There's this guy on CNBC (finance + business channel) show called Mad Money with Jim Kramer. He gives out supposedly "good" stock tips.
Total joke.
I don't understand how people think some of those late night informercials that teach about financial freedom (like Carleton Sheets, Robert Kioysaki, etc) are get rich scams but however the fact that this guy Kramer has a TV show makes him any more legit. In fact, I think Kramer is more of a get rich quick scammer more than anyone else I see on TV. (Ok, maybe Don Lapre is still the greatest and most interesting scammer.)
One of his advices... "Buy low, sell how is a myth. Buy high and sell higher, that's how you make mad money!" Oh brother. I wonder how many people who actually listen to him are actually rich.
He advocates FLIPPING stocks like how people FLIP real estate. There is no value added to the economy when people do that. No value = no profit. You just end up paying shitload of capital gains tax and fill those exciting IRS forms.
Investing is just like working out. If you take steroids and pump iron hard for one month, sure you might see some results. But how long is that gonna last? Or sprinting a marathon.. how much distance can you cover? Or marrying someone you met a month ago... how long will this love-y dubby phase last when you barely know the person?
Slow and steady wins the race b/c quite frankly... race is longer than most people think.
Invest for LONG term. That's how you create REAL value, thus REAL profits. You don't believe me? Ask Warren Buffett, Bill Gates, Donald Trump, Peter Lynch, etc etc.
How does this Kramer guy actually consider stock flipping a form of investing? It's TRADING, NOT investing in, stocks. Sure, there are plenty of people who actually make money (and lots of it) trading stocks, but for the average Joe and people w/o strong stomach, this is really a BAD strategy.
There's this article about investing, easy to understand, concise, and to the point... to the RIGHT point: http://maivoice.blogspot.com/2007/02/start-investing-early-rule-of-72.html
Friday, February 23, 2007
Thursday, February 22, 2007
Free Lunches at Public School are BAD
Yes. Some kids need to starve.
Before I go on..
This blog is ALL about advocating SELF-EMPOWERMENT and criticizing SELF-ENTITLEMENT. I believe the only way a society can help itself is by letting individuals take control over their lives, including finances, health, and personal guidelines. There is nothing a goverment can do that will change or help people unless people themselves want to change.
Does mandated universal public education make people want and value education? No.
Does all this government spending on why people need to get their fat asses off the couches and go out to exercise make people want to get healthier and value their bodies? No.
Will mandated universal health insurance improve the health of the population? Probably not.
Now, all this has to do with personal desire. People get what they MUST have, not what they're told to have. When you legislate these things to people, it's just a law and that's all it is. The most important thing that's lacking is DESIRE.
Now... going back to the starving kids issue..
When you give out things for free, people automatically associate FREE with ZERO value. That's when people start taking things for granted, including free meal programs at public schools. In fact, I think giving kids free meals is actually a form of welfare. We're training kids to think that the government will take care of them and that they don't have to fight for their share since they'll get things for free.
Don't get me wrong. I've had free public school meals. I am VERY grateful that they existed. I have plenty of friends who were in positions of need, and have benefitted from them. However, like myself, many of these people have eventually learned to stand on their own two feet and not rely on government for the rest of their lives.
In fact, I would argue that if some of these kids starved a couple of times when they were young, they would develop a drive and motivation to stand on their own and NOT to rely on anyone else b/c they think they DESERVE it. Better to suffer a little early than to suffer (and complain) for YEARS later.
Do I propose that we ban public school lunches? No. The government should subsidize the food program, not make it free. Let the families come up with the rest so they'll value, not take for granted, these food programs.
Before I go on..
This blog is ALL about advocating SELF-EMPOWERMENT and criticizing SELF-ENTITLEMENT. I believe the only way a society can help itself is by letting individuals take control over their lives, including finances, health, and personal guidelines. There is nothing a goverment can do that will change or help people unless people themselves want to change.
