities both at home and abroad, and has been invited to several countries to advise on social care policy and practice. He has chaired various reviews and independent inquiries, and in 2009 he conducted a government review entitled The Protection of Children in England.

Thames Valley Police Chief Constable receives honorary award

Sara Thornton, Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police, has received an honorary degree from Bucks New University in recognition of her work to develop a strong working relationship between the University and Thames Valley Police, and her commendable career within the police force over the past 25 years.

Edwyn Collins has never received an award like this before
Edwyn Collins, who has enjoyed a career of more than 30 years in the music industry,  received an honorary degree from Buckinghamshire New University in recognition of his strong influences and contribution to the national and international music industry during the last three decades.

Olympic hero Adrian strikes gold at Bucks
Olympic gold medalist, Adrian Moorhouse MBE, has received an honorary degree from Bucks New University in recognition of his strong sporting and business success and links with the University and the region.

Naomi strikes it Rich with honorary award
Paralymic rowing bronze medalist and Bucks graduate, Naomi Riches, has received an honorary master’s from Bucks New University. She received the honorary award in recognition of her inspirational example to Bucks students with her success in the Beijing Paralympic Games and her commitment to training for the 2012 Paralympic Games.

The Smart money is on Tony
Anthony Smart MBE, a dedicated advocate of lifelong learning and the promotion of furniture skills for young people, received an honorary degree for his voluntary commitments to the Bucks Furniture Design Summer Schools, his other involvements with the University and its students, and his impressive local community fund-raising efforts.

Honorary awards for influential rugby figures

Owner of London Wasps Rugby Club, Steve Hayes, and RFU Rugby Development Officer, Tim Holmes, have received honorary awards. Steve received an honorary degree in recognition of his significant contribution to the local community through sport and business and for his national and international profile in relation to football and rugby clubs, which have together combined to support the University in its community relationships and strategic brand development. Tim was awarded an honorary master’s for his significant and ongoing work relating to sports courses within the University’s Faculty of Design, Media & Management and dedication to helping students find employment within the rugby and wider sport industries 

Source Bucks New University UK