DAILY WATCH, AUGUST 18, 2009
What Chinese Authorities Do Not Want You to See
By Tom Dyson
If the Chinese authorities had caught him making this video, they would have arrested him...
Hugh Hendry is a hedge-fund manager from Britain. Eclectica is the name of his fund. He’s outspoken and critical of the establishment. You could say he’s somewhat of a pariah in London’s hedge-fund industry. In 2008, his fund generated 32% by making massive bearish bets...
Earlier this year, Hendry took a trip to Guangzhou, China’s third-largest city after Beijing and Shanghai. There’s been a huge construction boom in China in recent years, and Guangzhou is one of the hot spots. Developers have erected so many skyscrapers, Guangzhou’s central business district could easily match Chicago or Boston for the number of modern, high-rise buildings.
So Hendry shot a video of the office buildings in the district. He focuses on one shiny black skyscraper with a giant neon screen at its base. It’s close to 100 stories... And it’s obviously brand new...
"This is a seriously large building," says Hendry. "We’re talking at least half a billion dollars to construct this thing. It’s empty! Who is going to fill this thing? Who is going to pay the debt that that building is resting on?"
Read more: http://www.dailywealth.com/index.asp
Showing posts with label Economy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Economy. Show all posts
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Saturday, August 15, 2009
The Proposal, Economy, Budget... August 15, 2009
From one of our very Far-flung correspondents – The Proposal
Boy here is a Money saving idea!!
"The Proposal"
When a company falls on difficult times, one of the things that seems to happen is they reduce their staff and workers. The remaining workers must find ways to continue to do a good job or risk that their job would be eliminated as well.
Wall street, and the media normally congratulate the CEO for making this type of "tough decision", and his board of directors gives him a big bonus. Our government should not be immune from similar risks.
Therefore:
Reduce the House of Representatives from the current 435 members to 218 members.
Reduce Senate (members from 100 to 50 one per State). Then, reduce their staff by 25%.
Accomplish this over the next 8 years
(two steps/two elections) and of course this would require some redistricting.
Some Yearly Monetary Gains Include:
$44,108,400 for elimination of base pay for congress. (267 members X $165,200 pay/member/ yr.)
$97,175,000 for elimination of their staff. (estimate $1.3 Million in staff per each member of the House, and $3 Million in staff per each senate member every year)
$240,294 for the reduction in remaining staff by 25%.
$7,500,000,000 reduction in pork barrel ear-marks each year. (those members whose jobs are gone. Current estimates for total government pork earmarks are at $15 Billion/yr).
The remaining representatives would need to work smarter and improve efficiencies. It might even be in their best interests to work together for the good of our country!
We may also expect that smaller committees might lead to a more efficient resolution of issues as well. It might even be easier to keep track of what your representative is doing.
Congress has more tools available to do their jobs than it had back in 1911 when the current number of representatives was established. (telephone, computers, cell phones to name a few)
Note:
Congress did not hesitate to head home when it was a holiday, when the nation needed a real fix to the economic problems. Also, we had 3 senators that were not doing their jobs for the 18+ months (on thecampaign trail) and still they all have accepted full pay. These facts alone support a reduction in senators & congress.
Summary of opportunity:
$ 44,108,400 reduction of congress members.
$282,100, 000 for elimination of the reduced house member staff.
$150,000,000 for elimination of reduced senate member staff.
$59,675,000 for 25% reduction of staff for remaining house members.
$37,500,000 for 25% reduction of staff for remaining senate members.
$7,500,000,000 reduction in pork added to bills by the reduction of congress members.
$8,073,383,400 per year, estimated total savings. (that's 8-BILLION just to start!)
Big business does these types of cuts all the time.
If Congress persons were required to serve 20, 25 or 30 years (like everyone else) in order to collect retirement benefits, tax payers could save a bundle.
Now they get full retirement after serving only ONE term.
IF you are happy with how Congress spends our taxes, delete this message. Otherwise, I assume you know what to do.
Submitted by
Joline Maurer
"Forgetting those things which are behind, and remembering what lies ahead, I Press On."
Boy here is a Money saving idea!!
"The Proposal"
When a company falls on difficult times, one of the things that seems to happen is they reduce their staff and workers. The remaining workers must find ways to continue to do a good job or risk that their job would be eliminated as well.
Wall street, and the media normally congratulate the CEO for making this type of "tough decision", and his board of directors gives him a big bonus. Our government should not be immune from similar risks.
Therefore:
Reduce the House of Representatives from the current 435 members to 218 members.
Reduce Senate (members from 100 to 50 one per State). Then, reduce their staff by 25%.
Accomplish this over the next 8 years
(two steps/two elections) and of course this would require some redistricting.
Some Yearly Monetary Gains Include:
$44,108,400 for elimination of base pay for congress. (267 members X $165,200 pay/member/ yr.)
$97,175,000 for elimination of their staff. (estimate $1.3 Million in staff per each member of the House, and $3 Million in staff per each senate member every year)
$240,294 for the reduction in remaining staff by 25%.
$7,500,000,000 reduction in pork barrel ear-marks each year. (those members whose jobs are gone. Current estimates for total government pork earmarks are at $15 Billion/yr).
The remaining representatives would need to work smarter and improve efficiencies. It might even be in their best interests to work together for the good of our country!
We may also expect that smaller committees might lead to a more efficient resolution of issues as well. It might even be easier to keep track of what your representative is doing.
Congress has more tools available to do their jobs than it had back in 1911 when the current number of representatives was established. (telephone, computers, cell phones to name a few)
Note:
Congress did not hesitate to head home when it was a holiday, when the nation needed a real fix to the economic problems. Also, we had 3 senators that were not doing their jobs for the 18+ months (on thecampaign trail) and still they all have accepted full pay. These facts alone support a reduction in senators & congress.
Summary of opportunity:
$ 44,108,400 reduction of congress members.
$282,100, 000 for elimination of the reduced house member staff.
$150,000,000 for elimination of reduced senate member staff.
$59,675,000 for 25% reduction of staff for remaining house members.
$37,500,000 for 25% reduction of staff for remaining senate members.
$7,500,000,000 reduction in pork added to bills by the reduction of congress members.
$8,073,383,400 per year, estimated total savings. (that's 8-BILLION just to start!)
Big business does these types of cuts all the time.
If Congress persons were required to serve 20, 25 or 30 years (like everyone else) in order to collect retirement benefits, tax payers could save a bundle.
Now they get full retirement after serving only ONE term.
IF you are happy with how Congress spends our taxes, delete this message. Otherwise, I assume you know what to do.
Submitted by
Joline Maurer
"Forgetting those things which are behind, and remembering what lies ahead, I Press On."
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)