Does mandated universal public education make people want and value education? No.
Does all this government spending on why people need to get their fat asses off the couches and go out to exercise make people want to get healthier and value their bodies? No.
Will mandated universal health insurance improve the health of the population? Probably not.
Now, all this has to do with personal desire. People get what they MUST have, not what they're told to have. When you legislate these things to people, it's just a law and that's all it is. The most important thing that's lacking is DESIRE.
Now... going back to the starving kids issue..
When you give out things for free, people automatically associate FREE with ZERO value. That's when people start taking things for granted, including free meal programs at public schools. In fact, I think giving kids free meals is actually a form of welfare. We're training kids to think that the government will take care of them and that they don't have to fight for their share since they'll get things for free.
Don't get me wrong. I've had free public school meals. I am VERY grateful that they existed. I have plenty of friends who were in positions of need, and have benefitted from them. However, like myself, many of these people have eventually learned to stand on their own two feet and not rely on government for the rest of their lives.
In fact, I would argue that if some of these kids starved a couple of times when they were young, they would develop a drive and motivation to stand on their own and NOT to rely on anyone else b/c they think they DESERVE it. Better to suffer a little early than to suffer (and complain) for YEARS later.
Do I propose that we ban public school lunches? No. The government should subsidize the food program, not make it free. Let the families come up with the rest so they'll value, not take for granted, these food programs.
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Is having a large military good for capitalism?
This one is more of a thought provoking question rather than an opinion.
On one hand I do tend to think that it is PRO-capitalistic to have a large military that is capable of defending the nation and its business interests. I would even argue that US got powerful thanks in large part to the military. Large military usually implies stable government, and stable government is a pre-requisite to businesses and investors moving into the region. Same reason why businesses move out of ghettos and poor countries.. b/c if their safety is threatened, there really isn't a profit motive that's motivating enough to risk your life and investment.
On the flip side, I also think it's actually anti-capitalistic b/c it's a HUGE financial liability that the society has to pay in order to have security. And of course, putting security ahead of freedom almost always leads to mental "poverty", which can lead to financial poverty. The fact that US military spending represents 25-30% of US budget is ridiculous. Can you imagine spending one forth of your income on home security systems?
Any thoughts?
On one hand I do tend to think that it is PRO-capitalistic to have a large military that is capable of defending the nation and its business interests. I would even argue that US got powerful thanks in large part to the military. Large military usually implies stable government, and stable government is a pre-requisite to businesses and investors moving into the region. Same reason why businesses move out of ghettos and poor countries.. b/c if their safety is threatened, there really isn't a profit motive that's motivating enough to risk your life and investment.
On the flip side, I also think it's actually anti-capitalistic b/c it's a HUGE financial liability that the society has to pay in order to have security. And of course, putting security ahead of freedom almost always leads to mental "poverty", which can lead to financial poverty. The fact that US military spending represents 25-30% of US budget is ridiculous. Can you imagine spending one forth of your income on home security systems?
Any thoughts?
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Senseless Cap
So there is now a growing sentiment among general population and the politicians that we should somehow put a cap on the salaries and bonuses of CEOs. They think that CEOs are getting outrageous financial compensation.
WHY? This is the dumbest shit I've heard!!! Out-freakin'-rageous!
What's next? Overthrow the bourgeoisie and reinstate proletarianism? Burn businesses down and start communal farms? Stamp IDs on people's foreheads and convert them into communist drones? Build Soviet style housing/buildings where the floors aren't leveled? Dress people in uniforms and condemn invidual thoughts?
My gawd.
CEOs of (successful) companies get paid according to their performance and the value they create. If he/she raises the value of the company by a million dollars and gets a $10,000 bonus, is that too much? Probably not. How about a billion dollars and $10 million in compensation? Too much? Why? In both cases, it's only 1%.. except in second case, MORE people got richer and MORE people got hired... and MORE tax was collected... and MORE was given back to society.
