Yeah, I gotta call BS on this one. The lawyers "agreed she had a valid claim", but it would cost her $50,000 in legal fees so it wasn't worth it? For $2,000,000? Let's see, $50K from $2 mil leaves... 1.95 MILLION DOLLARS! I guess the lawyers didn't want the money either? Give me a break.
Just because she has a "valid claim" does not mean that she will win. Nor does it mean that by the time she does win that the 10% share would be of $20M. What if her litigation causes the sale to fall through? What if she does win but it takes 5 years and by that time there is nothing left of the company? What if the 10% she was given 5 years ago has now been diluted by the next 10 people after her that were each given 10%?
Lots of reasons a 100k payout now on a "valid claim" to a possible future 2M might be the better choice.
Memory training software. Supposedly backed by some research that optimizes the time spent using the software by testing facts at optimal times instead of excessive repetitions.
When I worked in a government building not too far outside of DC several of us used to enjoy telneting into our co-workers Sparc's and running X programs. My favorite was the one that made the screen look like it was melting. Also popular would be the one that caused random letters in a document to drop down a line.
Are you joking? The opportunity costs are quite clear and paying into a mortgage instead of just losing that money to rent is almost always a net win. It sure is in my case.
Perhaps I am inferring too much but you seem to think that you have to spend as much in buying a house as you do a in renting. That is NOT the case. If you rent only what you actually NEED then the difference saved can be significant and with the magic of compounding will set you on a path to financial independence.
Housing is a long term investment and the recent downturn only really effects those pressured to sell in the short term. It is still a good long term investment for people looking for something conservative.
What do you consider to be a good long term investment? Consider that rhetorical since I intend this to be my last response. Housing over the long term historically has been a reasonable investment. NOW on the back end of one of if not the largest real estate bubbles it will be poor to stagnant investment for many years - probably at least 1-2 decades.
FAIL. Sorry, but being lucky is what it takes to become wealthy if you aren't born that way in the US. Take a look at the numbers. If you aren't born in the ultra rich class you have basically no chance of achieving that status through hard work. The vast majority of wealth is transferred via inheritance and interest, not though entrepreneurship. This is simply the reality of economics and if you want to claim otherwise you better have some pretty extraordinary evidence to the contrary.
Ummmm, okay if you say so
A balanced economy is the only route to stability and our current economy is anything but. It needs correction and that means compensating for wealth condensation with sufficient levels of progressive taxation to bring the system back into balance.
So how does progressive taxation bring the system back into balance?
Please, with the tax advantages I'm making more money in the long term by buying a house than I am renting anything, even a small apartment. It is by far the best financial move as any advisor will tell you.
That is one of the great fallacies that perpetuates the confusion of want over need. Renting a room in a house from some old lady for $200/month and putting the $800+ into savings or even better safe and sound investments will likely pay off way better than a house ever would. Over the last decade housing has been a great investment (until about 2 years ago) long term it tends to run about even with inflation. People just do not seem the opportunity cost of the money that goes towards equity. Also there are not very many other investments that offer the leverage a mortgage offers to the average investor. Leverage is a two edged sword - great when things go up and a killer when they go down.
I'm making a lot of money for someone else who just happens to have started life wealthier than I am.
Having been a "creative" real estate investor several years ago, I know from first hand experience that there are quite a few landlords out there that were not born with it. In some cases they borrowed their way to ownership and in others they own it free and clear. Most of them started life (or at one point ended up) with very little - hence the need to get creative.
As for the $100 analogy why is it unsustainable? The average person does not have less and less the average person decides to max his credit cards out to try and out-jones the joneses. That sort of foolishness gets exactly what it deserves.
No, it generally means taking big risks and getting lucky as well as wasting a lot of your effort digging yourself out of an economic hole where you start out with less wealth and power than a few percent of the population simply due to circumstances of birth.
And this is probably the biggest problem yet with the "average" person. Instead of slowly building wealth the are all convinced the way to do it is by taking big risks and getting lucky. Go ahead spend all your extra money on Megamillions each week - consider it an investment in your future.
