Saturday, January 24, 2009

Surviving on 3 Months Wages in 2009 and 2010

Glenn Beck reported on 1/21/2009 that the Treasury has increased the money supply by 70 per cent since October.

"I talked to Steven Moore at the Wall Street Journal and he talked to the Treasury. It looks like we have increased the money supply by 70% since October. They're running these presses 24 hours a day. The effects of this, you're saying, will destroy the currency, so then, what happens?"

So then, what does happen to you and I? When this newly printed money trickles down to you and I (probably by 2010), the $50,000 salary you made last year, and that you make this year, will each be worth only $29,412. That is the same as the government taxing you 41% or $20,588 two years in a row and taxing all of your savings. No matter how much you made in 2008 and make in 2009, you will give all the money you made and make, from January to mid-September 2008 and 2009, to the government. This does not even include the cost to you of the $1.9 trillion in bailouts.

How does the government expect you and I and our businesses to survive in 2009 and 2010 on three and a half months of wages? How much more will the Treasury increase the money supply? How can the government take our money to restore the banking system without destroying the rest of us? Who will bail out the rest of us?
Posted by at
Labels: ,

2 comments:

  1. AnonymousFebruary 7, 2009 at 10:18 AM

    What in the world are we thinking?!!!?

    --Mark

    ReplyDelete
  2. David SFebruary 9, 2009 at 7:04 AM

    It is still amazing to me that politicians think they can fix the problem by throwing money at the problemed banks.

    And then, when the banks squander the money, they are surprised.

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

How Will You Measure Your Life?

I recently read this article by Clayton Christiansen out of Harvard entitled, “How will you measure your life?” It is what he tells his students on the final day of his class.

One of the items that he mentions sticks out to me. It reads as follows:

“One of the theories, . . . . . how to be sure we find happiness in our careers—is from Frederick Herzberg, who asserts that the powerful motivator in our lives isn’t money; it’s the opportunity to learn, grow in responsibilities, contribute to others, and be recognized for achievements. I tell the students about a vision of sorts I had while I was running the company I founded before becoming an academic. In my mind’s eye I saw one of my managers leave for work one morning with a relatively strong level of self-esteem. Then I pictured her driving home to her family 10 hours later, feeling unappreciated, frustrated, underutilized, and demeaned. I imagined how profoundly her lowered self-esteem affected the way she interacted with her children. The vision in my mind then fast-forwarded to another day, when she drove home with greater self-esteem—feeling that she had learned a lot, been recognized for achieving valuable things, and played a significant role in the success of some important initiatives. I then imagined how positively that affected her as a spouse and a parent. My conclusion: Management is the most noble of professions if it’s practiced well. No other occupation offers as many ways to help others learn and grow, take responsibility and be recognized for achievement, and contribute to the success of a team. More and more [people think] that a career in business means buying, selling, and investing in companies. That’s unfortunate. Doing deals doesn’t yield the deep rewards that come from building up people."

I’m sure you can see why it sticks out.