Athazagoraphobia, or fear of being forgotten, is a common aliment among people. We all want to do something that firmly plants us in society so that our names will be remembered years after we pass. Only handful of people actually do something to make their name immortal. March 23rd was the 25th anniversary of the death of an economic master mind, Friedrich Hayek. And whether it was his intention to have his name resonate through the centuries or just a happy accident, his name and ideas have remained in the economy of our country.
Friedrich, born in Vienna on may 8th, before he became a Noble Prize winner and one of the most influential people in the twentieth century, he served in the Austrian army. When he left the service he went back to school and got degrees in Law and Political Science. He first began to do a study on business cycles or trade cycles more commonly know today as booms and recessions. He moved to England and joined the London School of Economics. His research on booms and recessions soon surfaced his name, but it was short lived when he crossed paths with his economic rival, John Manfred Kangs. Hard to picture that such an influential man such as Friedrich used to be in the shadows of another. Kangs promoted the idea that the government could successfully handle and manage the economy. So its not hard to guess why Hayek's time in the shadows was so short considering that was the idea he went up against. The economy is way to complicated and the information needed to make decisions is too "decentralized for a centrally planned economy". Hayek moved to Chicago and there published three books bringing more attention to his ideas. In 1974 he finally got the recognition his work deserved and was awarded the Nobel Prize in Economics. In 1991 his outlook on economics became even more reliable with the collapse of the Soviet Union, proving just why he didn't jump on the "Kangs bandwagon" of thinking. Its no wonder why his name will be remembered, its hard to forget someone who was so overwhelming right.
Two of his greatest observations are on 'Knowledge and Prices' and 'Economic Booms and Busts'. Knowledge and Prices points how the consumer can make decisions as if they have a large amount of knowledge about the product, an amount of knowledge that is impossible to really know, and they make these same decisions without any knowledge at all. They only thing thy costumer knows is the price, and they make and change decisions according to if that number goes up or down. Booms and busts, similar to booms and recessions, is about when the government plays a role in the economics and how it changes things, even if they have the best intentions, for worse. Someone in government can have, what they think is, a good idea. They have the authority and money to produce the product, but not the market. They don't know what the consumers want, after all if there was a highly demanded item business's would begin the produce it on their own to make a profit, without the government. But since the item is out there and the budget is being spent on an unwanted item we are presented with a "bust" in our economy. This still very much applied to our day-n-age but nowadays people are a little more apprehensive about letting the government into any part of their life, so maybe soon we can expect more booms than busts.
And these are not the only things Hayek has opinions about that still affect us. He has quotes on very controversial topics of today such as minimum wage, "We know, in other words, the general conditions in which what we call, somewhat misleadingly, an equilibrium will establish itself: but we never know what the particular prices or wages are which would exist if the market were to bring about such an equilibrium.", Terrorism, "Emergencies’ have always been the pretext on which the safeguards of individual liberty have been eroded." and even welfare, "A claim for equality of material position can be met only by a government with totalitarian powers."
Friedrich Hayek died 25 years ago, yet his name and his ideas still live on. He lived to see the rise and fall of fascism, the Soviet union and national socialism. He was the corner stone in the beginning steps towards our economic freedom. The things he exposed about economics and the way of thinking were revolutionary when he proposed them, and still are today in our ever changing society. He is a worthy man to remember and celebrate.
Saturday, May 20, 2017
Saturday, May 13, 2017
All Dogs Go To Heaven
Where did all the men go?. A question NOT as old as time, but rather just brought up in recent studies. Jobs have always been a hot topic when it comes to equality, the gap in pay and hiring percentages with women particularly. But in a recent article by Nicholas Eberstadt, the issue with how men are basically disappearing out of the work force brought to light.
Shocking how just a short while ago we were all kicking and screaming for there to be a more equal divide in the working place and now the "under dogs" so to speak have taken over. But is it by brute force, or sheer laziness by the opponents? Between 1965 and 2015 the work rates for the average man drastically dipped to the point were the percent of unemployment was just lower of that when our country just came out of the depression. Sadly, some of these men, who are perfectly qualified between the ages of 25 to 54, are simply just not looking for a job. Scraping by, causing an unnecessary gap in the work force. But our country still thrives, for our economy has managed to produce more wealth for its elite, even though is generates less employment for its workers. Is that we are losing such qualified workers? Because we, without them are still producing wealth and them, while doing nothing, are reaping some of the benefits? Our net worth is soaring while our employment is dying. Breeding laziness perhaps? Or just a generation with no work ethic? Our unemployment is right where we were in the 2000, a disheartening 4.7%. We boast of our "full employment" country yet the "work rate" for men 20 and up was over a "fifth lower than it was in 1948." But why the drop? Women and, again, laziness.
