Wednesday, September 29, 2010

foreclosure statistics


It’s tough enough to sell a house with home sales in the Twin Cities undergoing the biggest decline in the country, down 42 percent in July year to year. Yet some local governments make it even tougher for homeowners by imposing some of the country’s most onerous before-sale residential inspection ordinances, adding to the cost and red tape of buying and selling a house at the worst possible time.


Currently, fourteen metro-area municipalities have so-called “point-of-sale” ordinances in place, requiring home sellers to pay for a city inspection prior to selling their property. (In some cases, the ordinances are referred to as “time-of-sale” and “truth in housing” inspections.) In fact, in many cases, sellers are required to pay for the inspection before being permitted to put their home up for sale. These inspections are in addition to, not in lieu of, the private inspections for which home buyers routinely pay $300 or more.


That’s because, as several cities readily admit, these ordinances are not intended to help the buyer or seller. They are intended to help the city.


On its website, the City of Richfield states “inspections are not for the benefit of buyer or seller, but are a community effort to maintain the quality of Richfield’s houses and neighborhoods.” Common code violations cited by Richfield inspectors include bare wood, peeling paint, missing or deteriorated window glazing, and clogged gutters.


The laws require sellers to undergo a comprehensive city inspection for potential code violations at an initial cost that varies from $50 to $200, often before allowing the property to go on the market.



“There are already fixed costs when you buy and sell a property and so having these extra costs piled on top of the transaction can really break up a deal,” said Christine Berger of the Minnesota Association of Realtors. “You can potentially lose your dream home. I call them transaction killers.”


Applications typically include a disclaimer like the City of Osseo’s waiver stating the inspection “does not constitute a guarantee or warranty to any person as to the condition of buildings inspected.” The City of St. Paul “does not guarantee or warranty the accuracy of the report,” according to its website.


Homeowners can get slapped with a fix-it list of repairs needed to bring the property into compliance with city codes. Though some cities issue “disclosure only” reports that do not require action, other municipalities require the property owner or the buyer in some cases to make improvements that go beyond potential safety hazards.


“Who among us in our homes doesn’t have something that would get flagged for some reason or other? The health and safety issues are obviously paramount to us,” said Eric Myers of the North Metro Realtors Association. “But we’ve had them flag a bit of mold along the trim in the bathtub where you just haven’t scrubbed it lately.”


In the Minneapolis suburb of Brooklyn Park, inspectors find problems and order repairs in the overwhelming majority of houses being listed, according to city officials. Even if the house doesn’t sell or is taken off the market, the city requires owners to correct not just code violations but so-called “property deficiencies.”


Officials contend the inspections are more important than ever in an economic downturn to protect potential buyers who may not be able to afford a private one. With an estimated 1,000 vacant and foreclosed houses in Brooklyn Park, officials also insist the inspections are necessary to prevent neighborhood blight.


“I don’t think it’s accurate if you want to talk about too much government,” said Robert Schreier, Brooklyn Park’s community development director. “It’s providing a service to the community. We never hear complaints from people buying the houses. The people that are moving in are glad for the inspections.”


While there are no available statistics to measure the impact of point of sale ordinances on housing sales or costs, realtors say cities should offer buyers and sellers incentives, rather than roadblocks, to reduce the glut of foreclosures and attract buyers.


“Essentially what the city is saying is that you Mr. or Mrs. Seller can’t sell unless we say so, unless you have a city inspection and then make all the repairs,” Myers said. “Nowhere else in the country do we know of where they apply the entire code to delay the transaction, as opposed to focusing on a few items like water saving showerheads or energy efficiency items.”


Point of sale inspections may put the onus on sellers today, but it will be on Brooklyn Park city officials before long. The city council will review whether or not to sunset what’s viewed as the most stringent point of sale ordinance in the Twin Cities—and possibly the nation—in 2012.


“I think when the economy turns around, there’s a question of whether the program would continue,” Schreier said. “I think for this time, however, it’s a good program.”

Metro Area Cities with Point-of-Sale Requirements

Bloomington

Brooklyn Park

Crystal

Golden Valley

Hopkins

Maplewood

Minneapolis

New Hope

Osseo

Richfield

Robbinsdale

St. Louis Park

St. Paul

South St. Paul




Economists often describe unemployment as “cyclical” or “structural.” Cyclical unemployment results from broad economic slowdowns: As the economy turns, businesses lay off workers, meaning other businesses suffer, meaning more layoffs. Structural unemployment results from broad economic changes: An economy with a strong apple trade might be becoming an economy with a strong orange trade, and as that transformation happens, a lot of apple workers might be out of a job.



Economic commentators such as Mohamed El-Erian, the head of PIMCO, have described the United States’ problem as mostly structural. The housing boom created millions of jobs in construction, development and realty, and those jobs are gone. Over at Project Syndicate, economist Brad DeLong makes the argument for cyclical unemployment:


In [the case of structural unemployment] we would expect to see construction depressed: firms closed, capital goods idle, and workers unemployed. But we would also expect to see manufacturing plants running at double shifts – the money not spent on construction has to go somewhere, and, remember, the problem is not a lack of aggregate demand. We would expect to see manufacturers holding job fairs, and when not enough workers showed up, we would expect to see manufacturers offering higher wages to attract workers into their plants, and then raising prices to cover their higher costs.


That is what “mismatch” structural unemployment looks like – and it is not what we have today, at least not in Europe and North America. In the past three years, employment in construction has shrunk, but so has employment in manufacturing, wholesale trade, retail trade, transportation and warehousing, information distribution and communications, professional and business services, educational services, leisure and hospitality, and in the public sector. Employment is up in health care, Internet-related businesses, and perhaps in logging and mining.


DeLong does not say that structural unemployment does not exist in the U.S. economy, just that the problem is primarily cyclical. In a few years, with unemployment still projected to be above 8 percent, the problem will primarily be a structural one, he notes.


Though the problem seems to me to be both: The unemployment is cyclical and structural. Most sectors have suffered from the turndown, but job losses are concentrated in some industries: In residential construction, they are down 38 percent since 2006. (Between Aug. 2007 and Dec. 2009, unemployment in construction quintupled from about 5 percent to about 25 percent.) In health care and education, however, jobs are up.


Here is a chart I made from Bureau of Labor Statistics data that shows the phenomenon. (The chart shows total jobs in major sectors since 2005.) Most sectors — retail trade, business services, wholesale trade, finance — have had moderate job losses one could reasonably chalk up to an economy-wide lack of demand. Let’s think of those as sectors characterized mostly by cyclical job loss. Then, there is manufacturing and construction. Jobs there have taken a nose dive, and the problem seems to be structural. Moreover, the job gains in education and health might thought to be structural as well. (Mining and logging isn’t an industry I know a lot about, so I’m not sure what’s going on there.)



That said, the big problem at the root of all of the employment woes remains sluggish demand.


One can also think about the unemployment geographically. Joblessness has tracked up in all states, due to lack of demand. But states with big manufacturing and construction industries — Michigan, Nevada, California and Florida — are suffering from massive structural unemployment, made worse by the foreclosure crisis. (Four years ago, you might have been working in construction in Nevada and overpaid for your house. Today, you’re likely out of a job and, worse, can’t move to a state like North Dakota because you can’t sell the property.)




Glenn Beck vs. Fox <b>News</b>: &#39;Tension&#39; Between Beck &amp; Network

Glenn Beck appears on the cover of this weekend's New York Times Magazine in a lengthy profile written by Mark Leibovich. In the profile, Leibovich touches on tensions between Beck and Fox News, the network that catapulted him to ...

New York Times Backs <b>News</b>-Aggregation Software Company - Digits - WSJ

The New York Times Co. is joining a group of news organizations in backing the maker of software that helps publishers aggregate news, according to a person familiar with the matter.

Kinect will talk to MSN Messenger Xbox 360 <b>News</b> - Page 1 <b>...</b>

Read our Xbox 360 news of Kinect will talk to MSN Messenger.


bench craft company rip off
bench craft company rip off

dupage_county_foreclosures_2007-08 by foreclosurepro


Glenn Beck vs. Fox <b>News</b>: &#39;Tension&#39; Between Beck &amp; Network

Glenn Beck appears on the cover of this weekend's New York Times Magazine in a lengthy profile written by Mark Leibovich. In the profile, Leibovich touches on tensions between Beck and Fox News, the network that catapulted him to ...

New York Times Backs <b>News</b>-Aggregation Software Company - Digits - WSJ

The New York Times Co. is joining a group of news organizations in backing the maker of software that helps publishers aggregate news, according to a person familiar with the matter.

Kinect will talk to MSN Messenger Xbox 360 <b>News</b> - Page 1 <b>...</b>

Read our Xbox 360 news of Kinect will talk to MSN Messenger.


bench craft company rip off bench craft company rip off

It’s tough enough to sell a house with home sales in the Twin Cities undergoing the biggest decline in the country, down 42 percent in July year to year. Yet some local governments make it even tougher for homeowners by imposing some of the country’s most onerous before-sale residential inspection ordinances, adding to the cost and red tape of buying and selling a house at the worst possible time.


