I already summarized the Republican presidential candidates a few weeks ago. With the Iowa caucuses (and liberation from the endless, mindless TV campaign ads) a mere one week away, let me now quickly summarize the various candidate campaign strategies:
For all those not named Ron Paul or Mitt Romney or John Huntsman: Watch the news (easier than reading it) and simply say you are against everything that's currently happening.
For Ron Paul: Just keep saying extreme liberatarian things to win the youth vote.
For Mitt Romney and John Huntsman: Just say nothing. That passes for a moderate view in this group, and while it may not serve them well in Iowa, it's makes them look presidential in comparison.
That's it. I told you it was simple.
When it comes to the Republican party, the Iowa caucuses don't help the party find a nominee, they help the party realize who NOT to nominate - specifically anyone who panders to the social conservative base that the electorate eventually rejects.
Monday, December 26, 2011
Monday, December 19, 2011
The Meaning Of Christmas (Cards)
In the past couple of weeks, we've received our share of Christmas cards from family and friends. I generally enjoy this annual ritual, and for many years our family has put forth an above average effort to send not only a card, but a themed-letter with highlights of the past year, along with a short personal note.
On the other hand, the Christmas cards we receive fall into two general categories: Those that include a picture with a form letter, and those that are simply a pre-printed family picture.
I acknowledge that lots of people don't think much of the Christmas form letter. I get that, it can be kind of lame, and include all kinds of unnecessary information. But as silly as that sounds, at least it's something. Which brings me to today's touchy subject.
I have little regard for those who send only a pre-printed picture as their so-called Christmas card. Sadly, this has become the norm for the greetings we receive, and that trend has been growing ever since it became easy for people to make the pre-printed picture card several years ago.
If all someone cares to send me for a Christmas greeting is a once-per-year family picture, why bother? If you're unwilling to give more than the minimum effort, just send it to me another time, when you aren't so lazy, er, I mean busy. Hell, you can even send it electronically in an email, or tell me about a picture you posted to Facebook; it's all the same to me.
To all those family and friends who send me nothing but a pre-printed picture card as a Christmas greeting, I have a Christmas gift for you, something to make sending your Christmas greetings even easier: Take me off of your Christmas card list. If our relationship doesn't mean enough for you to personalize your greeting, then I assure you, it doesn't mean enough for me to care about getting an annual picture of your family/pet/vacation.
Just save the stamp, or better yet, donate the postage to charity. That's a better way to show someone how much you care.
Monday, December 12, 2011
CDs = Bad Investment
Some time ago I wrote about how insurance is a bad investment and should be used only for protection. Today I'm going to pile on another bad investment in the current financial environment - good 'ol certificates of deposit.
I’m routinely contacted by people looking for a higher rate of return than can be found on CDs. Such frustrated investors are everywhere these days, as 12-month CD rates have hovered below 1%. Even in this environment, however, many are reluctant to leave the ‘safety’ of CDs.
Here’s what I’ve told those investors, and everyone else for the past year: Safety and capital preservation are not the same thing. CDs are not safe, in terms of preserving your capital. They are in fact locking in a loss; the real CD return is currently negative after inflation plus taxes on the interest. If fact, in terms of annual purchasing power, a CD investor will likely have about 2% less than they did before putting the money in the CD.
To preserve capital in this market/economy, investors will need something more than CDs. One secure alternative is U.S. government bonds. The interest paid may not be much more than on CDs, but those bondholders don’t have to pay any state taxes on the interest. These bonds do carry risk, but in a way, U.S. government bonds are safer than CDs – there’s less chance Uncle Sam will go insolvent than a bank.
Another alternative is municipal bonds. For residents who purchase such bonds issued in their state, none of the interest is taxable at the federal or state level. This means a bond with a 2% coupon would have an effective taxable yield of closer to 3%, assuming the bond is purchased at or near par value.
A third option is to invest in dividend paying stocks of large companies. Many well-known companies are paying up to 5% a year just to invest in their stock. The stock price could go down, but if it goes nowhere the investor will make that dividend yield on the money, and if the stock price goes up, even better! And also, qualified dividends currently receive favorable tax treatment.
These are all good, manageable risks for people to take with some of their savings – and it beats the heck out of an inflation-and-tax adjusted 2% loss!
I’m routinely contacted by people looking for a higher rate of return than can be found on CDs. Such frustrated investors are everywhere these days, as 12-month CD rates have hovered below 1%. Even in this environment, however, many are reluctant to leave the ‘safety’ of CDs.
Here’s what I’ve told those investors, and everyone else for the past year: Safety and capital preservation are not the same thing. CDs are not safe, in terms of preserving your capital. They are in fact locking in a loss; the real CD return is currently negative after inflation plus taxes on the interest. If fact, in terms of annual purchasing power, a CD investor will likely have about 2% less than they did before putting the money in the CD.
To preserve capital in this market/economy, investors will need something more than CDs. One secure alternative is U.S. government bonds. The interest paid may not be much more than on CDs, but those bondholders don’t have to pay any state taxes on the interest. These bonds do carry risk, but in a way, U.S. government bonds are safer than CDs – there’s less chance Uncle Sam will go insolvent than a bank.
Another alternative is municipal bonds. For residents who purchase such bonds issued in their state, none of the interest is taxable at the federal or state level. This means a bond with a 2% coupon would have an effective taxable yield of closer to 3%, assuming the bond is purchased at or near par value.
A third option is to invest in dividend paying stocks of large companies. Many well-known companies are paying up to 5% a year just to invest in their stock. The stock price could go down, but if it goes nowhere the investor will make that dividend yield on the money, and if the stock price goes up, even better! And also, qualified dividends currently receive favorable tax treatment.
These are all good, manageable risks for people to take with some of their savings – and it beats the heck out of an inflation-and-tax adjusted 2% loss!
Thursday, December 1, 2011
The Problem With Kids Is Parents
There are no bad kids, there are only bad parents. I say this all of the time, and usually end up defending it to a parent who seems convinced that some kids are so insufferable, no parenting would have mattered.
When an adult argues that there's something in the gene pool that turns children into delinquents, you can assume two things: 1) that parent had or has rotton kids, and 2) that you've just heard an incredible crock of crap. Sure, some infants are born with genetic mental or physical defects, but none are born inately bad.
Bad kids are a direct by-product of bad parenting. And bad parenting doesn't mean abusive parenting - there are a lot of ways to be a bad parent. One example is the parent who compensates for never being around their kids, by giving their kids whatever they want. They're the ones most likely to think they're great parents, when just the opposite is true. Their kids will not contribute to society.
Another one of the worst kinds of bad parents are the enablers. You know, the kind whose kids never do anything wrong, and if they do, believe everything their kid says in defending their actions. Here again, they think they're great parents, but really they suck at it. Those kids eventually leave home, then get their asses kicked by the real world. Or they never leave home, to avoid getting their asses kicked.
To be fair, bad parents are often the product of a poor environment, perhaps from an abusive past, or from having kids too young. However, most of the bad behavior I see in my white-bred suburban lfe comes from comes from children of well-to-do parents. Go figure.
If we want to reduced juvenile delinquency, let's cut of the snake's head. Stop focusing on the bad kids, and start calling out the bad parents.
When an adult argues that there's something in the gene pool that turns children into delinquents, you can assume two things: 1) that parent had or has rotton kids, and 2) that you've just heard an incredible crock of crap. Sure, some infants are born with genetic mental or physical defects, but none are born inately bad.
Bad kids are a direct by-product of bad parenting. And bad parenting doesn't mean abusive parenting - there are a lot of ways to be a bad parent. One example is the parent who compensates for never being around their kids, by giving their kids whatever they want. They're the ones most likely to think they're great parents, when just the opposite is true. Their kids will not contribute to society.
Another one of the worst kinds of bad parents are the enablers. You know, the kind whose kids never do anything wrong, and if they do, believe everything their kid says in defending their actions. Here again, they think they're great parents, but really they suck at it. Those kids eventually leave home, then get their asses kicked by the real world. Or they never leave home, to avoid getting their asses kicked.
To be fair, bad parents are often the product of a poor environment, perhaps from an abusive past, or from having kids too young. However, most of the bad behavior I see in my white-bred suburban lfe comes from comes from children of well-to-do parents. Go figure.
If we want to reduced juvenile delinquency, let's cut of the snake's head. Stop focusing on the bad kids, and start calling out the bad parents.
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
Still More Things For Which I'm Not Thankful
For the third consecutive year, I present my contrarian Thanksgiving week entry, listing in random order those things for which I'm not thankful. (If you want to catch up on the prior versions, see 2009 here and 2010 here.)
Republican presidential candidates stumping in Iowa, and their related advertising and robo-calls.
The cold and darkness. (To avoid confusion, here I’m referring to the weather, not the Republican presidential candidates again.)
The curerent state of the economy.
Any TV reality series based solely on cameras following people living their ‘normal’ lives. (I’m looking at you Kardashians, Duggars, teen moms, hoarders, and housewives)
Dreamers without pragmatism, a/k/a leaderless political movements. (Tea partiers and Occupiers, go away, your 15 minutes is up.)
Paying people to not work.
That the NBA lockout is keeping EJ, Kenny, and Charles off the air.
The politically far right and the politically far left.
Anyone who thinks insurance should be used as an investment vehicle.
Speaking when not speaking would have been just as good.
[This list gets longer every year. That's either a bad omen, or a sign that I'm quickly becoming a malevolent old man, or both.]
Republican presidential candidates stumping in Iowa, and their related advertising and robo-calls.
The cold and darkness. (To avoid confusion, here I’m referring to the weather, not the Republican presidential candidates again.)
The curerent state of the economy.
Any TV reality series based solely on cameras following people living their ‘normal’ lives. (I’m looking at you Kardashians, Duggars, teen moms, hoarders, and housewives)
Dreamers without pragmatism, a/k/a leaderless political movements. (Tea partiers and Occupiers, go away, your 15 minutes is up.)
Paying people to not work.
That the NBA lockout is keeping EJ, Kenny, and Charles off the air.
The politically far right and the politically far left.
Anyone who thinks insurance should be used as an investment vehicle.
Speaking when not speaking would have been just as good.
[This list gets longer every year. That's either a bad omen, or a sign that I'm quickly becoming a malevolent old man, or both.]
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
Lobbyists + Money x Politicians = Results
Here's a reason why the Occupy movement exists:
According to a November 15th CNNMoney report, filings show that after the bailout of mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, nearly $100 million of tax money went to lucrative pay packages for top executives. The top five executives at Fannie Mae received $33.3 million in 2009 and 2010, and the top five at Freddie Mac received $28.1 million. Today both the House Financial Services Committee and the Senate Banking Committee were scheduled to discuss the Fannie/Freddie compensation packages of the firms' top executives. But that posturing isn't going to get this money back, much less send anyone to jail for bilking investors/taxpayers out of millions/billions in the financial crisis (no one has even been indicted).
Now, here's why the Occupy movement will never accomplish anything in the area of financial reform, or anything else for that matter: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHiicN0Kg10
In short, they need lobbyists!
According to a November 15th CNNMoney report, filings show that after the bailout of mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, nearly $100 million of tax money went to lucrative pay packages for top executives. The top five executives at Fannie Mae received $33.3 million in 2009 and 2010, and the top five at Freddie Mac received $28.1 million. Today both the House Financial Services Committee and the Senate Banking Committee were scheduled to discuss the Fannie/Freddie compensation packages of the firms' top executives. But that posturing isn't going to get this money back, much less send anyone to jail for bilking investors/taxpayers out of millions/billions in the financial crisis (no one has even been indicted).
Now, here's why the Occupy movement will never accomplish anything in the area of financial reform, or anything else for that matter: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHiicN0Kg10
In short, they need lobbyists!
Tuesday, November 8, 2011
A 2012 Candidate Guide
It's Election Day, circa 2011. Not a whole lot to worry about nationally today, but a year from now - oh baby.
Now seems a good time for my independent (yes, there are still independents out there), Iowa-based analysis of the current serious (?) Republican candidates. In no particular order:
Mitt Romney - Plasticman. Backpedaling on his past in order to get the right-wing to nominate him. He's probably going to get that nomination, and then start moving to the center again, while spending a bunch of time rationalizing how Romneycare is different than Obamacare.
Herman Cain - Doesn't really want to be president. Just got in this thing for the attention and to sell his book, and didn't plan on the scrutiny. The only reason people are drawn to him is his 9-9-9 tax plan, which just proves in this economy, any idea, good or bad, is better than no idea at all.
Michele Bachmann - WOITH. Less qualified to be president than Sarah Palin, by far, and that's no compliment. In way over her head, but since she only talks to friendly crowds (and literally avoids those who might intellectually confront her - just Google 'bachmann grinnell college') she doesn't know it.
Ron Paul - The most independent, dare I say Liberitarian candidate, which makes him very likable. Unfortunately, his ideas for swift and radical change would make things a lot worse before they could possible become better, and no one is going to vote for that.
Rick Santorum - Can't take his colorless form seriously, not to mention his last name. (Google that, too.)
Rick Perry - Not ready for national prime-time politics, and maybe never will be. Partly a victim of the Texas-governor-cowboy fatigue of the American public, and partly a victim of not understanding what is and isn't acceptable to blurt out when running a national campaign.
Jon Huntsman - Best of the bunch. Moderate. The only one who seems to understand the role of foreign policy in the U.S. But his only hope is a John McCain-like, crazy come-from behind 3rd place or better in the Iowa caucuses, where he's not campaiging. (Another reason to like him.)
Newt Gingrich - The Bill Clinton of the Republican Party. Most intellectually ready to be president of the group, but also the most personally flawed - although Cain is giving him a run for his money. Probably wishes he could have back some of what he said as Speaker of the House in the 90s.
Ladies and Gentlemen, your Republican candidates for president. A year from now I suspect they will all just be part of New Jersey Governor Chris Christie's very large shadow.
Now seems a good time for my independent (yes, there are still independents out there), Iowa-based analysis of the current serious (?) Republican candidates. In no particular order:
Mitt Romney - Plasticman. Backpedaling on his past in order to get the right-wing to nominate him. He's probably going to get that nomination, and then start moving to the center again, while spending a bunch of time rationalizing how Romneycare is different than Obamacare.
Herman Cain - Doesn't really want to be president. Just got in this thing for the attention and to sell his book, and didn't plan on the scrutiny. The only reason people are drawn to him is his 9-9-9 tax plan, which just proves in this economy, any idea, good or bad, is better than no idea at all.
Michele Bachmann - WOITH. Less qualified to be president than Sarah Palin, by far, and that's no compliment. In way over her head, but since she only talks to friendly crowds (and literally avoids those who might intellectually confront her - just Google 'bachmann grinnell college') she doesn't know it.
Ron Paul - The most independent, dare I say Liberitarian candidate, which makes him very likable. Unfortunately, his ideas for swift and radical change would make things a lot worse before they could possible become better, and no one is going to vote for that.
Rick Santorum - Can't take his colorless form seriously, not to mention his last name. (Google that, too.)
Rick Perry - Not ready for national prime-time politics, and maybe never will be. Partly a victim of the Texas-governor-cowboy fatigue of the American public, and partly a victim of not understanding what is and isn't acceptable to blurt out when running a national campaign.
Jon Huntsman - Best of the bunch. Moderate. The only one who seems to understand the role of foreign policy in the U.S. But his only hope is a John McCain-like, crazy come-from behind 3rd place or better in the Iowa caucuses, where he's not campaiging. (Another reason to like him.)
Newt Gingrich - The Bill Clinton of the Republican Party. Most intellectually ready to be president of the group, but also the most personally flawed - although Cain is giving him a run for his money. Probably wishes he could have back some of what he said as Speaker of the House in the 90s.
Ladies and Gentlemen, your Republican candidates for president. A year from now I suspect they will all just be part of New Jersey Governor Chris Christie's very large shadow.
Sunday, October 30, 2011
Des Moines Halloween = Lame
Halloween and its costume-related activities were not a thing for me growing up. I don't recall Trick-or-Treating a single time as a child living on the farm. Isn't that sad? Not sure I've ever been to a single costume party in my life, either.
Then I had kids, and I started to have a little bit of fun with Halloween. For more years than I can remember now, on Trick-or Treat night I'll dress up like a combination of Michal Myers from the movie Halloween and Jason from the movie Friday the 13th, and give out candy on the porch while little kids get a little scared. This year, as every year, there are at least a couple of kids that don't want to come to the door when they see me, which is awesome.
Alas, it's not as fun as it once was. It isn't me, either. It's not as fun because Halloween in Des Moines is so lame these days.
First, Trick-or-Treat night here isn't even on Halloween, it's on October 30th. (Don't ask, I don't know, some goofy central Iowa tradition.) Next, the costumes have become a joke. Nobody makes them anymore, they just buy a mask or some other piece of pre-made store crap. This year I had a few kids that didn't even bother to wear a costume. WTF?! My wife made great costumes for my kids back in the day - what happened to everyone else?
