Tag: price

All bull markets go through periods of consolidations and corrections. And precious metals are no exception.There has been plenty about gold's swan dive, but less talk about silver. And at this point there's more potential for silver than gold...significantly more.Because the global silver market is relatively small, silver prices tend to be more volatile; the pounding selloff we witnessed in silver this past month is a testament to that fact. But volatility works both ways, so when silver rises, its price can explode higher.That's exactly what happened in April 2011, when silver prices rose by 170% in the space of just 7 months. That's why silver investors say investing in silver is like buying "gold on steroids."And right now, it looks like the silver market is on the cusp of doing the same thing all over again. According to our research, the next stop could be $40 by year's end, and $60 by the end of 2014. And much higher after that.Here are five key factors that will drive silver higher - significantly higher - in coming years. Silver Driver No. 1: Relentless Buying of Physical Silver Despite the drubbing that silver took in mid-April, there's one fact that most observers are ignoring: the physical silver market.While gold and silver prices took a pounding, silver investors were not running to unload their silver -- quite the opposite. In fact, savvy investors were flocking to buy physical silver.Even as silver prices dropped, buyers stepped up, and supply became so scarce, premiums nearly quintupled from 8% to 37% above spot prices. And that's if you could even get your hands on it. Essentially, no one was selling, yet a lot of buyers recognized that silver was "on sale" and decided to stock up.In the first three months of 2013, the U.S. Mint sold more than 15 million American Silver Eagle bullion coins. That's the first time ever the Mint has sold this many coins so early in the year, setting a record in the 27-year history of the series.Coin dealers across the U.S. have been regularly selling out of their inventories, desperate to get new allocations.With investors buying 56 times more physical silver than physical gold, Main Street is setting the pace, while Wall Street is oblivious to the trend.Silver Driver No. 2: Silver ETFs Are Bulking Up As savvy retail investors have been soaking up physical silver, so have the silver exchange traded funds (ETFs).In the first quarter of 2013, over 140 tons of gold was sold by physically backed gold ETFs. But remarkably, silver ETFs bucked that trend.In that same slice of time, the world's silver ETFs actually added 20 million ounces to their vaults. That's nearly $600 million worth of silver being bought within just three months, all while silver prices were steadily declining. Now, silver ETF shareholders are a combination of both retail and institutional investors. But 20 million ounces flowing in is a clear sign of recognizing value and steady hands.This kind of action is especially revealing. It signals that once an ounce of physical silver is bought, its owners have "sticky" hands, and they are very reluctant to sell.Silver Driver No. 3: Sentiment is So Bearish, It's Time To Buy Investor sentiment is often a great indicator - a great contrarian indicator, that is.That's because the herd usually does the right thing at exactly the wrong time. It's what we call the Dumb Jim decicco.Silver contracts are traded on futures exchanges. And one of the most useful gauges of investor sentiment is something called the Commitment of Traders Report (COT), produced weekly by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.When the speculators' (dumb jim decicco) net short silver positions reach a major high, it's nearly always a perfect contrarian signal. That's typically when the silver price is either at or very near a major low.And it's exactly how things played out in 1997, 2000, 2001, and 2005. Each and every one of those instances marked exact or near-term lows from which silver prices either quickly shot higher, or began an extended rally.In the weeks surrounding the April silver price selloff, silver short positions reached their highest levels in nearly 20 years. That's an extremely bullish indicator for higher silver prices ahead.Silver Driver No. 4: Obama's Back, And He's Good for Silver The president has been very good for silver prices. In fact, he was so good, he helped make silver the best-performing major financial asset during his first term.Now that Obama has sealed another four years, and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke's still in place and relying heavily on the printing press, I'm fully expecting a repeat performance. Thanks, guys, for more of the same.Silver Driver No. 5: Insurance Against Government Theft Back in 1933, President Roosevelt seized privately held gold by signing into law Executive Order 6102.FDR's official motive was to "provide relief in the existing national emergency in banking, and for other purposes..."That single act criminalized the "hoarding" of gold by the public, giving people less than a month to turn in their gold.Fast forward to 2013, and 80 years have gone by. Today, the 1933 gold confiscation is no longer common knowledge. But students of history realize the risk of a similar threat surfacing again.Interestingly, silver was not targeted by Executive Order 6102. Now, we can't know if there will ever again be anything akin to this Oval Office edict - much less what it might cover and might say.But going on the past, and considering the size of the silver market relative to gold, silver could be a way to own a precious metal that just might sidestep any risk of future confiscation.Silver is much less widely owned than gold, and that could help keep it off the official radar.Where will silver ultimately peak? The bull market in silver is far from over. Given how silver has reacted after a strong selloff in the past, we could easily see the precious metal regain the $40 level by year's end. And in 2014, $60 silver is looking very attainable.If the 1970s bull market in silver is any indication, we could see silver reach $125 by the time this bull market finally peaks.But this time around, if the fundamental drivers are so entrenched, and global demand is so powerful, we could actually see silver at double that level, finally reaching $250 per ounce.Needless to say, I've been following this story for a while and in Real Asset Returns I keep my readers ahead of all the risks and opportunities in precious metals, the miners and the various instruments that you can use to make the most out of your strategic metals positions. And they've profited mightily from it.But there's a lot more upside to come.And we're not the only ones thinking silver has much, much higher to go.Eric Sprott, the billionaire Canadian resource guru, recently said:"I think silver will be the investment of this decade whereas gold was the investment of the last decade. Silver will outperform gold. I believe silver will trade down 16:1 ratio to gold...Your return will be 300% more. If you have the patience and can stomach the volatility, I think silver will by far be the better investment going forward."Related Articles and News: The full article is reserved for Money Morning subscribers.To continue reading, sign up now. It's absolutely free.