Currently, fourteen metro-area municipalities have so-called “point-of-sale” ordinances in place, requiring home sellers to pay for a city inspection prior to selling their property. (In some cases, the ordinances are referred to as “time-of-sale” and “truth in housing” inspections.) In fact, in many cases, sellers are required to pay for the inspection before being permitted to put their home up for sale. These inspections are in addition to, not in lieu of, the private inspections for which home buyers routinely pay $300 or more.


That’s because, as several cities readily admit, these ordinances are not intended to help the buyer or seller. They are intended to help the city.


On its website, the City of Richfield states “inspections are not for the benefit of buyer or seller, but are a community effort to maintain the quality of Richfield’s houses and neighborhoods.” Common code violations cited by Richfield inspectors include bare wood, peeling paint, missing or deteriorated window glazing, and clogged gutters.


The laws require sellers to undergo a comprehensive city inspection for potential code violations at an initial cost that varies from $50 to $200, often before allowing the property to go on the market.



“There are already fixed costs when you buy and sell a property and so having these extra costs piled on top of the transaction can really break up a deal,” said Christine Berger of the Minnesota Association of Realtors. “You can potentially lose your dream home. I call them transaction killers.”


Applications typically include a disclaimer like the City of Osseo’s waiver stating the inspection “does not constitute a guarantee or warranty to any person as to the condition of buildings inspected.” The City of St. Paul “does not guarantee or warranty the accuracy of the report,” according to its website.


Homeowners can get slapped with a fix-it list of repairs needed to bring the property into compliance with city codes. Though some cities issue “disclosure only” reports that do not require action, other municipalities require the property owner or the buyer in some cases to make improvements that go beyond potential safety hazards.


“Who among us in our homes doesn’t have something that would get flagged for some reason or other? The health and safety issues are obviously paramount to us,” said Eric Myers of the North Metro Realtors Association. “But we’ve had them flag a bit of mold along the trim in the bathtub where you just haven’t scrubbed it lately.”


In the Minneapolis suburb of Brooklyn Park, inspectors find problems and order repairs in the overwhelming majority of houses being listed, according to city officials. Even if the house doesn’t sell or is taken off the market, the city requires owners to correct not just code violations but so-called “property deficiencies.”


Officials contend the inspections are more important than ever in an economic downturn to protect potential buyers who may not be able to afford a private one. With an estimated 1,000 vacant and foreclosed houses in Brooklyn Park, officials also insist the inspections are necessary to prevent neighborhood blight.


“I don’t think it’s accurate if you want to talk about too much government,” said Robert Schreier, Brooklyn Park’s community development director. “It’s providing a service to the community. We never hear complaints from people buying the houses. The people that are moving in are glad for the inspections.”


While there are no available statistics to measure the impact of point of sale ordinances on housing sales or costs, realtors say cities should offer buyers and sellers incentives, rather than roadblocks, to reduce the glut of foreclosures and attract buyers.


“Essentially what the city is saying is that you Mr. or Mrs. Seller can’t sell unless we say so, unless you have a city inspection and then make all the repairs,” Myers said. “Nowhere else in the country do we know of where they apply the entire code to delay the transaction, as opposed to focusing on a few items like water saving showerheads or energy efficiency items.”


Point of sale inspections may put the onus on sellers today, but it will be on Brooklyn Park city officials before long. The city council will review whether or not to sunset what’s viewed as the most stringent point of sale ordinance in the Twin Cities—and possibly the nation—in 2012.


“I think when the economy turns around, there’s a question of whether the program would continue,” Schreier said. “I think for this time, however, it’s a good program.”

Metro Area Cities with Point-of-Sale Requirements

Bloomington

Brooklyn Park

Crystal

Golden Valley

Hopkins

Maplewood

Minneapolis

New Hope

Osseo

Richfield

Robbinsdale

St. Louis Park

St. Paul

South St. Paul




Economists often describe unemployment as “cyclical” or “structural.” Cyclical unemployment results from broad economic slowdowns: As the economy turns, businesses lay off workers, meaning other businesses suffer, meaning more layoffs. Structural unemployment results from broad economic changes: An economy with a strong apple trade might be becoming an economy with a strong orange trade, and as that transformation happens, a lot of apple workers might be out of a job.



Economic commentators such as Mohamed El-Erian, the head of PIMCO, have described the United States’ problem as mostly structural. The housing boom created millions of jobs in construction, development and realty, and those jobs are gone. Over at Project Syndicate, economist Brad DeLong makes the argument for cyclical unemployment:


In [the case of structural unemployment] we would expect to see construction depressed: firms closed, capital goods idle, and workers unemployed. But we would also expect to see manufacturing plants running at double shifts – the money not spent on construction has to go somewhere, and, remember, the problem is not a lack of aggregate demand. We would expect to see manufacturers holding job fairs, and when not enough workers showed up, we would expect to see manufacturers offering higher wages to attract workers into their plants, and then raising prices to cover their higher costs.


That is what “mismatch” structural unemployment looks like – and it is not what we have today, at least not in Europe and North America. In the past three years, employment in construction has shrunk, but so has employment in manufacturing, wholesale trade, retail trade, transportation and warehousing, information distribution and communications, professional and business services, educational services, leisure and hospitality, and in the public sector. Employment is up in health care, Internet-related businesses, and perhaps in logging and mining.


DeLong does not say that structural unemployment does not exist in the U.S. economy, just that the problem is primarily cyclical. In a few years, with unemployment still projected to be above 8 percent, the problem will primarily be a structural one, he notes.


Though the problem seems to me to be both: The unemployment is cyclical and structural. Most sectors have suffered from the turndown, but job losses are concentrated in some industries: In residential construction, they are down 38 percent since 2006. (Between Aug. 2007 and Dec. 2009, unemployment in construction quintupled from about 5 percent to about 25 percent.) In health care and education, however, jobs are up.


Here is a chart I made from Bureau of Labor Statistics data that shows the phenomenon. (The chart shows total jobs in major sectors since 2005.) Most sectors — retail trade, business services, wholesale trade, finance — have had moderate job losses one could reasonably chalk up to an economy-wide lack of demand. Let’s think of those as sectors characterized mostly by cyclical job loss. Then, there is manufacturing and construction. Jobs there have taken a nose dive, and the problem seems to be structural. Moreover, the job gains in education and health might thought to be structural as well. (Mining and logging isn’t an industry I know a lot about, so I’m not sure what’s going on there.)



That said, the big problem at the root of all of the employment woes remains sluggish demand.


One can also think about the unemployment geographically. Joblessness has tracked up in all states, due to lack of demand. But states with big manufacturing and construction industries — Michigan, Nevada, California and Florida — are suffering from massive structural unemployment, made worse by the foreclosure crisis. (Four years ago, you might have been working in construction in Nevada and overpaid for your house. Today, you’re likely out of a job and, worse, can’t move to a state like North Dakota because you can’t sell the property.)




bench craft company rip off

Glenn Beck vs. Fox <b>News</b>: &#39;Tension&#39; Between Beck &amp; Network

Glenn Beck appears on the cover of this weekend's New York Times Magazine in a lengthy profile written by Mark Leibovich. In the profile, Leibovich touches on tensions between Beck and Fox News, the network that catapulted him to ...

New York Times Backs <b>News</b>-Aggregation Software Company - Digits - WSJ

The New York Times Co. is joining a group of news organizations in backing the maker of software that helps publishers aggregate news, according to a person familiar with the matter.

Kinect will talk to MSN Messenger Xbox 360 <b>News</b> - Page 1 <b>...</b>

Read our Xbox 360 news of Kinect will talk to MSN Messenger.


benchcraft company scam benchcraft company scam

Glenn Beck vs. Fox <b>News</b>: &#39;Tension&#39; Between Beck &amp; Network

Glenn Beck appears on the cover of this weekend's New York Times Magazine in a lengthy profile written by Mark Leibovich. In the profile, Leibovich touches on tensions between Beck and Fox News, the network that catapulted him to ...

New York Times Backs <b>News</b>-Aggregation Software Company - Digits - WSJ

The New York Times Co. is joining a group of news organizations in backing the maker of software that helps publishers aggregate news, according to a person familiar with the matter.

Kinect will talk to MSN Messenger Xbox 360 <b>News</b> - Page 1 <b>...</b>

Read our Xbox 360 news of Kinect will talk to MSN Messenger.


benchcraft company scam bench craft company rip off

Glenn Beck vs. Fox <b>News</b>: &#39;Tension&#39; Between Beck &amp; Network

Glenn Beck appears on the cover of this weekend's New York Times Magazine in a lengthy profile written by Mark Leibovich. In the profile, Leibovich touches on tensions between Beck and Fox News, the network that catapulted him to ...

New York Times Backs <b>News</b>-Aggregation Software Company - Digits - WSJ

The New York Times Co. is joining a group of news organizations in backing the maker of software that helps publishers aggregate news, according to a person familiar with the matter.

Kinect will talk to MSN Messenger Xbox 360 <b>News</b> - Page 1 <b>...</b>

Read our Xbox 360 news of Kinect will talk to MSN Messenger.


benchcraft company scam












































Friday, September 24, 2010

manage personal finances











Generation Gap Remains



"In almost every online or mobile behavior, Gen Yers lead the adoption curve," explains Forrester, summarizing the differences between the generations. The youngest members of this group don't remember life without a mobile phone or a time when texting or email was unavailable. Gen X, despite having a longer "tech memory" than its younger counterpart, still rivals Gen Y in many areas. This slightly older group tends to use the Internet and computers more functionally. For example, 26% of Gen Xers go online for information about food and cooking, 61% use it for news, 65% use PCs to manage photos and 53% email photos at least once per month.