What da hell is this wrong with these people? They think somehow their f*cked up poor mentality is virtuous ... as if they were Robin Hoods or something. Robin Hood STOLE from corrupt government officials, not honest businesses.
If anything, Robin Hood, if he were alive, would argue against cap on CEO pay if he saw how generous some of these CEOs are. Voluntary redistribution of wealth, he would argue, is WAY more effective and efficient than that forced by the government. When was the last time you heard Medicare or social welfare running smoothly and without problems? All that does is create dependency and financial liability. It doesn't HELP society. It hurts it.
WHY? This is the dumbest shit I've heard!!! Out-freakin'-rageous!
What's next? Overthrow the bourgeoisie and reinstate proletarianism? Burn businesses down and start communal farms? Stamp IDs on people's foreheads and convert them into communist drones? Build Soviet style housing/buildings where the floors aren't leveled? Dress people in uniforms and condemn invidual thoughts?
My gawd.
CEOs of (successful) companies get paid according to their performance and the value they create. If he/she raises the value of the company by a million dollars and gets a $10,000 bonus, is that too much? Probably not. How about a billion dollars and $10 million in compensation? Too much? Why? In both cases, it's only 1%.. except in second case, MORE people got richer and MORE people got hired... and MORE tax was collected... and MORE was given back to society.
What da hell is this wrong with these people? They think somehow their f*cked up poor mentality is virtuous ... as if they were Robin Hoods or something. Robin Hood STOLE from corrupt government officials, not honest businesses.
If anything, Robin Hood, if he were alive, would argue against cap on CEO pay if he saw how generous some of these CEOs are. Voluntary redistribution of wealth, he would argue, is WAY more effective and efficient than that forced by the government. When was the last time you heard Medicare or social welfare running smoothly and without problems? All that does is create dependency and financial liability. It doesn't HELP society. It hurts it.
Monday, February 19, 2007
Discrimination and Capitalsm
There is no correlation between discrimination and capitalism. In fact, some might actually argue that capitalism usually leads to corruption and greed, and thus more discrimination. Does it really?
I tend to think otherwise. Imagine a society that is in dire need of labor for economic expansion. If you keep ignoring (or even hating) a certain segment of the population, the business man is ignoring a potential supply of workers who would help him expand his business and thus making him richer.
LA Riot for instance. People eventually healed and came to senses that senseless violence and ignorant hatred of others based on race is pointless. I am not saying racism is over or that the society is fully integrated. But when you are a member of the society (regardless of race), you realize you cannot survive or make any progress without the rest of the capitalist society, which include people of other races. To make progress in capitalism, you MUST interact with others.
But one might argue that communism is actually better in integrating the different races together. Does it really? Imagine a society where people get paid not based on performance, but based on what the society tell you. Would the society tell you that the minorities get paid same as the majority? I doubt that.
Not as thought provocative as other my posts.. but still, my 2 cents.
I tend to think otherwise. Imagine a society that is in dire need of labor for economic expansion. If you keep ignoring (or even hating) a certain segment of the population, the business man is ignoring a potential supply of workers who would help him expand his business and thus making him richer.
LA Riot for instance. People eventually healed and came to senses that senseless violence and ignorant hatred of others based on race is pointless. I am not saying racism is over or that the society is fully integrated. But when you are a member of the society (regardless of race), you realize you cannot survive or make any progress without the rest of the capitalist society, which include people of other races. To make progress in capitalism, you MUST interact with others.
But one might argue that communism is actually better in integrating the different races together. Does it really? Imagine a society where people get paid not based on performance, but based on what the society tell you. Would the society tell you that the minorities get paid same as the majority? I doubt that.
Not as thought provocative as other my posts.. but still, my 2 cents.
Friday, February 16, 2007
Down with Unions
Why do people still think that unions are good for the people? Unions are OUTDATED. Defunct. Irrelevant.