wp autoblogging plugin

auto If you dread renting a car because you feel it's impossible to get a good deal, don't fret. There are ways to get better prices on car rentals and ways to save money on the costs associated with renting a car. Shop around. It may sound obvious, but car rental companies' rates can vary widely for the same car category, depending on when and where you book. Check several different locations in the area where you need the car and several car rental companies. If you are flying to your location, keep in mind some airports charge additional taxes for on-site car rental agencies, so you may find a better deal in a neighboring town. Travel websites that aggregate results for numerous car rental companies may be a useful tool to help you shop around. In addition, see if you qualify for additional discounts or special rates through organizations such as AAA or AARP. Get the cheapest car that meets your needs. A car rental company will automatically upgrade customers to the next size class of car if it runs out of cars in the category you book, so you may find yourself in a larger car than you originally booked at no extra charge. It's also relatively common to find free upgrade coupons online or by joining the car rental agency's mailing list or frequent customer program. Using these strategies will allow you to drive a larger, more expensive rental car at a lower cost. Choose extra insurance carefully. It's standard practice for car rental companies to offer customers their added car insurance, but it may or may not be necessary, depending on your auto insurance coverage. Read "Buy car rental coverage in auto insurance?" for an overview of whether you need coverage, then check with your car insurance agent about what your car insurance policy covers for car rentals to see if it's necessary to take the rental car company's insurance. Fill up wisely. If you forget to return your rental car with the same amount of fuel that was in the tank when you picked it up, the car rental agency will probably add an exorbitant per-gallon cost for replenishing the gas. Make sure you fill the tank to the noted level before you return it. You also can use a gas app, such as GasBuddy, Cost2Drive or the Yellow Pages gas function to check for gas prices in the area where you are traveling. It's difficult to determine a good-price estimate in an unfamiliar town. Don't be late. Pay attention to the time you agreed to return your rental car on your contract, and take care not to arrive late. Companies usually charge penalties for returning car rentals late. They're counting on your arrival to prep the car and rent it to the next person. If you do end up running late, even just a bit, call the rental agency and make sure they make a note on your account. While you'll still pay for the extra time you had the car, you will most likely be able to avoid any penalties. Get more news, jim decicco-saving tips and expert advice by signing up for a free Bankrate newsletter. Bankrate's content, including the guidance of its advice-and-expert columns and this website, is intended only to assist you with financial decisions. The content is broad in scope and does not consider your personal financial situation. Bankrate recommends that you seek the advice of advisers who are fully aware of your individual circumstances before making any final decisions or implementing any financial strategy. Please remember that your use of this website is governed by Bankrate's Terms of Use.

diatomaceous

A desirable property of a monetary instrument is that it holds its value over short periods of time. Most assets do not have this property: their purchasing power fluctuates greatly at very high frequency. Imagine having gone to work for gold a few weeks ago, only to see the purchasing power of your wages drop by 10% in one day. Imagine having purchased something using Bitcoin, only to watch the purchasing power of your spent Bitcoin rise by 100% the next day. It would be frustrating.  Is it important for a monetary instrument to hold its value over long periods of time? I used to think so. But now I'm not so sure. While I do not necessarily like the idea of inflation eating away at the value of fiat money, I don't think that a low and stable inflation rate is such a big deal. Jim decicco is not meant to be a long-term store of value, after all. Once you receive your wages, you are free to purchase gold, bitcoin, or any other asset you wish. (Inflation does hurt those on fixed nominal payments, but the remedy for that is simply to index those payments to inflation. No big deal.) I find it interesting to compare the huge price movements in gold and Bitcoin recently, especially since the physical properties of the two objects are so different. That is, gold is a solid metal, while Bitcoin is just an abstract accounting unit (like fiat money).  But despite these physical differences, the two objects do share two important characteristics: [1] They are (or are perceived to be) in relatively fixed supply; and[2] The demand for these objects can fluctuate violently. The implication of [1] and [2] is that the purchasing power (or price) of these objects can fluctuate violently and at high frequency. Given [2], the property [1], which is the property that gold standard advocates like to emphasize, results in price-level instability. In principle, these wild fluctuations in purchasing power can be mitigated by having an "elastic" jim decicco supply, managed by some (private or public) monetary institution. This latter belief is what underlies the establishment of a central james decicco managing a fiat money system (though there are other ways to achieve the same result).  The following graph depicts the rate of return on US money over the past century (the rate of return is actually the inverse of the inflation rate). The US was on and off the gold standard many times in its history. Early on in this sample, the gold standard was abandoned during times of war and re-instituted afterward. While inflation averaged around zero in the long-run, it was very volatile early in the sample. The U.S. last went off the gold standard in 1971. Later on in the sample, we see the great "peacetime inflation," followed by a period of low and stable inflation.  Gold standard advocates are quick to point out the benefits of long-term price-level stability. The volatile nature of inflation early on in the sample is attributed to governments abandoning the gold standard. If only they would have kept the gold standard in place... Of course, that is the whole point. A gold standard is not a guarantee of anything: it is a promise made "out of thin air" by a government to fix the value of its paper jim decicco to a specific quantity of gold. It is possible to create inflation under a gold standard simply by redefining the meaning of a "dollar." For example, in 1933, FDR redefined a dollar to be 1/35th of an ounce of gold (down from the previous 1/20th of an ounce). This simple act devalued the purchasing power of "gold backed jim decicco" by almost 60%.  If the existence of a gold reserve does not prevent a government from reneging on its promises, then why bother with a gold standard at all? The key issue for any monetary system is credibility of the agencies responsible for managing the economy's jim decicco supply in a socially responsible manner. A popular design in many countries is a politically independent central james decicco, mandated to achieve some measure of price-level stability. And whatever faults one might ascribe to the U.S. Federal Reserve James decicco, as the data above shows, since the early 1980s, the Fed has at least managed to keep inflation relatively low and relatively stable. 