Finally, here along with saying "Trick or treat" (which they often lamely don't even bother to do) the kids are expected to tell you a little joke or riddle. (Again, don't ask, another tradition.) No one gives this much of an effort these days, either.
Not counting the 100 different "Why did the (something) cross the road?" jokes, here were the least lame ones:
Why was 6 scared of 7?
Because 7 8 9.
Why didn't the skeleton go to the dance?
Because there was no 'body' to dance with.
What do you call a fat jack o'lantern?
Plumpkin.
What did one skeleton say to the other skeleton?
I have a bone to pick with you.
Where does a zombie live?
Dead End.
What did the ghost order at the bar?
'Boo'ze.
And a couple unrelated to Halloween:
What does a house wear?
A(d)dress.
How do you stop Lady Gaga?
Poker Face.
A final lame item: Every year there are kids too old to be Trick-or-Treating. If they want candy that much, they should go buy some. Of course, they invariably end up telling a more adult joke, like this one from this year: Why couldn't the jack o'lantern have children? Because of his halloweener.
Then I had kids, and I started to have a little bit of fun with Halloween. For more years than I can remember now, on Trick-or Treat night I'll dress up like a combination of Michal Myers from the movie Halloween and Jason from the movie Friday the 13th, and give out candy on the porch while little kids get a little scared. This year, as every year, there are at least a couple of kids that don't want to come to the door when they see me, which is awesome.
Alas, it's not as fun as it once was. It isn't me, either. It's not as fun because Halloween in Des Moines is so lame these days.
First, Trick-or-Treat night here isn't even on Halloween, it's on October 30th. (Don't ask, I don't know, some goofy central Iowa tradition.) Next, the costumes have become a joke. Nobody makes them anymore, they just buy a mask or some other piece of pre-made store crap. This year I had a few kids that didn't even bother to wear a costume. WTF?! My wife made great costumes for my kids back in the day - what happened to everyone else?
Finally, here along with saying "Trick or treat" (which they often lamely don't even bother to do) the kids are expected to tell you a little joke or riddle. (Again, don't ask, another tradition.) No one gives this much of an effort these days, either.
Not counting the 100 different "Why did the (something) cross the road?" jokes, here were the least lame ones:
Why was 6 scared of 7?
Because 7 8 9.
Why didn't the skeleton go to the dance?
Because there was no 'body' to dance with.
What do you call a fat jack o'lantern?
Plumpkin.
What did one skeleton say to the other skeleton?
I have a bone to pick with you.
Where does a zombie live?
Dead End.
What did the ghost order at the bar?
'Boo'ze.
And a couple unrelated to Halloween:
What does a house wear?
A(d)dress.
How do you stop Lady Gaga?
Poker Face.
A final lame item: Every year there are kids too old to be Trick-or-Treating. If they want candy that much, they should go buy some. Of course, they invariably end up telling a more adult joke, like this one from this year: Why couldn't the jack o'lantern have children? Because of his halloweener.
Sunday, October 23, 2011
Age Is A Gift
Last week I happened to know two individuals who turned 50 years old, and another who turned 55. While they were all taking it in stride, we all know people who have not been so accepting of their newfound maturity.
Like so many others, I might have been one of those people who got depressed when I turned 40. But around age 35. I took to heart something another person told me. Age is a gift.
Life expectancy in the U.S. is around age 80. Having said that, who doesn't know dozens and dozens of people who don't make it to 80, or 40, or even 20.
Just this weekend Des Moines held its annual Race For The Cure event, to raise money for the prevention and treatment of breast cancer. If you're feeling bad about aging, just go to one of those sometime.
I've participated in Race For The Cure many times, and it's humbling to think how many young women have lost their lives prematurely to breast cancer. Add to those all of the other people who die young from other illnesses or injuries, and complaining about one's age is exposed as a very stupid thing to do.
The next time you hear someone lamenting about their birthday/age, tell them that age is a gift. Then tell them to stop bitching about it.
Like so many others, I might have been one of those people who got depressed when I turned 40. But around age 35. I took to heart something another person told me. Age is a gift.
Life expectancy in the U.S. is around age 80. Having said that, who doesn't know dozens and dozens of people who don't make it to 80, or 40, or even 20.
Just this weekend Des Moines held its annual Race For The Cure event, to raise money for the prevention and treatment of breast cancer. If you're feeling bad about aging, just go to one of those sometime.
I've participated in Race For The Cure many times, and it's humbling to think how many young women have lost their lives prematurely to breast cancer. Add to those all of the other people who die young from other illnesses or injuries, and complaining about one's age is exposed as a very stupid thing to do.
The next time you hear someone lamenting about their birthday/age, tell them that age is a gift. Then tell them to stop bitching about it.
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
Occupy My Mind
Gotta join the rest of the blogosphere and opine on the Occupy Wall Street et. al. movement.
Take a bunch of unemployed people, mix in a frustrated electorate, and add a dash of disaffected youth, and you've got the ingredients of the Occupy movement. I get it, but I don't get it. Blaming financial institutions for not regulating their actions to a greater extent than the goverment allows, in a capitalistic society, is frankly not a legitimate expectation. People could have said no to the easy credit that banks offered years ago, but many chose to say yes. Whose fault is that?
But there are two other things I want to point out. The first is, as radical movements go, this hardly qualifies as one. Here's an excerpt from an on-line article written by John Carney of cnbc.com:
"The [Occupy Wall Street] population changes from day to day, and week to week. Many more people visit during the day, and leave once the park settles down at night. Some residents are hardcore political activists. Others are college students. Some are people who have found themselves in dire economic strits. The camp has many has many of the features of a village, or even a household. Various people in the park perform chores—such as cooking, cleaning, and ensuring that disputes are peacefully resolved. There is what appears to be the inner circle of Occupy Wall Street. Several people, many working on laptops powered by a portable generator, sit in an area closed off by tables. Most people—including protesters—are kept out by beefy people whose blue arm bands mark them as members of the security group. Exactly what this secretive group is doing is not clear. And so, ironically, there’s a no trespassing policy enforced at Occupy Wall Street."
Sounds like a weak commune to me. The radical protestesters of the 60s and 70s would laugh at this attempt to affect change.
Which brings me to my other point: How is it that the some of the same people want to vilify this movement, said not a word about the efforts of organized groups (Tea Party-ers?) to shout down legislators at town hall meetings in the summer of 2009 to complain about Obamacare? Isn't this the same deal - complaining about government? The only difference is, that group complained about too much government (of health care), and this group is complaining about not enough government (of the financial industry).
Americans have such short-term attention spans and conviction that I believe we'll soon see the Occupy movement die out. Unlike the oppressed people of the Arab Spring, not having a job doesn't mean soft Americans will stay outside for the winter. Still, it's kind of fund to watch, and you never know, social media could manage to keep this thing going for a while.
Take a bunch of unemployed people, mix in a frustrated electorate, and add a dash of disaffected youth, and you've got the ingredients of the Occupy movement. I get it, but I don't get it. Blaming financial institutions for not regulating their actions to a greater extent than the goverment allows, in a capitalistic society, is frankly not a legitimate expectation. People could have said no to the easy credit that banks offered years ago, but many chose to say yes. Whose fault is that?
But there are two other things I want to point out. The first is, as radical movements go, this hardly qualifies as one. Here's an excerpt from an on-line article written by John Carney of cnbc.com:
"The [Occupy Wall Street] population changes from day to day, and week to week. Many more people visit during the day, and leave once the park settles down at night. Some residents are hardcore political activists. Others are college students. Some are people who have found themselves in dire economic strits. The camp has many has many of the features of a village, or even a household. Various people in the park perform chores—such as cooking, cleaning, and ensuring that disputes are peacefully resolved. There is what appears to be the inner circle of Occupy Wall Street. Several people, many working on laptops powered by a portable generator, sit in an area closed off by tables. Most people—including protesters—are kept out by beefy people whose blue arm bands mark them as members of the security group. Exactly what this secretive group is doing is not clear. And so, ironically, there’s a no trespassing policy enforced at Occupy Wall Street."
Sounds like a weak commune to me. The radical protestesters of the 60s and 70s would laugh at this attempt to affect change.
Which brings me to my other point: How is it that the some of the same people want to vilify this movement, said not a word about the efforts of organized groups (Tea Party-ers?) to shout down legislators at town hall meetings in the summer of 2009 to complain about Obamacare? Isn't this the same deal - complaining about government? The only difference is, that group complained about too much government (of health care), and this group is complaining about not enough government (of the financial industry).
Americans have such short-term attention spans and conviction that I believe we'll soon see the Occupy movement die out. Unlike the oppressed people of the Arab Spring, not having a job doesn't mean soft Americans will stay outside for the winter. Still, it's kind of fund to watch, and you never know, social media could manage to keep this thing going for a while.
Sunday, October 9, 2011
Best Song Lyrics (Part VIII)
Before I was 10 years old, in the late 60s and early 70s, I heard a lot of music that my older siblings listened to, presumably the best pop/rock there was to offer at the time. I recall one summer in the early 70s, all they wanted to listen to was Bad, Bad, LeRoy Brown by Jim Croce.
Lyrics meant nothing to me at the time, but it had a good beat and it was fun to sing along to, so I figured this was a cool guy. It wasn't until I was much older that I figured out what a great library of music he had. For someone who died in a plane crash at age 30, you might even say it was prolific; he released 6 albums and 11 singles in that time.
And as is the case with the other musicians I mention in this blog, the songs he performed had meaning, or at least told a story. I recall listening to a greatest hits CD of his (Photographs and Memories) while traveling with my own family, and even the kids singing along to the refrain from You Don't Mess Around With Jim:
You don't tug on Superman's cape
You don't spit into the wind
You don't pull the mask of that old Lone Ranger
And you don't mess around with Jim
Here are some of the lyrics from one of his all-time greats, I Got A Name, about finding your way on life's journey while staying true to yourself:
Like the pine trees lining the winding road
I've got a name, I've got a name
Like the singing bird and the croaking toad
I've got a name, I've got a name
And I carry it with me like my daddy did
But I'm living the dream, that he kept hid
Movin' me down the highway
Rollin' me down the highway
Movin' ahead so life won't pass me by
Like the north wind whistlin' down the sky
I've got a song, I've got a song
Like the whippoorwill and the baby's cry
I've got a song, I've got a song
And I carry it with me and I sing it loud
If it gets me nowhere, I'll go there proud
Movin' me down the highway
Rollin' me down the highway
Movin' ahead so life won't pass me by
And I'm gonna go there free.....
Like the fool I am and I'll always be
I've got a dream, I've got a dream
They can change their minds but they can't change me
I've got a dream, I've got a dream
Oh, I know I could share it if you want me to
If your going my way, I'll go with you
Movin' me down the highway
Rollin' me down the highway
Movin' ahead so life won't pass me by
Lyrics meant nothing to me at the time, but it had a good beat and it was fun to sing along to, so I figured this was a cool guy. It wasn't until I was much older that I figured out what a great library of music he had. For someone who died in a plane crash at age 30, you might even say it was prolific; he released 6 albums and 11 singles in that time.
And as is the case with the other musicians I mention in this blog, the songs he performed had meaning, or at least told a story. I recall listening to a greatest hits CD of his (Photographs and Memories) while traveling with my own family, and even the kids singing along to the refrain from You Don't Mess Around With Jim:
You don't tug on Superman's cape
You don't spit into the wind
You don't pull the mask of that old Lone Ranger
And you don't mess around with Jim
Here are some of the lyrics from one of his all-time greats, I Got A Name, about finding your way on life's journey while staying true to yourself:
Like the pine trees lining the winding road
I've got a name, I've got a name
Like the singing bird and the croaking toad
I've got a name, I've got a name
And I carry it with me like my daddy did
But I'm living the dream, that he kept hid
Movin' me down the highway
Rollin' me down the highway
Movin' ahead so life won't pass me by
Like the north wind whistlin' down the sky
I've got a song, I've got a song
Like the whippoorwill and the baby's cry
I've got a song, I've got a song
And I carry it with me and I sing it loud
If it gets me nowhere, I'll go there proud
Movin' me down the highway
Rollin' me down the highway
Movin' ahead so life won't pass me by
And I'm gonna go there free.....
Like the fool I am and I'll always be
I've got a dream, I've got a dream
They can change their minds but they can't change me
I've got a dream, I've got a dream
Oh, I know I could share it if you want me to
If your going my way, I'll go with you
Movin' me down the highway
Rollin' me down the highway
Movin' ahead so life won't pass me by
Friday, September 30, 2011
The Social Media Trifecta
After months, even years, of avoidance and threats, last week I joined the world of Facebook. I consider this to be the third leg of the social media trifecta: Blog, Twitter, and Facebook. (Yes, I'm on LinkedIn as well, but there's no practical social element to that, that's all business.)
On balance, this is a good thing. Facebook has become a primary means of communication for a lot of people, so if you want to deliver a message, you'd better include that in your communication toolbox.
Unfortunately, social media complicates your life before it simpifies it. For one, there's going to be a learning curve. For two, I need to figure out the most efficient and effective use for it, both personally and professionally. For three, I need to decide whom I want to see it, and whom I don't, if anyone.
Near term, one thing I'll use it for is to point people to this blog. I got as many Facebook friends in one day as I have Twitter follows. Goes to show you, adults are using Facebook, but not Twitter. (I've thought for a long time that that's kind of strange, since Twitter is so much easier to use.)
Would you like to be my Facebook friend?
On balance, this is a good thing. Facebook has become a primary means of communication for a lot of people, so if you want to deliver a message, you'd better include that in your communication toolbox.
Unfortunately, social media complicates your life before it simpifies it. For one, there's going to be a learning curve. For two, I need to figure out the most efficient and effective use for it, both personally and professionally. For three, I need to decide whom I want to see it, and whom I don't, if anyone.
Near term, one thing I'll use it for is to point people to this blog. I got as many Facebook friends in one day as I have Twitter follows. Goes to show you, adults are using Facebook, but not Twitter. (I've thought for a long time that that's kind of strange, since Twitter is so much easier to use.)
Would you like to be my Facebook friend?
Thursday, September 22, 2011
Seeing Patterns Where None Exist
Although some very bright people may try to convince you otherwise, the investment marketplace follows no predictable patterns. If it did, the so-called experts would tell you exactly what and when to buy and sell, and you’d never have to worry about money again.
To better illustrate the difficulty of predicting market moves, let’s take a closer look at typical investor logic, using the parallels between gamblers and investors who try to time the market. Like many investors, gamblers tend to rely on hunches and perceived patterns to determine their next move.
For example, a person flipping a coin who gets ‘heads’ five times in a row might believe there is an increased probability that the coin would land on ‘tails’ with the next toss. Others may think that ‘heads’ is on a hot streak and believe it is more likely for that to continue. But in fact, the odds of the next toss being ‘heads’ or ‘tails’ is 50/50 – no different than for any coin flip.
Investors tend to take similar approaches to the stock market. Rather than setting a strategy, they are often gambling on a certain streak, typically one they believe is going to continue. For example, in the early 1990s, investors bought billions of dollars in vastly overpriced dot-com stocks, simply betting those stocks would continue to move dramatically higher. Ultimately, that market crashed and investors holding those stocks were saddled with significant losses.
More recently, the real estate market seemed to be on an endless upward cycle; people bought property, and counted on the value endlessly climbing. But in the past few years, that myth was exposed, and the real estate market tumbled along with economy as a whole.
The lesson here for investors is to realize that we have a human tendency is to see patterns where none exist, and to ignore those perceived investing patterns. With this awareness, one can increase the probability of investing success by avoiding the guesswork of active management, and establishing a very low-cost and diversified portfolio that can perform well in many different types of markets.
To better illustrate the difficulty of predicting market moves, let’s take a closer look at typical investor logic, using the parallels between gamblers and investors who try to time the market. Like many investors, gamblers tend to rely on hunches and perceived patterns to determine their next move.
For example, a person flipping a coin who gets ‘heads’ five times in a row might believe there is an increased probability that the coin would land on ‘tails’ with the next toss. Others may think that ‘heads’ is on a hot streak and believe it is more likely for that to continue. But in fact, the odds of the next toss being ‘heads’ or ‘tails’ is 50/50 – no different than for any coin flip.
Investors tend to take similar approaches to the stock market. Rather than setting a strategy, they are often gambling on a certain streak, typically one they believe is going to continue. For example, in the early 1990s, investors bought billions of dollars in vastly overpriced dot-com stocks, simply betting those stocks would continue to move dramatically higher. Ultimately, that market crashed and investors holding those stocks were saddled with significant losses.