Sure, in the old days of industrial economy where the laws weren't as structured and the capitalists were somewhat evil, you needed to have the protection and power of the group. I would even say that unions helped to raise the living standards of the employees, which in turn made the country richer because now more people had more to spend. More to spend = more economy flow = stronger and better country.
What I propose is that it's now no longer necessary, and even HARMFUL, for people to form or join unions.
1) It is an outdated concept. We no longer need such individual protectionism from a group other than from the existing laws of the government. We're now in the information age, and the industrial aspects of the economy have been pretty much relegated to the third world countries. What matters now is not your strength, but your knowledge.
2) It makes the US economy inefficient. If unions FORCE businesses to pay higher wages while lowering the work hours (and hence potential productivity), businesses and their profts will suffer. They will find ways around it. How? They go to countries like China, India, Brazil, and Russia, where people WILL work more for less. (Unionized) American workers are complaining that the businesses are moving out of the country... BUT this is the reason why!
For example, a unionized construction worker that holds up a stop sign on roads near construction sites in NYC gets roughly $45 per hour (i saw this on 20/20), with time and a half for overtime. Now, is that fair? That's more than $100,000 a year in salary. Should he get paid 3x what teachers get paid? Does this worker really create $100,000 in value by standing there, with his gut sticking out, making rude noises at passing by ladies, and holding up a sign that basically a wooden POLE can do?
Another example, high tech industry in US by FAR the best in the world. I don't care what people say about China or India.. the biggest tech companies are in the US. Intel, Cisco, Microsoft, Google, Yahoo, Apple, etc etc. Why? Innovation, hard work, passion... and NO unions. This is true for the finance industry and any other industry where people are applying INFORMATION to make money. People in these industries are paid for performance and hard work, not some union telling them how many hours they can work or how much to get paid. Manufacturing (and other unionized) industries can't compete with their couterparts in rest of the world because of self-entitlement and unions that employees belong to
3) Creates more of self-entitlement. If people expect shit, they're not gonna go out there and fight for their fair share. The biggest reason why the US auto makers can't compete against the Japanese: that damn pension plan. Imagine you create a business for the sole sake of paying for your employees' retirement. Who in the WORLD would want to keep that business going? If I were the CEO, I would close shop, salvage whatever I can, and move on. Pensions are LIABILITIES that hinder the growth of the businesses. I would go as far as to say that the US auto makers are doomed, and so are the pension plans that go with them.
[ After thought ]
I can go on and on about how unions are basically useless and we should just get rid of them for once and for all. But I won't b/c I don't want to get ulcer.
Union bad. Business good.
Sure, in the old days of industrial economy where the laws weren't as structured and the capitalists were somewhat evil, you needed to have the protection and power of the group. I would even say that unions helped to raise the living standards of the employees, which in turn made the country richer because now more people had more to spend. More to spend = more economy flow = stronger and better country.
What I propose is that it's now no longer necessary, and even HARMFUL, for people to form or join unions.
1) It is an outdated concept. We no longer need such individual protectionism from a group other than from the existing laws of the government. We're now in the information age, and the industrial aspects of the economy have been pretty much relegated to the third world countries. What matters now is not your strength, but your knowledge.
2) It makes the US economy inefficient. If unions FORCE businesses to pay higher wages while lowering the work hours (and hence potential productivity), businesses and their profts will suffer. They will find ways around it. How? They go to countries like China, India, Brazil, and Russia, where people WILL work more for less. (Unionized) American workers are complaining that the businesses are moving out of the country... BUT this is the reason why!
For example, a unionized construction worker that holds up a stop sign on roads near construction sites in NYC gets roughly $45 per hour (i saw this on 20/20), with time and a half for overtime. Now, is that fair? That's more than $100,000 a year in salary. Should he get paid 3x what teachers get paid? Does this worker really create $100,000 in value by standing there, with his gut sticking out, making rude noises at passing by ladies, and holding up a sign that basically a wooden POLE can do?