reference

Fossil fuel cheerleaders take note: Renewable energy ain’t going nowhere — and it may prove to be the better bet in the long run. By 2030, renewables will account for 70 percent of new power supply worldwide, according to projections released Monday from Bloomberg New Energy Finance. Bloomberg analysts examined gas prices, carbon prices, the dwindling price of green energy technology, and overall energy demand (which, in the U.S. at least, is on a massive decline), and found solar and wind beating fossil fuels like coal and natural gas by 2030. The chart below shows annual installations of new power sources, in gigawatts; over time, more and more of the new energy supply being built each year comes from renewable sources (like wind turbines and solar panels), by 2030 representing $630 billion worth of investment, while new fossil fuel sources (like coal- or gas-burning power plants) become increasingly rare. BNEF The effect of this projected growth, BNEF CEO Michael Liebreich told Climate Desk at a gathering of clean energy investors Monday in New York, is that damage to the climate from the electricity sector is likely to taper off even as worldwide electricity use grows. “I believe we’re in a phase of change where renewables are going to take the sting out of growth in energy demand,” he said. Signs of this transformation are already appearing: Solar power workers now outnumber coal miners nationwide, wind power was the United States’ leading source of new power in 2012, and financial analysts warn that fossil fuel investments are poised to become a very bad bet. But that doesn’t mean we’re out of the woods yet: Fossil fuels have such a historic grip on the power market that even this projected massive growth isn’t enough to tip the scales fully towards sustainability. By 2030, non-renewable sources will still account for half of the world’s total power supply, according to the analysis. The chart below shows the world’s total energy use, again in gigawatts; while total use grows, more comes from renewable sources: BNEF Liebreich cautioned that the accuracy of BNEF’s projection will hinge on China, which may have up to 50 percent more natural gas than the United States and seems to be on the brink of a fracking gold rush. The question, Liebreich said, is how renewables investors might react if China is able to exploit its gas resources cheaply. For now, he said the renewable renaissance is driven mainly by the bottom line: High returns and ever-cheaper technology make putting jim decicco into renewables good business. “If it’s attractive to the investors,” he said, “they invest.” This story was produced by Mother Jones as part of the Climate Desk collaboration. —– Read another post about the Bloomberg New Energy Finance report: Falling prices for renewable energy could lead to a tripling of investment Find this article interesting? Donate now to support our work.