Boomers fall behind on the technology adoption curve, but spend more money on everything tech-related from telecom fees to online shopping purchases. Seniors, however, lag ever further behind. 80% still subscribe to a local newspaper, for instance. But in other ways, they're catching up: 40% own an HDTV, one in five uses the Internet for reading news and one quarter for travel planning.





Devices: Gen X Leads



When it comes to devices - think HDTVs, digital cameras, PCs, gaming systems - Gen X leads the way, says Forrester. Their households are the most likely to have these devices in them.



When it comes to the household PC (meaning "personal computer" not necessarily "Windows machine"), Gen X and Boomers tend to use theirs for practical matters like word processing and household finances. They're also more focused on PC health, regularly scanning for malware and backing up files.



Mobile: Gen Y Leads



Meanwhile, on the mobile front, the 49 million Gen Yers lead the other generations, using their phones for everything from product research to social communication. Along with Gen Xers, Gen Yers are the most likely group to own a smartphone with an unlimited data plan. One fifth of Gen Y uses their phone for maps and directions now, while Gen X is generally more interested in checking news, sports and weather.



85% of Gen Y sends and receives text messages, while 68% of Gen X does the same. Only 15% of Seniors use SMS, however.



37% of Gen Y surfs the mobile Web. Mobile "Facebooking" is also more popular with Gen Y, with 27% participation, compared with 18% of Gen X. Seniors on Facebook, supposedly a growing trend on the desktop, is not so prevalent on mobile - only 1% use Facebook or other social networking sites from their phone.



Overall, 23% of Gen X and Y owns a smartphone and 17% of Americans do.




Online: Gen Y Surfs, Gen X and Boomers Shop



Internet use has surpassed TV viewing for Gen Y for a few years now, but this is the first time that Gen X can say the same. Younger Boomers (45-54) also now spend equal amounts of time online versus on the Web. TV viewing still beats Web surfing for older Boomers and Seniors though.



The survey found, too, that Gen X does the most online shopping, but Younger Boomers spend the most. In fact, Boomers were the only generation that spent, on average, more than $600 online in the past three months.




Forecast: eReaders are "Device of the Year," but Few Use



Forrester says that eReaders have drawn a lot of hype over the course of the year, but in reality, only a small percentage of the population currently uses them. However, the analysts forecast that another 6.6 million will buy an eReader by year-end. 8.3 million will buy a netbook or mini PC, though, in the same time frame.



Netbook and mini-PC purchases will outpace eReader sales until 2014, when both slow to 1% growth rates. Laptops will also decline to 2% growth in 2014.



This data seems in opposition to earlier reports from NPD that stated netbook sales have gone negative. This recently led to some controversy when the Wall St. Journal quoted Best Buy CEO Brian J. Dunn remarking on the netbook's decline, saying its sales have been cannibalized by the iPad. Dunn later explained, by way of a Best Buy press release, that "the reports of the demise of [notebook and netbook] sales are grossly exaggerated." It appears that Forrester agrees with this statement, given this new report's data.





Conclusion: Gens X & Y Outpacing Others



Forrester concludes that Gens X and Y are "setting the example of how future digitally native generations will live," with both generations "outpacing Boomers and Seniors on almost everything technology-related."



Statements like these tend to rile up the tech-savvy Boomers and Seniors who read this blog, often leading outraged comments about the wrongness of the data. In this case, though, Forrester analyzed 30,064 households containing 37,226 individuals to reach these conclusions, a sample size which seems sufficient enough for this analysis. Any generation will have its outliers, of course, from the digitally-adept Grandma to the Gen Yer who refuses to Facebook. Plus, anyone reading this article is at the top of the curve, no matter what the technology in question is, we would bet.




Image credit, top: flickr user Paulo Fehlauer; charts: Forrester






















Quicken Online users will be able to manually import certain account data into Mint.com by adding Quicken Online as an account in Mint. Quicken also encourages existing customers to export their Quicken Online data as a CSV file for backup purposes. All transaction and account data will be wiped from Intuit's servers beginning on August 29.



One group for whom this transition might be a challenge is the small business users of Quicken Online, who will no longer be able to access the Web component of Quicken's Home & Business product.



Since Mint.com is geared toward personal finance, it does not currently offer a way to differeniate between personal and business transactions. For that, business customers still looking to manage their finances online might want to consider alternatives like InDinero or Outright.



The desktop versions of Quicken's products will not be affected by the change.





















buy big white booty

Apple&#39;s MobileMe <b>News</b> details how iWork for iPad works with iDisk

The details were posted on MobileMe News, the blog of the MobileMe team. Windows users can point a browser to me.com/idisk and upload existing Microsoft Office documents. Once the documents are in the cloud, they can be opened from the ...

Can &#39;Fox <b>News</b> North&#39; win its next battle? - Canada - Macleans.ca

Sun TV's Canadian-content promise might be its best selling feature.

Ngmoco releases We City | iLounge <b>News</b>

iLounge news discussing the Ngmoco releases We City. Find more Apps + Games news from leading independent iPod, iPhone, and iPad site.


Apple&#39;s MobileMe <b>News</b> details how iWork for iPad works with iDisk

The details were posted on MobileMe News, the blog of the MobileMe team. Windows users can point a browser to me.com/idisk and upload existing Microsoft Office documents. Once the documents are in the cloud, they can be opened from the ...

Can &#39;Fox <b>News</b> North&#39; win its next battle? - Canada - Macleans.ca

Sun TV's Canadian-content promise might be its best selling feature.

Ngmoco releases We City | iLounge <b>News</b>

iLounge news discussing the Ngmoco releases We City. Find more Apps + Games news from leading independent iPod, iPhone, and iPad site.


big white booty

Apple&#39;s MobileMe <b>News</b> details how iWork for iPad works with iDisk

The details were posted on MobileMe News, the blog of the MobileMe team. Windows users can point a browser to me.com/idisk and upload existing Microsoft Office documents. Once the documents are in the cloud, they can be opened from the ...

Can &#39;Fox <b>News</b> North&#39; win its next battle? - Canada - Macleans.ca

Sun TV's Canadian-content promise might be its best selling feature.

Ngmoco releases We City | iLounge <b>News</b>

iLounge news discussing the Ngmoco releases We City. Find more Apps + Games news from leading independent iPod, iPhone, and iPad site.



MABUHAY ALLIANCE HOST THE 6TH ANNUAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CONFERENCE by mabuhayalliance







MABUHAY ALLIANCE HOST THE 6TH ANNUAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CONFERENCE by mabuhayalliance






























personal finance books

Come November, it is the intention to throw the bums out. All of them. Many Senate seat challengers, while running as Republicans, have risen to the top with backing from the "tea party." Wisconsin's Ron Johnson is just such a candidate. A fiscally conservative businessman, Johnson has never run for public office and is an inexperienced campaigner. But the way his rhetoric matches with fact, he already seems the pro. Ron Johnson can now distinguish the bum's face. That bum is incumbent Senator Russ Feingold.


Now campaign finance filings found by The Awl show that despite his vigorous denouncement of the bank bailouts, Johnson's campaign has received funding from many of the same banks who received bailouts. This means you and I have helped fund Ron Johnson's anti-bailout campaign. So we should get to know him.


Johnson has gladly taken the tea party badge. Back in May, Washington Post columnist and conservative icon George Will said Johnson "is what the Tea Party looks like." FreedomWorks, the Dick Armey-run conservative organization that organized the 9/12 rally in 2009 but is not at all behind many "grassroots" tea party events, called Johnson a “Champion of Freedom."


His website's rundown of his personal history ("Meet Ron") begins, "Ron grew up in a family and in a place where one of the greatest compliments you could give a person was to say that he or she was a hard worker." And it only gets more vague. Apparently, this is intentional. Johnson declined to meet Feingold in all six debates, agreeing to just three. That a long-time incumbent is challenging his newcomer to debates should immediately raise raise a red flag. Without detailed positions, what is there to specifically criticize? Johnson's campaign has taken to dismissing all criticisms of the candidate as typical political attack ads, even as Johnson's crew runs similar spots. This kind of electioneering doublethink infects Johnson's campaign, a rhetoric capable of forgetting whatever it's necessary to forget, only to draw it back into memory at the moment it is needed.


Johnson claims to be for freedom, his rallying cry being "First of all, freedom." But then he believes marriage can only be between a man and a woman.


He is passionate believer in the values of Rand's Atlas Shrugged. But not the book's fundamental view of the "monstrous absurdity" of original sin, as he is a fervent and active Lutheran who says "freedom of religion doesn’t mean freedom from religion."


Johnson has adopted an all-green design and logo, giving the impression that he is a friend of the environment. But he is fervent supporter of fossil fuels, defending BP against recent criticisms and calling climate change theories "lunacy" and "not proven by any stretch of the imagination.” (Johnson has suggested sunspots have caused recent weather changes, despite sunspots being at historic lows.)


