Imagine there is a bank account that credits your account each morning with $86,400. It carries over no balance from day to day.
Every evening the bank deletes whatever part of the balance you failed to use during the day. What would you do? Draw out every cent, of course?
Each of us has such a bank. It's name is TIME.
Every morning, it credits you with 86,400 seconds.
Every night it writes off as lost, whatever of this you have failed to invest to a good purpose.
It carries over no balance. It allows no over draft. Each day it opens a new account for you. Each night it burns the remains of the day.
If you fail to use the day's deposits, the loss is yours. There is no drawing against "tomorrow."
You must live in the present on today's deposits. Invest it so as to get from it the utmost in health, happiness and success!
The clock is running!! Make the most of today.
To realise the value of ONE YEAR, ask a student who failed a grade.
To realise the value of ONE MONTH, ask a mother who has given birth to a premature baby.
To realise the value of ONE WEEK, ask the editor of a weekly newspaper.
To realise the value of ONE HOUR, ask the lovers who are waiting to meet.
To realise the value of ONE MINUTE, ask a person who just missed a train.
To realise the value of ONE SECOND, ask someone who just avoided an accident.
To realise the value of ONE MILLISECOND, ask the person who won a silver medal at the Olympics.
Treasure every moment that you have! And treasure it more because you shared it with someone special, special enough to spend your time with. And remember time waits for no one.
Yesterday is history. Tomorrow is a mystery. Today is a gift. That's why its called the present.
Sunday, October 5, 2008
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
A Second Chance (and Thoughts) on the Bailout Vote
By Jay Newton-Small / Washington Wednesday, Oct. 01, 2008
After voting against the Bush Administration's controversial $700 billion bailout package, Representative Elton Gallegly, 64, a California Republican, got on a plane to fly home to Los Angeles for Congress's three-day break in observance of the Jewish holidays. By the time he got off the plane late Monday, he'd lost $50,000 in retirement savings. "And I'm getting to the point in my life where I can't start over," Gallegly laments.
Though he says he doesn't regret his "No" vote, Gallegly is adamant that the House must pass a bill to stabilize the nation's fragile financial markets. Whereas phone calls to his office were once running 40 to 1 against the bill, now they're "a mixed bag. There are a lot of folks who, for good reason, are very concerned about their 401(k)s and their retirement savings, and it's a very serious and legitimate concern," he says.
It's amazing what a 778-point drop in the Dow Jones Industrial Average, wiping out $1.2 trillion in equity, can do to change public opinion. An ABC News/Washington Post poll taken following the failed vote showed that 88% of Americans are concerned that the collapse of the bill could worsen the economic turndown and that 51% are confident that a bill will eventually pass. And where the people go, politicians very quickly follow. Most members explained their votes opposing the bill Monday as a reflection of their constituents' anger about a rescue package for Wall Street. "Since the vote, it's about half and half," Representative Tim Murphy, a Pennsylvania Republican who voted against the bill, says of the calls coming into his office. "Half say, Do something — I'm worried about my business or my retirement; and the other half still say, Don't vote for the bailout."
House members already having second thoughts about their votes will probably soon have a chance to change them. But rather than wait for their Hill colleagues to take the plunge again, the Senate is expected to try to build momentum by taking up virtually the same bill Wednesday night, with two key sweeteners added on: a measure increasing from $100,000 to $250,000 the maximum amount in individual-bank-account deposits that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. (FDIC) will guarantee, and an extension of tax incentives, popular with GOP members, for such things as alternative energy, business R & D and the prevention of more people from becoming subject to the Alternative Minimum Tax. As further incentive, Securities and Exchange Commission chairman Chris Cox Tuesday eased mark-to-market accounting rules that have forced financial institutions to value all distressed mortgage-backed securities on their balance sheets at fire-sale prices. The move has been sought by many House Republicans hoping to help get the paralyzed credit markets flowing again, though critics say any such change would be a step back for transparency.