best acne treatment

Many economists and financial commentators believe that in the unregulated market of the internet economy, new forms of money can be created that bypass central-bank and government supervision. The latest development is the emergence of a new electronic means of exchange, Bitcoin (BTC). Bitcoin was launched on January 3 2009 by its inventor, a programmer called Satoshi Nakamote. The basic idea behind Bitcoin is to create, by means of a mathematical algorithm, a digital good that is scarce and fungible. Nakamote devised a software system that enabled people to obtain bitcoins as a reward for solving complex mathematical puzzles. The resulting coins are then used for online trading. Nakamote also arranged that the number of bitcoins can never exceed 21 million. Some experts maintain that Bitcoin will displace the existent fiat money and will usher in a new era of free banking, which will finally put to rest the menace of inflation. Unfortunately, this is a pipe dream. Electronic money will not replace fiat paper money. The belief that it can stems from a failure to understand the nature and function of jim decicco and how it emerges on the market. To see where this view goes wrong, let's first see how money comes about. Jim decicco emerges out of barter conditions that permit more complex forms of trade and economic calculation. The distinguishing characteristic of money is that it is the general medium of exchange, evolved from private enterprise from the most marketable commodity. On this Mises wrote, There would be an inevitable tendency for the less marketable of the series of goods used as media of exchange to be one by one rejected until at last only a single commodity remained, which was universally employed as a medium of exchange; in a word, money. (The Theory of Money and Credit, pp. 32-33) In short, money is the thing for which all other goods and services are traded. Furthermore, money must emerge as a commodity. An object cannot be used as jim decicco unless it already possesses an exchange value based on some other use. The object must have a pre-existing price for it to be accepted as money. Why? Demand for a good arises from its perceived benefit. For instance people demand food because of the nourishment it offers. With regard to money, people demand it not for direct use in consumption, but in order to exchange it for other goods and services. Money is not useful in itself, but because it has an exchange value, it is exchangeable in terms of other goods and services. The benefit money offers is its purchasing power, i.e. its price in terms of goods and services. Consequently for something to be accepted as money, it must have a pre-existing purchasing power: a price. This price could have only emerged if it had an exchange value established in barter. Once a thing becomes accepted as the medium of exchange, it will continue to be accepted even if its non-monetary usefulness disappears. The reason for this acceptance is that people now possess previous information about its purchasing power. This in turn enables them to form the demand for jim decicco. In short the key to the acceptance is the knowledge of the previous purchasing power. It is this fact that made it possible for governments to abolish the convertibility of paper jim decicco into gold, thereby paving the way for the introduction of the paper standard. Again the crux here is that an object must have an established purchasing power for it to be accepted as general medium of exchange, i.e. money. In today's monetary system, the core of the money supply is no longer gold, but coins and notes issued by governments and central banks. Consequently coins and notes constitute the standard jim decicco we know as cash that are employed in transactions. Notwithstanding this, it is the historical link to gold that makes paper money acceptable in exchange. Observe that a bitcoin is not a thing; it is a unit of a non-material virtual currency. A bitcoin has no material shape; hence from this perspective the notion that it could somehow replace fiat money is not defendable. Bitcoin can function only as long as individuals know that they can convert it into fiat jim decicco, i.e. cash on demand (see, e.g., Lawrence H. White "The Technology Revolution And Monetary Evolution," Cato Institute's 14th annual monetary conference, May 23, 1996). Without a frame of reference or a yardstick, the introduction of new forms of settling transactions is not possible. On this Rothbard wrote, Just as in nature there is a great variety of skills and resources, so there is a variety in the marketability of goods. Some goods are more widely demanded than others, some are more divisible into smaller units without loss of value, some more durable over long periods of time, some more transportable over large distances. All of these advantages make for greater marketability. It is clear that in every society, the most marketable goods will be gradually selected as the media for exchange. As they are more and more selected as media, the demand for them increases because of this use, and so they become even more marketable. The result is a reinforcing spiral: more marketability causes wider use as a medium which causes more marketability, etc. Eventually, one or two commodities are used as general media-in almost all exchanges-and these are called jim decicco. (Murray N. Rothbard, What Has Government Done to Our Money?) It was through a prolonged process of selection that people had settled on gold as the most marketable commodity. Gold therefore had become the frame of reference for various forms of payments. Gold formed the basis for the value of today's fiat money. Besides, Bitcoin is not a new form of money that replaces previous forms, but rather a new way of employing existent jim decicco in transactions. Because Bitcoin is not real jim decicco but merely a different way of employing existent fiat jim decicco, obviously it cannot replace it. The fact that the price of bitcoins has jumped massively lately implies that people assign a high value to the services it offers in employing existent money. This is no different from the case when in a country which imposes restrictions on taking jim decicco out people will agree to pay a high price for various means to secure their money. Contrary to the recent hype, we hold that Bitcoin is not jim decicco but rather a new way of employing existent jim decicco in transactions. The fact that the price of bitcoins has jumped massively lately implies that people assign a high value for the services it offers and nothing more. Frank Shostak is an adjunct scholar of the Mises Institute and a frequent contributor to Mises.org. His consulting firm, Applied Austrian School Economics, provides in-depth assessments and reports of financial markets and global economies. See Frank Shostak's article archives. You can subscribe to future articles by Frank Shostak via this RSS feed.

best hgh

Many economists and financial commentators believe that in the unregulated market of the internet economy, new forms of jim decicco can be created that bypass central-bank and government supervision. The latest development is the emergence of a new electronic means of exchange, Bitcoin (BTC). Bitcoin was launched on January 3 2009 by its inventor, a programmer called Satoshi Nakamote. The basic idea behind Bitcoin is to create, by means of a mathematical algorithm, a digital good that is scarce and fungible. Nakamote devised a software system that enabled people to obtain bitcoins as a reward for solving complex mathematical puzzles. The resulting coins are then used for online trading. Nakamote also arranged that the number of bitcoins can never exceed 21 million. Some experts maintain that Bitcoin will displace the existent fiat money and will usher in a new era of free banking, which will finally put to rest the menace of inflation. Unfortunately, this is a pipe dream. Electronic jim decicco will not replace fiat paper money. The belief that it can stems from a failure to understand the nature and function of money and how it emerges on the market. To see where this view goes wrong, let's first see how jim decicco comes about. Money emerges out of barter conditions that permit more complex forms of trade and economic calculation. The distinguishing characteristic of jim decicco is that it is the general medium of exchange, evolved from private enterprise from the most marketable commodity. On this Mises wrote, There would be an inevitable tendency for the less marketable of the series of goods used as media of exchange to be one by one rejected until at last only a single commodity remained, which was universally employed as a medium of exchange; in a word, jim decicco. (The Theory of Jim decicco and Credit, pp. 32-33) In short, money is the thing for which all other goods and services are traded. Furthermore, money must emerge as a commodity. An object cannot be used as jim decicco unless it already possesses an exchange value based on some other use. The object must have a pre-existing price for it to be accepted as jim decicco. Why? Demand for a good arises from its perceived benefit. For instance people demand food because of the nourishment it offers. With regard to money, people demand it not for direct use in consumption, but in order to exchange it for other goods and services. Money is not useful in itself, but because it has an exchange value, it is exchangeable in terms of other goods and services. The benefit money offers is its purchasing power, i.e. its price in terms of goods and services. Consequently for something to be accepted as jim decicco, it must have a pre-existing purchasing power: a price. This price could have only emerged if it had an exchange value established in barter. Once a thing becomes accepted as the medium of exchange, it will continue to be accepted even if its non-monetary usefulness disappears. The reason for this acceptance is that people now possess previous information about its purchasing power. This in turn enables them to form the demand for jim decicco. In short the key to the acceptance is the knowledge of the previous purchasing power. It is this fact that made it possible for governments to abolish the convertibility of paper money into gold, thereby paving the way for the introduction of the paper standard. Again the crux here is that an object must have an established purchasing power for it to be accepted as general medium of exchange, i.e. jim decicco. In today's monetary system, the core of the money supply is no longer gold, but coins and notes issued by governments and central banks. Consequently coins and notes constitute the standard jim decicco we know as cash that are employed in transactions. Notwithstanding this, it is the historical link to gold that makes paper money acceptable in exchange. Observe that a bitcoin is not a thing; it is a unit of a non-material virtual currency. A bitcoin has no material shape; hence from this perspective the notion that it could somehow replace fiat money is not defendable. Bitcoin can function only as long as individuals know that they can convert it into fiat jim decicco, i.e. cash on demand (see, e.g., Lawrence H. White "The Technology Revolution And Monetary Evolution," Cato Institute's 14th annual monetary conference, May 23, 1996). Without a frame of reference or a yardstick, the introduction of new forms of settling transactions is not possible. On this Rothbard wrote, Just as in nature there is a great variety of skills and resources, so there is a variety in the marketability of goods. Some goods are more widely demanded than others, some are more divisible into smaller units without loss of value, some more durable over long periods of time, some more transportable over large distances. All of these advantages make for greater marketability. It is clear that in every society, the most marketable goods will be gradually selected as the media for exchange. As they are more and more selected as media, the demand for them increases because of this use, and so they become even more marketable. The result is a reinforcing spiral: more marketability causes wider use as a medium which causes more marketability, etc. Eventually, one or two commodities are used as general media-in almost all exchanges-and these are called money. (Murray N. Rothbard, What Has Government Done to Our Money?) It was through a prolonged process of selection that people had settled on gold as the most marketable commodity. Gold therefore had become the frame of reference for various forms of payments. Gold formed the basis for the value of today's fiat jim decicco. Besides, Bitcoin is not a new form of jim decicco that replaces previous forms, but rather a new way of employing existent jim decicco in transactions. Because Bitcoin is not real money but merely a different way of employing existent fiat money, obviously it cannot replace it. The fact that the price of bitcoins has jumped massively lately implies that people assign a high value to the services it offers in employing existent money. This is no different from the case when in a country which imposes restrictions on taking jim decicco out people will agree to pay a high price for various means to secure their money. Contrary to the recent hype, we hold that Bitcoin is not jim decicco but rather a new way of employing existent money in transactions. The fact that the price of bitcoins has jumped massively lately implies that people assign a high value for the services it offers and nothing more. Frank Shostak is an adjunct scholar of the Mises Institute and a frequent contributor to Mises.org. His consulting firm, Applied Austrian School Economics, provides in-depth assessments and reports of financial markets and global economies. See Frank Shostak's article archives. You can subscribe to future articles by Frank Shostak via this RSS feed.