Like mentioned before, there was a constant battle between men and women in the work force for equal everything. There still is comments said under breaths, behind backs, and hidden behind a computer screen. But the reality is, they have begun to dominate. All the woman in power montage of the last couple years has sky rocketed them in practically any industry. Not a surprising consequence is the percent of men being hired lowering. If one number goes up the other has to go down. Unless you're just awful at math.
The other issue, a trend in todays day and age, is this feeling of entitlement to do nothing. AKA lazy sons of guns. It has become socially acceptable and even "cool" to be scraping by and not working. Between 1965 and 2015, the percent of prime-age men who weren't working or looking for work expanded more than three times faster than the number in the workforce. So more people capable of working, but didn't want to, out numbered the people who were actually employed.
I'm not going to speak much to the racial differences with this topic because lazy is lazy, no matter your "color", where you came from or how you were brought up. But to comment on it, "work rates and labor-force participation rates for white men today are lower than they were for black men in 1965". They are lower for white men then blacks in 1965.
Education always plays a huge factor in getting jobs. Higher GPA higher paying job is basically what is seared into our brains at a young age. But maybe that is not as true in the "real world" as we are lead to believe. We can see how behavior and choice also affect "labor-market" outcomes for men. "For prime-age men with less than a high school degree, labor-force participation rates today are roughly 20 percentage points higher".
For the economic view I'm going to use a direct quote because quite frankly, I can't express the issue from an economic view point as well as an expert.
"Economists do not have a singular answer for why demand for lower-skilled and middle-skilled labor is falling. Possible causes include technological advances and globalization, including import competition and offshoring. … Some economists point to “skill-biased technological change:” advances that benefit workers with certain skills more than others. … These forces have, among other things, eliminated large numbers of American manufacturing jobs over a number of decades … leaving many people — mostly men — unable to find new ones."
It is not one issue, therefore there is not "quick fix", in fact is there a fix at all? The economy is a fickle thing always changing and we are just all trying to stay a float and hope we don't become a statistic.
But there needs to be action of some kind. If the employment of men continues to decrease it will eventually catch up with our economy, slowing our growth creating a larger gap, higher welfare bills, and budget deficits. It could possibly cripple us socially destroying the cohesion in employment. What kind of action you ask? To start, revitalize the job generating capacities. Also, if the overly qualified man doesn't want the job, give it to one who maybe is less qualified but at least has the gumption to look for work.
So where did all the men go? Nowhere really. Some are retired, some hiding, some blatantly just not wanting to work. But there are men ready and willing to work and fill the gap, we just need to be willing to find them.
Shocking how just a short while ago we were all kicking and screaming for there to be a more equal divide in the working place and now the "under dogs" so to speak have taken over. But is it by brute force, or sheer laziness by the opponents? Between 1965 and 2015 the work rates for the average man drastically dipped to the point were the percent of unemployment was just lower of that when our country just came out of the depression. Sadly, some of these men, who are perfectly qualified between the ages of 25 to 54, are simply just not looking for a job. Scraping by, causing an unnecessary gap in the work force. But our country still thrives, for our economy has managed to produce more wealth for its elite, even though is generates less employment for its workers. Is that we are losing such qualified workers? Because we, without them are still producing wealth and them, while doing nothing, are reaping some of the benefits? Our net worth is soaring while our employment is dying. Breeding laziness perhaps? Or just a generation with no work ethic? Our unemployment is right where we were in the 2000, a disheartening 4.7%. We boast of our "full employment" country yet the "work rate" for men 20 and up was over a "fifth lower than it was in 1948." But why the drop? Women and, again, laziness.
Like mentioned before, there was a constant battle between men and women in the work force for equal everything. There still is comments said under breaths, behind backs, and hidden behind a computer screen. But the reality is, they have begun to dominate. All the woman in power montage of the last couple years has sky rocketed them in practically any industry. Not a surprising consequence is the percent of men being hired lowering. If one number goes up the other has to go down. Unless you're just awful at math.
The other issue, a trend in todays day and age, is this feeling of entitlement to do nothing. AKA lazy sons of guns. It has become socially acceptable and even "cool" to be scraping by and not working. Between 1965 and 2015, the percent of prime-age men who weren't working or looking for work expanded more than three times faster than the number in the workforce. So more people capable of working, but didn't want to, out numbered the people who were actually employed.