The new bill is expected to pass the Senate easily, with both John McCain and Barack Obama coming back to Washington to cast their votes, but the House remains a hurdle. The add-ons should help with Republican votes, but the tax extenders are unpopular with moderate, or so-called Blue Dog, Democrats, who are deficit hawks and have never liked that the estimated $100 billion extenders are only half paid for. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has made it clear that she wants to see the GOP make up the shortfall of 12 votes by sending, in conjunction with her Senate colleague Harry Reid, a letter to President Bush outlining their intention to keep working to craft a truly bipartisan solution, in spite of the bitter feelings left over from Monday's debacle. Still, she may lose some Blue Dog votes by attaching the tax bill. And while House Majority Leader John Boehner green-lighted this newest legislation, his credibility on Capitol Hill isn't great after only 37% of his party conference followed his lead in supporting the bill Monday.
Success in the House will depend on persuading ambivalent Republicans like Gallegly and Murphy to change their votes. And business groups have wasted no time in launching a full frontal assault to do just that. "You want a complete meltdown with the financial system? Bluntly, clearly and crisply that would be a catastrophic event. So that's what we're trying to avoid," says Bruce Josten, executive vice president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which represents 3 million U.S. businesses. The chamber is just one of several associations, representing American business large and small, that are writing letters, getting members to write letters, holding conference calls, organizing trade groups and courting the media as part of a massive lobbying push for the bailout bill. "We are using every arsenal available to us to get the business community's outrage heard," Josten says.
Indeed, the business groups' online campaign has been so intense, the House e-mail server has been crashing ever since the bill failed. Their first target is the marketing of the legislation, and specifically how it is described. "It's not bailout, so you've got to get your term right," snaps Josten. That means Congress is working to pass a workout, a rescue package, an economic-stabilization plan. And Republican and Democratic Senators alike paraded across C-SPAN Tuesday doing what they could to underline that the crisis is not about helping fat cats on Wall Street but saving average Joes from economic calamity. "The waitress isn't getting the tips that she depended on to bring home for her family and the challenges her family has," said Senator Robert Menendez, Democrat of New Jersey, on the Senate floor, gesturing to a blown-up photo of a rather pathetic-looking waitress next to him.
But they still have a ways to go in persuading some members. "Some of the calls for 'Yes' we're now getting are being ginned up by outside groups," says Representative Devin Nunes, a California Republican who voted against the measure. "All these people who have their hand in the cookie jar are trying to get Paulson to bail them out."
The House is expected to vote Thursday or Friday on the measure. In the absence of true House GOP leadership, it's anyone's guess if the bill will pass this time around, though the turning of public opinion is helping. The Senate going first should place additional pressure on House members to get it passed. That, and the specter of an even more brutal market meltdown if the House actually fails a second time around.
After voting against the Bush Administration's controversial $700 billion bailout package, Representative Elton Gallegly, 64, a California Republican, got on a plane to fly home to Los Angeles for Congress's three-day break in observance of the Jewish holidays. By the time he got off the plane late Monday, he'd lost $50,000 in retirement savings. "And I'm getting to the point in my life where I can't start over," Gallegly laments.
Though he says he doesn't regret his "No" vote, Gallegly is adamant that the House must pass a bill to stabilize the nation's fragile financial markets. Whereas phone calls to his office were once running 40 to 1 against the bill, now they're "a mixed bag. There are a lot of folks who, for good reason, are very concerned about their 401(k)s and their retirement savings, and it's a very serious and legitimate concern," he says.
It's amazing what a 778-point drop in the Dow Jones Industrial Average, wiping out $1.2 trillion in equity, can do to change public opinion. An ABC News/Washington Post poll taken following the failed vote showed that 88% of Americans are concerned that the collapse of the bill could worsen the economic turndown and that 51% are confident that a bill will eventually pass. And where the people go, politicians very quickly follow. Most members explained their votes opposing the bill Monday as a reflection of their constituents' anger about a rescue package for Wall Street. "Since the vote, it's about half and half," Representative Tim Murphy, a Pennsylvania Republican who voted against the bill, says of the calls coming into his office. "Half say, Do something — I'm worried about my business or my retirement; and the other half still say, Don't vote for the bailout."
