Time Magazine just came out with their "top 10" issue. They list the top ten in several categories. From movies to gadgets to even, lists. At the end of their lists' they ask us to list our top ten something. I thought I'd take a stab at it and ask any who read this to post their list as a comment. I'll choose a subject and give it a try. Here goes.
Top ten reasons to get up each morning:
1. Open my eyes to see Barb (my wife) next to me
2. Enjoy Scott's (my son) visit for a few minutes every morning
3. Spend time with Skittles (our dog) who demands my attention each morning
4. Experience the feeling that comes with the beginning of a new day
5. Enjoy that first cup of coffee with Barb and the Today show
6. The first step outdoors for whatever reason
7. Planning and discussing what to do in the day ahead
8. Eat breakfast, so many easy choices
9. Getting up to speed with the world through Internet and TV
10. Working on something that needs attention
The list would be a little different if we were in Pa. or Fl., but this is now and it fits Tx. Also it gets hard after number 5. The list is imperfect and might be different if I do it again next week.
But its like I said, a stab, my best shot for now. Please give it a try. We all would benefit
Thursday, December 18, 2008
Friday, December 12, 2008
Deserving Trust
As long as I can remember I have given people the benefit of the doubt. I just trusted people from the get-go. In early years maybe I was naive or gullible or both. When I was old enough, with experience, I still chose to expect the best from others and shied away only if they proved me wrong. I felt life would be better with that attitude. I really haven't been hurt much with that approach. In fact, we probably would not have a house in Pa. if I had taken the other position, but that's a different story. One that really supports my approach all those years.
The fraud that was revealed yesterday on Wall Street shakes my attitude. If you wonder what I'm talking about, a well respected investor, for years, played a sham on people who trusted him with their money. A lot of money. Maybe $50 billion . Very rich families, even charities, have lost everything. It was all a lie. They trusted first and never asked questions, they just accepted the lies as truth without evidence. Even the Government agencies, state and federal, didn't catch the guy, or worse yet, didn't care or bother to check.
Our country is really in a pickle. Our leadership, at least until now, has really let us down. What do we do now? I really don't know. Let's hope the new administration can change the direction of the tide of deception and greed that prevails in Washington and on Wall Street.
It will be a very difficult change to make.
As for me, I'm not changing. I will continue to trust people unless I'm proven wrong. It's too late for Washington and Wall Street. I don't think I will ever trust in them again. Our country was founded on the motto "In God We Trust".....our government has joined Wall Street and turned a blind eye to that motto.
The fraud that was revealed yesterday on Wall Street shakes my attitude. If you wonder what I'm talking about, a well respected investor, for years, played a sham on people who trusted him with their money. A lot of money. Maybe $50 billion . Very rich families, even charities, have lost everything. It was all a lie. They trusted first and never asked questions, they just accepted the lies as truth without evidence. Even the Government agencies, state and federal, didn't catch the guy, or worse yet, didn't care or bother to check.
Our country is really in a pickle. Our leadership, at least until now, has really let us down. What do we do now? I really don't know. Let's hope the new administration can change the direction of the tide of deception and greed that prevails in Washington and on Wall Street.
It will be a very difficult change to make.
As for me, I'm not changing. I will continue to trust people unless I'm proven wrong. It's too late for Washington and Wall Street. I don't think I will ever trust in them again. Our country was founded on the motto "In God We Trust".....our government has joined Wall Street and turned a blind eye to that motto.
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Bailout for Auto Industry
Does anyone really believe politicians can run Detroit any better than the greedy goons who have been in charge? I mean, they took their private jets to Washington the first time to ask for a handout then thought better next time and drove. That is, in a nutshell, how much forward thinking that has gone into these companies probably since I was born. They can't even anticipate how their actions would be perceived in their dire situation. How could they be expected to understand what would drive demand in favor of their cars.
Talk about reactive management, do you know anything more reactive than our Congress? They only respond to existing circumstances, there is no way they can strategically manage Detroit out of their misery. They can throw money at the problem but that's the extent of their ability. And it's our money!
Detroit's problems are so deep and complicated there is just no way that a politically appointed czar can do any better. Politics should have no part in this, but it would be the key issue, if an appointed czar answering to the President or Congress is the "solution".