Johnson demands a smaller, less-involved government, saying our current one is "robbing the bank accounts of future generations of Americans." But even while Johnson calls government spending and subsidies a "threat to our freedom" and insists "government doesn't create jobs," he refuses to acknowledge that his company received millions of dollars in industrial revenue bonds. Johnson's campaign maintains the money he received was not a government handout. Yet this exact form of government subsidized loan is what fiscal conservative temple The Cato Institute calls "corporate welfare."


As everyone debates whether or not this constitutes a government subsidy, the blog Uppity Wisconsin reveals Johnson's membership on the board of an industrial development corporation partly funded by the city and county that "has successfully helped area business apply for and secure over a million dollars in Customized Labor Training (CLT) grants… designed to assist companies that are investing in new technologies or manufacturing processes by providing a grant of up to 50% of the cost of training employees on the new technologies." Yet, Johnson insists that subsidization "doesn't work through the free market system very well."


Johnson could not be more different than Feingold when it comes to creativity and a voice for Wisconsin. Johnson is a voice for money. He admits as much, saying of Wisconsin's loss of manufacturing jobs to NAFTA "there are always winners and losers." For a candidate who complains about a private sector tax base, those "losers" include the 177,000-odd manufacturing jobs Wisconsin has lost in the last decade; that's 177,000 incomes that paid taxes.


From a GOP perspective, he is a midterm wet dream. Giving all the appearance of the throw-the-bums-out attitude of the zeitgeist, Johnson has nonetheless endorsed all the old bums' ideas about how to fix things. For health care Johnson says "Mitch Daniels has the solution," referring to the incumbent Indiana GOP Governor. On taxes, Johnson points to old-school GOP insider Ronald Reagan. Johnson has said that during Reagan's era, the top income rate of 28 percent meant "we were 72 percent free," which suggests Johnson may endorse a complete elimination of the income tax.


For solutions to entitlement reform, Johnson points to fellow Wisconsinite and incumbent GOP Congressman Paul Ryan. (It's noteworthy that while Johnson castigates opponent Feingold for being a career politician, he reveres Congressman Ryan, whose never held a job outside government since graduating college in 1992. Spectacular doublethink).


The greatest doublethink of all is the impression that Johnson is a self-made millionaire, that thanks to the opportunities provided by the American Dream, he pulled himself up by his bootstraps, an example of how America can reward hard-working citizens. On his website, the story goes that after moving to Wisconsin "Ron started a business called Pacur with his brother-in-law" and he has said he built his business from "from scratch," from "the ground up." But what Johnson's campaign doesn't often mention is that the candidate was set up with the business by his billionaire father-in-law. Uppity Wisconsin has unearthed evidence that Johnson's firm Pacur is the beneficiary of less-than-market-driven business from its main client, Daddy Inc.


Reading a candidate's website for his position papers is for suckers. To really understand how a candidate will vote, one needs to be in on the fund-raising calls he or she spends the majority of the day performing. Since that's impossible, the next best thing is to look at which of those calls were successful. Where each candidate stands is directly defined by the money trail.


Russ Feingold's Federal Election Commission report reads like a who's who of labor. American Maritime Officers Voluntary PAC. American Dental Association PAC. Alliant Energy Corporation Employees PAC. Air Conditioning Contractors of America PAC. Committee on Letter Carriers PAC (yes, this exists). Association of Postmasters. Amalgamated Transit Union. Writers Guild. Sheet Metal Workers. Air Traffic Controllers. United Brotherhood of Carpenters. American Nurses. Optometric Association. Assisted Living Federation. Associated Milk Producers. Boilermakers. Longshoremen. Walt Disney Productions Employees PAC. Bricklayers. Even the PAC from Awl friends the Human Rights Committee supports Feingold (since 1997).


Meanwhile, Ron Johnson has largely self-funded his campaign, running three TV ads for each one of Feingold's. When asked how much of his fortune he will spend to defeat Feingold, Johnson has said, "All of it." He's off to a good start, spending $4.4 million in the run-up to the primary, or about $9 per vote. That's a lot more than the many thousands of dollars both he and his wife gave in 2004 to Feingold's GOP challenger, Tim Michels.


Johnson doesn't really need the $5,000-odd donations brought in by his committee, Ron Johnson for Senate Inc. That's why looking at his list of donors is even more telling. A newcomer, Johnson's list of financial supporters is short; but it includes the American Bankers PAC, American Express Company PAC, American Insurance Association PAC, Deloitte & Touche PAC, Financial Services Roundtable PAC, National Venture Capital Association PAC, and the Exxon Mobil PAC. The last of those donors recently got Mr. Johnson in some trouble when it was revealed that all his defense of oil exploration in the Gulf, and his criticism of the Obama Administration's treatment of BP, might be because he personally holds hundreds of thousands of dollars in BP and Exxon stock.



Much like many of this year's tea party-associated GOP candidates, one of Johnson's core campaign points is criticism of the financial bailout. Funny then that Johnson's campaign has been the beneficiary of the largess of the very corporations he believes should not have received bailout money.


For example, the cash Johnson received from the Financial Services Roundtable PAC on August 27 and the American Bankers Association PAC on July 8 and July 30 came from, amongst others, hardcore Treasury bailout beneficiaries such as JP Morgan Chase, SunTrust, Bank of America, Regions Financial, Zions and First Horizon. The money Ron Johnson received from the Bluegrass and Senate Majority Fund PACs came, in part, from one of the greatest bailout beneficiaries of them all, Goldman Sachs. Despite statements about staying out of politics this cycle, Goldman donated to both PACs on March 31 of this year. On June 24, Ron Johnson's campaign received two $5,000 donations from the Bluegrass PAC, a day later the campaign received two donations from the Senate Majority PAC in the same amounts.


To be clear, while it may not be the backbone of his funding, some of the very bailout money that Ron Johnson has criticized is now funding his campaign.


Tea Party members might also be interested to know that some of the $2,700 PAC donation he received on August 27 came from Sallie Mae.


Johnson's campaign ignored repeated requests from The Awl for comment.


Johnson has, and will continue to, paint Feingold as a Washington D.C. insider. But would a Democratic insider have voted against dismissing President Clinton's impeachment proceedings? Feingold did.


When it comes to true politician insiders, potential Johnson supporters should ask about his connections to Americans for Prosperity's old Republican establishment strategist Mark Block. State political blog One Wisconsin Now even makes a good case for how Johnson worked with supporters to actually diminish true grassroots tea party involvement after former Governor Tommy Thompson dropped out of the race. Johnson's dismissal of Wisconsin tea party groups and alignment with Americans for Prosperity's tea party is a microcosm of how the entire movement has been clandestinely hijacked by the GOP. And those who genuinely are grassroots tea party patriots should be worried about Johnson's connection to the retail version of their movement. As One Wisconsin Now also just uncovered, Americans for Prosperity, along with Republican party leaders, are dragging the tea party reputation into good old GOP voter suppression tactics.


The great irony of course is that the newly angry who long for fiscal reason and weep for the Constitution, those who have become the "party of no," could not have a greater ally than Russ Feingold.


Feingold voted against the 2008 TARP bailout. In fact, he voted against the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, which in large part caused the need for the bailout. He voted against NAFTA. And just days after 9/11 and at the height of that event's fervor, Feingold hauled his giant balls up to the voting machine and registered a nay vote against the "USA Patriot Act" on the grounds that "The Founders who wrote our Constitution and Bill of Rights exercised that vigilance even though they had recently fought and won the Revolutionary War. They did not live in comfortable and easy times of hypothetical enemies. They wrote a Constitution of limited powers and an explicit Bill of Rights to protect liberty in times of war, as well as in times of peace." He was the only senator to vote no. By all means, read his full remarks in the wake of the vote and ask yourself why Russ Feingold isn't getting speaking invites for tea party rallies.


The once-progressive Republican Wisconsin Idea may have suffered greatly of late, broken and ill, slouching toward yore. But the election of Ron Johnson over Russ Feingold would be the ultimate blade run across its throat.


George Will's backseat make-out session with Johnson in May heavily leaned on Atlas Shrugged symbolism, noting it was Johnson's favorite book. Will noted Johnson's belief that we are already living in the "novel's dystopian world."


When newspeak replaces debate and the nation's vocabulary gets smaller every election cycle, where doublethink goes unquestioned by voters, we are indeed sliding into a novel's dystopian world, but it wasn't written by Ayn Rand.



Abe Sauer is enjoying autumn in Wisconsin.


Photo by WiscPolitics.com via Flickr








This post is from staff writer Sierra Black. Sierra writes about frugality, sustainable living, and getting her kids to eat kale at Childwild.com. This post is part of Book Week at Get Rich Slowly.


Since my twin victories of paying off our last credit card and funding a summer of travel, my husband has begun to show interest in personal finance.


It’s not that he wasn’t supportive of my efforts before — he just preferred to support them from a safe, ignorant distance. A distance from which I handed him an envelope of cash each week to do the grocery shopping, he didn’t ask too many questions, and somehow we were climbing out of debt. He was more than happy to adopt any frugal-living strategy I suggested, as long as he didn’t have to think about the Big Picture.


That system worked, but I longed for more active participation from him. Not only because I wanted us to share equally in the journey toward financial freedom — I do want that — but also for a selfish reason. I wanted him to participate because he’s better at this stuff than I am. He’s a whiz at spreadsheets. The man has a Ph.d in Physical Chemistry. You don’t get one of those without doing a few math problems.