While I do not doubt that for an equivalent home buying is going to be cheaper than renting plus you get the benefit of building equity. That said, I sincerely doubt that you could not find a room to rent that would be significantly less than the cost of buying a home.
Home mortgages are (usually) a good form of debt and not something that should be counted as bad - AS LONG as it is an affordable amount.
Local community colleges can be paid for without borrowing AND saving up money by working prior to attending can make it even easier. Medical care should be covered by insurance and savings.
Do you HAVE to have a house sized home to live in or could you manage by renting a room?
Do you HAVE to seek additional education? If so do you really HAVE to borrow to pay for it?
It seems that you have been convinced that you HAVE to have certain things and that you HAVE to borrow in order to obtain them. While for a house that is probably true I think it is likely that the majority of these things are rightfully classified as a WANT rather than a NEED.
Wealth can be earned in this country no matter how much you start out with - that is what makes it great. It just means living within your means and planning for the future instead of borrowing from your future and living in the now.
The bottom 50% of our country has no net wealth and spends huge portions of their resources paying interest on money they have to borrow from those who started out with more in life. Those on the top don't have to work, they can just let their wealth work for them, loaning it to the poor and collecting interest.
Why do they "have to borrow"? Isn't it amazing how so many in this country believe that they "have" to borrow the money so they can buy a new car. And they "have" to buy shiny rims for it. And they "have" to have that new flat panel tv... It's not just the government that needs to cut spending. Unfortunately it will be a difficult and painful transition but we need to return to being a nation of savers rather than borrowers.
Actually if you take raising taxes off the table I think that given our current situation cutting spending has to be the result.
Admittedly sending a Senator with ~1 billion in earmarks in less than 4 years in office does not bode well for spending cuts. Given enough outrage it could happen.
Why not keep taxes the same and urge people that believe they need to be higher to send in more?
I most definitely DO NOT want to pay more taxes. But I DO agree with you that we need to pay down the debt.
Why do we have to raise taxes to pay down the debt? Why not cut other spending? Stop even allowing bridges to nowhere to get funded. Stop using the Tax code as a welfare system.
The less money going into congress' hands the better. We just need to get them to stop spending money we do not have.
Up until probably 10 years ago, or maybe it was the Bush-Gore election, I was for a direct vote instead of the electoral college. Now I believe the electoral college to be a much better choice. The increased influence of low population states is a good thing. Just think if we had a close election like 2000 how much fun it would be to re-count every vote in every state!
Not only recounts but the electoral system takes much of the incentive for fraud out of play. Just think how easy it might be, for a state dominated by one party and controlling most of the election posts, to pad their counts. In the close states there is usually a good set of checks and balances since both parties have people, money and organizations on the ground to keep everyone in line.
What about someone in college? College students rarely carry much (if any) life insurance. Families often carry a large amount on a primary provider but not so much on a non-working homemaker.
While the current system does result in some seriously out-of-whack results you have to keep in mind that it may be working well the vast majority of the time but we only hear about the exceptions. Additionally when you do hear about large settlements keep in mind that is not the amount that the person actually receives - 25-50% will go to the lawyers and insurance companies can get their hands on part of it also to reimburse their costs.
Please do not get me wrong I am not a fan of the current system I just have not found something I think is better.
How about limiting settlements to the total value of someone's carried life insurance policies? Shouldn't the judicial system put the same value on someone's life as that person puts on their own?
Life insurance is meant to provide for the people dependent on a person until they can recover. Why do you correlate that to how much a person values their own life? I totally agree that legal awards are out of whack and I wish I could propose a better alternative but using life insurance as a proxy does not seem valid to me.
... and wonder where the $2,500 per family figure is coming from in Obama's promises.
The $2,500 per family figure comes from the Obama team adding up all the savings they expect the health care system to experience from their plan and then dividing it by the number of families. This number relies primarily on the assumption that they can save a lot of money by modernizing the health care industry's IT infrastructure and that all of that savings will be passed on to patients.
Winning is being able to leave Iraq with a stable government that is able to effectively govern its people.