More recently, the real estate market seemed to be on an endless upward cycle; people bought property, and counted on the value endlessly climbing. But in the past few years, that myth was exposed, and the real estate market tumbled along with economy as a whole.
The lesson here for investors is to realize that we have a human tendency is to see patterns where none exist, and to ignore those perceived investing patterns. With this awareness, one can increase the probability of investing success by avoiding the guesswork of active management, and establishing a very low-cost and diversified portfolio that can perform well in many different types of markets.
Friday, September 16, 2011
Squawkeye Nation
Growing up in NW Iowa, I was a football fan of both of Iowa's large universities, Iowa State University and the University of Iowa. In the 70s they both pretty much sucked at it, although ISU was slightly better. Since the 80s, however, Iowa has become a nationally successful program while ISU has languished.
Maybe it's because I moved closer to Ames, or maybe it's my contrarian side, but during this time I found myself becoming a bit more of an ISU fan. I'm still glad for Iowa's football success and all of the attention it has brought to the state, but that success has brought with it a fan base that is not always appealing.
Iowa football fans weren't always like this. Fans sportingly appreciated the success they had in the 80s, after being dismal for so long. Unfortunately, over the years that appreciation has largely become an overconfidence, even an arrogance, that their football team is better than they are.
This overconfidence manifests itself every year during the ISU-Iowa football game. Iowa dominated this series until about 10 years ago, and since then the teams have generally traded victories. But you wouldn't know that from listening to most Iowa fans.
Case in point was this year's game, which I attended and which ISU won in 3 overtimes. Iowa fans were absolutely shocked at losing - it never crossed the minds of many of their faithful that losing was even a remote possibility. Worse still was not accepting that they were outplayed in the game. (One major exception to this was Head Coach Kirk Ferentz, a class act who said right after the game that ISU deserved to win.)
This Iowa football fan reaction is one I've see far too often with their football fans over the past 2 decades. They're like the bully who gets beat up and goes home crying, and it has made it easy to decide whom I'll root for when the Hawkeyes play the Cyclones.
C'mon now, Iowa football fans. Win with grace, but lose with dignity.
Maybe it's because I moved closer to Ames, or maybe it's my contrarian side, but during this time I found myself becoming a bit more of an ISU fan. I'm still glad for Iowa's football success and all of the attention it has brought to the state, but that success has brought with it a fan base that is not always appealing.
Iowa football fans weren't always like this. Fans sportingly appreciated the success they had in the 80s, after being dismal for so long. Unfortunately, over the years that appreciation has largely become an overconfidence, even an arrogance, that their football team is better than they are.
This overconfidence manifests itself every year during the ISU-Iowa football game. Iowa dominated this series until about 10 years ago, and since then the teams have generally traded victories. But you wouldn't know that from listening to most Iowa fans.
Case in point was this year's game, which I attended and which ISU won in 3 overtimes. Iowa fans were absolutely shocked at losing - it never crossed the minds of many of their faithful that losing was even a remote possibility. Worse still was not accepting that they were outplayed in the game. (One major exception to this was Head Coach Kirk Ferentz, a class act who said right after the game that ISU deserved to win.)
This Iowa football fan reaction is one I've see far too often with their football fans over the past 2 decades. They're like the bully who gets beat up and goes home crying, and it has made it easy to decide whom I'll root for when the Hawkeyes play the Cyclones.
C'mon now, Iowa football fans. Win with grace, but lose with dignity.
Saturday, September 10, 2011
9/11/2001
I remember exactly where I was and what I was doing ten years ago on 9/11/2001.
I was sitting in a Boston hotel room waiting to leave for the second day of a conference I was attending. I was watching the Today show on NBC (live on the east coast) when I saw the report of a plane hitting a World Trade Center tower. Obviously something bad had happened, but it sounded at the time like it might be a small single engine plane, and who knew maybe the pilot had a heart attack or something.
After a while I turned over to watch CNBC. They were also showing the smoke coming from the first tower when you saw the explosion in the second tower, and shortly after that, the replay that made it clear it was intentional, an attack was happening. I forgot about the conference, and stayed in the room to watch. The frantic reports were rolling in about the Pentagon, then other planes perhaps going down. I even recall a report about a fire on the National Mall that turned out not to be true.
The rest of the day was just weird, mostly spent trying to figure out what happened, and how I was going to get back to Iowa. Since I was stranded in a highrise hotel in a major city from which most employees had been sent home, I doubted if I'd even be able to find something to eat. In the end, the hotel had food, and let me stay for as long as I needed. The conference had been abandoned, but it still took me two days, until Thursday morning, to find a one-way rental car and make the 20+ hour drive home.
One of the things I remember most about that day was the local news coverage that evening. One of the hijacked planes used in the attacks had taken off from Boston's Logan Airport, where I'd been just a couple of days before. A lot of local New England people had been on that plane, so it was very sad there, a much smaller version of New York City. It certainly made what happened seem more personal, and less like an international story.
I was sitting in a Boston hotel room waiting to leave for the second day of a conference I was attending. I was watching the Today show on NBC (live on the east coast) when I saw the report of a plane hitting a World Trade Center tower. Obviously something bad had happened, but it sounded at the time like it might be a small single engine plane, and who knew maybe the pilot had a heart attack or something.
After a while I turned over to watch CNBC. They were also showing the smoke coming from the first tower when you saw the explosion in the second tower, and shortly after that, the replay that made it clear it was intentional, an attack was happening. I forgot about the conference, and stayed in the room to watch. The frantic reports were rolling in about the Pentagon, then other planes perhaps going down. I even recall a report about a fire on the National Mall that turned out not to be true.
The rest of the day was just weird, mostly spent trying to figure out what happened, and how I was going to get back to Iowa. Since I was stranded in a highrise hotel in a major city from which most employees had been sent home, I doubted if I'd even be able to find something to eat. In the end, the hotel had food, and let me stay for as long as I needed. The conference had been abandoned, but it still took me two days, until Thursday morning, to find a one-way rental car and make the 20+ hour drive home.
One of the things I remember most about that day was the local news coverage that evening. One of the hijacked planes used in the attacks had taken off from Boston's Logan Airport, where I'd been just a couple of days before. A lot of local New England people had been on that plane, so it was very sad there, a much smaller version of New York City. It certainly made what happened seem more personal, and less like an international story.
Saturday, September 3, 2011
Tolerating Intolerance
In the past week, I've had a front row seat to witness what I consider to be two separate acts of religious intolerance. It isn't the religious intolerance one might think of though. Someone isn't putting down a religion - a religion is putting someone down.
Incident 1 - a pastor at a conservative church is requiring all employees to sign a document to agree to abide by a certain Christian lifestyles. In other words, he is telling some existing (and all potential) employees they are no longer good enough to work there simply based on how they live their life away from work. This type of discrimination may be quite legal for a religious organization, but it's also quite intolerant, not to mention unenforcable.
Incident 2 - a Catholic diocesan pastor vetoed a distinguished alumni award that a school was going to give to a well-regarded community volunteer. The reason - for a short time some years ago, she was on the board of Planned Parenthood. In other words, he is telling her (and everyone else) that all good deeds are usurped by helping an organization he and the church oppose. Again, this type of discrimination may be quite acceptable for a religious organization, but it's also quite intolerant, not to mention stupid.
What do these incidents have in common? That religious 'leaders' preach tolerance, but act differently. They actually only tolerate those who agree with them. In both cases, this is not the first time the pastor in question has said or done controversial things that are far more politically based than faith-based. They are, in a word, hypocrites.
It sounds ironic, but I actually think the world would be a better place if people followed certain so-called Christian principles - if those principles are broadly defined. Things like loving your neighbor as yourself, doing unto others as they have done to you, and showing compassion to those less fortunate. What these pastors are doing, however, doesn't jibe with any of those. They demand that people rigidly adhere to their specific, often politically-motivated agendas. (By the way, Christianity doesn't own those broadly based principles.)
Basically, their religion screws up their faith. It makes them tolerate intolerance. It makes atheists look good.
Incident 1 - a pastor at a conservative church is requiring all employees to sign a document to agree to abide by a certain Christian lifestyles. In other words, he is telling some existing (and all potential) employees they are no longer good enough to work there simply based on how they live their life away from work. This type of discrimination may be quite legal for a religious organization, but it's also quite intolerant, not to mention unenforcable.
Incident 2 - a Catholic diocesan pastor vetoed a distinguished alumni award that a school was going to give to a well-regarded community volunteer. The reason - for a short time some years ago, she was on the board of Planned Parenthood. In other words, he is telling her (and everyone else) that all good deeds are usurped by helping an organization he and the church oppose. Again, this type of discrimination may be quite acceptable for a religious organization, but it's also quite intolerant, not to mention stupid.
What do these incidents have in common? That religious 'leaders' preach tolerance, but act differently. They actually only tolerate those who agree with them. In both cases, this is not the first time the pastor in question has said or done controversial things that are far more politically based than faith-based. They are, in a word, hypocrites.
It sounds ironic, but I actually think the world would be a better place if people followed certain so-called Christian principles - if those principles are broadly defined. Things like loving your neighbor as yourself, doing unto others as they have done to you, and showing compassion to those less fortunate. What these pastors are doing, however, doesn't jibe with any of those. They demand that people rigidly adhere to their specific, often politically-motivated agendas. (By the way, Christianity doesn't own those broadly based principles.)
Basically, their religion screws up their faith. It makes them tolerate intolerance. It makes atheists look good.
Friday, August 26, 2011
The Empty Nest
Our last child went off to college this past week. We've taken kids to college enough that most of it was decidedly routine - pack to leave, drive there, unpack, offer my standard reminder about how there are a lot of people in the world that aren't so nice, tell them to keep their name out of the newspaper, and say good-bye.
What was decidedly unroutine about it, however, was arriving back at home to accept the new reality of an empty nest. The house that was once just big enough is now bigger and quieter than it was meant to be. It's hard to comprehend how it got to be like that.
To help cope with the unofficial end to two decades of child-raising, I keep reminding myself about what a success it has been. My kids are the best. There is absolutely no doubt that they are going to make major positive contributions to society. As far as parenting goes, something must have been done right.
One emotion that I didn't expect to have is that of feeling abandoned. The past 23 years have been spent raising children into adults who are going to improve civilization. This has been done with a fair amount of personal and financial sacrifice - I mean, time and money could have been spent on other things. So now, civilization, where is my parade? In the words of Carl Spackler of Caddyshack, "How about a little something, you know, for the effort!?"
One other thing I'm getting used to is the time. It suddenly seems like there's a lot more time to do things. I suppose this is because there just isn't as much to occupy my mind without kids around. This is something I didn't really expect, but frankly, it's also something it won't take me long to get used to.
What was decidedly unroutine about it, however, was arriving back at home to accept the new reality of an empty nest. The house that was once just big enough is now bigger and quieter than it was meant to be. It's hard to comprehend how it got to be like that.
To help cope with the unofficial end to two decades of child-raising, I keep reminding myself about what a success it has been. My kids are the best. There is absolutely no doubt that they are going to make major positive contributions to society. As far as parenting goes, something must have been done right.
One emotion that I didn't expect to have is that of feeling abandoned. The past 23 years have been spent raising children into adults who are going to improve civilization. This has been done with a fair amount of personal and financial sacrifice - I mean, time and money could have been spent on other things. So now, civilization, where is my parade? In the words of Carl Spackler of Caddyshack, "How about a little something, you know, for the effort!?"
One other thing I'm getting used to is the time. It suddenly seems like there's a lot more time to do things. I suppose this is because there just isn't as much to occupy my mind without kids around. This is something I didn't really expect, but frankly, it's also something it won't take me long to get used to.
Friday, August 19, 2011
Waking Up In Vegas
I recently returned from 3-day, 4-night stay in big, bad Las Vegas, Nevada. It's only the fourth time I've been there, and the first time for a legit 100% leisure stay.
I'm always interested to see for myself how Vegas changes over time, and I've got a few observations:
1) Conventional wisdom is that over the past 20 years, Vegas went from Sin City, to a more family-friendly atmosphere, and back to Sin City again. I'm not sure it ever stopped being an adult playground, but I can confirm that there are still plenty of kids there. In fact, I saw kids with their parents all over the strip. While there may be some benign things for kids to see, like the Bellagio fountains, it's disturbingly dumb for parents to drag small kids around that town, because there are also things kids shouldn't see. My conclusion is, many of the strip hotels are marketing themselves as resort destinations for the whole family, especially in the summer. They have great pools, restaurants, shops, like an all-inclusive resort would have, but the thing is, nobody just stays on the same hotel property when they're in Vegas.
2) The days of cheap lodging and meals on the strip are gone. Same for casino action - it's hard to find a table game with under a $15 minimum bet at night, maybe $10 during the day. This is another reason why it's dumb to bring kids there. If you want deals at Vegas now, you have to go downtown, where table games are cheap, music is live, and you can still get a great buffett for between $5-$10. In a related story, I saw no kids downtown at Fremont Street. There's nothing for them to do there, except watch the Fremont Street Experience light show once an hour at night.
3) Vegas and its strip hotels have come a long way in providing ground transportation by tram or monorail at various points up and down the strip. Still, this is a 5+ mile long piece of real estate, and there is a helluva lot of walking to be done if you want to get around without a car, or don't want to pay for a taxi. If you aren't in shape, the heat and the physical activity will bite you.
4) It didn't look like a town that's supposedly in a major recession. Maybe everything is just tremendously leveraged, but from what I saw the Vegas tourism and hospitality indistries were doing pretty well. I saw plenty of people spending money anyway, on both commerce and gambling.
Bottom line, Las Vegas is still Disneyworld for adults. Cool architecture, lights, music, food, even rides. A lifetime multi-visit venue.
I'm always interested to see for myself how Vegas changes over time, and I've got a few observations:
1) Conventional wisdom is that over the past 20 years, Vegas went from Sin City, to a more family-friendly atmosphere, and back to Sin City again. I'm not sure it ever stopped being an adult playground, but I can confirm that there are still plenty of kids there. In fact, I saw kids with their parents all over the strip. While there may be some benign things for kids to see, like the Bellagio fountains, it's disturbingly dumb for parents to drag small kids around that town, because there are also things kids shouldn't see. My conclusion is, many of the strip hotels are marketing themselves as resort destinations for the whole family, especially in the summer. They have great pools, restaurants, shops, like an all-inclusive resort would have, but the thing is, nobody just stays on the same hotel property when they're in Vegas.
2) The days of cheap lodging and meals on the strip are gone. Same for casino action - it's hard to find a table game with under a $15 minimum bet at night, maybe $10 during the day. This is another reason why it's dumb to bring kids there. If you want deals at Vegas now, you have to go downtown, where table games are cheap, music is live, and you can still get a great buffett for between $5-$10. In a related story, I saw no kids downtown at Fremont Street. There's nothing for them to do there, except watch the Fremont Street Experience light show once an hour at night.
3) Vegas and its strip hotels have come a long way in providing ground transportation by tram or monorail at various points up and down the strip. Still, this is a 5+ mile long piece of real estate, and there is a helluva lot of walking to be done if you want to get around without a car, or don't want to pay for a taxi. If you aren't in shape, the heat and the physical activity will bite you.
4) It didn't look like a town that's supposedly in a major recession. Maybe everything is just tremendously leveraged, but from what I saw the Vegas tourism and hospitality indistries were doing pretty well. I saw plenty of people spending money anyway, on both commerce and gambling.
Bottom line, Las Vegas is still Disneyworld for adults. Cool architecture, lights, music, food, even rides. A lifetime multi-visit venue.
Monday, August 15, 2011
Headline News
For the twelve-month period ending June 30, 2011, while the global economic news was mostly cloudy, equity investors enjoyed the equivalent of blue skies. Most developed and emerging-country stock markets had positive double-digit returns, some in excess of 30%.
If someone knew a year ago that global markets would stage such a broad-based rally, one would have assumed that trends in employment, housing, and financial distress were about to take a pronounced turn for the better. In fact, they have done nothing of the sort.
Somehow, despite gloomy financial page news that kept repeating itself, equity prices marched substantially higher.
Now, as equity prices have turned lower in the past month, and have become especially volitile in the past several days, the financial pages are again full of dire forecasts. Really, if you compare the headlines, it's just like last year.
No one knows if the stock market will react differently this year to similar news. Based on last year, however, we know one thing for certain – markets do not base their movements on proclamations from the financial media!
Remember the bottom line: Due to unforeseen events, no one can accurately predict the direction of markets. Rather than react to stormy news, you should act on what's already known, and consistently keep your financial plan and asset allocation both cost-effective and aligned with your risk tolerance.
If someone knew a year ago that global markets would stage such a broad-based rally, one would have assumed that trends in employment, housing, and financial distress were about to take a pronounced turn for the better. In fact, they have done nothing of the sort.
Somehow, despite gloomy financial page news that kept repeating itself, equity prices marched substantially higher.
