Win money roulette
...With each spin of the wheel. A lot of new players think the best way to win money at roulette is to place small bets and hope they win big, but these hopes are about as realistic as trying to strike it rich playing the lottery. Instead, place a number of bets on the table at once. Mix conservative and risky wagers. The more likely bets will help you...
Things women like
...To have sex with them, but that you want to take them and make mad love to her!
Money. Women like money but really love is by far more important. Yes, you will run into women who like rich guys, but most really want the overall love and support of...
Tips for kids and money
...Children often do not have a good grasp on what the value of money really is. Children often walk through a store, asking for things that they want without realizing what a bind it could put you in if you were to spend that extra $20 on that item. Teaching children about...
Tips for singles on how to avoid being trapped online scams
...Meet you. They do this so that you cannot meet them face to face and their true identity hidden from you.-They will list a nice profile showing a young, attractive, wealthy and highly educated person from Europe, Russia or Africa and tell you they want to know you. Its' not often that these people wants to start a relationship with someone as far...
Money laundering examples
...Money laundering is the criminal enterprise where financial transactions are used to conceal the identity, source and/or destination of money that has been...
It is a joke to suggest that capitalism rewards in proportion to risk. There is little or no relationship between income and the risk that person faces. Indeed, it would be fairer to say that return is inversely proportional to the amount of risk a person faces. . . . In terms of risk, the investor is wealthy enough to have spread their money so far that, in practical terms, there is none. . . .
The suggestion that risk taking is the source and justification for profits ignores the fact that virtually all human activity involves risk. To claim that capitalists should be paid for the risks associated with investment is to implicitly state that money is more valuable that human life. After all, workers risk their health and often their lives in work and often the most dangerous workplaces are those associated with the lowest pay. Moreover, providing safe working conditions can eat into profits and by cutting health and safety costs, profits can rise. This means that to reward capitalist "risk", the risk workers face may actually increase. In the inverted world of capitalist ethics, it is usually cheaper (or more "efficient") to replace an individual worker than a capital investment. Unlike investors, bosses and the corporate elite, workers do face risk to life or limb daily as part of their work. Life is risky and no life is more risky that that of a worker who may be ruined by the "risky" decisions of management, capitalists and investors seeking to make their next million. While it is possible to diversify the risk in holding a stock portfolio that is not possible with a job. A job cannot be spread across a wide array of companies diversifying risk.
In other words, workers face much greater risks than their employers and, moreover, they have no say in what risks will be taken with their lives and livelihoods. . . . Management rarely get pay cuts, indeed they often get bonuses and "incentive" schemes to get them to do the work they were (over) paid to do in the first. When a corporate manager makes a mistake and their business actually fails, his workers will suffer far more serious consequences than him. In most cases, the manager will still live comfortably (indeed, many will receive extremely generous severance packages) while workers will face the fear, insecurity and hardship of having to find a new job. Indeed . . . it is the risk of unemployment that is a key factor in ensuring the exploitation of labour in the first place.
As production is inherently collective under capitalism, so must be the risk, . . consequently, risk cannot be used to justify excluding people from controlling their own working lives or the fruit of their labour. . . .
[M]ost kinds of "risks" within capitalism do not contribute to production and, thanks to state aid, not that risky.
Looking at the typical "risk" associated with capitalism, namely putting money into the stock market and buying shares, the idea that "risk" contributes to production is seriously flawed. As David Schweickart points out, "[i]n the vast majority of cases, when you buy stock, you give your money not to the company but to another private individual. You buy your share of stock from someone who is cashing in his share. Not a nickel of your money goes to the company itself. The company's profits would have been exactly the same, with or without your stock purchase." In fact between 1952 and 1997, about 92% of investment was paid for by firms' own internal funds and so "the stock market contributes virtually nothing to the financing of outside investment." . . .
In other words, most investment is simply the "risk" associated with buying a potential income stream in an uncertain world. . . . As such, investing in shares may rearrange existing wealth (often to the great advantage of the rearrangers) but it does produce anything. . . .