The major concern seems to be the potential loss of jobs if bankruptcy happens. Well, it seems to me that the jobs that exist now are a big part of the problem. Too many jobs at too high a wage. One can't protect these jobs and expect to solve this situation. There are also concerns about supplier and dealer jobs. Here again, there are too many dealers and too much employment in the supplier ranks.
The demand for autos is not expected to return to the 2006-2007 levels. Therefore, one can't expect to maintain capacity throughout the system with lower overall demand. And we also must consider the foreign auto cos. who have taken market share over the past years and build these cars here in the U.S. Their demand and profits are hurt also but they are better positioned to weather the storm and will probably gain market share during this time. There will be a finite number of cars sold here no matter what. It all depends on who gets the business. Detroit will get some, but, based on today's cost structure they can't make a profit on what they will sell.
The best solution is to allow for the "survival of the fittest". That's what the animal kingdom is based on and also the premise that allows capitalism to exist. We have laws in place to allow for the orderly transition from "weak to strong" without being totally devoured in the process. It's called Chapter 11 bankruptcy.
I sure would enjoy reading others' position in this issue. Thanks.
Talk about reactive management, do you know anything more reactive than our Congress? They only respond to existing circumstances, there is no way they can strategically manage Detroit out of their misery. They can throw money at the problem but that's the extent of their ability. And it's our money!
Detroit's problems are so deep and complicated there is just no way that a politically appointed czar can do any better. Politics should have no part in this, but it would be the key issue, if an appointed czar answering to the President or Congress is the "solution".
The major concern seems to be the potential loss of jobs if bankruptcy happens. Well, it seems to me that the jobs that exist now are a big part of the problem. Too many jobs at too high a wage. One can't protect these jobs and expect to solve this situation. There are also concerns about supplier and dealer jobs. Here again, there are too many dealers and too much employment in the supplier ranks.
The demand for autos is not expected to return to the 2006-2007 levels. Therefore, one can't expect to maintain capacity throughout the system with lower overall demand. And we also must consider the foreign auto cos. who have taken market share over the past years and build these cars here in the U.S. Their demand and profits are hurt also but they are better positioned to weather the storm and will probably gain market share during this time. There will be a finite number of cars sold here no matter what. It all depends on who gets the business. Detroit will get some, but, based on today's cost structure they can't make a profit on what they will sell.
The best solution is to allow for the "survival of the fittest". That's what the animal kingdom is based on and also the premise that allows capitalism to exist. We have laws in place to allow for the orderly transition from "weak to strong" without being totally devoured in the process. It's called Chapter 11 bankruptcy.
I sure would enjoy reading others' position in this issue. Thanks.
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
I Really Love Our Dog
This is a big switch form previous subjects. But its just as important to me. Skittles is a very special dog. So smart....So sweet....So caring...and So "all knowing". And at the same time very dependent on us for his well being... physical and mental. Everyone who has a dog feels the same way, I'm sure.
When we go for short trips to town we always leave Skittles behind. He stays in the utility room with his water dish and sleeping pillow. We leave the utility door open to the rest of the house and put the iron fireplace screen in front of the door to keep him in and still let light in. He's fine with that as long as all these things are in place.
A few times, in our haste to leave, we have forgotten to put his sleeping pillow in the room with him. Well, when we came home we have found the screen gone from the door with a sleepy (what did you expect me to do) look on his face. One time he somehow pulled a hallway carpet runner under the screen and was laying comfortably on it when we came home.
When we travel with him his place is the backseat of the car. We have a seat belt for him, specially designed for dogs. He is not happy unless he is safely within his seat belt. If you don't have a safety belt for your dog you should look into it. A quick stop could result in major injury or worse for your dog.
I don't need to ramble on and on so I will stop now. Our dog gives us so much it boggles my mind when I stop to think about it. But we all should stop and think about it every now and then, and then go love on our dog. That's what I'm doing as soon as I post this note.
When we go for short trips to town we always leave Skittles behind. He stays in the utility room with his water dish and sleeping pillow. We leave the utility door open to the rest of the house and put the iron fireplace screen in front of the door to keep him in and still let light in. He's fine with that as long as all these things are in place.
A few times, in our haste to leave, we have forgotten to put his sleeping pillow in the room with him. Well, when we came home we have found the screen gone from the door with a sleepy (what did you expect me to do) look on his face. One time he somehow pulled a hallway carpet runner under the screen and was laying comfortably on it when we came home.