For better or worse we went into that country toppled its leadership and destroyed significant portions of its infrastructure. No matter how you feel about that decision to do so do we not have a moral obligation to do our best to leave Iraq in as good, if not better condition than before we broke it?
That may have been true prior to Sarbanes-Oxley and other legislation but in the "SarBox" world where Execs have to sign off on controls in place and Auditors audit that policies are complied with considering an IT Policy a flexible rule is likely to get someone quite upset at you.
The more important question is where do you want to go AFTER you graduate. Some industries place great importance on the where of your education. For example the hedge fund / finance field. Others not so much.
In general, my experience is that employers place much greater importance on your skills and in earlier/entry-level years the where might be a proxy that that gives an edge in getting interviews.
I would be a bit wary about a program that does not introduce programming until later years but then again I am not particularly impressed with the coding skills imparted by the schools so maybe that is a good thing.
Looks to me like at it was was a don't believe him because he is a Lord and does not have a science degree besides he's wrong wrong wrong...
If that is all it takes to qualify as a debunking then hey I debunk Gore, "Vice President Gore does not have a science degreee and besides he is wrong wrong wrong..."
I do not see how that makes a difference. Whether it can be abused or not its clearly in reaction to the charges that the Federal Government failed to act fast enough. This clearly gives the President the authority to do so in a future Katrina style situation. As I said implied before if you are going to blame him for not doing it quick enough then you have no right to get upset when he changes the rules so that he can next time.
How many of you blamed the slow federal response to Hurricane Katrina on President Bush?
And of those how many now are upset about this action?
Can you say "just desserts"?
Slashdot Mirror
I think it goes back to the showing the DDT is a harmful chemical (
Was that actually shown?
http://www.junkscience.com/ddtfaq.html
Yeah, I gotta call BS on this one. The lawyers "agreed she had a valid claim", but it would cost her $50,000 in legal fees so it wasn't worth it? For $2,000,000? Let's see, $50K from $2 mil leaves... 1.95 MILLION DOLLARS! I guess the lawyers didn't want the money either? Give me a break.
Just because she has a "valid claim" does not mean that she will win. Nor does it mean that by the time she does win that the 10% share would be of $20M. What if her litigation causes the sale to fall through? What if she does win but it takes 5 years and by that time there is nothing left of the company? What if the 10% she was given 5 years ago has now been diluted by the next 10 people after her that were each given 10%?
Lots of reasons a 100k payout now on a "valid claim" to a possible future 2M might be the better choice.
Why do so many people automatically assume that there is some magic metric and whoever is at the bottom X% is being cut?
What metric (or even metrics) would they use?
Why wouldn't you assume that they take the route that most companies use to determine which person gets cut - managers?
It has not been updated for a while and there are older free versions available.
Memory training software. Supposedly backed by some research that optimizes the time spent using the software by testing facts at optimal times instead of excessive repetitions.
http://www.supermemo.com/
When I worked in a government building not too far outside of DC several of us used to enjoy telneting into our co-workers Sparc's and running X programs. My favorite was the one that made the screen look like it was melting. Also popular would be the one that caused random letters in a document to drop down a line.
Are you joking? The opportunity costs are quite clear and paying into a mortgage instead of just losing that money to rent is almost always a net win. It sure is in my case.
Perhaps I am inferring too much but you seem to think that you have to spend as much in buying a house as you do a in renting. That is NOT the case. If you rent only what you actually NEED then the difference saved can be significant and with the magic of compounding will set you on a path to financial independence.
Housing is a long term investment and the recent downturn only really effects those pressured to sell in the short term. It is still a good long term investment for people looking for something conservative.
What do you consider to be a good long term investment? Consider that rhetorical since I intend this to be my last response. Housing over the long term historically has been a reasonable investment. NOW on the back end of one of if not the largest real estate bubbles it will be poor to stagnant investment for many years - probably at least 1-2 decades.
