Showing posts with label money. Show all posts
Showing posts with label money. Show all posts

Friday, June 06, 2025

The Trump vs Musk fight

Yesterday was tumultuous for Republicans and gleeful for Democrats who 2 minutes ago hated Musk for turning Twitter into an advocate for free speech and tackling the waste, fraud and abuse in the federal financial system. That really hurt the corrupt NGOs, the DEI crowd, the child abusing educators and their unions and the Climate gangsters sucking the federal teat for their existence. That's where Dems have their power.
 
Republicans loved Musk's help and even his joyful silliness, but his complaints about the BBB made no sense to Trump's base, those who had followed Trump during his campaign. Trump has been delivering on his promises to the voters. It was a plus, sure, but all candidates say they will stop waste. Why not have the smartest man in the world tackle it? No one I know who voted for Trump thinks Musk affected the outcome in November. If money talked, Kamala would be president and Beyonce would be secretary of state.
 
Now the fight is getting personal. Truly, I felt like a 5 year old watching a divorce of my parents--hopeless and helpless--tugging at their knees saying, "Please stop!". Or being asked to take sides in a girls' middle school clique fight when you like them all. The smartest man in the world was spitting in the eye of the most powerful man in the world, one who values loyalty almost more than anything else,
When I saw that "good-bye" in the oval office a few days ago and Trump gave him that odd gift, I was watching Musk's face and it was obvious he was not happy. He's on the autism spectrum (I've heard) and it's hard to know. I thought he might break his teeth from clenching. Trump looked the same--everything's great until it isn't.

Today I was reading Acts 25. It's all about massive power and wealth (Festus, Drusilla, Agrippa and Bernice) coming up against the gospel preached on the world stage by the greatest missionary for Jesus Christ. Wow. What a battle. No one in this week's cat fight can compare to that, but we know God was in charge then and still is.

Monday, December 16, 2019

What market economics does not do . . .


Market economics does not hold that money is all that matters. . .

Market economics does not hold that the world would be perfect if only government stays out of the way. . .

Market economics does not hold that consumers, workers, investors, and entrepreneurs are fully informed and never prone to error or to personal irresponsibility. . .

Market economics does not assume that markets are perfectly competitive and that prices, wages, and interest rates adjust instantaneously.

Market economics does not assume that all foreign governments avoid imposing tariffs and paying subsidies that affect economic activity in the home country.

Market economics does not assume that workers displaced from jobs instantaneously find new jobs at pay equal to or higher than these workers earned in their former jobs.

Market economics does not assume that tax cuts are a miracle elixir, or that current taxes should be cut irrespective of the level of government spending.

Market economics neither discounts the value of work nor denies that people find meaning and dignity in their jobs. . .

https://granitegrok.com/blog/2019/12/notable-quote-prof-don-boudreaux-10  for a longer explanation.

Saturday, October 19, 2019

A billion can do a lot in DC guest blogger Jeffrey

Jeffrey Varasano: "I posted this earlier on a thread talking about people like Romney or George Will. There sure seemed to be people who claimed to be Republicans but undermine us from the inside. Why? Are they bought off? Maybe they were progressive loyalists from the beginning who were long ago tasked with infiltrating the Republicans or conservative media? Or what about blackmail? Maybe Soros digs up dirt on people and then uses them as puppets thereafter.

These things sound far-fetched until you sketch out what it would take. I've done this before with Christopher Buckley. Let's say that you wanted to buy control of the US government. How many people would you have to buy and how much would each cost? Let's do a back-of-the-envelope budget using $1B / year.

Just to use round numbers let's say you devoted $1M per year towards each House and Senate seat. That money could be split out. A no-show job for a congressman's kid for $300k, $50K each to 4 staffers, $100k to a private eye or honey pot operation. Dump the rest into campaign contributions. If it's a congressman you don't think you can control then keep the honey pot budget and give the rest into an opponent. So now for $535 million you've got your finger into every congressional & senate seat pretty good. Keep in mind that if a target is in a safe district and you've already got pictures of him with a naked 8 year old, your budget to keep him in control can go way down next year and you can put the surplus towards a different seat.

Now you make a list of other people you want to influence. Let's say you make a list of media people. On the conservative influencer list you start with Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity at the top and then work your way down. Most people would be surprised how quickly you run out of recognizable names, especially in the pre-internet era. Pre-internet maybe 50 names. Today maybe it's a 100. Remember you don't have to control each and every one and the money can be spent either supporting them, ruining them, or even recruiting new ones.

Add another for a 100 liberal media people. So that's another 200 million bringing us to $735M.

Next up we take the remaining $265M and divide it into 2650, $100k buckets which we spread out through the bureaucracies AKA deep state. For sure a good hunk of that goes to the Fed and money supply people.

So for a billion dollars a year we've got our finger in just about everything.

From here out we can expand our influence without spending any more money but rather using money that falls out of the influence we've already bought.