I'm not going to speak much to the racial differences with this topic because lazy is lazy, no matter your "color", where you came from or how you were brought up. But to comment on it, "work rates and labor-force participation rates for white men today are lower than they were for black men in 1965". They are lower for white men then blacks in 1965.
Education always plays a huge factor in getting jobs. Higher GPA higher paying job is basically what is seared into our brains at a young age. But maybe that is not as true in the "real world" as we are lead to believe. We can see how behavior and choice also affect "labor-market" outcomes for men. "For prime-age men with less than a high school degree, labor-force participation rates today are roughly 20 percentage points higher".
For the economic view I'm going to use a direct quote because quite frankly, I can't express the issue from an economic view point as well as an expert.
"Economists do not have a singular answer for why demand for lower-skilled and middle-skilled labor is falling. Possible causes include technological advances and globalization, including import competition and offshoring. … Some economists point to “skill-biased technological change:” advances that benefit workers with certain skills more than others. … These forces have, among other things, eliminated large numbers of American manufacturing jobs over a number of decades … leaving many people — mostly men — unable to find new ones."
It is not one issue, therefore there is not "quick fix", in fact is there a fix at all? The economy is a fickle thing always changing and we are just all trying to stay a float and hope we don't become a statistic.
But there needs to be action of some kind. If the employment of men continues to decrease it will eventually catch up with our economy, slowing our growth creating a larger gap, higher welfare bills, and budget deficits. It could possibly cripple us socially destroying the cohesion in employment. What kind of action you ask? To start, revitalize the job generating capacities. Also, if the overly qualified man doesn't want the job, give it to one who maybe is less qualified but at least has the gumption to look for work.
So where did all the men go? Nowhere really. Some are retired, some hiding, some blatantly just not wanting to work. But there are men ready and willing to work and fill the gap, we just need to be willing to find them.
Sunday, April 23, 2017
Heaven: Now Accepting Résumés
Ephesians 2:8-9 "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast." Through faith.. not work.. but that doesn't mean you can't show your faith at work. Aye see what I did there? No but in all seriousness it is difficult to remember to honor your faith and God when working, especially if your work environment isn't the most "Christian friendly". That struggle causes moral issues such as social cussing, smoking, drinking, etc but also, believe it or not, financial ones as well.
How, one may ask, would being a Christian impose upon their next pay check? Well in the article, When Your Job Feels Like Salvation By Works, it helps explain how. This article could be read in various ways but how I read it, related to it was how working as a Christian can affect pay. One of the first things that comes to mind is working on Sunday, the day of rest. Many people work on Sunday without giving it a second thought, myself (for the longest time) included. Working on Sunday isn't exactly exalted in the strict Christian mind set but we do it. And what would we do instead? Ask for the day off? In this economy? HA. The boss would get mad and that's one more day every week off your pay check.
There are more ways to expand on that but I want to focus on how being a Christian can affect your pay check now onto how your pay check can affect being a Christian. I know, a little more scandalous right? There are a couple different ways work can lead you astray down our holy path. For one it (work) makes us penny pinchers and less likely to give at offering. I myself have hesitated to give because I wanted to fill my gas tank and get that Starbucks later. Instead of giving my share to the church and the less fortunate I'm more concerned about the death grip I have on my pay check.
Another way it can affect the average worker is by redirecting our values and wants. What we should want: to spend time with our family and with God. What we are beginning to want: to have more money which in turn means more time at work and less time with family. Less time thinking about God. Also people who become engulfed in their work often become distant, stressed, etc which often leads to struggles in between the family which then people turn and blame God for the woes instead of taking a step back and taking a moment for Him.
There are plenty of things that can go into this blog for this topic but frankly I'm tired and I still have a speech to write and memorize so this is my last example. Holidays. Not wanting to work holidays for religious purposes would most likely be allowed but you would definitely get a disgruntled attitude from your boss and fellow coworkers who still have to work. Now no one likes or wants (I hope) to be a brown-noser but no one wants to be on their bosses bad side either. Asking for time off during the busiest time of year. Most likely wont be the offices favorite. But also taking that time off consistently will eventually cut into your money making. And the modern man does not like his wallet feeling thin. So people begin to not take the time off. And then suddenly Easter is an overrated lunch with in-laws you don't want to spend time with, Christmas is just a day to show your kids how much money you can spend on them to justify you not being with them at last weeks service.