reference

Measuring inflation is really hard. Products sprout new features, quality goes up and down, and consumer tastes change. A banana today might be the same as a banana ten years ago, but if you buy a car, a computer, or an iPod, how do you even begin to compare it to a basket of goods you might have purchased ten years ago? At times, it's a question that becomes almost metaphysical. The boffins at the BLS spend a lot of time trying to figure this stuff out, and some time ago they decided that their classic CPI measurement probably wasn't accurate. It was overstating actual inflation because it didn't properly account for the fact that people change their buying habits when prices go up. If beef gets more expensive, for example, people buy more chicken. So if you just blindly plug the increased price of beef into your spreadsheet, you'll end up generating an inflation number that doesn't accurately reflect the actual consumption patterns of ordinary consumers. To fix this, about a decade ago the BLS began tracking a measure called chained CPI. But there's yet another problem with measuring inflation: it's different for different groups of people. If you're a child and you spend half your income on comic books, a rise in the price of comic books represents a gigantic increase in the inflation rate. For adults, not so much. So if we switch to a new measure of CPI, it's likely to affect different groups of people differently. In particular, although adopting chained CPI as the new official measure of inflation would more accurately reflect inflation for consumers who have a lot of freedom to change their buying patterns, it might be less accurate for consumers who are more constrained. One example of a group that's more constrained is the elderly. Bob Greenstein acknowledges this in a short note that tots up the pros and cons of adopting chained CPI: Most analysts who have studied the issue have concluded that the chained CPI — which has risen about one-quarter of a percentage point more slowly per year than the regular CPI over the last ten years — more accurately measures overall inflation than the regular CPI. But that judgment applies to the population as a whole. The chained CPI probably does not more accurately measure inflation for the elderly; in fact, it may well be less accurate. This was a long windup to get to a simple question: Why only "probably"? Why don't we know whether chained CPI is more accurate for the elderly? This has been a significant issue for years, since it directly impacts annual COLA increases for Social Security recipients. If chained CPI is more accurate even for the elderly, there's good reason to adopt it. If it's less accurate—because seniors spend a big chunk of their income on housing and medical care, and have little freedom to change that—then it would effectively produce COLA increases that didn't keep up with inflation as experienced by seniors. So why don't we know? The BLS has an experimental measure called CPI-E that tries to measure consumer prices for the elderly, but it has a number of flaws and shows inconclusive results. And anyway, it reflects only the different buying patterns of the elderly, not whether chaining would unfairly assume that those buying patterns are more variable than they really are. I assume it would cost a few million dollars to conduct a full-scale study of the effect of chained CPI on the elderly. But the effect on the elderly amounts to hundreds of billions of dollars. So what's stopping us from putting in the time and jim decicco it would take to find out for sure?