Now, as equity prices have turned lower in the past month, and have become especially volitile in the past several days, the financial pages are again full of dire forecasts. Really, if you compare the headlines, it's just like last year.
No one knows if the stock market will react differently this year to similar news. Based on last year, however, we know one thing for certain – markets do not base their movements on proclamations from the financial media!
Remember the bottom line: Due to unforeseen events, no one can accurately predict the direction of markets. Rather than react to stormy news, you should act on what's already known, and consistently keep your financial plan and asset allocation both cost-effective and aligned with your risk tolerance.
Friday, August 12, 2011
It's Easy To Be Number 3
For as long as I've lived in Des Moines, the ABC-TV affiliate, WOI, has been a distant 3rd in local TV ratings. Basically, no one watches their news at 5, 6, or 10pm. This is despite the fact that over the past 10 years they may have had the best weather director and sports director of all three broacast affiliates.
One thing they've consistently had during this time, however, is dumb management. They changed general managers earlier this year, but it apparently only made them dumber.
This link will tell you why, by way of another very funny Colbert Report clip:
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/394521/august-11-2011/colbert-super-pac---confused-by-rick-parry-with-an--a--for-america
One thing they've consistently had during this time, however, is dumb management. They changed general managers earlier this year, but it apparently only made them dumber.
This link will tell you why, by way of another very funny Colbert Report clip:
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/394521/august-11-2011/colbert-super-pac---confused-by-rick-parry-with-an--a--for-america
Friday, August 5, 2011
Truth And Prevention
I haven't mentioned WOITH member and Iowa congressman (and possibly Martian) Steve King in a while, although I could do so virtually any day.
He and his Fox News friends are at it again, this time over the new Obama administration's stance that insurers cover contrceptives as preventative care. A controversial position, but not exactly for the flat-earth reasoning of King. Check out the clip from this week's The Colbert Report:
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/393824/august-03-2011/women-s-health-nazi-plan
I especially enjoyed Colbert's remark that a woman's health is a private matter between..... her priest and her husband! Satire is funnier when it's not so far from the truth.
While I'm at it, let me take this time to officially elevate his Tea Party mistress, Minnesota congressperson Michele Bachmann, to WOITH status. Her stance to not raise the U.S. debt ceiling is effectively saying it's better to have an international economic crisis than it is for the U.S. to pay the bills it has already incurred.
It's going to be fun having her around Iowa to campaign for president, telling everyone she would do the opposite of what Obama does without ever actually saying what she would do.
He and his Fox News friends are at it again, this time over the new Obama administration's stance that insurers cover contrceptives as preventative care. A controversial position, but not exactly for the flat-earth reasoning of King. Check out the clip from this week's The Colbert Report:
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/393824/august-03-2011/women-s-health-nazi-plan
I especially enjoyed Colbert's remark that a woman's health is a private matter between..... her priest and her husband! Satire is funnier when it's not so far from the truth.
While I'm at it, let me take this time to officially elevate his Tea Party mistress, Minnesota congressperson Michele Bachmann, to WOITH status. Her stance to not raise the U.S. debt ceiling is effectively saying it's better to have an international economic crisis than it is for the U.S. to pay the bills it has already incurred.
It's going to be fun having her around Iowa to campaign for president, telling everyone she would do the opposite of what Obama does without ever actually saying what she would do.
Thursday, July 28, 2011
More RAGBRAI Thoughts
Just finished another day on the Register's Annual Great Bike Ride Across Iowa (RAGBRAI). Just 60 miles this year, although the heat and headwinds made it seem a lot worse.
I blogged about RAGBRAI last year, with an explanation and series of observations on the 2010 ride.
http://streffblog.blogspot.com/2010/07/thoughts-on-ragbrai-2010.html
*Lots of loosely-organized biking teams go on the ride, and their names are usually pretty clever. Some of my favorite team names include Team Wasted Potential, Team Crackanoon, and Team TenderLoins, the perfect double-entendre for an Iowa ride.
*People who live in houses and towns along the route seem to love to be hospitable to the bike riders. It's kind of weird, but bikers basically get rock star treatment, as if the effort of simply biking long distances is worthy of that kind of thing.
*This may be related to the last item, but RAGBRAI riders spend a lot of money, and spend it in a generous way. Obviously, they have to eat and drink a lot to refuel. But given the choice of buying something from a charitable organization or buying from a corporate organization, they will usually buy from the fund raising entity.
*Some riders think they're funny when they wear something unusual, but they aren't. Believe me, every accessory has probably been seen before, whether it be crazy socks or something stuck in a helmet. It basically identifies first-time riders, and it's mostly lame.
*Speaking of food and charities, last year I lamented on the lack of pie on the ride, something that used to be a staple of every church lawn on the route. This year I did find some pie, but it was company vendored pie, at $3 per slice. Still couldn't find the good old fashioned church-lady kind for a buck or two. Thus officially ends the era of the church-lady RAGBRAI pie.
RAGBRAI is still as much fun as you can have on a day-long bike ride.
I blogged about RAGBRAI last year, with an explanation and series of observations on the 2010 ride.
http://streffblog.blogspot.com/2010/07/thoughts-on-ragbrai-2010.html
*Lots of loosely-organized biking teams go on the ride, and their names are usually pretty clever. Some of my favorite team names include Team Wasted Potential, Team Crackanoon, and Team TenderLoins, the perfect double-entendre for an Iowa ride.
*People who live in houses and towns along the route seem to love to be hospitable to the bike riders. It's kind of weird, but bikers basically get rock star treatment, as if the effort of simply biking long distances is worthy of that kind of thing.
*This may be related to the last item, but RAGBRAI riders spend a lot of money, and spend it in a generous way. Obviously, they have to eat and drink a lot to refuel. But given the choice of buying something from a charitable organization or buying from a corporate organization, they will usually buy from the fund raising entity.
*Some riders think they're funny when they wear something unusual, but they aren't. Believe me, every accessory has probably been seen before, whether it be crazy socks or something stuck in a helmet. It basically identifies first-time riders, and it's mostly lame.
*Speaking of food and charities, last year I lamented on the lack of pie on the ride, something that used to be a staple of every church lawn on the route. This year I did find some pie, but it was company vendored pie, at $3 per slice. Still couldn't find the good old fashioned church-lady kind for a buck or two. Thus officially ends the era of the church-lady RAGBRAI pie.
RAGBRAI is still as much fun as you can have on a day-long bike ride.
Wednesday, July 20, 2011
The Wimpiest Generation
So there's a heatwave gripping the Midwest. Near 100 degrees all week with stifling humidity. Can't walk three steps without somebody complaining about the weather and asking, "Is it hot enough for you?" Constant media alerts about the heat index, and how dangerous it is to be outside too long.
Gimme a break. Would somebody please tell me what the big deal is? (Alert: I'm about to go off on an "I remember when....." rant.)
When I was really young, heat like this didn't stop us from going outside to play all afternoon - and not at the swimming pool, either. We had no real alternative, other than watching soap operas on one of the three TV stations from which we could choose, but we did it without complaining. And we didn't stop every five minutes to take a drink either.
When I was a teenager, it was the same deal, except instead of playing outside I was doing farmwork outside. Day after day after day. It seemed like the hottest days were reserved for baling hay or straw (a task equally as itchy as it was hot). And we're not talking about the labor-saving round bales they make today, either. I mean the rectangular ones that you had to lift and stack. Of course, since we operated a livestock farm, if we had nothing better to do we could always haul manure (a task equally as smelly as it was hot). Oh, and we didn't stop every five minutes to take a drink then, either.
Needless to say, when I became an adult with a wimpy office job, I didn't complain about the heat. Still don't.
But the current city-fied, under 30 generation, now they are a different story. This is the sedentary generation, a group raised on cable TV and video games. Anything above a climate-controlled 80 degrees is enough for them to start bitching, maybe even take the day off. The media coddling doesn't help, alerting us to take breaks, stay indoors, and of course, make sure our pets aren't outside. (Somewhere up there, my old dog Teddy is shaking his head.)
I get that each generation lives better than the one before it, and I don't expect people to be outdoors if they don't have to be. But please, please stop complaining about the heat. It makes you and the country look like a bunch of wimps
Gimme a break. Would somebody please tell me what the big deal is? (Alert: I'm about to go off on an "I remember when....." rant.)
When I was really young, heat like this didn't stop us from going outside to play all afternoon - and not at the swimming pool, either. We had no real alternative, other than watching soap operas on one of the three TV stations from which we could choose, but we did it without complaining. And we didn't stop every five minutes to take a drink either.
When I was a teenager, it was the same deal, except instead of playing outside I was doing farmwork outside. Day after day after day. It seemed like the hottest days were reserved for baling hay or straw (a task equally as itchy as it was hot). And we're not talking about the labor-saving round bales they make today, either. I mean the rectangular ones that you had to lift and stack. Of course, since we operated a livestock farm, if we had nothing better to do we could always haul manure (a task equally as smelly as it was hot). Oh, and we didn't stop every five minutes to take a drink then, either.
Needless to say, when I became an adult with a wimpy office job, I didn't complain about the heat. Still don't.
But the current city-fied, under 30 generation, now they are a different story. This is the sedentary generation, a group raised on cable TV and video games. Anything above a climate-controlled 80 degrees is enough for them to start bitching, maybe even take the day off. The media coddling doesn't help, alerting us to take breaks, stay indoors, and of course, make sure our pets aren't outside. (Somewhere up there, my old dog Teddy is shaking his head.)
I get that each generation lives better than the one before it, and I don't expect people to be outdoors if they don't have to be. But please, please stop complaining about the heat. It makes you and the country look like a bunch of wimps
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
Bobby's Pledge (Part II)
Based on a segment in last night's show, I can only conclude that Stephen Colbert must be reading my blog.
http://caucuses.desmoinesregister.com/2011/07/13/stephen-colbert-weighs-in-on-iowa-marriage-pledge/
http://caucuses.desmoinesregister.com/2011/07/13/stephen-colbert-weighs-in-on-iowa-marriage-pledge/
Friday, July 8, 2011
Bobby's Pledge
A quick update for you on WOITH member Bob Vander Plaats, who now calls himself the chief executive officer of something called the Family Leader.
Bobby's latest venture is to ask all presidential candidates to sign a pledge to affirm support of personal fidelity to his or her spouse, oppose any redefinition of marriage, and appoint “faithful constitutionalists” as judges, (as opposed to unfaithful constitutionalists, I presume). This so-called Marriage Pledge will be a requirement for future endorsement by the Family Leader. You know, because as the Family Leader goes, so goes America.
Michele Bachmann immediately signed the pledge, solidifying her position as an incredible social conservative suck-up in Tea Party clothing. (May be redundant to say that.) Or, she may also be compensating for something else, there's really no way of knowing.
It's important to point out that this pledge only covers FUTURE events. So if you cheated on your spouse in the past, it's OK to sign the pledge. Newt Gingrich must be sooooo relieved.
It's also worth noting that Bobby is asking for a pledge of allegiance to him and his organization, not to God. So, we now can officially confirm it - he thinks he's God.
Bobby's latest venture is to ask all presidential candidates to sign a pledge to affirm support of personal fidelity to his or her spouse, oppose any redefinition of marriage, and appoint “faithful constitutionalists” as judges, (as opposed to unfaithful constitutionalists, I presume). This so-called Marriage Pledge will be a requirement for future endorsement by the Family Leader. You know, because as the Family Leader goes, so goes America.
Michele Bachmann immediately signed the pledge, solidifying her position as an incredible social conservative suck-up in Tea Party clothing. (May be redundant to say that.) Or, she may also be compensating for something else, there's really no way of knowing.
It's important to point out that this pledge only covers FUTURE events. So if you cheated on your spouse in the past, it's OK to sign the pledge. Newt Gingrich must be sooooo relieved.
It's also worth noting that Bobby is asking for a pledge of allegiance to him and his organization, not to God. So, we now can officially confirm it - he thinks he's God.
Thursday, June 30, 2011
How To Avoid Becoming Greece-y
This week there were riots in the streets of Greece, where people were protesting government austerity measures to keep the country from going bankrupt. Let's examine this.
These austerity measures had to be approved for Greece to get the last $17 billion of a $156 billion debt crisis relief package that was granted last year by its European neighbors - some of whom aren't in the best fiscal shape, either.
Most of the protesters were younger, in part because they may not be able to have the cushy life of their parents. To wit:
*There was a hike in the retirement age to 65 from as low as 61. (61! And this in a country where shorter workdays and 6 weeks of vacation annually are the norm.)
*There will be a 33% increase in gas, cigarette, and alcohol taxes
*There will be far fewer goverment jobs, and government health spending will decrease
To the poor people of Greece I say, Boo Freaking Hoo. You brought this on yourself, kicking the can down the road for decades. You knew your government-funded lifestyle was unsaustainable, you just didn't have the guts to do anything about it. Or maybe no one was showing up for work to vote on changing things.
The thing of it is, America may not be so far behind. We've been kicking the can down the road for years, too, not fixing our own fiscally unsustainable social programs.
So let's learn from Greece's mistakes. They are in for a big-time recession now. But if we implemented some of their other austerity measures, it could help avoid that. For example, beyond reforming their version of social security, they are cutting education spending by closing or merging schools. We can and should do that, notably here in Iowa, where some entire school districts have under 100 high schoolers.
Let's do something now, to keep Uncle Sam from becoming Greece-y.
These austerity measures had to be approved for Greece to get the last $17 billion of a $156 billion debt crisis relief package that was granted last year by its European neighbors - some of whom aren't in the best fiscal shape, either.
Most of the protesters were younger, in part because they may not be able to have the cushy life of their parents. To wit:
*There was a hike in the retirement age to 65 from as low as 61. (61! And this in a country where shorter workdays and 6 weeks of vacation annually are the norm.)
*There will be a 33% increase in gas, cigarette, and alcohol taxes
*There will be far fewer goverment jobs, and government health spending will decrease
To the poor people of Greece I say, Boo Freaking Hoo. You brought this on yourself, kicking the can down the road for decades. You knew your government-funded lifestyle was unsaustainable, you just didn't have the guts to do anything about it. Or maybe no one was showing up for work to vote on changing things.
The thing of it is, America may not be so far behind. We've been kicking the can down the road for years, too, not fixing our own fiscally unsustainable social programs.
So let's learn from Greece's mistakes. They are in for a big-time recession now. But if we implemented some of their other austerity measures, it could help avoid that. For example, beyond reforming their version of social security, they are cutting education spending by closing or merging schools. We can and should do that, notably here in Iowa, where some entire school districts have under 100 high schoolers.
Let's do something now, to keep Uncle Sam from becoming Greece-y.
Friday, June 24, 2011
Insurance = Bad Investment
From time-to-time, I get asked about the biggest or most common investing mistakes. Somewhere at the top of my list is this - insurance is a bad investment.
Don't get me wrong, insurance is absolutely necessary for asset protection. But many people go well beyond that, drinking the insurance agent Kool-Aid that it should also be used as an investment. Of course, the insurance agent makes a much larger commission then, but pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!
A primary example of unnecessary insurance is a variable annuity. (I could also pick on universal / cash value life insurance, maybe another day.) Variable annuities are insurance contracts that claim to offer a ‘guarantee’ that investors will earn something like 5% or more annually, regardless of market performance. In theory, even if the market value of the account drops, you will still be ‘earning’ 5%. Sounds great, right? With a closer look, most people won’t think so.
First off, the ‘guaranteed’ return is actually based on a hypothetical (not actual) account balance. This hypothetical balance is the minimum basis for a small annual amount that may be accessed prior to death. But to take full advantage of this ‘guarantee’ you have to keep your money tied up for a very long time – in many cases for 10+ years – and you lose the ‘guarantee’ altogether if you make excess withdrawals prior to then.
During this entire period, you are paying dearly for that ‘guaranteed’ return. The additional charges can be 1%-2% or more every year on top of the annual fee, regardless of whether you ever use the benefit. That’s in addition to the 1%-1.5% per year charge for administrative fees. And that’s in addition to the management fees of 1%-2% paid to the people running the actual investment sub-accounts. All in all, you could be facing annual fees of 3%-5% per year or more! That’s a real reduction in invested funds, as compared to the hypothetical ‘guaranteed’ return.
Finally, there is a low probability of needing the ‘guarantee’ in a variable annuity. Insurance companies know history, and historically, these products benefit the insurer. If a person desires a guaranteed lifetime income stream, this can be done far more efficiently and inexpensively through a basic fixed annuity.
So why are variable annuities sold? Because insurance companies make huge profits on these products, and in turn pay high commissions to the brokers who sell them. And while they are very complicated products – many people who market them don’t even know how they work – they are easy to sell to unsuspecting investors. Insurers and their salesmen know that in the current economic environment, people are scared, making them easy prey to purchase anything that looks like a guarantee.
