This blog is not yet monetized and I am in the process of building it up. Please consider donating to help me in the process. I would greatly appreciate your support! Venmo: @Anthonyallday Bitcoin wallet: 3GrTsRCYCniMioe8pUaK2Sf39f7Vc9zPdM Dogecoin wallet: DAk4gTJRSRExS4Uiy3S9xbRfyr2CnJD5jt Britney Spears has brought to light how her conservatorship has been used against her in a variety of ways. The abuses are egregious to say the least. However, I’m only going to address them from a financial freedom perspective. In a conservatorship, a conservator is appointed to control the financial affairs (and in extreme cases like Britney’s the person’s daily life). This can be used as a positive for people to help family members with a disability, drug or alcohol addiction, or are otherwise incapable of making financial decisions for themselves. In an ideal world, everyone but have the best intentions in handling the financial affairs of a family member who just needed the help. However, we all know that this is not always the case. Britney Spears is the perfect example of how conservatorships can be used to take advantage of people. Because of her episode in 2007, her father Jamie Spears took charge of the conservatorship and made all decisions for her. If he was using the conservatorship moally, he could have ensured that Britney did not spend all her money on illegal substances and gotten her the help she needed. This limitation of financial freedom would’ve been justified as Britney was not in the right mind state to be making big decisions.However, he abused the authority the court gave him and has become very wealthy off of his daughter’s fame and talent. Conservatorships can be a complicated topic in economic policy. They can be used for good, but often times we only hear about them when they are used for bad. Regardless, laws need to change for those who were not capable of making their own decisions, but now are. The limitations on Britney’s financial freedom (not to mention ALL her other freedoms) have been grotesque and need to stop. #FreeBritney
0 Comments
This blog is not yet monetized and I am in the process of building it up. Please consider donating to help me in the process. I would greatly appreciate your support! Venmo: @Anthonyallday Bitcoin wallet: 3GrTsRCYCniMioe8pUaK2Sf39f7Vc9zPdM Dogecoin wallet: DAk4gTJRSRExS4Uiy3S9xbRfyr2CnJD5jt Social Security was a system of social insurance mainly for retirees implemented under the Franklin D. Roosevelt administration. It has been a staple of American society for generations now. However, we are coming up at a crossroads. The Social Security fund has barely survived by still collecting more in income (in tax revenue and interest) than it gave out. 2022 is expected to be the first year since 1982 that it will not. Without any changes, it would remain that Social Security would give out more payments than it takes in in revenue for the foreseeable future.
Needless to say, the system is not sustainable. No business would be able to survive while spending more than they receive in revenue. The only advantage that Social Security has is that the United States government routinely disregards the national deficit, and the Federal Reserve can print as much money as it so chooses. These two things could keep Social Security going for another decade or two, but realistically, not much longer than that without serious harm to the economy. There have been proposals to privatize Social Security but so far has been no action. I’m not sure a clear solution is in sight. However, it is clear that something needs to happen in order to be fair to the younger generations that I’ve been paying into the Social Security fund and expecttheir payments when it is their turn for retirement. Many companies have shifted most or all of their employees to remote work to combat the COVID-19 pandemic. Of course, the ability to work from home varies from job to job. Now that the pandemic part of COVID-19 is over, there is a serious question of how companies will handle their employees’ location. Working from home has enabled employees to stay home with children, save on commuting costs and time, and have a more flexible work/life balance. It’s not only the employees that benefit though. Companies also save on not renting as much office space, internet speed for many computers, and other business expenses. The COVID-19 did not create a work from home model. The pandemic merely accelerated it. Technology has been capable of accommodating work from home for years now. It is just a matter of establishing new cultural norms. As silly as it may seem, one of the most popular shows ever is called The Office. Additionally, can anyone imagine if George Bailey managed his bank from home? TV shows and movies have an impact in how people see norms, even if only subconsciously. Whether the culture or the reality comes first, I do not know. However, as long as it makes business sense for companies to keep employees working from home, then they will have a work from home model. Still, some companies value the employee connections, interaction, and more personal relationships with one another. Some companies believe the office dynamic will impact productivity so much so that it is worth the extra costs. So will the United States see a work from home model in the future? Perhaps, but it’s more likely we see closer to a 50/50 split in the long-term. If you like my work, please consider sending a few Satoshis my way, I would greatly appreciate your support! Bitcoin wallet: 3GrTsRCYCniMioe8pUaK2Sf39f7Vc9zPdM Dogecoin wallet: D8T9qTmUzKZtrwKR1S2hAmRhtw5dEzqDsQ The World Bank rejected El Salvador’s request to implement Bitcoin implementation in El Salvador due to concerns about transparency and environmental impact. Bitcoin has been volatile since its beginning, but has more transparency than any fiat currency there is. Case in point: http://www.howmanybitcoinsarethere.com There is no version of this for the US Dollar or any other fiat currency to my knowledge. Secondly, the environmental concerns about bitcoin and cryptocurrency in general seem overstated. Elon Musk, as much as he is a free market supporter, has been maddening lately: flip flopping almost as much as the WHO. It’s almost as if he has some incentive to change his mind and is making money in the process of doing so. Regardless, the World Bank can’t help El Salvador implement a Bitcoin standard. Doing so would go against Central Banks, including the Federal Reserve. They need US Dollar inflation in order to keep the middle class down. What stops this vicious cycle of a constant decrease of purchasing power? Bitcoin. I’m not surprised the World Bank refused to he lp El Salvador. Globalists, government officials, and the elite class have had no problem accepting that Bitcoin is the future. What they didn’t realize is the future was a lot sooner than they thought. Bitcoin is now the present. If you like my work, please consider sending a few Satoshis my way, I would greatly appreciate your support! Bitcoin wallet: 3GrTsRCYCniMioe8pUaK2Sf39f7Vc9zPdM Dogecoin wallet: DAk4gTJRSRExS4Uiy3S9xbRfyr2CnJD5jt Rumors have been circulating that BlackRock has been gobbling up real estate by bidding over 25% on houses. Corporations are referred to as “smart money” for a reason. My best guess would be that BlackRock realizes that there is no reason to hold onto cash anymore because inflation is going to skyrocket.
Then again, why would they buy housing units when expecting a crash? Likely because they expect rent prices to keep up with inflation and history shows that they generally have. Regardless, a corporation buying housing units well above the asking price shows sketchy, unethical intents. I, for one, do not have a great feeling about this. I don’t exactly know what BlackRock is up to, but I would guess it’s not for your gain. It’s probably for their gain and harming the middle class in the process. The investment firm is stopping homeownership numbers from rising and even worse will expect (and receive) a bailout from the government when it all goes downhill. I support the free market as much as anyone, but this is crony capitalism beyond the free market realm, especially when the bailouts come. And we all know bailouts will come. If you like my work, please consider sending a few Satoshis my way, I would greatly appreciate your support! Bitcoin wallet: 3GrTsRCYCniMioe8pUaK2Sf39f7Vc9zPdM Dogecoin wallet: D8T9qTmUzKZtrwKR1S2hAmRhtw5dEzqDsQ There’s an ongoing saga on GameStop and AMC. Perhaps the biggest element of this is game theory. The stock market (for traders, not investors) is all one game theory scheme. Bears and bulls are constantly battling to gain control. This brings me to GameStop and AMC. If retail investors all decided on a price collectively, (note: this would be collusion) they could probably obtain it if it was within bounds. However, some take their gains early than others. Not to mention the short sellers and those bearish on the stocks attacking it with short sells, loading up on put options, and using other bearish strategies. The fundamentals of trading can be explained by game theory. One must always anticipate the other side’s actions. Another key element is to notice which side is winning and react quickly. The best traders have no bull or bear bias, just money bias. Micro financing is a valuable tool to eradicate poverty. Its importance and relevance lies in its ability to improve quality of life for people living in enduring poverty. It gives people a chance that would not otherwise get a loan from a traditional bank. Even with a satisfactory business plan, banks would not risk giving them a loan because of the possibility that they default on the loan. Micro-loans have given people, mostly women, a chance to show their natural ability to become entrepreneurs.
Micro-credit has been a major influence in reducing poverty in countries like Bangladesh, India, and other developing nations. Micro-credit assists people living in poverty to develop skills and advance their careers. Sometimes, the people create a group-lending scheme. This way they borrow as a single entity and repay the loans as a group, therefore lowering borrowing costs. One of the reasons Bangladesh had success through micro-credit was because of the advances made by the people receiving the loans. An economy can be successful when everyone is reaching his or her full potential. Another factor was that these micro-loans were given to people, mostly women, who had lived their whole lives in poverty. These loans gave them a chance to fulfill their dreams. Some of the borrowers have been able follow through on brilliant ideas that they never would have been able to pursue before. If other countries give micro-loans to people who will manage the money well and put it to good use, they will be successful, like Bangladesh has been. *This post uses excerpts from an essay I wrote in 2017. A monopoly occurs when a company takes exclusive control of an industry or sector. There have been very few cases of antitrust and anticompetitive cases brought up in recent years. The only one that comes to mind is Microsoft in 2001. It appears, however, that it may be time for such a case on Amazon.
