Leave You Shaking Your Head.
The first concerns the Official Ceremony to be held this Sunday on the 10th Anniversary of this Terrorist Attack.
Mayor Bloomberg, the esteemed (?) Mayor of New York, in his wisdom, has declared that God not be present at this Ceremony, nor any of the "First Responders" - you know, the true heroes of that day 10 short years ago - the Police and the Fire Fighters.
The occupants of the Twin Towers did not have a choice in meeting their fate, but the first responders went in knowing that in all likelihood they would never come out. Hundreds from their ranks died that day and to me they are the true heroes.
Symbolically, under the current circumstances, is the fact that the First Responder to die that day was Father Mychal Judge - a Fire Department Chaplain. Had he lived, he would have been denied status at Sunday's Memorial for two reasons then - first he was only a Responder and second because, he was a disciple of God. Imagine.
What happens to individuals like Bloomberg when they come into a little power?
The US was built on Judeo / Christian Foundations and yet today it is under attack throughout the world. These foundations made us the Great the Nations we have become and will, with its crumbling, see us actively decline. Indeed, that decline is most evident everywhere.
Bloomberg then is one of the agents of this decline.
Thankfully, other ceremonies are planned this Sunday in competition with the "Official Ceremony" where God and First Responders are invited. I fully expect that the turn out at the 'Unofficial' Remembrances will be larger - indeed much larger than Bloomberg's. Nothing would please me more than to see Bloomberg at a microphone on Sunday speaking to a people-less crowd.
The question has been posed as to whether or not this should be the last anniversary of 9/11 and I am in agreement. I think the time has come for us all to move on from those day's events. I am opposed though to one of the reasons consistently given for ceasing further remembrances and that relates to the belief, on the part of some, that this was a victory for Al Quaeda and that further remembrances only fuels their glee.
In my mind it was not a victory. To kill innocent civilians is murder of the most evil kind; victory belongs to the winner of competing armies. Cowardly killers like Al Quaeda on 9/11 deserve only our disdain.
The second story takes place right here in Canada and concerns our own Prime Minister.
This week Harper, when interviewed by CBC's Peter Mansbridge, allowed the greatest fear on the part of our Intelligence Services since 9/11 continues to be the dangers posed by Islamists.
Like the ones that blew up the Twin Towers and have exploded killer bombs across Europe and Africa.
Well you'd have thought he had disparaged the CBC itself.
Both Opposition Leaders - Turmel and Rae quickly came out to condemn Harper for his 'divisive' language - scolding him for using the term "Islamists". This despite the fact that they are the ones in 99 out of 100 cases, behind these cowardly attacks and despite the fact that he was only saying what was occupying the attention of our Security Forces.
What planet do these two live on? It is hard to imagine that anyone living on Earth since 9/11 can be so out of touch with reality.
It does show one thing very clearly though - neither deserves full time occupancy of their respective party leaderships.
As I see it....
'K.D. Galagher'
Friday, September 9, 2011
Thursday, September 8, 2011
Strange Bedfellows for the Left...
And one other Related Story.
First on Oil.
The Dalai Lama and Archbishop Tutu have joined forces with internet inventor* Al Gore to condemn construction of an oil pipe line from Canada to the Texas Gulf.
(* Gore has said he was the inventor of internet when it was NASA)
These dear souls are worried about the environment.
They should stick to their knitting.
Canada has been a big supporter (as in Big Supporter) of both gentlemen when it comes to promoting Human Rights in their respective countries. With this in mind, why they would sully themselves in oil debate is simply beyond belief. That said, you can understand why Gore is involved since he has made a career of promoting the Fraud of Man-Made Global Warming.
I say this because the US has but only two choices in this oil debate - buy its oil from us - a secure and friendly neighbour or from the Middle East which is in turmoil and where much of the oil monies end up in the hands of terrorists. A no-brainer except for the above threesome.
If I was Harper it would be a frosty day in hell when I met again with either the Dalia Lama or the dear Archbish0p since there needs to be consequences for their inappropriate meddling.
The Second Story concerns Obama's 1000th speech he plans to deliver this eve.
This one to create jobs.
By now with all his previous announcements and Trillions spent one would wonder why the need for jobs - there must have been millions created by now.
But not so - since Government created jobs - unless they are jobs in government itself - are a misnomer.
But that does not deter olde Obama - is reports are accurate - he will announce a further expenditure of $300 Billion - nearly one third of a Trillion $ on additional job creation.
This will succeed only in creating more government debt - and less private sector jobs.
As I indicated in a recent Blog re Obama - the guy not only does not get it - he is incapable of getting it as a result of this upbringing and background.