Don’t let pricey gimmicks distract you. The expense of a variable annuity will produce a significant drag on performance each and every year. Your funds will be much better off in a low-cost, properly managed investment account. It may not be flashy, but it works, while allowing you to maintain control and flexibility over your money.
Don't get me wrong, insurance is absolutely necessary for asset protection. But many people go well beyond that, drinking the insurance agent Kool-Aid that it should also be used as an investment. Of course, the insurance agent makes a much larger commission then, but pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!
A primary example of unnecessary insurance is a variable annuity. (I could also pick on universal / cash value life insurance, maybe another day.) Variable annuities are insurance contracts that claim to offer a ‘guarantee’ that investors will earn something like 5% or more annually, regardless of market performance. In theory, even if the market value of the account drops, you will still be ‘earning’ 5%. Sounds great, right? With a closer look, most people won’t think so.
First off, the ‘guaranteed’ return is actually based on a hypothetical (not actual) account balance. This hypothetical balance is the minimum basis for a small annual amount that may be accessed prior to death. But to take full advantage of this ‘guarantee’ you have to keep your money tied up for a very long time – in many cases for 10+ years – and you lose the ‘guarantee’ altogether if you make excess withdrawals prior to then.
During this entire period, you are paying dearly for that ‘guaranteed’ return. The additional charges can be 1%-2% or more every year on top of the annual fee, regardless of whether you ever use the benefit. That’s in addition to the 1%-1.5% per year charge for administrative fees. And that’s in addition to the management fees of 1%-2% paid to the people running the actual investment sub-accounts. All in all, you could be facing annual fees of 3%-5% per year or more! That’s a real reduction in invested funds, as compared to the hypothetical ‘guaranteed’ return.
Finally, there is a low probability of needing the ‘guarantee’ in a variable annuity. Insurance companies know history, and historically, these products benefit the insurer. If a person desires a guaranteed lifetime income stream, this can be done far more efficiently and inexpensively through a basic fixed annuity.
So why are variable annuities sold? Because insurance companies make huge profits on these products, and in turn pay high commissions to the brokers who sell them. And while they are very complicated products – many people who market them don’t even know how they work – they are easy to sell to unsuspecting investors. Insurers and their salesmen know that in the current economic environment, people are scared, making them easy prey to purchase anything that looks like a guarantee.
Don’t let pricey gimmicks distract you. The expense of a variable annuity will produce a significant drag on performance each and every year. Your funds will be much better off in a low-cost, properly managed investment account. It may not be flashy, but it works, while allowing you to maintain control and flexibility over your money.
Thursday, June 16, 2011
Best Song Lyrics (Part VII)
When the Beatles took the world by storm in the 60s, I was too young to understand the frenzy. Consequently, I'm not the biggest Beatles fan, although I admire the incredible library of popular songs they compiled. A few even have meaningful lyrics!
When the Beatles broke up and went on their solo careers, I was old enough to appreciate their music, but I didn't care much about their generally mediocre success. (Possible exception was the commerical success of Wings with Paul McCartney.) Like many artists, however, now that they are either old or dead, I can appreciate some of their group and solo music.
The song lyrics that stand out for me today are from John Lennon's classic, Imagine. Good timing for this, since my last blog entry (http://streffblog.blogspot.com/2011/06/diminishing-returns-of-religion.html) basically supports what the song says. The last verse is a little too socialistic for me, so I excluded it, but the rest - just think about it.
Imagine there's no Heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today
Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace
You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one
When the Beatles broke up and went on their solo careers, I was old enough to appreciate their music, but I didn't care much about their generally mediocre success. (Possible exception was the commerical success of Wings with Paul McCartney.) Like many artists, however, now that they are either old or dead, I can appreciate some of their group and solo music.
The song lyrics that stand out for me today are from John Lennon's classic, Imagine. Good timing for this, since my last blog entry (http://streffblog.blogspot.com/2011/06/diminishing-returns-of-religion.html) basically supports what the song says. The last verse is a little too socialistic for me, so I excluded it, but the rest - just think about it.
Imagine there's no Heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today
Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace
You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one
Saturday, June 11, 2011
The Diminishing Returns of Religion
Anyone who has taken a basic economics class has been introduced to the concept of diminishing returns. In short, this is defined as the point at which an increased unit of production generates lower (not greater) unit returns.
This is also how I would currently define the state of religion, both personally and in the world. Putting more effort into it isn't going to improve things, and at least from a global perspective, it probably makes things worse.
Let's start with the personal. I've been a practicing Roman Catholic since childhood. This included 12 years of Catholic schooling, which in turn included 8 years of nearly daily mass atttendence. After 40+ years, I've attended church services many thousands of times. I long ago learned the routine, the readings, and the symbolism by heart.
So I have faith, and I consider myself well indoctrinated in that faith. The question is, what more is there to know? As long as I lead a life dedicated to respect and the betterman of man and society, it's difficult to see the marginal benefit of continued adherence to the recommended daily/weekly/annual religious rituals.
Plus, over the past several years I've come to realize that the church I follow isn't exactly a role model. Pedophile priests, as well as other politicized Vatican scandals, have conspired to turm me away. And the Catholic church's unrelenting dogma related to gender roles, celibacy, etc. haven't helped. The rest of the world is evolving, my church is not. (How did it ever progress out of the Crusades era?)
My personal religious beliefs take a back seat to the larger world view, however. The fact is, religion is Earth's #1 creator of wars. Name any past or present international military conflict, and you will find that differing religious beliefs are at its core. Hell, even our Civil War was essentially a morality-based disagreement over how humans should be treated.
This is not a good thing. It's maybe the irony of ironies that religion is supposed to give people a reason to live, and we mostly use it to explain why, how, and when people should die.
In spite of this, I do believe that religion is a net good thing for society. If nobody believed in an afterlife, our civilization would be pretty barbaric. We might still be clubbing each other in caves.
But from my perspective, we've reached the point of diminishing returns.
This is also how I would currently define the state of religion, both personally and in the world. Putting more effort into it isn't going to improve things, and at least from a global perspective, it probably makes things worse.
Let's start with the personal. I've been a practicing Roman Catholic since childhood. This included 12 years of Catholic schooling, which in turn included 8 years of nearly daily mass atttendence. After 40+ years, I've attended church services many thousands of times. I long ago learned the routine, the readings, and the symbolism by heart.
So I have faith, and I consider myself well indoctrinated in that faith. The question is, what more is there to know? As long as I lead a life dedicated to respect and the betterman of man and society, it's difficult to see the marginal benefit of continued adherence to the recommended daily/weekly/annual religious rituals.
Plus, over the past several years I've come to realize that the church I follow isn't exactly a role model. Pedophile priests, as well as other politicized Vatican scandals, have conspired to turm me away. And the Catholic church's unrelenting dogma related to gender roles, celibacy, etc. haven't helped. The rest of the world is evolving, my church is not. (How did it ever progress out of the Crusades era?)
My personal religious beliefs take a back seat to the larger world view, however. The fact is, religion is Earth's #1 creator of wars. Name any past or present international military conflict, and you will find that differing religious beliefs are at its core. Hell, even our Civil War was essentially a morality-based disagreement over how humans should be treated.
This is not a good thing. It's maybe the irony of ironies that religion is supposed to give people a reason to live, and we mostly use it to explain why, how, and when people should die.
In spite of this, I do believe that religion is a net good thing for society. If nobody believed in an afterlife, our civilization would be pretty barbaric. We might still be clubbing each other in caves.
But from my perspective, we've reached the point of diminishing returns.
Saturday, June 4, 2011
Bad Business
Years ago when I worked for a trade association, the powers-that-be (?) insisted that the annual meeting begin with a prayer. This might have been harmless except for the fact that the prayer was never non-denominational - the prayer-giver always invoked the name of Jesus Christ.
I always complained about this, not because I'm not Christian, but because it was ignorant. We were not a Christian organization - why assume everyone else was? It was pretty simple to conclude that not everyone in the room believed in JC, much less in God, and to throw this prayer in their face was just plain bad business.
With this as a backdrop, over the past few years I've paid particular attention to businesses that show their religious and/or political colors. Of course, it's OK for a private business to do that, but it is also relentlessly dumb to offend potential customers.
My best contemporary example of this has to be those businesses who insist on showing Fox TV in their public areas. First, let's agree on what Fox TV is - a conservative, Republican-leaning broadcast network. Everyone knows this. Fox is to 'fair and balanced' journalism as 'The Beverly Hillbillies' is to a fair and balanced depiction of life in Beverly Hills.
So if a business has Fox on their TVs, one can safely assume they are conservative, Republican-leaning folks. That's fine, but that also tacitly means they don't care to have non-conformists as customers. At least that's what it means to me, and I'm happy to oblige them. It's crazy. Just put the TV on the Food Network or some other benign channel, and I won't think twice about patronizing your business.
Take this weekend, in which I spent time in a corporate tent at a golf outing. The Golf Channel was on every TV but one - which was on Fox. Now, I'm certain I was around a bunch of Republican-leaning folks, but to assume all of the clients there were of the same political/conservative bent is dumb. If people want the news, the can go somewhere else, or use their smart phones.
I don't know, maybe I'm making too much of this, but I think there is a lesson here for businesses: Don't assume everyone else believes the same things that you do.
I always complained about this, not because I'm not Christian, but because it was ignorant. We were not a Christian organization - why assume everyone else was? It was pretty simple to conclude that not everyone in the room believed in JC, much less in God, and to throw this prayer in their face was just plain bad business.
With this as a backdrop, over the past few years I've paid particular attention to businesses that show their religious and/or political colors. Of course, it's OK for a private business to do that, but it is also relentlessly dumb to offend potential customers.
My best contemporary example of this has to be those businesses who insist on showing Fox TV in their public areas. First, let's agree on what Fox TV is - a conservative, Republican-leaning broadcast network. Everyone knows this. Fox is to 'fair and balanced' journalism as 'The Beverly Hillbillies' is to a fair and balanced depiction of life in Beverly Hills.
So if a business has Fox on their TVs, one can safely assume they are conservative, Republican-leaning folks. That's fine, but that also tacitly means they don't care to have non-conformists as customers. At least that's what it means to me, and I'm happy to oblige them. It's crazy. Just put the TV on the Food Network or some other benign channel, and I won't think twice about patronizing your business.
Take this weekend, in which I spent time in a corporate tent at a golf outing. The Golf Channel was on every TV but one - which was on Fox. Now, I'm certain I was around a bunch of Republican-leaning folks, but to assume all of the clients there were of the same political/conservative bent is dumb. If people want the news, the can go somewhere else, or use their smart phones.
I don't know, maybe I'm making too much of this, but I think there is a lesson here for businesses: Don't assume everyone else believes the same things that you do.
Friday, May 27, 2011
The Graduating Hangover of 2011
Over the past week, I've been planning and attending events related to a child's high school graduation. My observations:
* High school graduation is second only to weddings when it comes to transferring wealth from middle-aged people to the younger generation, roughly twenty dollars at a time.
* The graduation cermony is too long. In this age of technology, we still haven't come up with a better method than waiting an hour while hundreds of kids listen to speeches and then walk across a stage for a fleeting five seconds of attention? There has to be an app to speed this up.
* After attending multiple graduation parties with the same invited guests, it's a challege to come up with new discussion topics. Did we comment on college plans? Check. Food served? Check. Venue? Check. Well, let's go to the next party and do that again!
* When all is said and done, high school graduation equalizes things. Everybody has the same piece of parchment, the high school diploma, and the best student is effectively no better off than the worst. It's really a minor step for most. As I've often told my kids, only now will knowledge and effort really matter.
* High school graduation is second only to weddings when it comes to transferring wealth from middle-aged people to the younger generation, roughly twenty dollars at a time.
* The graduation cermony is too long. In this age of technology, we still haven't come up with a better method than waiting an hour while hundreds of kids listen to speeches and then walk across a stage for a fleeting five seconds of attention? There has to be an app to speed this up.
* After attending multiple graduation parties with the same invited guests, it's a challege to come up with new discussion topics. Did we comment on college plans? Check. Food served? Check. Venue? Check. Well, let's go to the next party and do that again!
* When all is said and done, high school graduation equalizes things. Everybody has the same piece of parchment, the high school diploma, and the best student is effectively no better off than the worst. It's really a minor step for most. As I've often told my kids, only now will knowledge and effort really matter.
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
Berky Meeting Nuggets
I've attended the Bershire Hathaway annual meeing in Omaha for roughly the past 15 years. It sounds boring, simply listening to Warren Buffett and his sidekick Charlie Munger answer shareholder questions for about 5 hours, but I find it to be one of the most entertaining and informative days of my year.
The 2011 meeting held on April 30th was one of the best I've been at in a long time. The questions were good, and the answers were even better. Here's a sample of some of the exchanges:
On commodities and gold:
Buffett said that if you collect all the gold in the world and melt it together, you could form a cube with 67 feet on each side. Here’s what you could do with it: “You could get a ladder and climb on top of it, you could fondle it, you could polish it, you could stare at it.” But his kicker was this: You can’t do anything with it. It has no inherent value. Buying into gold is betting that someone else will come along and pay more for it — who then is hoping that someone else will pay even more for it down the line. Then Munger added his two cents. “There’s something peculiar about an asset that will really only go up if the world really goes to hell,” he said. “I think you’d do better by buying our stock.”
On institutions as 'too big to fail':
Ultimately, Buffett believes in government intervention. But such a rescue must come at cost, perhaps by requiring directors to forfeit five years’ worth of fees, for instance. Munger said that a discussion of bubbles and crashes “isn’t one of evil, but of stupidity.” That said, he blamed unyielding devotion to theories of economics and other fields as a contributing factor.
On business schools in general:
Munger later again got to bash business schools and investment bankers. He couldn't recall Buffett having ever hired a graduate of such a school or a former banker. He noted that Berkshire doesn’t do exact financial projections or modeling, and that the company leaves a lot of wiggle room. Buffett cracked at bankers by saying, “I don’t think I’ve ever seen a projection from an investment banker that doesn’t show everything going up. It’s like why you don’t ask a barber if you need a haircut.” Munger admonished current or incoming business school students to learn how to do financial projections the Berkshire way. But pay their teachers some lip service for the time being.
On growing up wealthy:
Buffett is well-known for not having showered his children with Berkshire riches, and for pledging most of his wealth to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. (Gates is a Berky director.) Buffett said that growing up rich could rob children of crucial drive and enterprise. And if a child of privilege grows up unproductive, it’s a matter of parenting. “If your kids grow up rich and without incentive, I don’t think you should point the finger at them,” he said. “You should point it at yourself.”
On his legacy:
When asked what he’d like to be known for in 100 years, Buffett responded: “old age.” Munger helpfully added that he thought Buffett would want to be known as “the oldest corpse I’ve ever seen.”
The 2011 meeting held on April 30th was one of the best I've been at in a long time. The questions were good, and the answers were even better. Here's a sample of some of the exchanges:
On commodities and gold:
Buffett said that if you collect all the gold in the world and melt it together, you could form a cube with 67 feet on each side. Here’s what you could do with it: “You could get a ladder and climb on top of it, you could fondle it, you could polish it, you could stare at it.” But his kicker was this: You can’t do anything with it. It has no inherent value. Buying into gold is betting that someone else will come along and pay more for it — who then is hoping that someone else will pay even more for it down the line. Then Munger added his two cents. “There’s something peculiar about an asset that will really only go up if the world really goes to hell,” he said. “I think you’d do better by buying our stock.”
On institutions as 'too big to fail':
Ultimately, Buffett believes in government intervention. But such a rescue must come at cost, perhaps by requiring directors to forfeit five years’ worth of fees, for instance. Munger said that a discussion of bubbles and crashes “isn’t one of evil, but of stupidity.” That said, he blamed unyielding devotion to theories of economics and other fields as a contributing factor.
On business schools in general:
Munger later again got to bash business schools and investment bankers. He couldn't recall Buffett having ever hired a graduate of such a school or a former banker. He noted that Berkshire doesn’t do exact financial projections or modeling, and that the company leaves a lot of wiggle room. Buffett cracked at bankers by saying, “I don’t think I’ve ever seen a projection from an investment banker that doesn’t show everything going up. It’s like why you don’t ask a barber if you need a haircut.” Munger admonished current or incoming business school students to learn how to do financial projections the Berkshire way. But pay their teachers some lip service for the time being.
On growing up wealthy:
Buffett is well-known for not having showered his children with Berkshire riches, and for pledging most of his wealth to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. (Gates is a Berky director.) Buffett said that growing up rich could rob children of crucial drive and enterprise. And if a child of privilege grows up unproductive, it’s a matter of parenting. “If your kids grow up rich and without incentive, I don’t think you should point the finger at them,” he said. “You should point it at yourself.”