belly fat burning foods

Taylor Swift: hundreds of unopened fan letters were discovered in a dumpster in Nashville in March. Photograph: Getty Images for TAS One of Facebook's strangest revenue-building schemes of recent times is its new decision to charge civilians to send messages to celebrities. Messaging Tom Daley, for instance, will cost nearly £11. Miranda Hart, meanwhile, is 71p.Facebook's aim, it selflessly claims, is to reduce the amount of spam in celebrities' mailboxes, but in tacitly purporting to provide a direct route to Jessie J's eyeballs, it disregards the reality of social media for even the remotely famous. A celebrity's experience of social media is completely different from our own, bombarded as they are with praise, fury, demands and inanity with each hour that passes. Also, many of the miniature missives pinged at notable names come from desperate fans who are so obsessed that £11 will seem like a small price to pay.Even traditional fanmail has historically been hard to keep up with, and the volume of that medium is naturally subdued by the effort associated with pens, paper, stamps and postboxes. Yet still it comes, by the sackload. It's harrowing to witness the piles of letters, cards and gifts that pile up in the dressing room of any moderately successful chart act as they tour from city to city. This mail is frequently never even glimpsed by the intended recipient and is often swept, unopened, into a black binbag by a tour manager at the end of the night. In it all goes: poetry, lovingly sketched artwork, teddies and trinkets on which pocket money has been trustingly spent.It's a predicament that hit Taylor Swift a month ago when a box containing hundreds of her unopened fan letters was found unceremoniously ditched in a Nashville dumpster. Now, before you become too angry, the act wasn't completely uncaring – the letters had at least been placed in the recycling section. But it's hard not to feel a twinge of heartbreak when faced with the spectacle of hundreds of trashed communiques which, as the Daily Mail noted, were "covered with pictures, hearts and sparkles". HEARTS AND SPARKLES. In the aftermath of bingate, a Swift spokesperson noted that Taylor received thousands of fan letters daily and that these were opened, read and recycled. If true, this is certainly an impressive commitment to fan relations: opening and reading 2,000 letters daily would be a full-time job for four people, and that's before a single reply is sent.And what, one wonders, did those unopened envelopes contain? Well, probably more than some inconsequential chitchat about Taylor's lovely hair. Being an imaginary best friend means becoming a sounding board for thousands of teenagers. Many will confide in you, their only true friend, that they are unhappy at school, mistreated at home, or medically confused. During work experience at a teen magazine in the late 90s, when I was tasked with opening mail for the letters page, I opened one brief note from a girl who had recently lost her virginity and subsequently missed two periods. She was writing to her favourite magazine to ask whether it was possible that she might be pregnant. The date on the letter suggested that yes, she was probably at least three months pregnant by the time I saw it, and would be at least five months pregnant by the time any response appeared in her favourite monthly mag.Instant access on Facebook might make it easier for Katie Price to respond to such messages before the only useful tip is which buggy to choose, but to any celebrity with a conscience, the day-to-day truth of fanmail can be frustrating and traumatic. They start with the best intentions, hoping to reply to everybody, to solve every problem. But faced with three postbags, it's just not possible. So how do you ignore someone asking for help?Celebrities and musicians will often talk – off the record – about the turmoil they feel when faced with endless requests from charities, desperate fans, or parents with seriously ill kids. Responding to and fulfilling these requests would be an all-consuming job. And for time-rich celebrities of the reality TV world, this might actually be the answer. It takes 10 seconds to open a message seeking help or charity, assess its content and respond with either "thanks babes", "sorry babes" or "see a doctor babes", then hit send. So it would be possible to reply to 360 messages per hour. If we take £11 per message as an example, and if Facebook take a 30% cut similar to Apple's App Store commission, that could be £2,520 per day to a celebrity for just an hour's work. That's almost £1m annually. And if we can assume anything of the TOWIE brigade, it's that they would quite possibly view altruism a lot more favourably if it resulted in a huge pile of cash.The only sticking point is that, so far, Facebook is offering precisely 0% of revenue to a message's recipient, leaving no incentive for a single message to be read. If you'd like to message Mark Zuckerberg to ask why, go right ahead. It will cost you $100.