House members already having second thoughts about their votes will probably soon have a chance to change them. But rather than wait for their Hill colleagues to take the plunge again, the Senate is expected to try to build momentum by taking up virtually the same bill Wednesday night, with two key sweeteners added on: a measure increasing from $100,000 to $250,000 the maximum amount in individual-bank-account deposits that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. (FDIC) will guarantee, and an extension of tax incentives, popular with GOP members, for such things as alternative energy, business R & D and the prevention of more people from becoming subject to the Alternative Minimum Tax. As further incentive, Securities and Exchange Commission chairman Chris Cox Tuesday eased mark-to-market accounting rules that have forced financial institutions to value all distressed mortgage-backed securities on their balance sheets at fire-sale prices. The move has been sought by many House Republicans hoping to help get the paralyzed credit markets flowing again, though critics say any such change would be a step back for transparency.
The new bill is expected to pass the Senate easily, with both John McCain and Barack Obama coming back to Washington to cast their votes, but the House remains a hurdle. The add-ons should help with Republican votes, but the tax extenders are unpopular with moderate, or so-called Blue Dog, Democrats, who are deficit hawks and have never liked that the estimated $100 billion extenders are only half paid for. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has made it clear that she wants to see the GOP make up the shortfall of 12 votes by sending, in conjunction with her Senate colleague Harry Reid, a letter to President Bush outlining their intention to keep working to craft a truly bipartisan solution, in spite of the bitter feelings left over from Monday's debacle. Still, she may lose some Blue Dog votes by attaching the tax bill. And while House Majority Leader John Boehner green-lighted this newest legislation, his credibility on Capitol Hill isn't great after only 37% of his party conference followed his lead in supporting the bill Monday.
Success in the House will depend on persuading ambivalent Republicans like Gallegly and Murphy to change their votes. And business groups have wasted no time in launching a full frontal assault to do just that. "You want a complete meltdown with the financial system? Bluntly, clearly and crisply that would be a catastrophic event. So that's what we're trying to avoid," says Bruce Josten, executive vice president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which represents 3 million U.S. businesses. The chamber is just one of several associations, representing American business large and small, that are writing letters, getting members to write letters, holding conference calls, organizing trade groups and courting the media as part of a massive lobbying push for the bailout bill. "We are using every arsenal available to us to get the business community's outrage heard," Josten says.
Indeed, the business groups' online campaign has been so intense, the House e-mail server has been crashing ever since the bill failed. Their first target is the marketing of the legislation, and specifically how it is described. "It's not bailout, so you've got to get your term right," snaps Josten. That means Congress is working to pass a workout, a rescue package, an economic-stabilization plan. And Republican and Democratic Senators alike paraded across C-SPAN Tuesday doing what they could to underline that the crisis is not about helping fat cats on Wall Street but saving average Joes from economic calamity. "The waitress isn't getting the tips that she depended on to bring home for her family and the challenges her family has," said Senator Robert Menendez, Democrat of New Jersey, on the Senate floor, gesturing to a blown-up photo of a rather pathetic-looking waitress next to him.
But they still have a ways to go in persuading some members. "Some of the calls for 'Yes' we're now getting are being ginned up by outside groups," says Representative Devin Nunes, a California Republican who voted against the measure. "All these people who have their hand in the cookie jar are trying to get Paulson to bail them out."
The House is expected to vote Thursday or Friday on the measure. In the absence of true House GOP leadership, it's anyone's guess if the bill will pass this time around, though the turning of public opinion is helping. The Senate going first should place additional pressure on House members to get it passed. That, and the specter of an even more brutal market meltdown if the House actually fails a second time around.
Monday, September 29, 2008
Without a Bailout Plan, What Will the Cost Be?
By Justin Fox Monday, Sep. 29, 2008
By voting down the proposed $700 billion financial bailout package — and causing a spectacular stock market rout — a majority of members in the House of Representatives made a clear statement that they didn't want to put taxpayers on the hook for the failures of financial institutions.
But there's a catch: taxpayers are already on the hook for the failures of financial institutions, and it's possible that the bill will actually be larger without bailout legislation than with it. That's because the regulators who mind the financial industry — the Federal Reserve, Treasury and FDIC — will keep doing what they've been doing: stepping in to prevent the chaotic failure of banks and other large financial institutions. This means continuing to put hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars at risk, but in a way that adheres to no clear plan of action and doesn't require members of Congress to explicitly approve their actions.