On his legacy:
When asked what he’d like to be known for in 100 years, Buffett responded: “old age.” Munger helpfully added that he thought Buffett would want to be known as “the oldest corpse I’ve ever seen.”
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
Smart Phones, Dumb Users
Back when cells phones evolved into a device that one could easily carry around, I would shake my head at the self-important people I worked with who deemed it necessary to answer their phone no matter the situation. I worked at a trade association, for God's sake - I'm pretty sure there was no regulatory or lobbying emergency that couldn't wait.
With the advent of smart phones, things have not gotten better. Smart phones have now allowed people to show everyone in the room how important and busy they are, without even receiving a call. People are texting, emailing, checking social media sites, and attending to all sorts of other unnecessary tasks during meetings.
Some people use the excuse of "multi-tasking" to explain away their behavior. Gimme a break. The truth is, smart phones are a drug for self-important people addicted to making themselves appear they must be available 24/7.
Earth-to-all-self-important-people: There is a time and a place for using personal devices, and meetings are NOT one of those times. So, if you're one of those people who just must play with your smart phone (or iPad) while you're supposed to be listening, get over yourself and get back to work, you obnoxious technology jerk.
With the advent of smart phones, things have not gotten better. Smart phones have now allowed people to show everyone in the room how important and busy they are, without even receiving a call. People are texting, emailing, checking social media sites, and attending to all sorts of other unnecessary tasks during meetings.
Some people use the excuse of "multi-tasking" to explain away their behavior. Gimme a break. The truth is, smart phones are a drug for self-important people addicted to making themselves appear they must be available 24/7.
Earth-to-all-self-important-people: There is a time and a place for using personal devices, and meetings are NOT one of those times. So, if you're one of those people who just must play with your smart phone (or iPad) while you're supposed to be listening, get over yourself and get back to work, you obnoxious technology jerk.
Thursday, May 5, 2011
Another Nonprofit Lie - Follow Up
A quick follow-up: The Des Moines Register did publish my letter to the editor mentioned in the last post, without edits. The on-line version allows for comments, of which there were only a few, and they all completely missed the point about how non-profits, especially taxpayer-funded ones, are poorly managed.
Those responses actually fit my profile of someone who would comment on-line to such letters - they must sit around a computer all day with nothing to do, thinking up new conspiracy theories and swatting away imaginary bugs.
Those responses actually fit my profile of someone who would comment on-line to such letters - they must sit around a computer all day with nothing to do, thinking up new conspiracy theories and swatting away imaginary bugs.
Friday, April 29, 2011
Another Nonprofit Lie
Below is the text of a Letter to the Editor I sent today to The Des Moines Register:
By increasing room and board fees at state universities by 3-5% (April 29 article, "Regents OK Room, Board Increases for Fall"), the Board of Regents cited inflation as the main reason. A similar excuse was used only a month ago to justify tuition hikes for next year.
Yet using our country's most recent core measure of inflation, the March 2011 Consumer Price Index, inflation has actually risen less than 3% in the past twelve months. And excluding food and energy costs, the CPI has risen only 1.2% since March 2010.
The fact is, inflation doesn't justify increasing fees by as much as 5%. No for-profit services organization would be able to survive in this economy by raising prices like that, so why should it be OK for a non-profit, taxpayer-subsidized organization to do so?
If we want to keep higher education affordable in Iowa, we need more intellectual honesty - not to mention budget accountability - from our state academic institutions and their governing body.
By increasing room and board fees at state universities by 3-5% (April 29 article, "Regents OK Room, Board Increases for Fall"), the Board of Regents cited inflation as the main reason. A similar excuse was used only a month ago to justify tuition hikes for next year.
Yet using our country's most recent core measure of inflation, the March 2011 Consumer Price Index, inflation has actually risen less than 3% in the past twelve months. And excluding food and energy costs, the CPI has risen only 1.2% since March 2010.
The fact is, inflation doesn't justify increasing fees by as much as 5%. No for-profit services organization would be able to survive in this economy by raising prices like that, so why should it be OK for a non-profit, taxpayer-subsidized organization to do so?
If we want to keep higher education affordable in Iowa, we need more intellectual honesty - not to mention budget accountability - from our state academic institutions and their governing body.
Friday, April 22, 2011
Best (Effing) Song Lyrics (Part VI)
When rap music - or as I call it, c-rap music - was trying to get a mainstream foothold in the 80s, it had acceptance problems related to both its subject matter and explicit 'lyrics' (if that's what you want to call them). Over time, mainstream rap has transformed into hip-hop, and the subject matter has been toned down, but the language generally hasn't.
Unfortunately, we're now seeing that language spill over into popular music. A recent look at the current top hits include two with the F-word in title. Not just buried somewhere in the lyrics, but in the often-repeated song title. In the words of the DeAndre Cole character on Saturday Night Live, What's up wit dat!?
Now for purposes of radio play, the F-words in these songs have been changed or eliminated. I've listened to both versions, and guess what - the song means the same thing! And it's not like these songs need some sort of urban edge to them for audience appeal, so why do this? Oh, that's right - because today it has to be more about the singer than the song, to help monetize the product.
Bob Dylan would be rolling over in his grave about this, if he was dead. As it is, he's lost too many brain cells to care. But before all of that, and before money mattered so much in music, he wrote some fantastic songs, with lyrics as meaningful today and when he wrote them in the 60s. Look at these lyrics from The Times They Are A-Changin' and you'll see they are still applicable. (Sadly, this might mean we haven't changed.)
Come gather ’round people
Wherever you roam
And admit that the waters
Around you have grown
And accept it that soon
You’ll be drenched to the bone
If your time to you is worth savin’
Then you better start swimmin’ or you’ll sink like a stone
For the times they are a-changin’
Come writers and critics
Who prophesize with your pen
And keep your eyes wide
The chance won’t come again
And don’t speak too soon
For the wheel’s still in spin
And there’s no tellin’ who that it’s namin’
For the loser now will be later to win
For the times they are a-changin’
Come senators, congressmen
Please heed the call
Don’t stand in the doorway
Don’t block up the hall
For he that gets hurt
Will be he who has stalled
There’s a battle outside and it is ragin’
It’ll soon shake your windows and rattle your walls
For the times they are a-changin’
Come mothers and fathers
Throughout the land
And don’t criticize
What you can’t understand
Your sons and your daughters
Are beyond your command
Your old road is rapidly agin’
Please get out of the new one if you can’t lend your hand
For the times they are a-changin’
The line it is drawn
The curse it is cast
The slow one now
Will later be fast
As the present now
Will later be past
The order is rapidly fadin’
And the first one now will later be last
For the times they are a-changin’
Unfortunately, we're now seeing that language spill over into popular music. A recent look at the current top hits include two with the F-word in title. Not just buried somewhere in the lyrics, but in the often-repeated song title. In the words of the DeAndre Cole character on Saturday Night Live, What's up wit dat!?
Now for purposes of radio play, the F-words in these songs have been changed or eliminated. I've listened to both versions, and guess what - the song means the same thing! And it's not like these songs need some sort of urban edge to them for audience appeal, so why do this? Oh, that's right - because today it has to be more about the singer than the song, to help monetize the product.
Bob Dylan would be rolling over in his grave about this, if he was dead. As it is, he's lost too many brain cells to care. But before all of that, and before money mattered so much in music, he wrote some fantastic songs, with lyrics as meaningful today and when he wrote them in the 60s. Look at these lyrics from The Times They Are A-Changin' and you'll see they are still applicable. (Sadly, this might mean we haven't changed.)
Come gather ’round people
Wherever you roam
And admit that the waters
Around you have grown
And accept it that soon
You’ll be drenched to the bone
If your time to you is worth savin’
Then you better start swimmin’ or you’ll sink like a stone
For the times they are a-changin’
Come writers and critics
Who prophesize with your pen
And keep your eyes wide
The chance won’t come again
And don’t speak too soon
For the wheel’s still in spin
And there’s no tellin’ who that it’s namin’
For the loser now will be later to win
For the times they are a-changin’
Come senators, congressmen
Please heed the call
Don’t stand in the doorway
Don’t block up the hall
For he that gets hurt
Will be he who has stalled
There’s a battle outside and it is ragin’
It’ll soon shake your windows and rattle your walls
For the times they are a-changin’
Come mothers and fathers
Throughout the land
And don’t criticize
What you can’t understand
Your sons and your daughters
Are beyond your command
Your old road is rapidly agin’
Please get out of the new one if you can’t lend your hand
For the times they are a-changin’
The line it is drawn
The curse it is cast
The slow one now
Will later be fast
As the present now
Will later be past
The order is rapidly fadin’
And the first one now will later be last
For the times they are a-changin’
Thursday, April 14, 2011
How To Become A National Joke
As a regular viewer and Twitter follower of The Colbert Report, I see some of the best political satire there is to offer. Colbert and his writers regularly ridicule the self-importance of others in a genius way.
Nothing has been better than this week when Colbert took on Tyson Zone member Bob Vander Plaats. I saw this when it originally aired - it doesn't hurt that it starts with a few digs at Tea-Party goofball Michele Bachmann:
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/381487/april-12-2011/threat-level--rainbow
Congrats, Bob. You have now officially been upgraded from local joke to national joke.
Nothing has been better than this week when Colbert took on Tyson Zone member Bob Vander Plaats. I saw this when it originally aired - it doesn't hurt that it starts with a few digs at Tea-Party goofball Michele Bachmann:
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/381487/april-12-2011/threat-level--rainbow
Congrats, Bob. You have now officially been upgraded from local joke to national joke.
Saturday, April 9, 2011
Post #100
When TV shows reach their 100th episode, they usually have a retrospective show that replays some memorable clips. Since this is my 100th blog post, it seems a good time for a retrospective of some of the themes of this blog.
Let's start with this one, from Post #1 on July 26, 2009: "Too many people simply believe what others tell them, with the unfortunate consequence of allowing those who control the message to also control them.....Think about it, then make up your own mind."
Since then, I've tried to get you to think about how taxes, obesity, commissions, and political parties and fringe politicians are bad. On the other hand, medicinal marijuana, some lyrics, fee-based advice, and Caddyshack are good.
Speaking of Caddyshack - in honor not only of the 100th post, but of this weekend's 75th Masters golf tounament, here's my post from February 3, 2010: [standing in an ornamental flowerbed] What an incredible Cinderella story! This unknown, comes out of nowhere, to lead the pack at Augusta. He's at the final hole. He's about 455 yards away, he's gonna hit about a 2-iron, I think... [swings, pulverizes a flower] Oh, he got all of that! The crowd is standing on its feet here at Augusta. The normally reserved crowd is going wild...for this young Cinderella who's come out of nowhere. He's got about 350 yards left, he's going to hit about a 5-iron, it looks like, don't you think? He's got a beautiful backswing... [swings, pulverizes another flower] That's...oh, he got all of that one! He's gotta be pleased with that! The crowd is just on its feet here. He's a Cinderella boy. Tears in his eyes, I guess, as he lines up this last shot. He's got about 195 yards left, and he's got a, looks like he's got about an 8-iron. This crowd has gone deadly silent... Cinderella story, out of nowhere, former greenskeeper, now about to become the Masters champion... [swings, pulverizes yet another flower] It looks like a mirac- it's in the hole! It's in the hole!
Here's to the next 100 posts!
Let's start with this one, from Post #1 on July 26, 2009: "Too many people simply believe what others tell them, with the unfortunate consequence of allowing those who control the message to also control them.....Think about it, then make up your own mind."
Since then, I've tried to get you to think about how taxes, obesity, commissions, and political parties and fringe politicians are bad. On the other hand, medicinal marijuana, some lyrics, fee-based advice, and Caddyshack are good.
Speaking of Caddyshack - in honor not only of the 100th post, but of this weekend's 75th Masters golf tounament, here's my post from February 3, 2010: [standing in an ornamental flowerbed] What an incredible Cinderella story! This unknown, comes out of nowhere, to lead the pack at Augusta. He's at the final hole. He's about 455 yards away, he's gonna hit about a 2-iron, I think... [swings, pulverizes a flower] Oh, he got all of that! The crowd is standing on its feet here at Augusta. The normally reserved crowd is going wild...for this young Cinderella who's come out of nowhere. He's got about 350 yards left, he's going to hit about a 5-iron, it looks like, don't you think? He's got a beautiful backswing... [swings, pulverizes another flower] That's...oh, he got all of that one! He's gotta be pleased with that! The crowd is just on its feet here. He's a Cinderella boy. Tears in his eyes, I guess, as he lines up this last shot. He's got about 195 yards left, and he's got a, looks like he's got about an 8-iron. This crowd has gone deadly silent... Cinderella story, out of nowhere, former greenskeeper, now about to become the Masters champion... [swings, pulverizes yet another flower] It looks like a mirac- it's in the hole! It's in the hole!
Here's to the next 100 posts!
Thursday, March 31, 2011
The Net Truth
Last year, a prominent financial planning newsletter editor asked his subscribers to estimate long-term future stock returns after inflation, expenses and taxes – call it a "net-net-net" return. Several dozen leading financial advisers responded. Although some didn't subtract taxes, the average answer was 6%. A few went as high as 9%.
They cannot be serious. Historically, inflation has eaten away three percentage points of return a year. Investment expenses and taxes each have cut returns by roughly one to two percentage points a year. So, in order to earn 6% for clients after inflation, fees and taxes, these financial advisors will somehow have to pick investments that generate 11% to 13% a year before costs.
Where will they find such huge gains? Since 1926, according to Ibbotson Associates, U.S. stocks have earned an annual average of 9.8%. Their long-term, net-net-net return is under 4%. All other major assets earned even less. If, like most people, you mix in some bonds and cash, your net-net-net is likely to be more like 2%.
Even the biggest investors are too optimistic. The Investment Fund for Foundations (TIFF), which manages $8 billion for more than 700 nonprofits, recently asked trustees and investment officers of these charities to imagine they can swap all their assets in exchange for a contract that guarantees them a risk-free return for the next 50 years, while also satisfying their current spending needs. Then TIFF asked them what minimal rate of return, after inflation and all fees, they would accept in such a swap. In TIFF's latest survey, the average response was 7.4%. One-sixth of the participants refused to swap for any return lower than 10%!
Faith in unreasonably high returns isn't harmless. It leads many people to save too little, in hopes that the markets will bail them out. It makes others ignore common sense, and believe in the claims of disreputable insurance and financial services agents who claim to offer ‘guaranteed’ but false returns. The end result is the same – a shortfall in wealth late in life, and more years working rather than putting your feet up in retirement.
Investors must seek the net-net-net truth. If a financial advisor says he/she can earn you 6% annually, net-net-net, say you’ll take it, right now. In fact, say you'll take 5% and let them keep the difference. In exchange, you will sell him/her your entire portfolio at its current market value. You've just offered the functional equivalent of what Wall Street calls a total-return swap.
Unless the advisor is a fool or a crook, your offer will be declined. Then you can determine a more rational rate of return, which is the number you should use for financial planning and analysis.
They cannot be serious. Historically, inflation has eaten away three percentage points of return a year. Investment expenses and taxes each have cut returns by roughly one to two percentage points a year. So, in order to earn 6% for clients after inflation, fees and taxes, these financial advisors will somehow have to pick investments that generate 11% to 13% a year before costs.
Where will they find such huge gains? Since 1926, according to Ibbotson Associates, U.S. stocks have earned an annual average of 9.8%. Their long-term, net-net-net return is under 4%. All other major assets earned even less. If, like most people, you mix in some bonds and cash, your net-net-net is likely to be more like 2%.
Even the biggest investors are too optimistic. The Investment Fund for Foundations (TIFF), which manages $8 billion for more than 700 nonprofits, recently asked trustees and investment officers of these charities to imagine they can swap all their assets in exchange for a contract that guarantees them a risk-free return for the next 50 years, while also satisfying their current spending needs. Then TIFF asked them what minimal rate of return, after inflation and all fees, they would accept in such a swap. In TIFF's latest survey, the average response was 7.4%. One-sixth of the participants refused to swap for any return lower than 10%!
Faith in unreasonably high returns isn't harmless. It leads many people to save too little, in hopes that the markets will bail them out. It makes others ignore common sense, and believe in the claims of disreputable insurance and financial services agents who claim to offer ‘guaranteed’ but false returns. The end result is the same – a shortfall in wealth late in life, and more years working rather than putting your feet up in retirement.
Investors must seek the net-net-net truth. If a financial advisor says he/she can earn you 6% annually, net-net-net, say you’ll take it, right now. In fact, say you'll take 5% and let them keep the difference. In exchange, you will sell him/her your entire portfolio at its current market value. You've just offered the functional equivalent of what Wall Street calls a total-return swap.
Unless the advisor is a fool or a crook, your offer will be declined. Then you can determine a more rational rate of return, which is the number you should use for financial planning and analysis.