Let's say you want to start "grassroots" efforts at all 3000 colleges, again spending $1M each. That's $3B, but you don't have to come out of pocket for that. All you have to do is bump some college subsidy budget from 147 billion to 150 billion, and then divert 3 billion. Then with each college you split the million with a 100k going to the Latino center, 100k to the environmental sustainability center, 100K to the women's center, etc.

So all you need to get started is a billion a year. But that's really chump change in an era when quantitative easing was pumping out 80 billion dollars a month. Who's to say if that defense contract is worth 43 billion or 65 billion? Certainly not the congressmen and media you own.

Keep in mind that big money players are simultaneously playing this game. The Chinese, the Russians, The Saudis, the UN, the Bilderbergs, Soros, etc. And all the bought off players agree on one thing: if you notice or talk too much about any of this you are a kook.

Sunday, November 22, 2015

The new ten dollar bill

Here’s a history of how it’s changed over the years.  We know that this change will be political and that a woman will be chosen, even if she is unknown, unworthy, and undeserving.  It’s time; just like for the Democrat nominee.
https://thenew10.treasury.gov/history/history-10-note
Alexander Hamilton’s face has been on the $10 bill since 1929.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/alexander-hamilton-woman-10-dollar-bill_55a6891fe4b0c5f0322bfcb6
http://www.businessinsider.com/hamilton-to-stay-on-10-bill-says-lew-2015-7
http://www.businessinsider.com/why-the-treasury-is-changing-the-10-dollar-bill-instead-of-the-20-2015-6

Sunday, November 08, 2015

History of money

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6NRC9aofKU

Lecture series at Hillsdale College.

“Money has been used as a medium of exchange since ancient times. It affects not only economics, but also history, politics, and culture. This second CCA of the 2015-2016 academic year, co-sponsored by the Ludwig von Mises Lecture Series, will examine the history of money, as well as money-related controversies.”

Sunday, November 8:

4:00 p.m. EST
“The History of Money: An Overview”
Kenneth R. Calvert
Headmaster, Hillsdale Academy
Associate Professor of History, Hillsdale College

8:00 p.m. EST
“How the Destruction of the Dollar Threatens the Global Economy”
Steve Forbes
Chairman, Forbes Media
Author, Money: How the Destruction of the Dollar Threatens the Global Economy

Monday, November 9:

4:00 p.m. EST
“Milton Friedman and Monetarism”
Robert Barro
Harvard University

8:00 p.m. EST
“Money in American History”
John Steele Gordon
Author, Empire of Wealth: The Epic History of American Economic Power

Tuesday, November 10:

4:00 p.m. EST
“How to Think About the Federal Reserve”
Peter Schiff
President and CEO, Euro Pacific Capital
Author, The Real Crash

8:00 p.m. EST
“The Problem of Crony Capitalism Today”
William Walton
Founder, Rappahannock Ventures

Tuesday, April 30, 2013

Architects and Engineers may be losing money through inefficiency

June Jewell, a CPA and owner of Acuity Business Solutions consulting, says the architectural, engineering and environmental firms she works for easily lose $100,000 each year through inefficient and ineffective practices.

“Of course, sometimes the waste is much, much more – and this goes for larger and smaller businesses,” says Jewell, author of “Find the Lost Dollars: 6 Steps to Increase Profits in Architecture, Engineering, and Environmental Firms,” (www.FindTheLostDollars.com). “The problems are usually so fundamental to a business that they will never see why and how they’re bleeding money; they’re too close.”

There are several nooks and crannies in which firms are apt to lack efficiency. Jewell reviews three general areas where most of these firms can turn unnecessary losses to gains:

• Company culture: While the culture may vary somewhat from one firm to another, architectural, engineering and environmental firms share some of the same characteristics. One is that their founders tend to go into business because they’re creative people who love what they do -- not because they’re business people. So they don’t focus on profits, and they tend to be casual managers with regard to employees’ time. Shifting the culture to a focus of being profitable is not only necessary for sustaining the business; it allows creative people to do more of what they love.

• Ineffective practices: Of course, there are many moving parts in an A&E firm, which means there are many potential areas for improvement. That includes customer service, time management, marketing, strategic planning, accurate budgets and estimates, and the cost of lost opportunities. Failure to create an accurate, meticulous job estimate, for instance, can have multiple consequences, from having disappointed clients to jeopardize projects to losing money because time, materials and other costs were not accurately forecast.

• Systems & IT: This is the third way to improve business management and increase profits. Technology is able to help companies leverage their resources more effectively, yet many of them are still using outdated software and non-integrated systems. By looking at systems as a strategic investment that can help them to be more competitive, they can realize a great return on investment (ROI) from their projects. While the transition from old to new software has its cost in time and work, the efficiency gained in future work production is worth it.

“I’ve worked with hundreds of A&E firms in my 28 years of consulting, and I see these shared problems so often, I offer what I call ‘the $100K Challenge,’ ’’ Jewell says. “That’s a guarantee that I can work with any business that’s doing a few million dollars a year in business and find $100,000 they’re losing in profits.”