Appeals to "risk" to justify capitalism are somewhat ironic, given the dominant organisational form within capitalism -- the corporation. These firms are based on "limited liability" which was designed explicitly to reduce the risk faced by investors. . . . Stockholding could not becomes a truly attractive option . . . until that risk was removed, which it soon was. By the middle of the nineteenth century, business leaders and politicians broadly advocated changing the law to limit the liability of shareholders to the amounts they had invested in a company. . . .
This means that limited liability allows corporations to raise funds for riskier enterprises by reducing risks and costs from the owners and shifting them onto other members of society (i.e. an externality). It is, in effect, a state granted privilege to trade with a limited chance of loss but with an unlimited chance of gain.
This is an interesting double-standard. It suggests that corporations are not, in fact, owned by shareholders at all since they take on none of the responsibility of ownership, especially the responsibility to pay back debts. Why should they have the privilege of getting profit during good times when they take none of the responsibility during bad times? Corporations are creatures of government, created with the social privileges of limited financial liability of shareholders. Since their debts are ultimately public, why should their profits be private?
Needless to say, this reducing of risk is not limited to within a state, it is applied internationally as well. Big banks and corporations lend money to developing nations but "the people who borrowed the money [i.e. the local elite] aren't held responsible for it. It's the people . . . who have to pay [the debts] off . . . The lenders are protected from risk. That's one of the main functions of the IMF, to provide risk free insurance to people who lend and invest in risky loans. They earn high yields because there's a lot of risk, but they don't have to take the risk, because it's socialised. It's transferred in various ways to Northern taxpayers through the IMP and other devices . . . The whole system is one in which the borrowers are released from the responsibility. That's transferred to the impoverished mass of the population in their own countries. And the lenders are protected from risk."
Capitalism, ironically enough, has developed precisely by externalising risk and placing the burden onto other parties -- suppliers, creditors, workers and, ultimately, society as a whole. "Costs and risks are socialised," in other words, "and the profit is privatised." . . . Given that the "signals emitted by the stock market are either irrelevant or harmful to real economic activity, and that the stock market itself counts for little or nothing as a source of finance" and the argument for risk as a defence of profits is extremely weak.
Lastly, the risk theory of profit fails to take into account the different risk-taking abilities of that derive from the unequal distribution of society's wealth. As James Meade puts it, while "property owners can spread their risks by putting small bits of their property into a large number of concerns, a worker cannot easily put small bits of his effort into a large number of different jobs. . . .
It should be noted that until the early nineteenth century, self-employment was the normal state of affairs and it has declined steadily to reach, at best, around 10% of the working population in Western countries today. It would be inaccurate, to say the least, to explain this decline in terms of increased unwillingness to face potential risks on the part of working people. Rather, it is a product of increased costs to set up and run businesses. . . .
This means that going into business for yourself is always a possibility, but that option is very difficult without sufficient assets. Moreover, even if sufficient funds are found (either by savings or a loan), the risk is extremely high due to the inability to diversify investments and the constant possibility that larger firms will set-up shop in your area (for example, Wal-Mart driving out small businesses or chain pubs, cafes and bars destroying local family businesses). . . .
So . . . taking a risk is much easier if you are wealthy and so risk is simply another means for rewarding the wealthy for being wealthy. In other words, risk aversion is the dependent, not the independent, factor. . . .
Needless to say, the most serious consequences of "risk" are usually suffered by working people who can lose their jobs, health and even lives all depending on how the risks of the wealthy turn out in an uncertain world. As such, it is one thing to gamble your own income on a risky decision but quite another when that decision can ruin the lives of others. . . .
Appeals of risk to justify capitalism simply exposes that system as little more than a massive casino. In order for such a system to be fair, the participants must have approximately equal chances of winning. However, with massive inequality the wealthy face little chance of loosing. For example, if a millionaire and a pauper both repeatedly bet a pound on the outcome of a coin toss, the millionaire will always win as the pauper has so little reserve money that even a minor run of bad luck will bankrupt him.