On Monday afternoon, Wall Street basically stopped trading to watch TV — mainly CNBC — to see how the House of Representatives would vote on the $700 billion bailout package. When it first started looking like the bill would fail, the Dow plummeted 389 points, or 3.6%, in just seven minutes. If it had continued at that pace for much longer, this would have been perhaps the most harrowing day in stock market history. It didn't, but things were still really, really bad. The Dow ended the day down 778 points, or 7%, and the S&P 500 — a better measure of the overall market — was down 107 points, or 8.8%, its worst performance since the 1987 market crash. And markets for bonds and short-term loans were, for the most part, nonexistent.
So what happens now? On Capitol Hill, House leaders said they'll try again soon. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson practically begged for a revised deal in his brief appearance after the market carnage. "Our tool kit is substantial but insufficient," he said. The market's traumatized reaction today may change some minds and some votes.
In asking Congress 11 days ago for the authority to spend up to $700 billion to buy troubled assets, Paulson and Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke were hoping to share some of the responsibility and the blame — and get the freedom to boost companies that weren't already on the brink of failure. Instead, they're back to being crisis managers for the moment — and maybe for the duration of the crisis.
That's not all bad, especially now that most of the endangered financial institutions are commercial banks. The Federal Government has clearly defined that authorities take them over, merge them out of existence or shut them down — whereas it had to make things up as it went along with investment banks Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers and insurer AIG. That's why the demise of giant banks Washington Mutual and Wachovia, arranged over the past week by the FDIC, occurred in a far more orderly fashion than the non-bank meltdowns.
But orderly isn't the same as cheap. To get Citigroup to absorb Wachovia, the FDIC agreed to share the risk on a $312 billion portfolio of loans (Citi has to eat the first $42 billion in potential losses; anything above that hits the FDIC fund).
Also, the fact that every big FDIC deal so far in this crisis has been different — IndyMac was allowed to fail, with only insured deposits safe; WaMu was seized, but all depositors were protected; and Wachovia was sold in a deal that protected both depositors and owners of the company's bonds but left shareholders with very little — has left investors guessing about the fate of the rest of the banking world. Hardest hit in today's market sell-off were regional banks like Sovereign Bancorp and National City, perhaps because they seem too small to get special FDIC treatment.
Federal authorities are going to keep doing whatever they can to keep the financial system from collapsing. Taxpayers will bear the risks and the costs of that, whether Congress votes to put them there or not. And it's possible — although nobody can know for sure — that this ad hoc approach will end up costing more than an up-front $700 billion bailout.
By voting down the proposed $700 billion financial bailout package — and causing a spectacular stock market rout — a majority of members in the House of Representatives made a clear statement that they didn't want to put taxpayers on the hook for the failures of financial institutions.
But there's a catch: taxpayers are already on the hook for the failures of financial institutions, and it's possible that the bill will actually be larger without bailout legislation than with it. That's because the regulators who mind the financial industry — the Federal Reserve, Treasury and FDIC — will keep doing what they've been doing: stepping in to prevent the chaotic failure of banks and other large financial institutions. This means continuing to put hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars at risk, but in a way that adheres to no clear plan of action and doesn't require members of Congress to explicitly approve their actions.
On Monday afternoon, Wall Street basically stopped trading to watch TV — mainly CNBC — to see how the House of Representatives would vote on the $700 billion bailout package. When it first started looking like the bill would fail, the Dow plummeted 389 points, or 3.6%, in just seven minutes. If it had continued at that pace for much longer, this would have been perhaps the most harrowing day in stock market history. It didn't, but things were still really, really bad. The Dow ended the day down 778 points, or 7%, and the S&P 500 — a better measure of the overall market — was down 107 points, or 8.8%, its worst performance since the 1987 market crash. And markets for bonds and short-term loans were, for the most part, nonexistent.
So what happens now? On Capitol Hill, House leaders said they'll try again soon. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson practically begged for a revised deal in his brief appearance after the market carnage. "Our tool kit is substantial but insufficient," he said. The market's traumatized reaction today may change some minds and some votes.