How, one may ask, would being a Christian impose upon their next pay check? Well in the article, When Your Job Feels Like Salvation By Works, it helps explain how. This article could be read in various ways but how I read it, related to it was how working as a Christian can affect pay. One of the first things that comes to mind is working on Sunday, the day of rest. Many people work on Sunday without giving it a second thought, myself (for the longest time) included. Working on Sunday isn't exactly exalted in the strict Christian mind set but we do it. And what would we do instead? Ask for the day off? In this economy? HA. The boss would get mad and that's one more day every week off your pay check.
There are more ways to expand on that but I want to focus on how being a Christian can affect your pay check now onto how your pay check can affect being a Christian. I know, a little more scandalous right? There are a couple different ways work can lead you astray down our holy path. For one it (work) makes us penny pinchers and less likely to give at offering. I myself have hesitated to give because I wanted to fill my gas tank and get that Starbucks later. Instead of giving my share to the church and the less fortunate I'm more concerned about the death grip I have on my pay check.
Another way it can affect the average worker is by redirecting our values and wants. What we should want: to spend time with our family and with God. What we are beginning to want: to have more money which in turn means more time at work and less time with family. Less time thinking about God. Also people who become engulfed in their work often become distant, stressed, etc which often leads to struggles in between the family which then people turn and blame God for the woes instead of taking a step back and taking a moment for Him.
There are plenty of things that can go into this blog for this topic but frankly I'm tired and I still have a speech to write and memorize so this is my last example. Holidays. Not wanting to work holidays for religious purposes would most likely be allowed but you would definitely get a disgruntled attitude from your boss and fellow coworkers who still have to work. Now no one likes or wants (I hope) to be a brown-noser but no one wants to be on their bosses bad side either. Asking for time off during the busiest time of year. Most likely wont be the offices favorite. But also taking that time off consistently will eventually cut into your money making. And the modern man does not like his wallet feeling thin. So people begin to not take the time off. And then suddenly Easter is an overrated lunch with in-laws you don't want to spend time with, Christmas is just a day to show your kids how much money you can spend on them to justify you not being with them at last weeks service.
Money is the root of all evil some say, and ya maybe its not the most holy thing humans invented but how do we buy bible for the upcoming VBS, or send missionaries into the field to spread his word? Money. Its how we spend, invest, use, earn money that defines if it is evil or good. You cannot compare the money used to buy a "lady of the night" and money used to send a missionary to teach young kids in Africa about Jesus and say both are evil.
I work at a local pizza place and I am already working every Sunday and is tight with money even though I could easily give some away. I could be so far in right field on this blog and I apologize if I interpreted the article differently than you but i am encouraged to read, learn, and apply the economic blogs to my life and write and expand on them.
Saturday, April 1, 2017
Apparently, Not Just a Musical
"An arrow can only be shot by pulling it backward. So when life is dragging you back with difficulties, it means that it’s going to launch you into something great. So just focus, and keep aiming."
After reading through the long, long, packet, Villainous Business, and through Hailey Warta's blog, who seems to be an expert on the man, I honestly think Alexander Hamilton is the human embodiment of an arrow. His life when he was young was nothing short of difficult. Placed in charge of trade at the age of just 14, Hamilton witnessed slave trade and watched as his father drown in debt. How ironic that a son of man lost in debt would come out to be the founding father of economics. His mother died of his disease and he was sent to live with his cousin who soon then after, committed suicide. I'm not sure about others, but if that was my life as a kid I would lose all interest in life and the world around me. But Alexander is not any average person like you and I. He didn't lose interest instead he picked up every book he could find, read it, in hopes to understand the world around him. Very much like the arrow, he was pulled back and down until there was anywhere to go but up. And once life flung him forward, he didn't waste his shot, he took it and did the impossible. He made a working economic system and made people trust in the government.
Not many people know who he is anymore, even I was only familiar with the name because of a popular musical that everyone is raving about. But he was a corner stone in our nations foundation of economics and his ideas strong enough to last through the years. Alexander Hamilton, already graduated from Kings college at 19, was a force to be reckoned with in the Revolutionary War. He knew that "dying is easy, living and fighting for a purpose is harder, " and that he was willing to take the harder life so he could be a hand in winning independence and leaving a legacy. Not surprisingly, Hamilton became George Washington's right hand man. As he dug deeper and continued educating himself on the stability of our economics he realized that "our nation's financial system could be what keeps our independence alive and breathing " We are a country of states, but how will these economics hold all the states together in unity?
Though Washington was the main man in charge, without Alexander, none of his ideas would have come to fruition. Hamilton may not have been commander and chief, but it is arguable that he was the most powerful man in the world at that time.