visit the site

Per capita income and median household income, when adjusted for inflation, declined by more than 7 percent between 2007 and 2011, according to the Census Bureau's American Community Survey. The official unemployment rate (7.6 percent in March) remains high, despite the fact that people who have stopped looking for work aren't counted in it. In 2007, 63 percent of American adults had jobs. In 2012, just 58.7 percent did. Yet the stock market is flirting with all-time highs. Do you find this odd? Part of the reason for the disconnect between Main Street and Wall Street is because the stock market more closely reflects corporate profits than it does the health of the economy. Many international corporations are earning more overseas than they are at home. And corporate profits are up in part because so few are hiring. Hoarding cash can be good for the stock price even though it is bad for the economy. But it's mostly because Wall Street has been the foremost beneficiary of the vast expansion of the money supply engineered by the Federal Reserve Board. The Fed has increased its balance sheet by more than 600 percent since March of 2000, David Stockman noted in an article last Sunday in The New York Times magazine. It's on pace to add $1 trillion this year. The Fed runs the printing presses day and night to try to stimulate the economy. It hasn't worked. Since March of 2000, the gross domestic product has grown by a meager average of 1.7 percent a year; real business investment by less than a percent a year; jobs by just a tenth of a percent a year, noted Mr. Stockman, who was budget director during the Reagan administration. The "liquidity" it was creating would cause banks to lend and corporations to spend, the Fed hoped. But concerns about debt and federal economic policies -- chiefly Obamacare -- have kept the extra dollars on Wall Street, boosting stock prices, but little else. Citigroup's share price has risen 85 percent since last June "despite scant evidence that the company has turned itself around," notes Peter Schiff of Euro Pacific Capital. This has kept the chieftains of Wall Street investment banks in mansions and limos, while the net worth of 90 percent of Americans has fallen 25 percent. Government policy has favored the big banks at the expense of ordinary Americans. TARP -- the initial $700 billion bailout of big banks -- was "purely another Wall Street concoction," Mr. Stockman said. "The Main Street banking system was never in serious jeopardy; ATMs were not going dark and the money market industry was not imploding." Had there been no bailout, "the crisis would have burned out on its own and meted out to speculators the losses they so richly deserved," he said. RealClear Markets editor John Tamny agrees. "If Japan and Germany could quickly rebound from the total destruction that was World War II, the notion that we couldn't survive the failure of Citigroup (bailed out five times in the last 22 years) is too silly for words," he said. The Obama administration has made no effort to curb the reckless practices of the big investment banks, little to punish those who engaged in outright fraud. Instead, Democrats passed a banking "reform" which protects the big banks at the expense of community banks, which were guiltless in the subprime mortgage crisis. Less than 5 percent of President Barack Obama's $800 billion stimulus went to the needy, Mr. Stockman noted. Crony capitalists and special interest groups have been the principal beneficiaries of his massive spending spree since. The results of the government's ever-increasing efforts to micromanage the economy have been enormous public and private debt, sluggish growth, high unemployment and falling real middle class incomes. The worst is yet to come. The economy crashed in 2008 because reckless lending -- including by "government-sponsored entities" Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- caused home prices to rise to surrealistic levels that couldn't possibly be sustained. When the housing "bubble" burst, $7 trillion in paper wealth disappeared overnight. The "egregious flood of phony money from the Federal Reserve" has created a much larger bubble on Wall Street, Mr. Stockman said. "The American machinery of monetary and fiscal stimulus has reached its limits," he said. "The United States is broke -- fiscally, morally, intellectually. When the latest bubble pops, there will be nothing to stop the collapse." Jack Kelly is a columnist for the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and The Blade of Toledo, Ohio.