Ultimately, "the capitalist investment game (as a whole and usually in its various parts) is positive sum. In most years more money is made in the financial markets than is lost. How is this possible? It is possible only because those who engage in real productive activity receive less than that to which they would be entitled were they fully compensated for what they produce. The reward, allegedly for risk, derives from this discrepancy."
|Date: May 5, 2013, 5:25 PM|
Number of Comments on Photo:0
Private Lending through Self-Directed IRA's
For Informational Purposes ONLY.
This is NOT a Solicitation for Funds!
Re: Private Lending: Self-Directed Plans, i.e. 401k, Pension Plans, IRA
One of the most popular alternative investment options
available to Self-Directed IRA holders is private lending.
By utilizing a Self-Directed IRA you can loan money
to fund real estate transactions as if you were a bank,
without distribution penalties.
Many investors choose to make mortgage loans
to individuals looking to purchase properties.
Another opportunity is funding start-ups or other small businesses.
Typically, these are hard money loans
that require repayment over a specified period of time,
with interest rate determined by the amount of the loan.
Your Self-Directed IRA earns a profit
based on the amount of interest you and your Borrower agree upon.
When loaning funds for a mortgage
for either a personal or commercial property,
you have the ability to secure the loan with that property.
If the loan defaults, you retain ownership of the property.
This can then be sold, or rented to create a passive income stream.
This security is one of the reasons private lending
with a Self-Directed IRA has become so popular.
Private money lending,
as well as a number of different investment types available to you
in your Self-Directed IRA have the ability to build real wealth
within your retirement account.
As with any investment opportunity,
we recommend consulting an attorney for your best option.
Benefits of Self Directed Investing
Self-Directed investing makes you the CEO of your retirement funds.
In addition to tax-free profits, asset protection, tax deductions,
as well as estate planning,
you're able to make tax-free investments
in assets that are familiar and comfortable to you.
By using your Self-Directed IRA to invest in real estate,
you're investing in a tangible asset.
Investing in real estate also provides the potential of generating
a passive income stream for you to utilize,
while at the same time protecting your initial investment.
With advances in medicine constantly increasing life expectancy
and the fact that social security is projected to run dry by 2040,
there couldn't be a better time to consider a Self-Directed option.
As a result of increased life expectancy
are additional healthcare costs for seniors.
According to the Employee Benefit Research Institute,
the debt load for seniors has soared from 1992-2004;
during that time the percentage of households 55 and older
saw their debt grow faster than the rate of overall population growth.
If you're not confident your traditional investment options
will have you prepared for these factors,
seek the help of licensed professionals in your state.
Note: traditional financial planners have complicated fee structures,
generally not designed to favor the investor's best interests.
What can Self-Directed 401k, IRA, Pension Plans be used for?
The following is a partial listing;
Residential Real Estate (including: apartments, duplexes, and single family homes)
Commercial Real Estate
Undeveloped or Raw Land
Real Estate Notes (mortgages and deeds of trusts)
Tax Lien Certificates
REITs (Real Estate Investment Trusts)
Precious Metals (certain restrictions apply)
Private Stock Offerings/Private Placements
Private Limited Partnerships, Limited Liability Companies, and C corporations
Oil and Gas Investments
Accounts Receivable Financing
Publicly Traded Securities
We hope this information is helpful and YES,
We BUY, SELL, BUY REO's, Re-Hab,
Wholesale Houses, Lease
here in Broward County, Florida
and welcome Buyer, Seller and Private Lender Inquiries.
Call or write to us at any time regarding
questions you may have.
The Mathiesen Properties
Mathiesen Capital Investments
Mathiesen Realty Renovation
No legal or Investment advice is intended. Seek the counsel of appropriate professionals.
© Carl Mathiesen All Rights Reserved 2014
|Date: Jan 30, 2014, 9:01 PM|
Number of Comments on Photo:0
Kennedy Wealth Management, LLC,
23901 Calabasas Road, Suite1000,
Calabasas, CA, 91302.
Contact Person: Mark Kennedy
Contact Email: email@example.com
You Tube URL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vM2ZaTSuNhU
|Date: Aug 30, 2011, 6:48 AM|
Number of Comments on Photo:0