"Under the hand of Hamilton the government began to take shape". Alexander quite literally molded our government and the financial stability behind it. Hamilton was the one to first introduce paper money, he kept a close relationship, which was no easy feat for his fellow peers, with Britain in order to maintain access to economic systems and writings. He could recognize that offering our economic services to France and Britain, both enemies at the time, would begin competition and unknowingly, bring the states to a higher power.
Our nation soon began to rack up debt, no surprise there, and Hamilton recognized why. After the war was when the "bills" began piling up Alexander knew that our debt was the price for our liberty. Others saw our debt as our nation getting ruined but he viewed it differently. He knew that, "if the states handled the debt with utmost precision they would gain the ability to borrow and trade at low interest rates in future times". And Hamilton's probably more harrowing act was to find a way that the people could trust the government for repayment. Trust the government? Not humanities strong suit. Hamilton formed a financial system that made the people to rely on it rather than turn on it at the first sign of trouble. And at the same time, it allowed them the freedom of their personal financial risk or gain. The government practically didn't exist at the time but Hamilton created a system that made people put their trust in a government that technically wasn't even there in order to form an actually stable government. Confusing yet overall successful. Hamilton created the sinking fund in which 5% of the debt would be paid off every year. This guaranteed that the debt would be paid off, and it provided that "outstanding bonds would benefit the government as securities rose in value."
Alexander Hamilton is and underrated genius and a secret puppet-master. He not only created a system that has lasted through the years, through the various leaders, but also convinced a whole nation to put their trust in the government, which was 79 million dollars in debt. His economic system is self-sabotage proof and too complicate to unravel even if one tries, I'm not 100% I understand all of it. He was a great man with amazing ideas and perfect execution of the ideas. He helped form America and should be remembered for more than being on the 10 dollar bill and having a musical about him. Even if it is a little catchy.
Not many people know who he is anymore, even I was only familiar with the name because of a popular musical that everyone is raving about. But he was a corner stone in our nations foundation of economics and his ideas strong enough to last through the years. Alexander Hamilton, already graduated from Kings college at 19, was a force to be reckoned with in the Revolutionary War. He knew that "dying is easy, living and fighting for a purpose is harder, " and that he was willing to take the harder life so he could be a hand in winning independence and leaving a legacy. Not surprisingly, Hamilton became George Washington's right hand man. As he dug deeper and continued educating himself on the stability of our economics he realized that "our nation's financial system could be what keeps our independence alive and breathing " We are a country of states, but how will these economics hold all the states together in unity?
Though Washington was the main man in charge, without Alexander, none of his ideas would have come to fruition. Hamilton may not have been commander and chief, but it is arguable that he was the most powerful man in the world at that time.
"Under the hand of Hamilton the government began to take shape". Alexander quite literally molded our government and the financial stability behind it. Hamilton was the one to first introduce paper money, he kept a close relationship, which was no easy feat for his fellow peers, with Britain in order to maintain access to economic systems and writings. He could recognize that offering our economic services to France and Britain, both enemies at the time, would begin competition and unknowingly, bring the states to a higher power.
Our nation soon began to rack up debt, no surprise there, and Hamilton recognized why. After the war was when the "bills" began piling up Alexander knew that our debt was the price for our liberty. Others saw our debt as our nation getting ruined but he viewed it differently. He knew that, "if the states handled the debt with utmost precision they would gain the ability to borrow and trade at low interest rates in future times". And Hamilton's probably more harrowing act was to find a way that the people could trust the government for repayment. Trust the government? Not humanities strong suit. Hamilton formed a financial system that made the people to rely on it rather than turn on it at the first sign of trouble. And at the same time, it allowed them the freedom of their personal financial risk or gain. The government practically didn't exist at the time but Hamilton created a system that made people put their trust in a government that technically wasn't even there in order to form an actually stable government. Confusing yet overall successful. Hamilton created the sinking fund in which 5% of the debt would be paid off every year. This guaranteed that the debt would be paid off, and it provided that "outstanding bonds would benefit the government as securities rose in value."
Alexander Hamilton is and underrated genius and a secret puppet-master. He not only created a system that has lasted through the years, through the various leaders, but also convinced a whole nation to put their trust in the government, which was 79 million dollars in debt. His economic system is self-sabotage proof and too complicate to unravel even if one tries, I'm not 100% I understand all of it. He was a great man with amazing ideas and perfect execution of the ideas. He helped form America and should be remembered for more than being on the 10 dollar bill and having a musical about him. Even if it is a little catchy.
Thursday, March 23, 2017
Hi-Ho Hi-Ho Should I Invest My Dough?