My advice - buy gold.
Before leaving this topic and with tongue in cheek (sort of) - I have a solution to America's unemployment problem. It would create 50 million new jobs and would not cost America one red cent.
How you might ask?
Put all Welfare / Unemployed to work for the government - cutting grass, picking up trash, volunteering in the area of sports etc etc. Their pay? Why the Welfare / Unemployment benefits they are currently receiving.
It is a win / win. They all get a job - Government Worker and the Government gets Work Done - all for the same money it is paying out for zip.
So how are these two stories related?
The US private sector needs a stable source of oil to function effectively. An expanded pipeline from Canada would help to accomplish that. Anything to assist business will in turn create more jobs - as in real productive jobs. The kind that pay taxes and support government infrastructure.
As I see it...
'K.D. Galagher'
First on Oil.
The Dalai Lama and Archbishop Tutu have joined forces with internet inventor* Al Gore to condemn construction of an oil pipe line from Canada to the Texas Gulf.
(* Gore has said he was the inventor of internet when it was NASA)
These dear souls are worried about the environment.
They should stick to their knitting.
Canada has been a big supporter (as in Big Supporter) of both gentlemen when it comes to promoting Human Rights in their respective countries. With this in mind, why they would sully themselves in oil debate is simply beyond belief. That said, you can understand why Gore is involved since he has made a career of promoting the Fraud of Man-Made Global Warming.
I say this because the US has but only two choices in this oil debate - buy its oil from us - a secure and friendly neighbour or from the Middle East which is in turmoil and where much of the oil monies end up in the hands of terrorists. A no-brainer except for the above threesome.
If I was Harper it would be a frosty day in hell when I met again with either the Dalia Lama or the dear Archbish0p since there needs to be consequences for their inappropriate meddling.
The Second Story concerns Obama's 1000th speech he plans to deliver this eve.
This one to create jobs.
By now with all his previous announcements and Trillions spent one would wonder why the need for jobs - there must have been millions created by now.
But not so - since Government created jobs - unless they are jobs in government itself - are a misnomer.
But that does not deter olde Obama - is reports are accurate - he will announce a further expenditure of $300 Billion - nearly one third of a Trillion $ on additional job creation.
This will succeed only in creating more government debt - and less private sector jobs.
As I indicated in a recent Blog re Obama - the guy not only does not get it - he is incapable of getting it as a result of this upbringing and background.
My advice - buy gold.
Before leaving this topic and with tongue in cheek (sort of) - I have a solution to America's unemployment problem. It would create 50 million new jobs and would not cost America one red cent.
How you might ask?
Put all Welfare / Unemployed to work for the government - cutting grass, picking up trash, volunteering in the area of sports etc etc. Their pay? Why the Welfare / Unemployment benefits they are currently receiving.
It is a win / win. They all get a job - Government Worker and the Government gets Work Done - all for the same money it is paying out for zip.
So how are these two stories related?
The US private sector needs a stable source of oil to function effectively. An expanded pipeline from Canada would help to accomplish that. Anything to assist business will in turn create more jobs - as in real productive jobs. The kind that pay taxes and support government infrastructure.
As I see it...
'K.D. Galagher'
Tuesday, September 6, 2011
Savers Bailing Out Spenders....
Note: I am not satisfied with my explanation below so let me try to drastically simplify it:
BIG TIME !!
Do you ever wonder how the youth of today can afford big homes, big cars and all the toys?
If you are a Boomer - like me, it is thanks to us.
How so, you ask?
The following example should suffice:
Let's say a Young Couple (YC) buy their first home for $100k (as if, but let's just pretend).
YC go to the bank and arrange for a five year mortgage @ 3% per year so their interest payments over the next five years totals $3k per yr x 5 years or $15,000.
Now Old Couple (OC) go to the same bank with their $100k nest egg to invest and they get the princely sum of 1% interest - if they are lucky. Over five years that interest accumulates to $5k ($1k x5) so their nest egg is now at $105k.
So YC is down $15k and OC is up $5k. Right?
Not at all.
Permit me to shine some light on the real situation.
While trying hard not to bore you.
The Consumer price index (CPI) states that our annual inflation rate is roughly 3%. (Which is not true since economists believe that the real rate is twice or even three times that figure).
But let's for argument sake take the official government 3 % rate. (as an aside, the gov't understates the CPI because its annual social payment increases are based on that figure).
Let's deal with OC first.
Each year their $100k nest egg declines in value by the CPI rate so if the rate is 3% over 5 years it declines by $15k ($3 k x 5 yrs). Since they are receiving 1% from their Bank - this drop in value is mitigated by their interest earnings or by $5k ($1k per year x 5yrs).