When we travel with him his place is the backseat of the car. We have a seat belt for him, specially designed for dogs. He is not happy unless he is safely within his seat belt. If you don't have a safety belt for your dog you should look into it. A quick stop could result in major injury or worse for your dog.
I don't need to ramble on and on so I will stop now. Our dog gives us so much it boggles my mind when I stop to think about it. But we all should stop and think about it every now and then, and then go love on our dog. That's what I'm doing as soon as I post this note.
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
Do Networks Report the News or Drive the News
Are we still at war? Last I looked we had several hundred thousand troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. We don't hear about that on the newscasts or the talk shows. Is the subject any less newsworthy? The economy is on the top of our minds for sure. But there are Americans still putting their lives at risk everyday....every minute.
Should the networks focus on what we are thinking about currently or on what is taking place around the world that affects us and others? Should we depend on the networks to inform us or to entertain us by satisfying our concerns of the present?
I believe that the primary motivation of the news networks is to gain audience thus gaining share of market and share of advertising revenues. We need to develop other sources to inform us about issues that are affecting us directly or indirectly.
Just look how screwed up our foreign policy became even with a focus of the news. Imagine what could be going on now since there is little or no focus. Are we letting the news establishment drive our opinions and current thinking? Are we really that lazy or do we just not care enough?
An open press is one of the major factors supporting our free society. Greed is the major cause of our current economic crisis. Will greed be the cause of the disappearance of our "free" press.
Should the networks focus on what we are thinking about currently or on what is taking place around the world that affects us and others? Should we depend on the networks to inform us or to entertain us by satisfying our concerns of the present?
I believe that the primary motivation of the news networks is to gain audience thus gaining share of market and share of advertising revenues. We need to develop other sources to inform us about issues that are affecting us directly or indirectly.
Just look how screwed up our foreign policy became even with a focus of the news. Imagine what could be going on now since there is little or no focus. Are we letting the news establishment drive our opinions and current thinking? Are we really that lazy or do we just not care enough?
An open press is one of the major factors supporting our free society. Greed is the major cause of our current economic crisis. Will greed be the cause of the disappearance of our "free" press.
Monday, December 8, 2008
Tom Brokaw, on Meet the Press, brought up an interesting option to Obama this Sunday. The idea isn't new.... Kerry brought the same idea up after the 70's oil embargo. In a nutshell, impose a higher gasoline tax at the pump to keep the consumer paying at a level that would insure continued conserving of gasoline.
Certainly there is a lot wrong with this idea, but it does have merits worth exploring. Think about how good we feel now when we fill up and "save" $30 plus each time. We were paying that $30 to foreign oil producing states just a couple of months ago. Wouldn't it be better to pay part of that $30 to our government instead of foreign governments? Especially if the higher price would keep a focus on alternative sources of fuel.
One could say that we need the break in prices now to offset the bad economy. That is very true. However, temporary rebates or incentive packages directly to the taxpayers could offset those taxes at the pump. Also the increased taxes could go a long way in funding the incentive plan proposed by Obama to rebuild our infrastructure including our highway system and bridges.
It's a pay me now or pay me later issue. Gas prices will go up as we build demand due to these lower prices. If we do nothing we will just make the foreign oil producing nations richer at our expense.
I've read that oil companies need $70 oil to justify drilling. If that is true then set the tax at a level to allow prices to be at the $70 level before the tax begins. In other words if our driving resistance is at about $3.75 at the pump and oil companies need a price at about $2.00 (equates to $70 oil) then the tax should be the difference or about $1.75 per gal. There would need to be some consideration or equalization of state taxes but that could be worked out.
Don't you agree that we need to do something? Aren't you a little concerned that these low gas prices will take the focus away from conservation and alternative fuel? Just look at what has happened to the stock prices of alternative energy companies since the gas prices have tanked, their stock tanked at a corresponding rate.
We need to move quickly while we still feel and remember the pain. What do you think?
Certainly there is a lot wrong with this idea, but it does have merits worth exploring. Think about how good we feel now when we fill up and "save" $30 plus each time. We were paying that $30 to foreign oil producing states just a couple of months ago. Wouldn't it be better to pay part of that $30 to our government instead of foreign governments? Especially if the higher price would keep a focus on alternative sources of fuel.