(Hum to the song of When You Wish Upon A Star or this won't make sense) If you ever wonder why, with Disney stocks you always buy;I will show you, give me time. If you don't have any clue you'll know by the time this blog gets through.
Disney, quite literally one of the biggest brand names well know worldwide. Also, one of the most lucrative companies out from the moment it opened in 1923. Whether you are a die hard Disney fan, a morbidly curious follower of Tim Burton, a giant nerd looking for a Sci-Fi fix. or just a parent looking for a movie to shut the kids up for a couple hours, you have most likely given money to Disney purposefully or not. You give money every time you see a movie, watch the channel, or go to the theme park. I suppose the question is, should you just invest already so you could turn a small profit as they turn a large one.
In the stocks game Investopedia, one of my highest stocks is Disney. (Obviously) I have a pretty basic understanding of the why behind the numbers: The park, movies, video-games, etc. But my question is, is it still a smart investment? With them branching out, trying new things, buying new companies and not everyone being thrilled about their decisions. I read through a couple articles, 10 Reasons to Buy Disney Stock and Never Sell, Here's Why You Should Buy Walt Disney Stock Right Now, 3 Great Reasons to Buy Disney Stock Now, and overall think its still a smart investment and here's why.
The Classic Theme Park:
"Disney grosses a combined US$13,611 billion from their 6 domestic parks annually." That is an impressive 6.2 million per day per park. The parks have the "ole faithful" rides that have been there longer than some of the costumers have been alive. But by no means is Disney not expanding. The park is always twisting and improving. It may cost the park a good chunk of change but, you have to "spend money to make money right? And though sometimes disheartened at the destruction of the old favorites, people are always ready and willing to spend plenty of money to see the newest attraction. I highly doubt that the iconic theme park with the famous mouse will go out of fashion anytime soon, especially with Star Wars on the up swing and all of their new releases . And besides who can replace the "happiest place on earth".
Disney Website
Disney, quite literally one of the biggest brand names well know worldwide. Also, one of the most lucrative companies out from the moment it opened in 1923. Whether you are a die hard Disney fan, a morbidly curious follower of Tim Burton, a giant nerd looking for a Sci-Fi fix. or just a parent looking for a movie to shut the kids up for a couple hours, you have most likely given money to Disney purposefully or not. You give money every time you see a movie, watch the channel, or go to the theme park. I suppose the question is, should you just invest already so you could turn a small profit as they turn a large one.
In the stocks game Investopedia, one of my highest stocks is Disney. (Obviously) I have a pretty basic understanding of the why behind the numbers: The park, movies, video-games, etc. But my question is, is it still a smart investment? With them branching out, trying new things, buying new companies and not everyone being thrilled about their decisions. I read through a couple articles, 10 Reasons to Buy Disney Stock and Never Sell, Here's Why You Should Buy Walt Disney Stock Right Now, 3 Great Reasons to Buy Disney Stock Now, and overall think its still a smart investment and here's why.
The Classic Theme Park:
"Disney grosses a combined US$13,611 billion from their 6 domestic parks annually." That is an impressive 6.2 million per day per park. The parks have the "ole faithful" rides that have been there longer than some of the costumers have been alive. But by no means is Disney not expanding. The park is always twisting and improving. It may cost the park a good chunk of change but, you have to "spend money to make money right? And though sometimes disheartened at the destruction of the old favorites, people are always ready and willing to spend plenty of money to see the newest attraction. I highly doubt that the iconic theme park with the famous mouse will go out of fashion anytime soon, especially with Star Wars on the up swing and all of their new releases . And besides who can replace the "happiest place on earth".
Its Technology:
No, don't get Disney confused with Apple thinking one is becoming the other. But we can't ignore the impressive advancements Disney has had in technology over the years. Especially with their Pixar movies, practically realistic. They continue to develop and even introduce new technology products to others. They were leaders early on with these advancements and have yet to slow down.
The Growth Rate:
Disney stocks, at the moment, are down by about 20%. Now why, when trying to convince you, would i bring up the companies decline? To tell you that it is nothing to freak out about. The Disney "operations" aren't in detrimental decline, investors are just nervous about their recent business with ESPN. Despite this fear, Disney is still considered a long term success. Disney has a "10-year earnings-per-share growth rate of 13%". Yes, Disney is in a current decline because of the fear of failure by the investors, but all that truly means is that is a smart time for others to invest in Disney before the price to goes back up.