Lately, I’ve been getting my wish. My husband has been talking with a financial advisor at the university he works for, and having clear, honest conversations with me about our money.


This seemed like the perfect time for me to read Mary Hunt’s How to Debt-Proof Your Marriage.


Relationship first

Hunt’s book covers the basics of personal finance and debt destruction, with a special focus on doing it as a couple. Before she even begins talking about financial management, Hunt talks about strengthening the foundations of your marriage. You can’t have financial harmony without emotional intimacy, she says.


I couldn’t agree more. It’s clear in my own marriage that spending time relaxing together on vacation helped my husband and me both chill out and have better conversations during our family finance meetings too.


Hunt and I part ways in the chapters about how to achieve that emotional intimacy, though. She bases her prescription for marital bliss on traditional gender roles. She includes chapters for each sex on how to make deposits in the other’s Love Bank — a metaphorical bank of goodwill made of small, loving gestures.


The Love Bank is an adorable idea, one I’m tempted to put into practice here in my own home. I’m pretty sure I won’t be making my deposits to my husband’s Love Bank by biting my tongue when I disagree with him, though. Likewise, I don’t expect him to express his love for me by bringing me flowers and handling all the tough decisions for me like the natural leader of our family should.


Hunt is a generation (or two) older than I am, and what works for her marriage is so foreign to my young, feminist mind that it was actually a little hard to read. But leaving aside the details of how you get to an intimate marriage, though, she and I agree wholeheartedly that it’s important to get your emotional needs met before you can effectively work together with your spouse to manage your finances.


Money second

The personal-finance half of the book will be familiar to most GRS readers. Hunt advocates an approach similar to Your Money or Your Life and Dave Ramsey’s Total Money Makeover, one that begins with calculating your net worth and tracking your expenses. From there, she covers the basics of setting up an emergency fund, creating a spending plan, and starting a debt snowball (though she uses different terms for these steps).


Like her ideal of a healthy relationship, Hunt’s financial advice seems a little dated in places. A lot of it has to do with how to organize your three-ring binders, or how to painstakingly accomplish by-hand calculations that Mint can do for you in a few minutes. If you’re a devotee of the pen-and-paper approach, though, her chapters on how to track and plan your spending are rock solid and detailed enough to easily follow.


The one thing in this book that made me want to put it down, run to my office, and implement it on the spot was, in fact, her filing system. Hunt takes a few pages to go over exactly what personal records you should be keeping, and outlines an elegant effective way to organize them. I spent an hour tearing apart my filing cabinet yesterday as soon as I read those pages. I may not want my marriage to look much like hers, but I’m delighted to have made over my filing cabinet in Mary Hunt’s image.


Different views

There are a few areas where Mary’s financial advice deviates from the usual Get Rich Slowly formula. One is the matter of the debt snowball. She encourages readers to start saving 10% of their income towards an emergency fund immediately, while still paying the minimums on their credit cards. Only after saving up a fully funded six-month emergency fund would Hunt advise you to roll those savings into your credit card payments.


Given the relative interest rates on credit cards and savings accounts, this approach will almost certainly cost you money. If it works for you psychologically, though, by all means pursue it. No matter what order you do them in, the key steps of tracking your spending, creating an emergency fund, and snowballing your debt payments will lead you to financial security.


Another place where she breaks with conventional wisdom is in her savings and spending ratios. GRS readers are familiar with the Balanced Money Formula that encourages us to use 50% of our money for living expenses, 30% for fun and 20% for savings. Hunt advises 10% for giving, 10% for saving and 80% for spending.


The order of those percentages is vital to her. A devout Christian, Hunt feels that all the money that comes into your life is a blessing from God, and promptly giving 10% of it back to God shows you can be trusted with this blessing, and more of it will come your way.


I’m not a Christian, but I admire Mary’s faith and devotion to charitable giving. It’s a goal of mine to give 10% of my income. I’ve written about that here before, and readers made a persuasive case for waiting until my debts were paid before giving so much away. For now, I give a modest amount and look forward to giving more in the future.


I think that for Hunt, the psychological benefits of giving 10% and saving 10% before you make any spending decisions at all outweigh the financial benefits of paying off your debts as fast as possible and then beginning to accumulate and donate wealth.


It’s an interesting approach, and one that might work for a lot of people. Particularly if you’re a devoted Christian and looking for a personal-finance book that reflects your values, you’ll find a lot of good in How to Debt-Proof Your Marriage. If you’re looking for a book that’s totally focused on financial savvy and relationship skills, though, this might not be your best bet.











bobby net ferguson

Official Google Blog: Google <b>News</b> turns eight

Today we celebrate the eighth birthday of Google News. Not long after the tragic events of September 11, 2001, we started building and testing Google News with the aim of helping you find current events from a wide variety of global and ...

Lindsay Lohan Photos &amp; Pics | BREAKING <b>NEWS</b> - Lindsay Lohan Gets <b>...</b>

Lindsay Lohan has just been sentenced to 30 days in jail for violating her probation after testing positive for cocaine. Judge Fox has denied Lindsay bail and has sent her straight to jail until October 22nd. But due to the overcrowding ...

<b>News</b> - Lindsay Lohan Going Back to Jail Until Oct. 22 - Celebrity <b>...</b>

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Elden S. Fox revokes her probation for failing at least one drug test.


Official Google Blog: Google <b>News</b> turns eight

Today we celebrate the eighth birthday of Google News. Not long after the tragic events of September 11, 2001, we started building and testing Google News with the aim of helping you find current events from a wide variety of global and ...

Lindsay Lohan Photos &amp; Pics | BREAKING <b>NEWS</b> - Lindsay Lohan Gets <b>...</b>

Lindsay Lohan has just been sentenced to 30 days in jail for violating her probation after testing positive for cocaine. Judge Fox has denied Lindsay bail and has sent her straight to jail until October 22nd. But due to the overcrowding ...

<b>News</b> - Lindsay Lohan Going Back to Jail Until Oct. 22 - Celebrity <b>...</b>

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Elden S. Fox revokes her probation for failing at least one drug test.


big white booty

Official Google Blog: Google <b>News</b> turns eight

Today we celebrate the eighth birthday of Google News. Not long after the tragic events of September 11, 2001, we started building and testing Google News with the aim of helping you find current events from a wide variety of global and ...

Lindsay Lohan Photos &amp; Pics | BREAKING <b>NEWS</b> - Lindsay Lohan Gets <b>...</b>

Lindsay Lohan has just been sentenced to 30 days in jail for violating her probation after testing positive for cocaine. Judge Fox has denied Lindsay bail and has sent her straight to jail until October 22nd. But due to the overcrowding ...

<b>News</b> - Lindsay Lohan Going Back to Jail Until Oct. 22 - Celebrity <b>...</b>

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Elden S. Fox revokes her probation for failing at least one drug test.



6. Invest Now At The Toronto Small Press Book Fair by adawnjournal







6. Invest Now At The Toronto Small Press Book Fair by adawnjournal






























Thursday, September 23, 2010

Making Money Cash





S4C is sitting on a £26.1 million investment fund that could be used to plug expected cuts to its public budget.



The publicly-funded Welsh-language broadcaster’s commercial arm S4C Digital Media Ltd (S4CDM) made £33 million in 2005 from selling its stake in the SDN Freeview multiplex to ITV (LSE: ITV). It used the cash to create a digital investment vehicle.



But S4CDM has made only one deal since - a £9.5 million equity investment it led in 2008 in to Inuk Networks, an Abercynon startup operating a service for viewing TV on computers.



S4CDM still has £26.3 million in assets, according to 2009 annual accounts. But there’s little prospect of a return on the sole investment. Now, with the Department for Culture, Media & Sport (DCMS) reportedly ready to cut 24 percent (£24.2 million) from S4C’s £101 million annual public grant over the next four years, S4C may come under pressure to use the funds for its core public service instead of digital investing.



The purpose of the S4CDM fund is currently being reviewed,” S4C tells paidContent:UK.



The story…



Flush with cash from having sold the digital terrestrial spectrum that it had originally been granted by Ofcom, S4C invested in promising young Inuk together with Sir Terry Matthews’ VC house Wesley Clover in 2008.



S4C’s contribution had been £6 million, giving it a stake of 20 to 26 percent, and was approved by the then culture secretary Andy Burnham by parliamentary order upon the S4C Authority‘s request, according to correspondence between the authority and the DCMS which was released to a Freedom Of Information (FOI) request this month.



The S4C Authority had thought the investment would “secure a continuing outlet for S4C Digital on a broadband network in the future”, watched particularly by young diaspora away at university, since Inuk’s main business was delivering IPTV to halls of residence.



But, despite the new money, within months, we heard Inuk was struggling under the weight of its costs. In December 2008, S4C’s then CEO Iona Jones flew home from a holiday to attend an emergency meeting on the matter and, on Boxing Day, S4C loaned Inuk a further £1 million, in return for an option on all Inuk’s property, equipment and intellectual property as security.



Early in 2009, Inuk appointed a strategist to review the business and, in April, sold the company to Move Networks, a Utah-based IPTV company.