In asking Congress 11 days ago for the authority to spend up to $700 billion to buy troubled assets, Paulson and Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke were hoping to share some of the responsibility and the blame — and get the freedom to boost companies that weren't already on the brink of failure. Instead, they're back to being crisis managers for the moment — and maybe for the duration of the crisis.
That's not all bad, especially now that most of the endangered financial institutions are commercial banks. The Federal Government has clearly defined that authorities take them over, merge them out of existence or shut them down — whereas it had to make things up as it went along with investment banks Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers and insurer AIG. That's why the demise of giant banks Washington Mutual and Wachovia, arranged over the past week by the FDIC, occurred in a far more orderly fashion than the non-bank meltdowns.
But orderly isn't the same as cheap. To get Citigroup to absorb Wachovia, the FDIC agreed to share the risk on a $312 billion portfolio of loans (Citi has to eat the first $42 billion in potential losses; anything above that hits the FDIC fund).
Also, the fact that every big FDIC deal so far in this crisis has been different — IndyMac was allowed to fail, with only insured deposits safe; WaMu was seized, but all depositors were protected; and Wachovia was sold in a deal that protected both depositors and owners of the company's bonds but left shareholders with very little — has left investors guessing about the fate of the rest of the banking world. Hardest hit in today's market sell-off were regional banks like Sovereign Bancorp and National City, perhaps because they seem too small to get special FDIC treatment.
Federal authorities are going to keep doing whatever they can to keep the financial system from collapsing. Taxpayers will bear the risks and the costs of that, whether Congress votes to put them there or not. And it's possible — although nobody can know for sure — that this ad hoc approach will end up costing more than an up-front $700 billion bailout.
My Best Investment
This morning, over breakfast at the hostel, I recognised a guy I saw in a bar last night on Sodermalm. “Hello”, I thought to myself. That’s a bit freaky. And then as I got on the train this morning, I recognised another guy I’d seen in a bar a few nights ago. And then today I saw a young guy and a girl I recognised from Narvik last week. And then tonight, wandering around Sodermalm, I recognised the woman who I’d seen playing at one of those lunchtime concerts. I’m beginning to think Stockholm isn’t that big after all. Or maybe it’s just that the experience of this trip is so intense that I’m remembering everything quite vividly? Or maybe I’m spending too much time in bars? I’m not actually…
The woman from the concert smiled at me, in recognition that I was one of the faces she also recognised from the concert. To be honest, her band was pretty boring, even if they did perform a song by former Perth band, “The Waifs”. Although “Little Failures” received a great write-up in one of the local freebie newspapers, they absolutely did nothing for me. It was two chicks and their guitars (with a bloke on bass) singing mournfully depressing tunes without too much passion. Fine if you like that kinda stuff, but it’s just not me.
The second act, though, was excellent. Looking like a cross between two other famous Swedish singers, Shirley Clamp and Helen Sjoholm, Anna Ericksson sang with strength and passion. Although she could do with a bit of work on her stage presence, I was really very moved by her singing and songwriting. A little bit like “Everything But The Girl”, in some respects, she had a male pianist accompany her. I was most moved when she sang a couple of those deep, dark, depressing numbers in a minor key that only the Swedes, it seems, know how to do best. Magic stuff.
Unfortunately, the rain started to come down half way through her performance. But it was nice summer rain, and I just sat there enjoying getting wet. Back in Sydney I would have run for the hills without an umbrella, darting from awning to awning to get through in the wet. On holiday, though, when it rained again later, I just stood under an awning and waited for it to end. It’s a wonderful feeling NOT to have to worry about time.
Oh, and also, I guess it’s because there’s a decided lack of awnings on Swedish buildings. I guess it’s because of the problems snow would cause. It seems, though, whenever it rains, an umbrella appears above every Swede, as if by magic.