New Investments, Investors:
Disney gets mocked for always buying out other companies, but what do people expect a growing profitable business to do? Not expand? And the new investments are certainly turning a profit for them. Star Wars was one of the biggest "nail-biters" in the past couple years. But Disney, with a couple of different choices, pretty much stuck to the feel of Star Wars. This sky-rocketed their income and with the upcoming movies profit is all they have in store
Family
Last, but defiantly not least, family. Though being open to basically any life style choice and pretty accepting, Disney never directly promotes any controversial issues. Making it a pretty family friendly company overall. Family friendly is always a difficult balance to find because adults obviously want something a little more intriguing than a kids show all the time and Disney has the balance of dry and kid humor that classics instantly. Investing in the actual stock or not, renting the same movie over and over until you realize you should buy it is worth the big smile across your kids, your sibling, etc. Its a great way to take a little piece of your childhood, pass it to the next generation, and be there to experience the up and coming with them. So happiest place on earth and smartest investment on earth? Now that's magic.
New Investments, Investors:
Disney gets mocked for always buying out other companies, but what do people expect a growing profitable business to do? Not expand? And the new investments are certainly turning a profit for them. Star Wars was one of the biggest "nail-biters" in the past couple years. But Disney, with a couple of different choices, pretty much stuck to the feel of Star Wars. This sky-rocketed their income and with the upcoming movies profit is all they have in store
Family
Last, but defiantly not least, family. Though being open to basically any life style choice and pretty accepting, Disney never directly promotes any controversial issues. Making it a pretty family friendly company overall. Family friendly is always a difficult balance to find because adults obviously want something a little more intriguing than a kids show all the time and Disney has the balance of dry and kid humor that classics instantly. Investing in the actual stock or not, renting the same movie over and over until you realize you should buy it is worth the big smile across your kids, your sibling, etc. Its a great way to take a little piece of your childhood, pass it to the next generation, and be there to experience the up and coming with them. So happiest place on earth and smartest investment on earth? Now that's magic.
Monday, March 13, 2017
To Approve or Disapprove? Who the Hell Asked You?
Our economy is growing at a steady rate finally. Jobs are being demanded, created, and filled. There is always a fierce competition for almost every job and jobs are always changing. But one job that never truly changes is being a parent. In the articles, Let Us Now Praise Homemakers and No, Stay At Home Moms Don't Waste Their Education, the authors discuss the apparent issue people and the government have with parents staying at home. Contrary to popular belief being a stay at home mom, or even dad, is a full time job that constantly goes into overtime. Yes, it pays practically nothing and it is exhausting, but in no way is it a waste of time. Or of education.
There has been buzz around pushing those who choose to stay home out into the workforce instead of say, giving more hours to the main provider of the household. But doesn't that defeat the purpose of their choice of staying home? Why can we not just give more hours to those wishing to work in an office rather than at home? And yes I suppose it is possible to work from home and continue to parent but trust me, experiencing it first hand, it ends in frustration. Because then you are essentially working two full time jobs at the same time. My step mom, when she just had her daughter, decided to start working from home so she could still support her family while simultaneously being there full time with them as well. I'm sure with some jobs it is possible but with hers she was highly demanding and unable to leave her computer for more than a couple minutes. This resulted in me taking primary care of my younger sister, her calling me mommy, jealousy and eventually daycare. So she works at home but now her child isn't there, so good intentions but it doesn't always work out. On top of that she constantly got crap about her JUST staying home with Maeve and not being a "working mom". Like not working makes you any less of a mother to your child.
I know this sounds more like a rant than perhaps a economic blog but I just don't understand why the government gives a flying fuck whether or not I stay home with my children. I'm not throwing away my education, rather I'm passing what I was taught, and how I understood it, down to my children so maybe school will come easier to them. I understand maybe mothers who all they've ever down is mother getting a little cabin-fever and want to get out there and work but I don't think they should be pushed to choose between money and staying home to be there for their kids first steps, words, fuck up, love, broken heart. No, maybe it doesn't pay the bills to stay at home instead of being trapped in a cubicle. But if someone stays, free day care. You'll be able to volunteer at their school, if that's your thing, there will always someone to be home if the kid forgets something, gets sick, or in a fight and is sent home. You may not make money but you'll defiantly save some money.
I, personally, don't plan on being a stay at home. But then again my heart longs to have kids. I say I don't like them but they pull on certain heart strings in a way I can never explain. So who knows, maybe I will stay at home with my children. Maybe for a couple years, maybe I'll try to work from home, maybe ill just never leave because Gods calling for me is to be a mother. Only time will tell. But I sure as hell won't be pressured into chasing a career or money just like I wont be pressured to get married and stay at home. I will do what I believe I need to do. So approve or disapprove, I honestly won't care. No parent should.