Move paid Inuk in shares rather than cash, so S4C made no financial return on its investment.



Upon hearing about the imminent acquisition, the DCMS asked the S4C Authority to show it details of S4C’s new stake in Move Networks. What the authority supplied, on the same day Inuk’s acquisition was confirmed in public - according to the FOI request - was the press release announcement, which contained no mention of S4C or of Move’s shareholders.



Subsequent S4CDM annual accounts show that S4CDM’s £6 million Inuk stake had been swapped for 914,714 Move shares without making a profit or a loss.



But now Move itself is in trouble. In June, the company laid off much of its staff and said it, too, was seeking a sale - likely because its costs, too, had gotten ahead of it whilst building out its HD web video platform.



But S4C should not make much of a return on any sale. Move had already taken at least $70 million in investments from Steamboat Ventures (Disney), Hummer Winblad Venture Partners, Microsoft (NSDQ: MSFT), Benchmark Capital, Cisco (NSDQ: CSCO), ComcastInteractive Media and Televisa, before S4C had taken any Move stock. S4CDM’s stake is, therefore, likely more dilute than its Inuk stake was. S4C is not even listed amongst the investors on Move’s website.



At least three potential suitors have talked with Move since June, according to recent industry reports, but no deal has been forthcoming - buyers are likely put off by the valuation which would be required for Move’s big-name investors to make a return on their $70 million. “No one is going to be willing to pay that much for the company,” StreamingMedia.com reported. “So, unless the investors can get stock in the company that eventually purchases Move, they will lose money on the deal.”



That means S4C would, again, not cash out of its £6 million Inuk investment; it would instead need to gain only stock in whomever might buy Move and hope for a later liquidity event.



However, S4C tells paidContent:UK: “The current book value of S4CDM’s stake in Move Networks is still £6 million.”



The options



All bets are now off when it comes to S4C’s future. The channel’s faithful and staff alike are alarmed by recent reports but acknowledge radical reform may take place.



Options for downsizing which S4C might consider could, theoretically, include abandoning today’s kind of 24/7 linear TV channel and instead becoming a multi-platform, on-demand-centric brand, commissioning less but higher-quality content for the coming era of mass time-shifting…



In three years, when UK TVs start shipping with integrated YouView, round-the-clock linearity will matter less than quality; VOD will be commonplace. As a brand pushing disaggregated video out through such devices, S4C could even offer multiple programming strands, cutting unloved output but maintaining the content it’s well regarded for, like its children’s segment.



The problem is, today, S4C’s VOD strategy is trailing. While other broadcasters are unbundling their shows for syndication through a burgeoning array of distributors like SeeSaw, YouTube, Sony (NYSE: SNE) Internet TV and iTunes Store, S4C’s VOD is available only on its own-brand S4/Clic catch-up site…



Right now; YouView is a distant prospect - S4C is the only one of the UK’s five public service broadcasters which is not a partner in the JV, although YouView’s first non-equity content partners are due to be announced in coming weeks.



If S4C favours a conservative continuation in its current form over this kind of reformation, then one option is clear - stop playing venture capitalist...



Creating a digital investment arm, with the aim of securing carriage for S4C through online disruption, may have been admirable. Facing austerity, however, S4C could write off any Inuk losses, consider how lucky it was to have been granted won a spectrum license that eventually netted it £33 million, close S4C Digital Media and transfer the £26.1 million reserve to S4C proper, where it would plug the anticipated reduction in grants precisely.





Washington’s Blog


Everyone knows that the American consumer is deleveraging … living more frugally, and paying down debt.


Right?


Well, actually, as CNBC’s Diana Olick pointed out in April, many consumers are stopping their mortgage payments, and then blowing the money they would usually pay towards their mortgage on luxuries:


I opened up a big can of debate Monday, when I repeated some chatter around that consumer spending might be juiced by all those folks not paying their mortgages.


They have a little extra cash, so they’re spending it at the mall.


Some of you thought the premise had some validity, others, as is often the case, told me I was an idiot.


Well after the blog went up Erin Burnett put the question to Economist Robert Shiller, of the S&P/Case Shiller Home Price Index, during an interview on Street Signs.


He didn’t deny the possibility, and added:


“In some sense there might be a silver lining in that.”


Then I decided to ask Mark Zandi, of Moody’s Economy.com, who will often shoot down my more ridiculous theories.


I asked him if this was a crazy idea:


No, not crazy. With some 6 million homeowners not making mortgage payments (some loans are in trial mod programs and paying something but still in delinquency or default status) , this is probably freeing up roughly $8 billion in cash each month. Assuming this cash is spent (not too bad an assumption), it amounts to nearly one percent of consumer spending. The saving rate is also much lower as a result. The impact on spending growth is less significant as that is a function of the change in the number of homeowners not making payments.


I’m not sure I would say this is juicing up spending, but resulting in more spending than would be the case otherwise.


Many of these stressed homeowners (due to unemployment) are reducing their spending, just not as much as they would have if they were still making their mortgage payment.


Okay, so 6 million American homeowners are not being super frugal about either paying their mortgages or saving the money for another investment.


But surely the hundreds of millions of other Americans are reducing debt and deleveraging, right?


In fact, as the Wall Street Journal notes today, the overwhelming majority of debt reduction by consumers is not due to voluntary debt reduction, but due to defaulting on their debts and having them involuntarily written down by the banks:



The sharp decline in U.S. household debt over the past couple years has conjured up images of people across the country tightening their belts in order to pay down their mortgages and credit-card balances. A closer look, though, suggests a different picture: Some are defaulting, while the rest aren’t making much of a dent in their debts at all.


First, consider household debt. Over the two years ending June 2010, the total value of home-mortgage debt and consumer credit outstanding has fallen by about $610 billion, to $12.6 trillion, according to the Federal Reserve. That’s an annualized decline of about 2.3%, which is pretty impressive given the fact that such debts grew at an annualized rate in excess of 10% over the previous decade.


There are two ways, though, that the debts can decline: People can pay off existing loans, or they can renege on the loans, forcing the lender to charge them off. As it happens, the latter accounted for almost all the decline. Over the two years ending June 2010, banks and other lenders charged off a total of about $588 billion in mortgage and consumer loans, according to data from the Fed and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.


That means consumers managed to shave off only $22 billion in debt through the kind of belt-tightening we typically envision. In other words, in the absence of defaults, they would have achieved an annualized decline of only 0.08%.


The Journal graphically shows that virtually all debt reduction is due to loan charge offs:



Karl Denninger notes:


From a peak in 2005 of $13.1 trillion in equity in residential real estate, that value has now diminished by approximately half to $6.67 trillion!Yet outstanding household debt has in fact increased from $11.7 trillion to $13.5 trillion today.


Folks, those who claim that we have “de-levered” are lying.


Not only has the consumer not de-levered but business is actually gearing up – putting the lie to any claim that they have “record cash.” Well, yes, but they also have record debt, and instead of decreasing leverage levels they’re adding to them.


In short don’t believe the BS about “de-leveraging has occurred and we’re in good shape.” We most certainly have not de-levered, we most certainly are not in good shape, and the Federal borrowing is what, for the time being, has prevented reality from sticking it’s head under the corner of the tent.


Indeed, as I’ve pointed out repeatedly, the government has done everything it can to prevent deleveraging by the financial companies, and to re-lever up the economy to dizzying levels.


As Jim Quinn wrote last month:


You can’t open a newspaper or watch a business news network without seeing or hearing that consumers and businesses have been de-leveraging. The storyline as portrayed by the mainstream media is that consumers and corporations have seen the light and are paying off debts and living within their means. Austerity has broken out across the land.


***


Below is a chart that shows total credit market debt as a % of GDP. This chart captures all of the debt in the United States carried by households, corporations, and the government. The data can be found here:

http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/current/accessible/l1.htm


Total credit market debt peaked at $52.9 trillion in the 1st quarter of 2009. It is currently at $52.1 trillion. The GREAT DE-LEVERAGING of the United States has chopped our total debt by 1.5%. Move along. No more to see here. Time to go to the mall. Can anyone in their right mind look at this chart and think this financial crisis is over?



During the Great Depression of the 1930′s Total Credit Market Debt as a % of GDP peaked at 260% of GDP. As of today, it stands at 360% of GDP. The Federal Government is adding $4 billion per day to the National Debt. GDP is stagnant and will likely not grow for the next year. The storyline about corporate America being flush with cash is another lie. Corporations have ADDED $482 billion of debt since 2007. Corporate America has the largest amount of debt on their books in history at $7.2 trillion.


Indeed, as this chart courtesy of Zero Hedge confirms, traditional banking liabilities are higher than ever:



Granted, the liabilities of the shadow banking system have fallen off of a cliff.


But Tyler Durden argues:


The latest plunge in the shadow banking system is merely the most recent confirmation that the deleveraging in America is only just beginning.


So what does it all mean?


The government, big financial companies and the American consumer are all guilty of fighting deleveraging instead of voluntarily paying down their debt.


Like a junkie looking for “one last score”, the entire country has sold out our future to try to keep the artificial high going a little longer.


As I pointed out in July 2009:


Every independent economist has said that too much leverage was one of the main causes of the current economic crisis.However … the Federal Reserve and Treasury have, in fact, been encouraging massive leveraging.