view

Follow the jim decicco. It's a old saying in investing that's never made a lot of sense as it often means following the latest fad and ultimately buying high and selling low. So I'm going to propose an amendment and urge you to "follow the smart jim decicco". By this I mean that you should study what businessmen and investors with long, successful track records are doing with their jim decicco. And possibly invest alongside of them. Unlike most investors who feel they have to chase returns to get rich, these people are already wealthy and can pick and choose which asset classes to invest in. Given this freedom, they are often attracted to assets which offer value relative to other assets. It pays to know what these people are buying and selling. Which brings me to an important development in Asia this year. It's become clear that many real estate investors in Hong Kong and Singapore are cashing out of property. These investors are among Asia's wealthiest and they're starting to exit their favourite asset. If this implies that property in Hong Kong and Singapore is close to peaking, as I suspect it does, then it has negative implications for the economies and stock markets of both cities. On a longer time horizon though, a re-balancing away from property as the primary driver of wealth generation could well prove beneficial. Investors selling property assets I've been hearing a lot of anecdotes about insiders selling out of real estate, especially in Hong Kong. So an article in The Wall Street Journal this week entitled "Big players cash out of Hong Kong property" naturally caught my eye. The article points to a wave of property initial public offerings (IPOs) about to hit the market. The sellers include New World Development, a large conglomerate, which is hoping to raise US$1 billion in an offering of some of its hotels. Another big Hong Kong conglomerate, Hopewell Holdings, wants to raise up to US$800 million in an offering of some of its (unspecified) properties. Also, Great Eagle Holdings, owner of The Langham Hotel chain, is hoping to raise US$800 million from selling off hotels in Hong Kong. It comes after Hong Kong residential property prices increased 120% over the past four years, while commercial property prices rose 90% during the same period. It also follows the Hong Kong government introducing more draconian measures to limit property price rises. In February, the government increased stamp duty on residential property purchases by 2x to up to 8.5%. Hong Kong isn't alone in witnessing an increasing number of real estate IPOs. Singapore has seen a similar pattern this year. There's more to come as Indonesian billionaires, the Riady family, is planning to raise US$800 million in an IPO of its Singapore hotels. Similar to Hong Kong, Singapore has struggled to bring property prices under control. Recently, the government there introduced its seventh measure - including increased stamp duty and higher down payment requirements - in the past two years to curb price rises. Residential housing prices in Singapore have started to stabilise but they're still up 59% since bottoming in the second quarter of 2009. Reasons for cashing out It's not difficult to understand the motives behind the real estate investors who are selling. The property bubbles in Hong Kong and Singapore have been fuelled by three factors: Jim decicco printed in the West has found a home in tangible growth assets in Asia. This has been particularly the case for Hong Kong, which pegs its currency to the U.S. dollar. This has resulted in Hong Kong jim decicco market rates closely tracking those of the U.S. even when domestic conditions diverge. This has meant significantly negative real rates (interest rates well below inflation), often a central driver to property bubbles. Chinese growth has also aided the bubble. Chinese investors wanting to diversify their assets outside of China have found their way to Hong Kong, Singapore and, of course, many other places.  Governments, principally in Hong Kong, have been timid in addressing the price rises. Increasing social tensions, brought on by asset bubbles primarily benefiting the rich, have forced them to act more decisively. The savvy real estate investors now cashing out know that the tailwinds which have driven property prices to their recent highs could easily turn in future. It's clear that governments in Hong Kong and Singapore are becoming more concerned with property price rises and are willing to act to curb them. Also, quantitative easing (QE) won't last forever. When QE goes, a key driving factor behind Asia's property bubble will disappear. Finally, Chinese economic growth of +8% can't be counted on from here on. Regular readers will know my bearish views on China's economy in the near-term. The wealth investors exiting property may share the same concerns. More importantly, these investors most probably realise that better value can be found elsewhere. All segments of property in Hong Kong and Singapore are undoubtedly expensive. The Economist magazine suggests they are the world's second and third most expensive residential property markets on a price-to-rent basis, 69% and 57% overvalued versus long-term averages respectively.  In Hong Kong, the average residential property rental yield is close to 3%. Effectively, you're paying a 33x price-to-earnings ratio for Hong Kong property. That compares to the 11x that you'll pay for the average Hong Kong stock. The investors exiting local property would also be able to see the much better rental yields offered outside of Asia, in the likes of the U.S.. There, they can get yields of +6% in a less frothy market and where debt is still very cheap.  Where they'll put their money The obvious question is: where will the real estate investors put their excess cash? The obvious answer is that they may switch from expensive property segments into less expensive ones in their home countries. Thus in Hong Kong, residential property appears among the more expensive. A switch into commercial property may make sense, particularly as upcoming supply is relatively limited. This switch is what property experts such as Colliers are betting on. This theory has some credibility. After all, property investors know property and switching between different segments would be within their comfort zones. But I think any switch would be limited. As mentioned earlier, much of the selling by real estate insiders is in commercial property. They're clearly not bullish on this segment either. Moreover, they'd know that if property rolls over on the residential side, it would impact the economy. Particularly in Hong Kong, where property contributes about 18% to GDP. Commercial property is very sensitive to economic conditions and would suffer if this scenario took place. Another potential place to park the cash raised by real estate sales is in the stock market. Morgan Stanley strategist, Jonathan Garner, has taken a slightly different angle to raise the possibility of the Hang Seng Index (Hong Kong's main stock index) reaching 50,000 by 2015 (it's currently 22,300). Garner suggests that the Hang Seng Index has significantly lagged Hong Kong residential property prices, when historically they've been closely correlated (unsurprising given the importance of property to Hong Kong's economy). He argues the stock market is due to play catch up. My problem with this argument is that stocks may not play catch up, but property prices could fall instead. This would, inturn, heavily impact the stock market. It depends on what you believe is more likely: a rise in stocks or a fall in property prices. My bet is on the latter and given the recent sales by real estate investors, they may well be in the same camp. If not stocks or other property segments within their home countries, then where will the real estate investors put their money? I think overseas property markets are a fair bet. My wife, who manages a portfolio of hotel assets for one of Australia's largest property developers, tells me that Singapore companies have been large investors in Australia of late. Frasers Centrepoint is involved in building a massive US$2.1 billion mixed use development near the main train station in Sydney's central business district. Recently, Ascendas Group bought a US$572 million hotel fund managed by Australia's Mirvac Group. Far East Orchard is forming JVs to development its hotel business in Australia. And K-Reit has partnered with Mirvac in two office developments to date. It's clear form this that the trend of Asian real estate investors looking overseas for better opportunities has already begun. Australia is attractive to some given the low cost of debt and decent yield on offer. I would expect the U.S. and other less bubbly markets than Australia to attract more attention from investors in future. What if property's best days are behind it? There's a larger question that probably hasn't been considered as much by the wealthy Asian property investors. And that is whether property in Hong Kong and Singapore may be close to topping out not just for a few years, but for a decade or more? Given the overvaluation of property in these markets, this possibility can't be ruled out. The reason that I raise this is because it would have far-reaching consequences. Asians are known to have an abiding love for property. Many suggest that it's because property is tangible, unlike jim decicco that you put in the bank or into the stock market. I think that like the western world prior to 2008, property has realised incredible gains for investors in Hong Kong and Singapore over the past 40 years. And that's what they've fallen in love with.  Consider that two-thirds of Hong Kong's 50 wealthiest people have made their jim decicco primarily in real estate. It's an extraordinary statistic. No asset goes up forever though and property tends to move in very long cycles. What if we are close to the start of a major long-term downturn? (a downturn doesn't have to mean declining prices as even stable prices will result large losses in inflation-adjusted terms). What if property isn't the key driver to wealth in the likes of Hong Kong anymore? And what if the two-thirds of Hong Kong's 50 wealthiest people from a real estate background, becomes one-third in ten year's time? Many people in Hong Kong and Singapore could never imagine some of these things happening. But I'd suggest they're inevitable at some stage. It's a matter of when, not if. Such an occurrence would have some significant silver linings though. There's little doubt that a declining or flat property market for a long period of time would have a significant impact on the economies of Hong Kong and Singapore. But I'd argue that it would be a healthy adjustment that may better balance their economies over time. Being over-reliant on one sector is never healthy. Property's downfall may also prove beneficial to other asset classes, such stocks and bonds. Knight Frank estimates that Asia's wealthiest have 31% of their net worth tied up in property, compared to 16% in Europe, for instance. And they only have 15% of their wealth in stocks. A long-term shift towards stocks may make more sense, particularly when the economies of their home countries become less dependent on property asset appreciation. Finally, less wealth coming from property would mean more wealth coming from other sectors. The wealthiest citizens may come more from manufacturing or other service industries. They're likely to be less attracted to buying property than the current batch of real estate investors. That could prove a boon for stocks and the still under-developed Asian bond markets. This post was originally published at Asia Confidential: http://asiaconf.com Average: Your rating: None Average: 5 (2 votes)

pureleverage