One could say that we need the break in prices now to offset the bad economy. That is very true. However, temporary rebates or incentive packages directly to the taxpayers could offset those taxes at the pump. Also the increased taxes could go a long way in funding the incentive plan proposed by Obama to rebuild our infrastructure including our highway system and bridges.
It's a pay me now or pay me later issue. Gas prices will go up as we build demand due to these lower prices. If we do nothing we will just make the foreign oil producing nations richer at our expense.
I've read that oil companies need $70 oil to justify drilling. If that is true then set the tax at a level to allow prices to be at the $70 level before the tax begins. In other words if our driving resistance is at about $3.75 at the pump and oil companies need a price at about $2.00 (equates to $70 oil) then the tax should be the difference or about $1.75 per gal. There would need to be some consideration or equalization of state taxes but that could be worked out.
Don't you agree that we need to do something? Aren't you a little concerned that these low gas prices will take the focus away from conservation and alternative fuel? Just look at what has happened to the stock prices of alternative energy companies since the gas prices have tanked, their stock tanked at a corresponding rate.
We need to move quickly while we still feel and remember the pain. What do you think?
Thursday, December 4, 2008
CNBC's Cramer has been, until recently, pushing stocks that pay a big dividend due to their depressed stock prices. Now even the best companies are feeling the credit crunch and have to find new ways to generate cash. As a result we are seeing dividends cut or stopped entirely by these same "best" companies.
Does that mean we should avoid companies that have done this? Not necessarily.
Companies like Alcoa, DuPont, Dow, and others, are healthy, with strong balance sheets, and are trying to weather these devastating times. How smart is it to continue dividends in a time of unprecedented losses in sales and profits. Beware of companies that continue to pay dividends that amount to more than their profits. They are putting stockholders at risk, long term, just to keep their stock prices artificially inflated.
When trying to make investment decisions don't look at the dividend payback alone. Look for strong balance sheets with cash. Most companies that are priced at historically low prices are caught in the recession with little sales demand, or are being dumped by funds that need cash, thus lowering their stock price. Either way, there are long term buying opportunities out there.
Just be sure to know the strength of the balance sheet and don't get enamored with high dividend rates alone.
We could be headed for a "Depression Like" period that could last beyond mid-2010. Investments should be made with that in mind. Dividends can disappear, therefore, one should invest in companies with balance sheets that can weather the storm. Not paying a dividend may be a good sign in these times. What do you think?
Today's key issue is the bailout of the auto industry. What do you think? Yes or no? What form of help?
Our government is "leading" us on a slippery slide down the path of socialism. When things go well, big business and Wall Street want no intervention from government. In order to satisfy their greedy appetites Business Execs and Wall Street treat any regulation or oversight as the plauge. Now that they have sucked all of the value from our economy into their personal coffers they ask for our help to rescue them.
That is an oversimplification at the least. Jobs of hundreds of thousands are at risk. Some form of help is needed. It would be best if vendors, stockholders and bondholders could be protected. A lot of retirees have these holdings directly or through mutual funds.
With the exception of Ford, it is my opinion that the CEOs and CFOs of these companies should be replaced. It's rediculous that at this last hour that they just realized this need. Their greed and refusal to recognize reality cannot be rewarded! These guys can't lead these companies out of the problems that they led their companies into. Solving these issues will require new thinking and at the core, new leadership qualities. What do you think?
Our government is "leading" us on a slippery slide down the path of socialism. When things go well, big business and Wall Street want no intervention from government. In order to satisfy their greedy appetites Business Execs and Wall Street treat any regulation or oversight as the plauge. Now that they have sucked all of the value from our economy into their personal coffers they ask for our help to rescue them.
That is an oversimplification at the least. Jobs of hundreds of thousands are at risk. Some form of help is needed. It would be best if vendors, stockholders and bondholders could be protected. A lot of retirees have these holdings directly or through mutual funds.
With the exception of Ford, it is my opinion that the CEOs and CFOs of these companies should be replaced. It's rediculous that at this last hour that they just realized this need. Their greed and refusal to recognize reality cannot be rewarded! These guys can't lead these companies out of the problems that they led their companies into. Solving these issues will require new thinking and at the core, new leadership qualities. What do you think?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