FAIL. Sorry, but being lucky is what it takes to become wealthy if you aren't born that way in the US. Take a look at the numbers. If you aren't born in the ultra rich class you have basically no chance of achieving that status through hard work. The vast majority of wealth is transferred via inheritance and interest, not though entrepreneurship. This is simply the reality of economics and if you want to claim otherwise you better have some pretty extraordinary evidence to the contrary.
Ummmm, okay if you say so
A balanced economy is the only route to stability and our current economy is anything but. It needs correction and that means compensating for wealth condensation with sufficient levels of progressive taxation to bring the system back into balance.
So how does progressive taxation bring the system back into balance?
Please, with the tax advantages I'm making more money in the long term by buying a house than I am renting anything, even a small apartment. It is by far the best financial move as any advisor will tell you.
That is one of the great fallacies that perpetuates the confusion of want over need. Renting a room in a house from some old lady for $200/month and putting the $800+ into savings or even better safe and sound investments will likely pay off way better than a house ever would. Over the last decade housing has been a great investment (until about 2 years ago) long term it tends to run about even with inflation. People just do not seem the opportunity cost of the money that goes towards equity. Also there are not very many other investments that offer the leverage a mortgage offers to the average investor. Leverage is a two edged sword - great when things go up and a killer when they go down.
I'm making a lot of money for someone else who just happens to have started life wealthier than I am.
Having been a "creative" real estate investor several years ago, I know from first hand experience that there are quite a few landlords out there that were not born with it. In some cases they borrowed their way to ownership and in others they own it free and clear. Most of them started life (or at one point ended up) with very little - hence the need to get creative.
As for the $100 analogy why is it unsustainable? The average person does not have less and less the average person decides to max his credit cards out to try and out-jones the joneses. That sort of foolishness gets exactly what it deserves.
No, it generally means taking big risks and getting lucky as well as wasting a lot of your effort digging yourself out of an economic hole where you start out with less wealth and power than a few percent of the population simply due to circumstances of birth.
And this is probably the biggest problem yet with the "average" person. Instead of slowly building wealth the are all convinced the way to do it is by taking big risks and getting lucky. Go ahead spend all your extra money on Megamillions each week - consider it an investment in your future.
When they sell the machine to the buyer it is distributing the software that the machine runs.
While I do not doubt that for an equivalent home buying is going to be cheaper than renting plus you get the benefit of building equity. That said, I sincerely doubt that you could not find a room to rent that would be significantly less than the cost of buying a home.
Home mortgages are (usually) a good form of debt and not something that should be counted as bad - AS LONG as it is an affordable amount.
Local community colleges can be paid for without borrowing AND saving up money by working prior to attending can make it even easier. Medical care should be covered by insurance and savings.
Do you HAVE to have a house sized home to live in or could you manage by renting a room?
Do you HAVE to seek additional education? If so do you really HAVE to borrow to pay for it?
It seems that you have been convinced that you HAVE to have certain things and that you HAVE to borrow in order to obtain them. While for a house that is probably true I think it is likely that the majority of these things are rightfully classified as a WANT rather than a NEED.
Wealth can be earned in this country no matter how much you start out with - that is what makes it great. It just means living within your means and planning for the future instead of borrowing from your future and living in the now.
And so it begins...
Philly is a very strongly democratic city.
http://townhall.com/blog/g/cf47766b-5a6d-44ab-95e7-ce60631bcadc
The bottom 50% of our country has no net wealth and spends huge portions of their resources paying interest on money they have to borrow from those who started out with more in life. Those on the top don't have to work, they can just let their wealth work for them, loaning it to the poor and collecting interest.
Why do they "have to borrow"? Isn't it amazing how so many in this country believe that they "have" to borrow the money so they can buy a new car. And they "have" to buy shiny rims for it. And they "have" to have that new flat panel tv...
It's not just the government that needs to cut spending. Unfortunately it will be a difficult and painful transition but we need to return to being a nation of savers rather than borrowers.
Actually if you take raising taxes off the table I think that given our current situation cutting spending has to be the result.
Admittedly sending a Senator with ~1 billion in earmarks in less than 4 years in office does not bode well for spending cuts. Given enough outrage it could happen.