In this post-recession economy, she says, it’s vital for firms to tune up their business management practices in order to thrive.

June R. Jewell is a CPA and CEO of Acuity Business Solutions and has written a book, Find the Lost Dollars.  Ginny Grimsley of News  and Experts supplied the article.

Sunday, October 30, 2011

Today's new word--tranche

as in tranches of money. (see USAToday article of previous blog).

Tranche
A part of an issue. A tranche sometimes refers to a single issue of a security released at different times. For example, a company may announce that is intends to issue $10,000,000 in bonds in two tranches of $5,000,000. Tranches are important to collateralized mortgage obligations, which are backed by pools of mortgages. These mortgages are arranged in tranches that mature at different times, for instance in 10 years, 15 years, and 30 years.

Sunday, January 04, 2009

A good book for the New Year

I really like key #2. That was the name of the newsletter I used to write--No Free Lunch--about coupons, refunds, green stamps (remember those?), wooden nickles, sweepstakes, and so forth. Loyalty cards and clubs hadn't yet made much of an appearance in the early 1980s, but it's all the same--the belief that there is a free lunch. The latest edition is 2005, the 10th. We'll see if the basics have changed to meet the challenges of today's investment climate.

Money

Do they play this at bailout board meetings? Citigroup, one of the "family" that has access to all the information (see my post on the 200% interest) Macy's collects about me has agreed to take no bonuses for 2008--and yes, they promise to keep a tight leash on expenses, and "limit" their lobbying efforts. I am deeply comforted. As I've always said here, I don't care generally how much these CEOver-the-toppers pay themselves for their mansions, mistresses and private schools for the kids as long as the stockholders don't care, but now that they want us to share the risk for their negligence and bad investments, I think it only right we have a say. According to Bloomberg, "Overall, the federal government has committed $8.5 trillion in trying to jumpstart a shrinking economy." And Obama hasn't even started filling the pot holes and killing talk radio yet!



Bloomberg.com summary of 2008, a year the writer calls a "Darwinian" event--only the most fit species survived. It may be the only type of Darwinian event I can believe in!

HT No Runny Eggs

Friday, August 01, 2008

A second income? Think again

If Mr. Obama wants to raise your taxes, but still encourage marriage, the greatest non-government, anti-poverty program we have, he should first read the Smart Money article on what that second income really costs.
    "After you subtract what you'll owe the feds, your city and state, Social Security and Medicare, you may end up bringing home 60% or less of your spouse's new salary. And if the first spouse already earns a healthy income and you live in a high-tax state, the government pickpockets could easily hit you up for 50%."
But it gets worse; read on.

Two things aren't mentioned in the article. First, the illusion that you actually have that second salary, so you spend accordingly. There's no calculator that can factor in pipe dreams. If your spouse went to work really understanding she'd have less than 1/2 of that $40,000, maybe you'd think twice before buying new toys, or trading up on a higher mortgage and you'd use it to pay down debt or save. Second, keep in mind that if your spouse is in the education field or contributes to a public employees plan, all that money taken out for Social Security is for nothing if they have a state retirement plan. Neither your spouse nor you will see that when you retire. Our federal employees and military can double-dip, but not teachers. The RINOs refused to help Bush fix SS, so now it will be up to the next guy, or the next or the next.

Keep in mind also that no one has fixed the AGI--and Mr. Obama is eyeing you like the fatted lamb; he thinks you're "rich" and can pay more taxes. Remember, the middle class pays; the rich hire accountants and lawyers to hide their wealth.

Also not mentioned in the Smart Money worksheet because it's about as popular as telling someone to stop smoking, a church tithe (start with 10% and work up) on that spousal income is a good way to stay out of debt, but you need to take it off the top so you don't think you have it to spend.

Unfortunately, articles like this do not reduce taxes, they just encourage people to not marry.

Sunday, February 17, 2008

His money outlived him

I've heard or read the name "John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation" tacked on to many stories, particularly on public radio, but never knew who they were. . . or what an unpleasant, mean old snot John D. was. Here's an interesting story about a "reluctant philanthropist" who set up a foundation, now with assets over $6 billion, who probably didn't have a friend in the world and was disliked even by family members.

He was such a penny pincher, he hired dwarves to work in the low ceiling basement of one of his income properties so as to make use of all the space. And there's more.

Thursday, November 08, 2007

4304

The Robber Barons

Good observation, but I think they were called that even 50 years ago when I was in school--
    After seeing a piece of my son's history curriculum at school, I realized for about the hundredth time just how poor an understanding most people have about the great industrialists of the 19th century, so unfairly painted as "robber barons." While it is said that "history is written by the victors," I would observe that despite the fact that socialism and communism have been given a pretty good drubbing over the last 20 years, these statists still seem to be writing history. How else to explain the fact that men who made fortunes through free, voluntary exchange of products can be called "robber barons;" while politicians who expropriate billions by force without permission from the most productive in society are called "progressive." Coyote Blog