Another example, high tech industry in US by FAR the best in the world. I don't care what people say about China or India.. the biggest tech companies are in the US. Intel, Cisco, Microsoft, Google, Yahoo, Apple, etc etc. Why? Innovation, hard work, passion... and NO unions. This is true for the finance industry and any other industry where people are applying INFORMATION to make money. People in these industries are paid for performance and hard work, not some union telling them how many hours they can work or how much to get paid. Manufacturing (and other unionized) industries can't compete with their couterparts in rest of the world because of self-entitlement and unions that employees belong to
3) Creates more of self-entitlement. If people expect shit, they're not gonna go out there and fight for their fair share. The biggest reason why the US auto makers can't compete against the Japanese: that damn pension plan. Imagine you create a business for the sole sake of paying for your employees' retirement. Who in the WORLD would want to keep that business going? If I were the CEO, I would close shop, salvage whatever I can, and move on. Pensions are LIABILITIES that hinder the growth of the businesses. I would go as far as to say that the US auto makers are doomed, and so are the pension plans that go with them.
[ After thought ]
I can go on and on about how unions are basically useless and we should just get rid of them for once and for all. But I won't b/c I don't want to get ulcer.
Union bad. Business good.
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
No quick fix.
Thomas Sowell takes my breath away.
No quick fix for economic 'disparities'
No quick fix for economic 'disparities'
Syndicated columnist
The media and academic obsessions with economic "disparities" have gone international. Recent news stories proclaim that most of "the world's wealth" belongs to a small fraction of the world's people.
Let's go back to square one. Just what is "the world's wealth"?
You can check in your local phone book, surf the Internet or do genealogical research: There is no one named "The World." How can a nonexistent being own wealth?
Human beings own wealth. Once we put aside lofty poetic nonsense about "the world's wealth," we at least have a fighting chance of talking sense about realities.
Who are these minority of the world's population who own a majority of the world's wealth?
They are the population of the United States, Western Europe, Japan and a few other affluent countries. How did these particular people come to possess so much more wealth than other people?
They did it the old-fashioned way. They produced the wealth that they own. You might as well ask why bees have so much more honey than other creatures.
The rhetoric of clever people can verbally collectivize all the wealth that was produced individually, and then they become aghast at the "disparities" that are magically turned into "inequities" in the distribution of "the world's wealth."
Have all the people in the world had an equal chance to produce wealth? No, nowhere close to an equal chance – either in the world or within a given society.
Geography alone makes the chances grossly unequal. How were Eskimos supposed to grow pineapples or desert bedouins to learn to fish?
How were people in the Balkans supposed to have an industrial revolution like that of Western Europe, when the Balkans had neither the raw materials required by an industrial revolution nor any economically viable way of transporting raw materials from other places?
The geographic handicaps of Africa would fill a book. French historian Fernand Braudel said: "In understanding Black Africa, geography is more important than history."
Geographic disparities are just the tip of the iceberg. Innumerable cultures have evolved differently in different places and among different peoples in the same places. No given individual controlled this process, and each generation began with the particular culture that generations before them had created.
Some cultures proved to be more economically productive at given places and times, and other cultures proved so at other places and times.
In our own time, the economic effects of these cultural differences often dwarf the effects of differences in material things like natural resources.
Natural resources in Uruguay and Venezuela are worth several times as much per capita as natural resources in Japan and Switzerland. But income per capita in Japan and Switzerland is about double that of Uruguay and several times that of Venezuela.
Nobody likes to see poverty in a world where technology and economic know-how already exist that could give everyone everywhere a decent standard of living.
All you have to do is change people. But have you ever tried that?
The quick fix is to transfer wealth. But decades of trying to do that with "foreign aid" has left a dismal record of failure and even retrogression in the Third World.
Some countries have themselves made changes that lifted them from poverty to prosperity. Indeed, the affluent countries of today were once living in poverty.
But they didn't do it with quick fixes or by turning a dangerous power over to politicians.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