Friday, March 25, 2011
Some Of You Should Read This Book
Six years ago, the writers of The Daily Show With Jon Stewart published one of the best books of political satire I've ever read, America (The Book). This so-called "Citizen's Guide to Democracy Inaction" chronicled the history and workings of democracy in civics textbook form, including inforgraphics and sidebar opinions (from the likes of Stephen Colbert).
Spring Break gave me a chance to finally read through the latest book from the writers of The Daily Show, Earth (The Book). This "Citizen's Guide to the Human Race" may be the most entertaining, sharpest, and cleverly written book I've ever read. It again takes the textbook format used in the prior book, but this time to an even higher level.
Earth (The Book) is aimed at an audience of aliens who find the Earth deserted after the human race spectacularly manufactures its own demise. The subject matter has shifted from US politics and education to the planet and world civilization. And while America (The Book) was mostly written with many text passages and included commented infographics, Earth (The Book) is basically the opposite, with more commented infographics making for dozens of satice-laced jokes per page.
To give the history of the world some focus, the chapters are broken down into things like society, religion, science, and culture. A great example of the book can be found in the chapter on commerce, where newspapers float in the high-supply, low-demand quadrant of a supply/demand graph, just below ketchup packets and slightly above blogs.
One warning about this book - it will help tremendously if you have above-average intelligence, enjoy satire, follow pop culture, and have watched The Daily Show. If you aren't into any of those things, you aren't going to get this book. If you are into at least 2 of those 4, you will be entertained.
4 out of 4, and it will be one of the best books you'll ever read.
Spring Break gave me a chance to finally read through the latest book from the writers of The Daily Show, Earth (The Book). This "Citizen's Guide to the Human Race" may be the most entertaining, sharpest, and cleverly written book I've ever read. It again takes the textbook format used in the prior book, but this time to an even higher level.
Earth (The Book) is aimed at an audience of aliens who find the Earth deserted after the human race spectacularly manufactures its own demise. The subject matter has shifted from US politics and education to the planet and world civilization. And while America (The Book) was mostly written with many text passages and included commented infographics, Earth (The Book) is basically the opposite, with more commented infographics making for dozens of satice-laced jokes per page.
To give the history of the world some focus, the chapters are broken down into things like society, religion, science, and culture. A great example of the book can be found in the chapter on commerce, where newspapers float in the high-supply, low-demand quadrant of a supply/demand graph, just below ketchup packets and slightly above blogs.
One warning about this book - it will help tremendously if you have above-average intelligence, enjoy satire, follow pop culture, and have watched The Daily Show. If you aren't into any of those things, you aren't going to get this book. If you are into at least 2 of those 4, you will be entertained.
4 out of 4, and it will be one of the best books you'll ever read.
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
Beached Whales
Took last week off for a Florida vacation, and came back with a lot of things worth blogging about. Let's start with people at the beach.
I was at a prominent Gulf coast beach for several days, and I'm sorry to report that for the most part, the people-watching wasn't pleasant. Oh sure, there are some young hardbodies out there. The problem is, for every 1 of them there were 10 overweight slobs who have no business wearing a swimming suit.
It was universal, too - men and women of all ages and colors (including the color of sunburned) were showing off their rolls like proud bakers. I even noticed a few who hit the 'beach sloth trifecta': Fat, sunburned, and smoking cigarettes.
To add injury to insult, most of these folks were crammed into swim suits that were too small. Probably fit them a couple of years and several dozen pounds ago, but not anymore. It was hideous, it really was.
I support the development of a new flag symbol at the beach, to go with the ones lifeguards fly for dangerous weather conditions. Something to warn beachgoers of a higher than normal population of unattractive people in ill-fitting swimwear.
I was at a prominent Gulf coast beach for several days, and I'm sorry to report that for the most part, the people-watching wasn't pleasant. Oh sure, there are some young hardbodies out there. The problem is, for every 1 of them there were 10 overweight slobs who have no business wearing a swimming suit.
It was universal, too - men and women of all ages and colors (including the color of sunburned) were showing off their rolls like proud bakers. I even noticed a few who hit the 'beach sloth trifecta': Fat, sunburned, and smoking cigarettes.
To add injury to insult, most of these folks were crammed into swim suits that were too small. Probably fit them a couple of years and several dozen pounds ago, but not anymore. It was hideous, it really was.
I support the development of a new flag symbol at the beach, to go with the ones lifeguards fly for dangerous weather conditions. Something to warn beachgoers of a higher than normal population of unattractive people in ill-fitting swimwear.
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
Being Better At Behaving Badly
I've blogged before about the virtues of taxing unhealthy foods, like we do cigarettes. Society pays future costs for smoking and obesity, so people who smoke and don't eat right should pay a price.
For another spin on this, below I've pasted the text of a blog post yesterday from Jane Wells of CNBC. This is NOT an argument against taxing unhealthy food, it's an argument that on the plus side (no pun intended!) we are far ahead of other countries in smoking cessation. (She refers to Asian countries here, but you can also include much of Europe):
"As I surveyed the human flesh crowding Waikiki last week, I noticed a marked difference between Americans and everyone else.
We're fat (and covered with a lot of ink). Everyone else, mostly tourists from Asia, are trim and tattoo-free. They're also desperately looking for someplace to smoke.
(On) Fat Tuesday, it's time to consider whether the real battle for global supremacy isn't about better ideas or better weapons. Instead, it may be about the least deadly habit: our guts versus their lungs. Who'll be the last man standing?
Currently, the CIA says people born in Japan and Korea can expect to live longer than those born in the U.S., though we're still ahead of Taiwan and China.
But these rivals for economic growth are watching their populations smoke like chimneys, while Americans are smoking less. The Centers for Disease Control says about 443,000 Americans die of smoking-related disease each year, compared to 112,000who die due to complications related to obesity (though this figure comes from 2005).
Of course, if we continue to gorge ourselves, those numbers could flip flop. But as you head into Lent, a season of fasting and sacrifice, at least consider the possibility this Mardi Gras that being "gras" isn't as bad as being a smoker."
For another spin on this, below I've pasted the text of a blog post yesterday from Jane Wells of CNBC. This is NOT an argument against taxing unhealthy food, it's an argument that on the plus side (no pun intended!) we are far ahead of other countries in smoking cessation. (She refers to Asian countries here, but you can also include much of Europe):
"As I surveyed the human flesh crowding Waikiki last week, I noticed a marked difference between Americans and everyone else.
We're fat (and covered with a lot of ink). Everyone else, mostly tourists from Asia, are trim and tattoo-free. They're also desperately looking for someplace to smoke.
(On) Fat Tuesday, it's time to consider whether the real battle for global supremacy isn't about better ideas or better weapons. Instead, it may be about the least deadly habit: our guts versus their lungs. Who'll be the last man standing?
Currently, the CIA says people born in Japan and Korea can expect to live longer than those born in the U.S., though we're still ahead of Taiwan and China.
But these rivals for economic growth are watching their populations smoke like chimneys, while Americans are smoking less. The Centers for Disease Control says about 443,000 Americans die of smoking-related disease each year, compared to 112,000who die due to complications related to obesity (though this figure comes from 2005).
Of course, if we continue to gorge ourselves, those numbers could flip flop. But as you head into Lent, a season of fasting and sacrifice, at least consider the possibility this Mardi Gras that being "gras" isn't as bad as being a smoker."
Friday, March 4, 2011
We Need More Critical Thinkers
A while ago, I blogged about the politically incorrect topic of stupid people, and how this country has too many of them. It's a statistical fact - check it out.
http://streffblog.blogspot.com/2009/08/stupidity-is-easy.html
Reducing dumbness, however, is only part of the answer to curing society's ills. If we had more 'book-smart' people, that would help, but what we really need are more critical thinkers.
A critical thinker doesn't accept everything they see or hear as fact. They have an ability to separate fact from fiction, based on probabilities and god-given common sense. This negates the herd mentality.
Here's an example from just this past week. More than one person I know, who apparently don't have enough to do, forwarded me emails about some outrageous act of a politician. Since stupid people believe everything they read on the internet, especially things forwarded to them by acquaintances, I can only imagine the collective outrage of the recipients.
Except that none of the email was true. Folks, all you have to do in go to a search engine and type in a few of the key words along with the word 'hoax'. More often than not, you'll find out the email you got had more to its story.
I know, I know, I'm using the internet to prove something else on the internet wasn't true. Fortunately, I'm a critical thinker, and I can separate fact from fiction on the intenet!
Imagine how much better the world might be if more people thought critically, and didn't just accept the words, actions, or faith of others. But suffice it to say - again - that most people are sheep, easily led to the slaughter. That's the entire business plan of Fox News, right?
So if someone tells you to stop being a critic, tell them to start being a critical thinker!
http://streffblog.blogspot.com/2009/08/stupidity-is-easy.html
Reducing dumbness, however, is only part of the answer to curing society's ills. If we had more 'book-smart' people, that would help, but what we really need are more critical thinkers.
A critical thinker doesn't accept everything they see or hear as fact. They have an ability to separate fact from fiction, based on probabilities and god-given common sense. This negates the herd mentality.
Here's an example from just this past week. More than one person I know, who apparently don't have enough to do, forwarded me emails about some outrageous act of a politician. Since stupid people believe everything they read on the internet, especially things forwarded to them by acquaintances, I can only imagine the collective outrage of the recipients.
Except that none of the email was true. Folks, all you have to do in go to a search engine and type in a few of the key words along with the word 'hoax'. More often than not, you'll find out the email you got had more to its story.
I know, I know, I'm using the internet to prove something else on the internet wasn't true. Fortunately, I'm a critical thinker, and I can separate fact from fiction on the intenet!
Imagine how much better the world might be if more people thought critically, and didn't just accept the words, actions, or faith of others. But suffice it to say - again - that most people are sheep, easily led to the slaughter. That's the entire business plan of Fox News, right?
So if someone tells you to stop being a critic, tell them to start being a critical thinker!
Friday, February 25, 2011
Movies That Should Have Won The Oscar
The 2011 Academy Awards are being presented this weekend. This year I've actually seen several of the nominees for best picture, so I might even try to watch the show.
This has me thinking about all of the movies I consider to be great, but didn't win the Oscar or even get nominated. In other words, they aren't dramas. Here my top 5 without thinking about it too much.
Caddyshack. More memorable characters and one-liners than any movie in history.
Airplane! A movie way ahead of its time.
When Harry Met Sally. Maybe the best romantic-comedy ever. Meg Ryan deserved an Oscar just for her fake orgasm scene.
Bull Durham. Also maybe the best romantic-comedy ever. It even had the benefit of having a sports-related theme.
School Of Rock. Fantastic acting by Jack Black. Although he probably wasn't acting that much.
Plenty of animated movies come to mind as well. Many of the Pixar movies are great, including any of the Toy Story movies - although this last one actually was nominated for best movie!
This has me thinking about all of the movies I consider to be great, but didn't win the Oscar or even get nominated. In other words, they aren't dramas. Here my top 5 without thinking about it too much.
Caddyshack. More memorable characters and one-liners than any movie in history.
Airplane! A movie way ahead of its time.
When Harry Met Sally. Maybe the best romantic-comedy ever. Meg Ryan deserved an Oscar just for her fake orgasm scene.
Bull Durham. Also maybe the best romantic-comedy ever. It even had the benefit of having a sports-related theme.
School Of Rock. Fantastic acting by Jack Black. Although he probably wasn't acting that much.
Plenty of animated movies come to mind as well. Many of the Pixar movies are great, including any of the Toy Story movies - although this last one actually was nominated for best movie!
Friday, February 18, 2011
The Failed Politics of Religion
Yesterday the following letter to the editor appeared in the Des Moines Register:
"Recently, I received a request for money from the Catholic Diocese of Des Moines. This annual appeal, signed by the bishop, arrived about the same time his lobbyist was testifying in the Iowa Legislature in favor of House Study Bill 50, the Religious Conscience Protection Act."
"This proposal would legislate broad discrimination aimed mostly at married gays. That this measure is cloaked in "religious conscience" seems hypocritical, and that my church actively supports it is for me appalling and embarrassing. Fortunately, at least for the moment, the bill is dead. Unfortunately, for me, the disappointment in my church lingers."
"Sorry, bishop, my conscience will no longer allow me to support the diocese."
I couldn't have said it better myself. Forget about how this bill is an incredibly stupid attempt to legislate morality in this state. Focus instead on this being one of many examples of the consequences of mixing religion with politics.
If my religion strongly opposes something I strongly believe in, how do I reconcile that with their requests for me to tithe, or otherwise fund their ability to continue that opposition? The only answer I can come up with is to show support by way of service and not by way of money.
I understand the fight for social justice must in some respects be played out in the legislature or the courts, and there is a financial cost to that. I get that. But that fight for compassion is a far cry from financially supporting a religious dogma that has little to do with faith.
So how to you keep religion from mixing with politics? Easy. Eliminate the tax-exemptions for churches and other organizations who actively lobby. Once these organizations experience the financial hurt of their actions, they might just be a little bit more keen to the emotional hurt they put on people who simply don't share their faith or political convictions.
"Recently, I received a request for money from the Catholic Diocese of Des Moines. This annual appeal, signed by the bishop, arrived about the same time his lobbyist was testifying in the Iowa Legislature in favor of House Study Bill 50, the Religious Conscience Protection Act."
"This proposal would legislate broad discrimination aimed mostly at married gays. That this measure is cloaked in "religious conscience" seems hypocritical, and that my church actively supports it is for me appalling and embarrassing. Fortunately, at least for the moment, the bill is dead. Unfortunately, for me, the disappointment in my church lingers."
"Sorry, bishop, my conscience will no longer allow me to support the diocese."
I couldn't have said it better myself. Forget about how this bill is an incredibly stupid attempt to legislate morality in this state. Focus instead on this being one of many examples of the consequences of mixing religion with politics.
If my religion strongly opposes something I strongly believe in, how do I reconcile that with their requests for me to tithe, or otherwise fund their ability to continue that opposition? The only answer I can come up with is to show support by way of service and not by way of money.
I understand the fight for social justice must in some respects be played out in the legislature or the courts, and there is a financial cost to that. I get that. But that fight for compassion is a far cry from financially supporting a religious dogma that has little to do with faith.
So how to you keep religion from mixing with politics? Easy. Eliminate the tax-exemptions for churches and other organizations who actively lobby. Once these organizations experience the financial hurt of their actions, they might just be a little bit more keen to the emotional hurt they put on people who simply don't share their faith or political convictions.
Friday, February 11, 2011
Keeping Score
Competitive sorts like myself are notorious for keeping score on just about anything. I'm talking about things beyond games here, things like how often I have to wait for people who aren't on time, or how many times my neighbor clears my sidewalk of snow compared to how often I clear theirs.
I don't keep score of these things to win them, I keep score to make sure I don't lose them, to at least stay even. That way I don't have to feel guily, or worry about looking like an ingrate.
I'd say most people don't keep score. I'd further say that most people would tell you that's a good thing. I disagree. Sure, sometimes that's a plus, because there are people out there who are simply generous. The score means nothing to generous people; everyone should be thankful for that.
But in the final analysis, I think most of the people who don't keep score are inconsiderate at best, mean-spirited at worst. These people never pay it forward, either, because they don't realize that others have done something for them. They take no ownership in their lack of consideration, and give no gratitude to those kind enough to forgive them for it.
I even see this in families. Certain family members may show tremendous support for their kin in times of success or failure, then largely ignore simliar times in another relative's life. I suppose in some families this might be intentional, but regardless, it ultimately ends in resentment.
If people want to start being more considerate, I suggest they start keeping score.
I don't keep score of these things to win them, I keep score to make sure I don't lose them, to at least stay even. That way I don't have to feel guily, or worry about looking like an ingrate.
I'd say most people don't keep score. I'd further say that most people would tell you that's a good thing. I disagree. Sure, sometimes that's a plus, because there are people out there who are simply generous. The score means nothing to generous people; everyone should be thankful for that.
But in the final analysis, I think most of the people who don't keep score are inconsiderate at best, mean-spirited at worst. These people never pay it forward, either, because they don't realize that others have done something for them. They take no ownership in their lack of consideration, and give no gratitude to those kind enough to forgive them for it.
I even see this in families. Certain family members may show tremendous support for their kin in times of success or failure, then largely ignore simliar times in another relative's life. I suppose in some families this might be intentional, but regardless, it ultimately ends in resentment.
If people want to start being more considerate, I suggest they start keeping score.
Thursday, February 3, 2011
Whacked Out In The Head
In a couple of prior posts, I've gone over something called the Tyson Zone, popularized by writer Bill Simmons of ESPN. I've noted a couple of local politicians who ought to be in the that club, and over time I'm sure there will be more.