Amazon is a very tricky case. Although it dominates the e-commerce industry, it has become an giant octopus: extending into many different industries and putting themselves in a position to take over. Because the company has done this extremely successfully, it has been able to avoid such cases. Amazon definitely have a huge economies of scale advantage meaning that its average marginal costs decrease as the company produces and ships more items. Interestingly enough, comments from Amazon founder and CEO, Jeff Bezos, got me thinking about why now the time is now to start ligation on an antitrust case. I’m not attacking Bezos’s personal character. It’s hard to argue he isn’t a brilliant businessman. However, I do consider his support for a $15 minimum wage to be a ploy to give his company an even stronger leg-up. He knows as well as anyone that Amazon can afford a $15 minimum wage. In fact, it already has a company minimum wage of $15 for all United States employees. Amazon can afford massive investments in artificial intelligence to reduce the number of employees necessary. Bezos understands this and he understands that smaller ecommerce places cannot afford these investments. The smallest of these businesses likely cannot even afford a $15 minimum wage. One of the reasons people see Amazon as good for industry is that it often has the cheapest prices. What if, however, the company was enacting a Rockefeller type of strategy by offering the lowest prices for an extended period of time in order to wipe out competition and then charging excessively high prices with no other companies in the market. Amazon may be a little different because it has different sellers and other factors, but the corporate offices could charge their sellers more in fees, charge more for shipping, and increase prices on Amazon Prime among many other tactics. I acknowledge that Amazon may not fit the true definition of a monopoly. However, when the company shows its true intentions, it may be too late. An economies of scale advantage is one thing, but Amazon has now extended far beyond that. In the interest of consumers and a competitive market, it is time to act. Economists are a quirky group of people. However, they also bring across a lot of good points. One such area that economists may think differently than the crowd is personal finance. I believe every single purchase you make can be viewed as an investment.
The classic example I use to explain this is cars vs houses. If someone is going to buy a car, they should expect it to lose about 20 percent of its value the second they drive it off the lot. The car’s depreciation will be at least 5 percent a year, depending on how much it is driven. If the car owner took out a loan to purchase that car, it is like they are paying for it twice. They are paying the interest while the asset they purchased via borrowing is losing value. To be clear, car loans serve a purpose and can be a necessary evil at times. For example, if that car enabled you to take a job that was further away from your house, but you made $20,000 more annually, a car loan might be worth it. However, as a whole, cars are bad investments that do not keep their value over time. Tesla will change that for their cars if Elon Musk has anything to do with it, but it remains to be seen if that can hold true. Houses, on the other hand, are usually appreciating assets. Mortgages are more common than cars, just because the price of a house. Even though the mortgage charges the borrower interest, the value of their asset typically increases more than interest. This is especially true in the current rate environment. Education is another area that people can think about this idea. If someone pays 5% interest on a student loan, but that degree enabled them to increase their salary by $25,000, it is probably worth it. It’s not just stocks, bonds, or cryptocurrencies: everything you purchase should be considered an investment. Economic bubbles are considered a period of rapid appreciation of market value. Bubbles are best defined looking back. The problem with bubbles is that assets that are significantly overvalued often come back down to earth. Investors may be stuck with a stock that they bought when the bubble was at its high. They would have to make the decision to take the loss or to wait for the growth that they anticipated that that company would have.
The most recent examples of bubbles have been the infamous “dot com” bubble in 1999-2001 and the housing bubble of 2008-2009. The dot com bubble was defined by investors putting their money into any internet company when they IPO’ed. The housing bubble, on the other hand, was a bit more complicated. It began from mortgage debt becoming too much of a burden as well as the investors losing on their investments in Collateralized Debt Obligations (CDOs). Even though the economy has been hurt from the coronavirus shutdowns, the stock market has recovered and then some. The market has soared for a while save for at the end of March and Quarter 2 in 2020. This leads to the question: is the market in a bubble? I believe so. DoorDash and AirBnB are two examples from this past month of the bubble. DoorDash and Airbnb finished their first day of trading up 85% and 112% respectively. This led to Jim Cramer calling the IPO process “definitely broken.” He did not go as to far as saying that the market is broken. These two examples show the market is nearing a period similar to the dot com bubble era. It’s not necessarily a bad thing, but buyer beware: all bubbles pop. |
Archives |