Otherwise it’s been a day of sight-seeing thanks to the Swedish public transport system. I’ve got to say the best value investment I’ve made on this trip is the month long public transport card. I’ve used it heaps already. This morning, I hopped on the train for a while to see some of the outer suburbs, and then this afternoon, I hopped on Bus 47 to Waldemarsudde for a bit of sightseeing around Djurgaden. When the bus route came to an end, the bus driver said to me, “This is the end of the line. You can get off here, or you can come back with me in five minutes”. I took a couple of photographs, stretched my legs, and was straight back on the bus. It’s excellent value if you’re ever gonna visit Stockholm.
I also went for a quick look at the area I’m moving into for the next few days: near Skanstvus T-Barnen on Sodermalm. Within eyeshot of the famous Globen, it seems like a really nice area, and the accommodation looks good from the outside. The area seems a little bit groovy, a little bit up-market, nice record shops, a little bit leefy, and the bars seem a little bit lezzie. I’ll be right at home :)
It’s my last night at Fridhemsplan because I made friends today with a bloke who has moved into my room in the hostel. He’s very chatty, and we spoke about our respective travel plans, including his which has involved riding a bike all the way from Hamburg. “So where is your wife”, he asked me, and of course I replied I don’t have one, nor do I have children. “Me neither”, he told me, adding that his last girlfriend preferred 5-star holidays to “the crazy cycle holidays I like”.
jamesobrien.id.au
forty-something bloke from sydney who is reasonably happy with life at the moment
The woman from the concert smiled at me, in recognition that I was one of the faces she also recognised from the concert. To be honest, her band was pretty boring, even if they did perform a song by former Perth band, “The Waifs”. Although “Little Failures” received a great write-up in one of the local freebie newspapers, they absolutely did nothing for me. It was two chicks and their guitars (with a bloke on bass) singing mournfully depressing tunes without too much passion. Fine if you like that kinda stuff, but it’s just not me.
The second act, though, was excellent. Looking like a cross between two other famous Swedish singers, Shirley Clamp and Helen Sjoholm, Anna Ericksson sang with strength and passion. Although she could do with a bit of work on her stage presence, I was really very moved by her singing and songwriting. A little bit like “Everything But The Girl”, in some respects, she had a male pianist accompany her. I was most moved when she sang a couple of those deep, dark, depressing numbers in a minor key that only the Swedes, it seems, know how to do best. Magic stuff.
Unfortunately, the rain started to come down half way through her performance. But it was nice summer rain, and I just sat there enjoying getting wet. Back in Sydney I would have run for the hills without an umbrella, darting from awning to awning to get through in the wet. On holiday, though, when it rained again later, I just stood under an awning and waited for it to end. It’s a wonderful feeling NOT to have to worry about time.
Oh, and also, I guess it’s because there’s a decided lack of awnings on Swedish buildings. I guess it’s because of the problems snow would cause. It seems, though, whenever it rains, an umbrella appears above every Swede, as if by magic.
Otherwise it’s been a day of sight-seeing thanks to the Swedish public transport system. I’ve got to say the best value investment I’ve made on this trip is the month long public transport card. I’ve used it heaps already. This morning, I hopped on the train for a while to see some of the outer suburbs, and then this afternoon, I hopped on Bus 47 to Waldemarsudde for a bit of sightseeing around Djurgaden. When the bus route came to an end, the bus driver said to me, “This is the end of the line. You can get off here, or you can come back with me in five minutes”. I took a couple of photographs, stretched my legs, and was straight back on the bus. It’s excellent value if you’re ever gonna visit Stockholm.
I also went for a quick look at the area I’m moving into for the next few days: near Skanstvus T-Barnen on Sodermalm. Within eyeshot of the famous Globen, it seems like a really nice area, and the accommodation looks good from the outside. The area seems a little bit groovy, a little bit up-market, nice record shops, a little bit leefy, and the bars seem a little bit lezzie. I’ll be right at home :)
It’s my last night at Fridhemsplan because I made friends today with a bloke who has moved into my room in the hostel. He’s very chatty, and we spoke about our respective travel plans, including his which has involved riding a bike all the way from Hamburg. “So where is your wife”, he asked me, and of course I replied I don’t have one, nor do I have children. “Me neither”, he told me, adding that his last girlfriend preferred 5-star holidays to “the crazy cycle holidays I like”.
jamesobrien.id.au
forty-something bloke from sydney who is reasonably happy with life at the moment
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)