However, I've decided I need my own name. to enshrine those, especially politicians, who aren't all there. For now, I will give these people the moniker of Whacked Out In The Head.
Along with Bob Vander Plaats and Steve King, my inital inductees to WOITH are 3 new Iowa legislators who apparently don't care about anything but social conservative issues, along with a speaker at a open legislative forum on gay marriage.
Let's start with the 3 Fox TV wannabes. Their names are Glen Massie, Kim Pearson, and Kent Sorenson. Each of them happen to be a Tea Party favorite with (coincidentally?) extreme right-wing views. Although freshmen legislators, they are, among other things, taking the lead in supporting legislation to impeach the remaining Iowa supreme court justices who were a part of the court's unanimous ruling that legalized gay marriage. (You'll recall that removing those judges, purely for this single political reason, has become the life goal of Bob Vander Plaats.)
Anyone and everyone in Iowa knows this impeachment idea is a non-starter. No crimes were committed. It doesn't even have the support of the majority of their Republican party brethern. It's a total waste of taxpayer time and money. But that hasn't stopped these three WOITHers. In the meantime, dealing with the fiscal restraint issues on which they were supposedly elected (isn't that the Tea Party mandate?) will have to wait. They make me embarassed for Iowa, a la Steve King, that they could be elected to political office by a supposedly intelligent electorate.
Now to our anonymous speaker, who spoke this week at an open legislative forum regarding putting a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage on the ballot. (Note: This is actually the only sensible approach to this issue - let Iowans decide how they want to govern themselves. That's how many other states handle social issues; the representative approach doesn't work. Let people, not politics, decide.) This female speaker, whom I've chosen not to name, warned of unintended consequences of same-sex marriage by saying, "How do we fend off bigamy, polygamy? What about people who want to marry computer generated images?"
Regardless of our differences about gay marriage, can we not all agree that this lady, and anyone else who believes that, is Whacked In The Head? (Contrast that comment with another speaker, which has gone viral on the internet: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSQQK2Vuf9Q
Please feel free to send your future nominees for the WOITH club to me. There is certainly no shortage of candidates.
However, I've decided I need my own name. to enshrine those, especially politicians, who aren't all there. For now, I will give these people the moniker of Whacked Out In The Head.
Along with Bob Vander Plaats and Steve King, my inital inductees to WOITH are 3 new Iowa legislators who apparently don't care about anything but social conservative issues, along with a speaker at a open legislative forum on gay marriage.
Let's start with the 3 Fox TV wannabes. Their names are Glen Massie, Kim Pearson, and Kent Sorenson. Each of them happen to be a Tea Party favorite with (coincidentally?) extreme right-wing views. Although freshmen legislators, they are, among other things, taking the lead in supporting legislation to impeach the remaining Iowa supreme court justices who were a part of the court's unanimous ruling that legalized gay marriage. (You'll recall that removing those judges, purely for this single political reason, has become the life goal of Bob Vander Plaats.)
Anyone and everyone in Iowa knows this impeachment idea is a non-starter. No crimes were committed. It doesn't even have the support of the majority of their Republican party brethern. It's a total waste of taxpayer time and money. But that hasn't stopped these three WOITHers. In the meantime, dealing with the fiscal restraint issues on which they were supposedly elected (isn't that the Tea Party mandate?) will have to wait. They make me embarassed for Iowa, a la Steve King, that they could be elected to political office by a supposedly intelligent electorate.
Now to our anonymous speaker, who spoke this week at an open legislative forum regarding putting a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage on the ballot. (Note: This is actually the only sensible approach to this issue - let Iowans decide how they want to govern themselves. That's how many other states handle social issues; the representative approach doesn't work. Let people, not politics, decide.) This female speaker, whom I've chosen not to name, warned of unintended consequences of same-sex marriage by saying, "How do we fend off bigamy, polygamy? What about people who want to marry computer generated images?"
Regardless of our differences about gay marriage, can we not all agree that this lady, and anyone else who believes that, is Whacked In The Head? (Contrast that comment with another speaker, which has gone viral on the internet: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSQQK2Vuf9Q
Please feel free to send your future nominees for the WOITH club to me. There is certainly no shortage of candidates.
Thursday, January 27, 2011
Best Song Lyrics (Part V)
Anyone over 40 who gives a damn about music will remember the artist formerly known as Cat Stevens. He made a lot of popular acoustic music in the late sixties and early seventies, including songs like, 'Oh Very Young' and, 'Wild World'. Like a lot of singers those days, his music was as much about the words as the melody. He had something to say.
After a religious conversion in 1977, he changed his name to Yusaf Islam and left the recording industry behind for more than two decades. He's since returned to write and perform music to communicate a message of political and religious tolerance.
This blog entry showcases the lyrics from the 1971 hit, 'Peace Train'. (I always thought Obama could have used this as an election theme song in 2008, had the artist not been somewhat controversial.)
Now I've been happy lately,
thinking about the good things to come
And I believe it could be,
something good has begun
Oh I've been smiling lately,
dreaming about the world as one
And I believe it could be,
some day it's going to come
Cause out on the edge of darkness,
there rides a peace train
Oh peace train take this country,
come take me home again
Get your bags together,
go bring your good friends too
Cause it's getting nearer,
it soon will be with you
Now come and join the living,
it's not so far from you
And it's getting nearer,
soon it will all be true
Cause out on the edge of darkness,
there rides a peace train
Oh peace train take this country,
come take me home again
After a religious conversion in 1977, he changed his name to Yusaf Islam and left the recording industry behind for more than two decades. He's since returned to write and perform music to communicate a message of political and religious tolerance.
This blog entry showcases the lyrics from the 1971 hit, 'Peace Train'. (I always thought Obama could have used this as an election theme song in 2008, had the artist not been somewhat controversial.)
Now I've been happy lately,
thinking about the good things to come
And I believe it could be,
something good has begun
Oh I've been smiling lately,
dreaming about the world as one
And I believe it could be,
some day it's going to come
Cause out on the edge of darkness,
there rides a peace train
Oh peace train take this country,
come take me home again
Get your bags together,
go bring your good friends too
Cause it's getting nearer,
it soon will be with you
Now come and join the living,
it's not so far from you
And it's getting nearer,
soon it will all be true
Cause out on the edge of darkness,
there rides a peace train
Oh peace train take this country,
come take me home again
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
When Preschool = Free Daycare
In the Spring of 2007, I had a couple of letters to the editor published in The Des Moines Register. The letters decried a bill in the Democrat-controlled Iowa legislature that would create a statewide, taxpayer-funded preschool program. The bill was paassed and signed into law by our goofball governor at the time, at a then-estimated first year cost to taxpayers of $15 million. (Actual cost since then: $156 million.)
I was reminded of this again this week, as the now-Republican controlled legislature attempts to end this program along with many others, to cut spending. Actually, it wouldn't be eliminated, but replaced by a voucher system with income/means testing. Sounds reasonable, right?
Well, the tax-and-spenders don't think so. Nor do the parents who want to use the preschool program. They want us to believe that the tax money is worth it, that we're getting better-prepared kids out of this deal. They have better 'social skills' you know. And they can really fingerpaint up a storm.
The thing is, there's no independent study that can verify that preschool leads to a better civilization, and certainly no way to justify the cost. Regardless, if a person truly believed it was worth it, they should be willing to pay for it themselves. Why socialize the cost to taxpayers who don't believe in it?
My argument against what some call 'free' preschool today is the same as it was in 2007. If we're being intellectually honest, a program with no means testing is all about dual-career parents who don't want to pay for daycare.
Here an exerpt of the letters I wrote:
"Unless someone gives Iowa a golden goose or a money tree, I doubt Iowa taxpayers will consider it to be 'free' preschool. At a projected cost of $75 million annually by 2013-2014, that isn't free preschool, it's taxpayer-funded daycare. A statewide preschool program is simply a natural evolution from all-day kindergarten, another taxpayer-funded creation that didn't exist entil dual income parents decided they didn't want to pay for another year of full-time daycare. If it's so worth it, why stop at preschool? Just set up a program that makes Iowa taxpayers fund an educational program that starts at birth."
I should submit those old letters to the Register now - they're still accurate.
I was reminded of this again this week, as the now-Republican controlled legislature attempts to end this program along with many others, to cut spending. Actually, it wouldn't be eliminated, but replaced by a voucher system with income/means testing. Sounds reasonable, right?
Well, the tax-and-spenders don't think so. Nor do the parents who want to use the preschool program. They want us to believe that the tax money is worth it, that we're getting better-prepared kids out of this deal. They have better 'social skills' you know. And they can really fingerpaint up a storm.
The thing is, there's no independent study that can verify that preschool leads to a better civilization, and certainly no way to justify the cost. Regardless, if a person truly believed it was worth it, they should be willing to pay for it themselves. Why socialize the cost to taxpayers who don't believe in it?
My argument against what some call 'free' preschool today is the same as it was in 2007. If we're being intellectually honest, a program with no means testing is all about dual-career parents who don't want to pay for daycare.
Here an exerpt of the letters I wrote:
"Unless someone gives Iowa a golden goose or a money tree, I doubt Iowa taxpayers will consider it to be 'free' preschool. At a projected cost of $75 million annually by 2013-2014, that isn't free preschool, it's taxpayer-funded daycare. A statewide preschool program is simply a natural evolution from all-day kindergarten, another taxpayer-funded creation that didn't exist entil dual income parents decided they didn't want to pay for another year of full-time daycare. If it's so worth it, why stop at preschool? Just set up a program that makes Iowa taxpayers fund an educational program that starts at birth."
I should submit those old letters to the Register now - they're still accurate.
Thursday, January 13, 2011
Resolutions For Investing
The start of a new year lends itself to making personal and professional commitments for the future. Here are a few resolutions that might be helpful anyone's plans for financial success:
Ignore the financial media. Like others in their field, the financial media want to tell the extraordinary story, something that will increase their audience. Fortunately for them, there are many ‘experts’ claiming an extraordinary ability to predict the future direction of markets. Unfortunately for investors, such stories mask the truth – no one can accurately predict the future. Identifying and ignoring this hype allows investors to make investment decisions based on personal needs, instead of the biased opinions of strangers.
Determine your risk tolerance. One of the cornerstone concepts of investing is that risk and return are related. Investors who seek higher returns can only do so by accepting more risk, but more risk also increases the possibility of a negative outcome. It’s crucial for investors to decide how much volatility they are willing to accept over both short and long-term periods. Only then can one construct an asset allocation that is right for their risk tolerance. This is the cornerstone of investing, yet it is often overlooked.
Do not attempt to time the market. In 2010, the broad stock market hit its low point around July 1. If you would have left the market at that time, and followed the conventional wisdom of a double-dip recession, you would have missed the subsequent broad stock market rally of 20%+ over the last half of the year! Plus, now you would have to decide the ‘right’ time to reinvest. While it’s human nature to follow the latest investment fad, this is yet another example of the outcome an investor can expect when trying to time the market.
Focus on what you can control. Worry is a useless emotion, especially in financial markets, where movements are largely based on unpredictable and uncontrollable events. Investors who focus on that uncertainty are sure to have anxiety over what the future holds. That unease can be avoided by concentrating on financial planning items that can be controlled, such as discretionary spending and desired risk. Investors cannot control the market, but they can control making emotional decisions related to it.
Just as an exercise partner will help someone keep a resolution for a healthier future, I tell people that I will be their investment partner to keep these resolutions for their financial future. Here’s to good health and good wealth in 2011!
Ignore the financial media. Like others in their field, the financial media want to tell the extraordinary story, something that will increase their audience. Fortunately for them, there are many ‘experts’ claiming an extraordinary ability to predict the future direction of markets. Unfortunately for investors, such stories mask the truth – no one can accurately predict the future. Identifying and ignoring this hype allows investors to make investment decisions based on personal needs, instead of the biased opinions of strangers.
Determine your risk tolerance. One of the cornerstone concepts of investing is that risk and return are related. Investors who seek higher returns can only do so by accepting more risk, but more risk also increases the possibility of a negative outcome. It’s crucial for investors to decide how much volatility they are willing to accept over both short and long-term periods. Only then can one construct an asset allocation that is right for their risk tolerance. This is the cornerstone of investing, yet it is often overlooked.
Do not attempt to time the market. In 2010, the broad stock market hit its low point around July 1. If you would have left the market at that time, and followed the conventional wisdom of a double-dip recession, you would have missed the subsequent broad stock market rally of 20%+ over the last half of the year! Plus, now you would have to decide the ‘right’ time to reinvest. While it’s human nature to follow the latest investment fad, this is yet another example of the outcome an investor can expect when trying to time the market.
Focus on what you can control. Worry is a useless emotion, especially in financial markets, where movements are largely based on unpredictable and uncontrollable events. Investors who focus on that uncertainty are sure to have anxiety over what the future holds. That unease can be avoided by concentrating on financial planning items that can be controlled, such as discretionary spending and desired risk. Investors cannot control the market, but they can control making emotional decisions related to it.
Just as an exercise partner will help someone keep a resolution for a healthier future, I tell people that I will be their investment partner to keep these resolutions for their financial future. Here’s to good health and good wealth in 2011!
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
The Biggest Loser Losers
I don't watch much reality television, which come to think of it, is fairly limiting. However, I watch enough to know that some reality shows are more watchable (e.g. The Amazing Race) than others (e.g. anything on MTV or VH1).
There's one reality TV show that many would consider to be more watchable, but that I consider to be a blight on the nation - The Biggest Loser. Obese people from across America who go to a fat ranch to learn how to eat right and exercise, the 'winner' being the person who loses the highest percentage weight, and also happens not to tick off other contestants who might vote them out along the way. (It even sounds boring, doesn't it?)
What kills me about this show is how it's framed as a 'feel good' story for everyone. Basically, each contestant has a reason why they are fat, something that no mere mortal could possbly have overcome. It's usually blamed on a rough upbringing, or death, or depression, or genetics, or whatever, and apparently they tried to cope with their problems by doing little else but eating. How could you blame them, right?
Let me try. I have a certain disdain for obesity, something that goes way beyond just the gross-ness of it. To wit, fat people cost society money, ergo fat people cost me money. I've blogged about this before (http://streffblog.blogspot.com/2009/08/tax-on-fat-people.html).
While there may be a few exceptions, the vast majority of obese people are that way by choice. Genetics and childhood environment may have something to do with it, but let's face it, it also takes a big dose of lazy. It's a mindset, the kind that takes the easy way out. Most Americans are like that, it just that most Americans also muster up the will to move, to take control of their life, to do what's right instead of what's lazy. On most days.
But The Biggest Loser doesn't want people to think about that. They want viewers to root for their poor, common sense-challenged contestants, who have suddenly decided to try to lose weight with the help of network television. Why those same contestants can't try to exercise and eat right without millions of other people watching, I don't know. Apparently some people aren't motivated by trying to not be a replusive-looking burden on society, they also need to be motivated by money and attention.
Dear Obese People - Stop trying to become a reality show freak, set down the Twinkies, roll off of the couch, look in the mirror, and stop living your life in a way that makes everyone else pay for your poor choices.
There's one reality TV show that many would consider to be more watchable, but that I consider to be a blight on the nation - The Biggest Loser. Obese people from across America who go to a fat ranch to learn how to eat right and exercise, the 'winner' being the person who loses the highest percentage weight, and also happens not to tick off other contestants who might vote them out along the way. (It even sounds boring, doesn't it?)
What kills me about this show is how it's framed as a 'feel good' story for everyone. Basically, each contestant has a reason why they are fat, something that no mere mortal could possbly have overcome. It's usually blamed on a rough upbringing, or death, or depression, or genetics, or whatever, and apparently they tried to cope with their problems by doing little else but eating. How could you blame them, right?
Let me try. I have a certain disdain for obesity, something that goes way beyond just the gross-ness of it. To wit, fat people cost society money, ergo fat people cost me money. I've blogged about this before (http://streffblog.blogspot.com/2009/08/tax-on-fat-people.html).
While there may be a few exceptions, the vast majority of obese people are that way by choice. Genetics and childhood environment may have something to do with it, but let's face it, it also takes a big dose of lazy. It's a mindset, the kind that takes the easy way out. Most Americans are like that, it just that most Americans also muster up the will to move, to take control of their life, to do what's right instead of what's lazy. On most days.
But The Biggest Loser doesn't want people to think about that. They want viewers to root for their poor, common sense-challenged contestants, who have suddenly decided to try to lose weight with the help of network television. Why those same contestants can't try to exercise and eat right without millions of other people watching, I don't know. Apparently some people aren't motivated by trying to not be a replusive-looking burden on society, they also need to be motivated by money and attention.
Dear Obese People - Stop trying to become a reality show freak, set down the Twinkies, roll off of the couch, look in the mirror, and stop living your life in a way that makes everyone else pay for your poor choices.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)