So their net loss over five years is $10k ($15K - $5k). In other words, their nest egg is now worth only $90k in real dollars.
Now let's look at YC. They borrowed their $100k @ 3% which also reflects the gov't sanctioned CPI at 3%. So they end up neutral re their borrowing. In other words their borrowing has cost them nothing.
But as a result of inflaton, their home has increased 3% per annum for their 5 years of ownership so what was purchased at $100k is now worth $115 k in inflated money (3% x 5 yrs) or $100k in constant dollars.
Bottom-line YC at the end of 5 years has an asset valued in constant dollars of $100k while OC has a nest egg valued at $90k in constant dollars.
In a fair economic climate, the YC should be borrowing at approx. 10% - double the actual rate of inflation and the OC should be investing at approx. 7.5% - 50% above real inflation.
That would mean, on a $100k mortgage, YC should be paying interest at the rate of $10,000 per annum or $5,000 after inflation and OC should be receiving $7,500 per annum interest on their $100k investment or $2,500 after inflation.
What we have here is an inter-generational transfer of money which has gone on far too long and in the long run will benefit neither YC or OC since YC can only keep up their spending as long as OC has the money to loan them.
As I see it...
'K.D. Galagher'
- Borrowers can get a mortgage for 3% while the CPI is also at 3% and actual inflation running at 5%. While their underlying asset - ie their home retains its original value. That is to say, they can always get their $100k investment back whenever they decide to sell their home. Plus even more, should real estate prices rise faster than inflation.
- However the poor investor - gets but 1% on their investment in the face of 5% inflation - so each and every year their investment declines in value by 4 % ( 5% minus 1 %). Over 5 years, that amounts to at least 20% (4% x 5 years) or $20k. In other words, at the end of 5 years their original $100k nest egg would have the buying power of only $80k.
- From this I hope you can see that the Investor, in reality, is subsidizing the Borrower.
- This can last only until the Investors have money left to invest - which as you can imagine, is not forever.
Galagher
BIG TIME !!
Do you ever wonder how the youth of today can afford big homes, big cars and all the toys?
If you are a Boomer - like me, it is thanks to us.
How so, you ask?
The following example should suffice:
Let's say a Young Couple (YC) buy their first home for $100k (as if, but let's just pretend).
YC go to the bank and arrange for a five year mortgage @ 3% per year so their interest payments over the next five years totals $3k per yr x 5 years or $15,000.
Now Old Couple (OC) go to the same bank with their $100k nest egg to invest and they get the princely sum of 1% interest - if they are lucky. Over five years that interest accumulates to $5k ($1k x5) so their nest egg is now at $105k.
So YC is down $15k and OC is up $5k. Right?
Not at all.
Permit me to shine some light on the real situation.
While trying hard not to bore you.
The Consumer price index (CPI) states that our annual inflation rate is roughly 3%. (Which is not true since economists believe that the real rate is twice or even three times that figure).
But let's for argument sake take the official government 3 % rate. (as an aside, the gov't understates the CPI because its annual social payment increases are based on that figure).
Let's deal with OC first.
Each year their $100k nest egg declines in value by the CPI rate so if the rate is 3% over 5 years it declines by $15k ($3 k x 5 yrs). Since they are receiving 1% from their Bank - this drop in value is mitigated by their interest earnings or by $5k ($1k per year x 5yrs).
So their net loss over five years is $10k ($15K - $5k). In other words, their nest egg is now worth only $90k in real dollars.
Now let's look at YC. They borrowed their $100k @ 3% which also reflects the gov't sanctioned CPI at 3%. So they end up neutral re their borrowing. In other words their borrowing has cost them nothing.
But as a result of inflaton, their home has increased 3% per annum for their 5 years of ownership so what was purchased at $100k is now worth $115 k in inflated money (3% x 5 yrs) or $100k in constant dollars.
Bottom-line YC at the end of 5 years has an asset valued in constant dollars of $100k while OC has a nest egg valued at $90k in constant dollars.
In a fair economic climate, the YC should be borrowing at approx. 10% - double the actual rate of inflation and the OC should be investing at approx. 7.5% - 50% above real inflation.
That would mean, on a $100k mortgage, YC should be paying interest at the rate of $10,000 per annum or $5,000 after inflation and OC should be receiving $7,500 per annum interest on their $100k investment or $2,500 after inflation.
What we have here is an inter-generational transfer of money which has gone on far too long and in the long run will benefit neither YC or OC since YC can only keep up their spending as long as OC has the money to loan them.
As I see it...
'K.D. Galagher'
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)