There has been buzz around pushing those who choose to stay home out into the workforce instead of say, giving more hours to the main provider of the household. But doesn't that defeat the purpose of their choice of staying home? Why can we not just give more hours to those wishing to work in an office rather than at home? And yes I suppose it is possible to work from home and continue to parent but trust me, experiencing it first hand, it ends in frustration. Because then you are essentially working two full time jobs at the same time. My step mom, when she just had her daughter, decided to start working from home so she could still support her family while simultaneously being there full time with them as well. I'm sure with some jobs it is possible but with hers she was highly demanding and unable to leave her computer for more than a couple minutes. This resulted in me taking primary care of my younger sister, her calling me mommy, jealousy and eventually daycare. So she works at home but now her child isn't there, so good intentions but it doesn't always work out. On top of that she constantly got crap about her JUST staying home with Maeve and not being a "working mom". Like not working makes you any less of a mother to your child.
I know this sounds more like a rant than perhaps a economic blog but I just don't understand why the government gives a flying fuck whether or not I stay home with my children. I'm not throwing away my education, rather I'm passing what I was taught, and how I understood it, down to my children so maybe school will come easier to them. I understand maybe mothers who all they've ever down is mother getting a little cabin-fever and want to get out there and work but I don't think they should be pushed to choose between money and staying home to be there for their kids first steps, words, fuck up, love, broken heart. No, maybe it doesn't pay the bills to stay at home instead of being trapped in a cubicle. But if someone stays, free day care. You'll be able to volunteer at their school, if that's your thing, there will always someone to be home if the kid forgets something, gets sick, or in a fight and is sent home. You may not make money but you'll defiantly save some money.
I, personally, don't plan on being a stay at home. But then again my heart longs to have kids. I say I don't like them but they pull on certain heart strings in a way I can never explain. So who knows, maybe I will stay at home with my children. Maybe for a couple years, maybe I'll try to work from home, maybe ill just never leave because Gods calling for me is to be a mother. Only time will tell. But I sure as hell won't be pressured into chasing a career or money just like I wont be pressured to get married and stay at home. I will do what I believe I need to do. So approve or disapprove, I honestly won't care. No parent should.
Saturday, March 4, 2017
EQUALITY FOR ALL... but Just a Little More for Me
I am pro-gay, pro-LGBT, pro-all that. But articles like As Funds Invoke Bible Values, Others See Intolerance makes it difficult for me to support them when, in essence, they are throwing a tantrum. Basically, new "exchange traded funds" are promising they won't invest in any companies that produce or support things against Christian values. Calling it "intolerance" when in reality they aren't saying, "No you can't marry, no you cant sell guns, etc." They are just saying, "You do you and I just wont fund it". And honestly what is wrong with that? They have our tolerance just not our approval and I think that screams equality more than anything.
The Bible says love thy neighbor, and we do. The "breeder" community loves the LGBT, the gun fanatics, because God made them. But that does not mean we have to full on support them. I know people who do drugs, drink, and I still fully love them and tolerate them but I do not support what they do in their free time.
When reading through the article I saw a lot of numbers. How the fact that people are now supporting the funds that aren't investing in what they don't believe in is costing people money. Well how would Gays or gun supports react if people asked them not to invest then the thing they believe in, but rather the very thing they stand against. Because that is what they are doing. They would throw a bigger fit they are now, if that's even possible.
![Image result for money controls everything cartoon]](https://media.giphy.com/media/lOogiJH1y9mYE/giphy.gif)
And believe it or not their are companies who ride that grey area like its their job. Companies who serve people with lifestyles and beliefs they don't support because if they didn't it would be an uproar. But lets say a lesbian who doesn't want to serve a straight person because they don't believe in their lifestyle they would applauded for standing up rather than getting told they are intolerant.
We scream, "EQUALITY EQUAILTY", yet we don't want it for everyone. Ironic isn't it. The LGBT want their lifestyles to be accepted but when they get that but not support with it, its not good enough. Why cant I see you, tolerate you, then go my own way? That is what they are doing when they aren't throwing rallies and riots. But when the Christian does it its not right. That doesn't sound like equality it sounds like people want to be treated equal but treated a little better than others... Makes sense? No, no it does not.
So I suppose what I'm getting at after this little 500 word rant is, other companies have invested along the guidelines of other religions but this incident was a big deal because it "offended" the wrong community. Also, that the definition and image of "equality" has become skewed to fit different peoples views and "wants". But what seems to remain the same is standing up for what you believe, for what is right is an amazing thing, unless it goes against what others say...
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)