***


Economists pushing voodoo theories justifying the tremendous increase in leverage were promoted and lionized, while those questioning such nonsense were ridiculed.In other words, economists and financial advisors – in academia, government and elsewhere – have been subservient to the financial elites, and have trumpeted the safeness and soundness of cdos, credit default swaps, and all of the rest of the shadow economy which allowed leverage to get so out of hand that it brought the world economy to its knees.


This is no different from the promotion of sports doctors to become team doctor when they are willing to inject various painkillers and feel-good drugs into an injured football star so he can finish the game. If he is willing to justify the treatment as being safe, he is promoted. If not, he’s out.


Economists have acted like team docs for the financial giants. When the football team doctor who gives the injured patient steroids and stimulants and tells him to get back in the game, it might be good for the team in the short-run, but the patient may end up severely injured for decades.


When economists have prescribed more leverage and told the banks to go trade like crazy to get the economy going again, it might be good for the banks in the short-run. But the consumer may end up being hurt for many years.


Using another analogy, this is like prescribing”hair of the dog” to the suffering alcoholic or heroin to the withdrawing junkie.


And as I wrote in August 2009:


In an essay entitled “The risk of a double-dip recession is rising”, Nouriel Roubini affirms two important points:


This is a crisis of solvency, not just liquidity, but true deleveraging has not begun yet because the losses of financial institutions have been socialised and put on government balance sheets. This limits the ability of banks to lend, households to spend and companies to invest…


The releveraging of the public sector through its build-up of large fiscal deficits risks crowding out a recovery in private sector spending.


In other words, Roubini is confirming what Anna Schwartz and many others have said: that the problem is insolvency, more than liquidity, that the government is fighting the last war and doing it all wrong, and that we should let the insolvent banks fail.


Roubini is also confirming that incurring huge deficits in order to have the federal government itself act as a super-bank is causing a reduction in – and “crowding out” a recovery in – private sector spending. [Roubini also said last year: "Deleveraging requires the writing down of debt as reflationary policies are not a free lunch and won't solve the debt overhang problem"].


As I have repeatedly pointed out, a recovery cannot occur until we move through the painful deleveraging process. But instead of allowing this to occur, the government is trying to increase leverage as a way to try to re-start the economy and save the insolvent banks. See this, this and this.


Of course, all of the massive government spending might also be putting governments themselves at risk . . . but that is another story.



Rumour: Project Milo cancelled Xbox 360 <b>News</b> - Page 1 | Eurogamer.net

Read our Xbox 360 news of Rumour: Project Milo cancelled.

Dallas Cowboys <b>News</b> &amp; Notes - Blogging The Boys

News & Notes about the Dallas Cowboys for Thursday, Sept. 23rd.

Aaron Brown: Cable <b>News</b> Is Too Political

Aaron Brown said in an interview that he is unhappy with the current state of cable news. Brown, who was a prominent anchor on CNN from 2001-2005 and now teaches journalism at Arizona State University, spoke to the online website ...


robert shumake

Rumour: Project Milo cancelled Xbox 360 <b>News</b> - Page 1 | Eurogamer.net

Read our Xbox 360 news of Rumour: Project Milo cancelled.

Dallas Cowboys <b>News</b> &amp; Notes - Blogging The Boys

News & Notes about the Dallas Cowboys for Thursday, Sept. 23rd.

Aaron Brown: Cable <b>News</b> Is Too Political

Aaron Brown said in an interview that he is unhappy with the current state of cable news. Brown, who was a prominent anchor on CNN from 2001-2005 and now teaches journalism at Arizona State University, spoke to the online website ...






S4C is sitting on a £26.1 million investment fund that could be used to plug expected cuts to its public budget.



The publicly-funded Welsh-language broadcaster’s commercial arm S4C Digital Media Ltd (S4CDM) made £33 million in 2005 from selling its stake in the SDN Freeview multiplex to ITV (LSE: ITV). It used the cash to create a digital investment vehicle.



But S4CDM has made only one deal since - a £9.5 million equity investment it led in 2008 in to Inuk Networks, an Abercynon startup operating a service for viewing TV on computers.



S4CDM still has £26.3 million in assets, according to 2009 annual accounts. But there’s little prospect of a return on the sole investment. Now, with the Department for Culture, Media & Sport (DCMS) reportedly ready to cut 24 percent (£24.2 million) from S4C’s £101 million annual public grant over the next four years, S4C may come under pressure to use the funds for its core public service instead of digital investing.



The purpose of the S4CDM fund is currently being reviewed,” S4C tells paidContent:UK.



The story…



Flush with cash from having sold the digital terrestrial spectrum that it had originally been granted by Ofcom, S4C invested in promising young Inuk together with Sir Terry Matthews’ VC house Wesley Clover in 2008.



S4C’s contribution had been £6 million, giving it a stake of 20 to 26 percent, and was approved by the then culture secretary Andy Burnham by parliamentary order upon the S4C Authority‘s request, according to correspondence between the authority and the DCMS which was released to a Freedom Of Information (FOI) request this month.



The S4C Authority had thought the investment would “secure a continuing outlet for S4C Digital on a broadband network in the future”, watched particularly by young diaspora away at university, since Inuk’s main business was delivering IPTV to halls of residence.



But, despite the new money, within months, we heard Inuk was struggling under the weight of its costs. In December 2008, S4C’s then CEO Iona Jones flew home from a holiday to attend an emergency meeting on the matter and, on Boxing Day, S4C loaned Inuk a further £1 million, in return for an option on all Inuk’s property, equipment and intellectual property as security.



Early in 2009, Inuk appointed a strategist to review the business and, in April, sold the company to Move Networks, a Utah-based IPTV company.



Move paid Inuk in shares rather than cash, so S4C made no financial return on its investment.



Upon hearing about the imminent acquisition, the DCMS asked the S4C Authority to show it details of S4C’s new stake in Move Networks. What the authority supplied, on the same day Inuk’s acquisition was confirmed in public - according to the FOI request - was the press release announcement, which contained no mention of S4C or of Move’s shareholders.



Subsequent S4CDM annual accounts show that S4CDM’s £6 million Inuk stake had been swapped for 914,714 Move shares without making a profit or a loss.



But now Move itself is in trouble. In June, the company laid off much of its staff and said it, too, was seeking a sale - likely because its costs, too, had gotten ahead of it whilst building out its HD web video platform.



But S4C should not make much of a return on any sale. Move had already taken at least $70 million in investments from Steamboat Ventures (Disney), Hummer Winblad Venture Partners, Microsoft (NSDQ: MSFT), Benchmark Capital, Cisco (NSDQ: CSCO), ComcastInteractive Media and Televisa, before S4C had taken any Move stock. S4CDM’s stake is, therefore, likely more dilute than its Inuk stake was. S4C is not even listed amongst the investors on Move’s website.



At least three potential suitors have talked with Move since June, according to recent industry reports, but no deal has been forthcoming - buyers are likely put off by the valuation which would be required for Move’s big-name investors to make a return on their $70 million. “No one is going to be willing to pay that much for the company,” StreamingMedia.com reported. “So, unless the investors can get stock in the company that eventually purchases Move, they will lose money on the deal.”



That means S4C would, again, not cash out of its £6 million Inuk investment; it would instead need to gain only stock in whomever might buy Move and hope for a later liquidity event.



However, S4C tells paidContent:UK: “The current book value of S4CDM’s stake in Move Networks is still £6 million.”



The options



All bets are now off when it comes to S4C’s future. The channel’s faithful and staff alike are alarmed by recent reports but acknowledge radical reform may take place.



Options for downsizing which S4C might consider could, theoretically, include abandoning today’s kind of 24/7 linear TV channel and instead becoming a multi-platform, on-demand-centric brand, commissioning less but higher-quality content for the coming era of mass time-shifting…



In three years, when UK TVs start shipping with integrated YouView, round-the-clock linearity will matter less than quality; VOD will be commonplace. As a brand pushing disaggregated video out through such devices, S4C could even offer multiple programming strands, cutting unloved output but maintaining the content it’s well regarded for, like its children’s segment.



The problem is, today, S4C’s VOD strategy is trailing. While other broadcasters are unbundling their shows for syndication through a burgeoning array of distributors like SeeSaw, YouTube, Sony (NYSE: SNE) Internet TV and iTunes Store, S4C’s VOD is available only on its own-brand S4/Clic catch-up site…



Right now; YouView is a distant prospect - S4C is the only one of the UK’s five public service broadcasters which is not a partner in the JV, although YouView’s first non-equity content partners are due to be announced in coming weeks.



If S4C favours a conservative continuation in its current form over this kind of reformation, then one option is clear - stop playing venture capitalist...



Creating a digital investment arm, with the aim of securing carriage for S4C through online disruption, may have been admirable. Facing austerity, however, S4C could write off any Inuk losses, consider how lucky it was to have been granted won a spectrum license that eventually netted it £33 million, close S4C Digital Media and transfer the £26.1 million reserve to S4C proper, where it would plug the anticipated reduction in grants precisely.





Washington’s Blog


Everyone knows that the American consumer is deleveraging … living more frugally, and paying down debt.


Right?