Why not keep taxes the same and urge people that believe they need to be higher to send in more?
I most definitely DO NOT want to pay more taxes. But I DO agree with you that we need to pay down the debt.
Why do we have to raise taxes to pay down the debt? Why not cut other spending? Stop even allowing bridges to nowhere to get funded. Stop using the Tax code as a welfare system.
The less money going into congress' hands the better. We just need to get them to stop spending money we do not have.
Up until probably 10 years ago, or maybe it was the Bush-Gore election, I was for a direct vote instead of the electoral college. Now I believe the electoral college to be a much better choice. The increased influence of low population states is a good thing. Just think if we had a close election like 2000 how much fun it would be to re-count every vote in every state!
Not only recounts but the electoral system takes much of the incentive for fraud out of play. Just think how easy it might be, for a state dominated by one party and controlling most of the election posts, to pad their counts. In the close states there is usually a good set of checks and balances since both parties have people, money and organizations on the ground to keep everyone in line.
What about someone in college? College students rarely carry much (if any) life insurance. Families often carry a large amount on a primary provider but not so much on a non-working homemaker.
While the current system does result in some seriously out-of-whack results you have to keep in mind that it may be working well the vast majority of the time but we only hear about the exceptions. Additionally when you do hear about large settlements keep in mind that is not the amount that the person actually receives - 25-50% will go to the lawyers and insurance companies can get their hands on part of it also to reimburse their costs.
Please do not get me wrong I am not a fan of the current system I just have not found something I think is better.
How about limiting settlements to the total value of someone's carried life insurance policies? Shouldn't the judicial system put the same value on someone's life as that person puts on their own?
Life insurance is meant to provide for the people dependent on a person until they can recover. Why do you correlate that to how much a person values their own life? I totally agree that legal awards are out of whack and I wish I could propose a better alternative but using life insurance as a proxy does not seem valid to me.
... and wonder where the $2,500 per family figure is coming from in Obama's promises.
The $2,500 per family figure comes from the Obama team adding up all the savings they expect the health care system to experience from their plan and then dividing it by the number of families. This number relies primarily on the assumption that they can save a lot of money by modernizing the health care industry's IT infrastructure and that all of that savings will be passed on to patients.
Winning is being able to leave Iraq with a stable government that is able to effectively govern its people.
For better or worse we went into that country toppled its leadership and destroyed significant portions of its infrastructure. No matter how you feel about that decision to do so do we not have a moral obligation to do our best to leave Iraq in as good, if not better condition than before we broke it?
That may have been true prior to Sarbanes-Oxley and other legislation but in the "SarBox" world where Execs have to sign off on controls in place and Auditors audit that policies are complied with considering an IT Policy a flexible rule is likely to get someone quite upset at you.
Nobody says that climate change isn't happening. The temperature data is fact. It can't be denied any more than it can denied that the sky is blue.
Oh Really...
http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/2007/08/does_hansens_error_matter_gues.html
The more important question is where do you want to go AFTER you graduate. Some industries place great importance on the where of your education. For example the hedge fund / finance field. Others not so much.
In general, my experience is that employers place much greater importance on your skills and in earlier/entry-level years the where might be a proxy that that gives an edge in getting interviews.
I would be a bit wary about a program that does not introduce programming until later years but then again I am not particularly impressed with the coding skills imparted by the schools so maybe that is a good thing.
Looks to me like at it was was a don't believe him because he is a Lord and does not have a science degree besides he's wrong wrong wrong...
If that is all it takes to qualify as a debunking then hey I debunk Gore, "Vice President Gore does not have a science degreee and besides he is wrong wrong wrong..."
I do not see how that makes a difference. Whether it can be abused or not its clearly in reaction to the charges that the Federal Government failed to act fast enough. This clearly gives the President the authority to do so in a future Katrina style situation. As I said implied before if you are going to blame him for not doing it quick enough then you have no right to get upset when he changes the rules so that he can next time.
How many of you blamed the slow federal response to Hurricane Katrina on President Bush? And of those how many now are upset about this action? Can you say "just desserts"?