Well, actually, as CNBC’s Diana Olick pointed out in April, many consumers are stopping their mortgage payments, and then blowing the money they would usually pay towards their mortgage on luxuries:


I opened up a big can of debate Monday, when I repeated some chatter around that consumer spending might be juiced by all those folks not paying their mortgages.


They have a little extra cash, so they’re spending it at the mall.


Some of you thought the premise had some validity, others, as is often the case, told me I was an idiot.


Well after the blog went up Erin Burnett put the question to Economist Robert Shiller, of the S&P/Case Shiller Home Price Index, during an interview on Street Signs.


He didn’t deny the possibility, and added:


“In some sense there might be a silver lining in that.”


Then I decided to ask Mark Zandi, of Moody’s Economy.com, who will often shoot down my more ridiculous theories.


I asked him if this was a crazy idea:


No, not crazy. With some 6 million homeowners not making mortgage payments (some loans are in trial mod programs and paying something but still in delinquency or default status) , this is probably freeing up roughly $8 billion in cash each month. Assuming this cash is spent (not too bad an assumption), it amounts to nearly one percent of consumer spending. The saving rate is also much lower as a result. The impact on spending growth is less significant as that is a function of the change in the number of homeowners not making payments.


I’m not sure I would say this is juicing up spending, but resulting in more spending than would be the case otherwise.


Many of these stressed homeowners (due to unemployment) are reducing their spending, just not as much as they would have if they were still making their mortgage payment.


Okay, so 6 million American homeowners are not being super frugal about either paying their mortgages or saving the money for another investment.


But surely the hundreds of millions of other Americans are reducing debt and deleveraging, right?


In fact, as the Wall Street Journal notes today, the overwhelming majority of debt reduction by consumers is not due to voluntary debt reduction, but due to defaulting on their debts and having them involuntarily written down by the banks:



The sharp decline in U.S. household debt over the past couple years has conjured up images of people across the country tightening their belts in order to pay down their mortgages and credit-card balances. A closer look, though, suggests a different picture: Some are defaulting, while the rest aren’t making much of a dent in their debts at all.


First, consider household debt. Over the two years ending June 2010, the total value of home-mortgage debt and consumer credit outstanding has fallen by about $610 billion, to $12.6 trillion, according to the Federal Reserve. That’s an annualized decline of about 2.3%, which is pretty impressive given the fact that such debts grew at an annualized rate in excess of 10% over the previous decade.


There are two ways, though, that the debts can decline: People can pay off existing loans, or they can renege on the loans, forcing the lender to charge them off. As it happens, the latter accounted for almost all the decline. Over the two years ending June 2010, banks and other lenders charged off a total of about $588 billion in mortgage and consumer loans, according to data from the Fed and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.


That means consumers managed to shave off only $22 billion in debt through the kind of belt-tightening we typically envision. In other words, in the absence of defaults, they would have achieved an annualized decline of only 0.08%.


The Journal graphically shows that virtually all debt reduction is due to loan charge offs:



Karl Denninger notes:


From a peak in 2005 of $13.1 trillion in equity in residential real estate, that value has now diminished by approximately half to $6.67 trillion!Yet outstanding household debt has in fact increased from $11.7 trillion to $13.5 trillion today.


Folks, those who claim that we have “de-levered” are lying.


Not only has the consumer not de-levered but business is actually gearing up – putting the lie to any claim that they have “record cash.” Well, yes, but they also have record debt, and instead of decreasing leverage levels they’re adding to them.


In short don’t believe the BS about “de-leveraging has occurred and we’re in good shape.” We most certainly have not de-levered, we most certainly are not in good shape, and the Federal borrowing is what, for the time being, has prevented reality from sticking it’s head under the corner of the tent.


Indeed, as I’ve pointed out repeatedly, the government has done everything it can to prevent deleveraging by the financial companies, and to re-lever up the economy to dizzying levels.


As Jim Quinn wrote last month:


You can’t open a newspaper or watch a business news network without seeing or hearing that consumers and businesses have been de-leveraging. The storyline as portrayed by the mainstream media is that consumers and corporations have seen the light and are paying off debts and living within their means. Austerity has broken out across the land.


***


Below is a chart that shows total credit market debt as a % of GDP. This chart captures all of the debt in the United States carried by households, corporations, and the government. The data can be found here:

http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/current/accessible/l1.htm


Total credit market debt peaked at $52.9 trillion in the 1st quarter of 2009. It is currently at $52.1 trillion. The GREAT DE-LEVERAGING of the United States has chopped our total debt by 1.5%. Move along. No more to see here. Time to go to the mall. Can anyone in their right mind look at this chart and think this financial crisis is over?



During the Great Depression of the 1930′s Total Credit Market Debt as a % of GDP peaked at 260% of GDP. As of today, it stands at 360% of GDP. The Federal Government is adding $4 billion per day to the National Debt. GDP is stagnant and will likely not grow for the next year. The storyline about corporate America being flush with cash is another lie. Corporations have ADDED $482 billion of debt since 2007. Corporate America has the largest amount of debt on their books in history at $7.2 trillion.


Indeed, as this chart courtesy of Zero Hedge confirms, traditional banking liabilities are higher than ever:



Granted, the liabilities of the shadow banking system have fallen off of a cliff.


But Tyler Durden argues:


The latest plunge in the shadow banking system is merely the most recent confirmation that the deleveraging in America is only just beginning.


So what does it all mean?


The government, big financial companies and the American consumer are all guilty of fighting deleveraging instead of voluntarily paying down their debt.


Like a junkie looking for “one last score”, the entire country has sold out our future to try to keep the artificial high going a little longer.


As I pointed out in July 2009:


Every independent economist has said that too much leverage was one of the main causes of the current economic crisis.However … the Federal Reserve and Treasury have, in fact, been encouraging massive leveraging.


***


Economists pushing voodoo theories justifying the tremendous increase in leverage were promoted and lionized, while those questioning such nonsense were ridiculed.In other words, economists and financial advisors – in academia, government and elsewhere – have been subservient to the financial elites, and have trumpeted the safeness and soundness of cdos, credit default swaps, and all of the rest of the shadow economy which allowed leverage to get so out of hand that it brought the world economy to its knees.


This is no different from the promotion of sports doctors to become team doctor when they are willing to inject various painkillers and feel-good drugs into an injured football star so he can finish the game. If he is willing to justify the treatment as being safe, he is promoted. If not, he’s out.


Economists have acted like team docs for the financial giants. When the football team doctor who gives the injured patient steroids and stimulants and tells him to get back in the game, it might be good for the team in the short-run, but the patient may end up severely injured for decades.


When economists have prescribed more leverage and told the banks to go trade like crazy to get the economy going again, it might be good for the banks in the short-run. But the consumer may end up being hurt for many years.


Using another analogy, this is like prescribing”hair of the dog” to the suffering alcoholic or heroin to the withdrawing junkie.


And as I wrote in August 2009:


In an essay entitled “The risk of a double-dip recession is rising”, Nouriel Roubini affirms two important points:


This is a crisis of solvency, not just liquidity, but true deleveraging has not begun yet because the losses of financial institutions have been socialised and put on government balance sheets. This limits the ability of banks to lend, households to spend and companies to invest…


The releveraging of the public sector through its build-up of large fiscal deficits risks crowding out a recovery in private sector spending.


In other words, Roubini is confirming what Anna Schwartz and many others have said: that the problem is insolvency, more than liquidity, that the government is fighting the last war and doing it all wrong, and that we should let the insolvent banks fail.


Roubini is also confirming that incurring huge deficits in order to have the federal government itself act as a super-bank is causing a reduction in – and “crowding out” a recovery in – private sector spending. [Roubini also said last year: "Deleveraging requires the writing down of debt as reflationary policies are not a free lunch and won't solve the debt overhang problem"].


As I have repeatedly pointed out, a recovery cannot occur until we move through the painful deleveraging process. But instead of allowing this to occur, the government is trying to increase leverage as a way to try to re-start the economy and save the insolvent banks. See this, this and this.


Of course, all of the massive government spending might also be putting governments themselves at risk . . . but that is another story.




www.myebooksresell.com cash making powersites ebook by myebooksresell


robert shumake

Rumour: Project Milo cancelled Xbox 360 <b>News</b> - Page 1 | Eurogamer.net

Read our Xbox 360 news of Rumour: Project Milo cancelled.

Dallas Cowboys <b>News</b> &amp; Notes - Blogging The Boys

News & Notes about the Dallas Cowboys for Thursday, Sept. 23rd.

Aaron Brown: Cable <b>News</b> Is Too Political

Aaron Brown said in an interview that he is unhappy with the current state of cable news. Brown, who was a prominent anchor on CNN from 2001-2005 and now teaches journalism at Arizona State University, spoke to the online website ...


robert shumake

Rumour: Project Milo cancelled Xbox 360 <b>News</b> - Page 1 | Eurogamer.net

Read our Xbox 360 news of Rumour: Project Milo cancelled.

Dallas Cowboys <b>News</b> &amp; Notes - Blogging The Boys

News & Notes about the Dallas Cowboys for Thursday, Sept. 23rd.

Aaron Brown: Cable <b>News</b> Is Too Political

Aaron Brown said in an interview that he is unhappy with the current state of cable news. Brown, who was a prominent anchor on CNN from 2001-2005 and now teaches journalism at Arizona State University, spoke to the online website ...