Plastic bags at our local IKEA (I'm not sure about nationwide) are now 5 cents each. I know it's nothing compared to what I spend on items, but it makes me cranky because I already have to bag my own items and assemble them myself. I never remember to bring my own bag so I just make sure to limit what I buy to what I can stuff in my purse and arms and balance on the flat IKEA cart, which I guess will eventually cost a few bucks. I guess I shouldn't complain, since it's actually making me spend *less* money.
NARVIK, Norway, Nov. 30 — At this time of year, the sun does not rise at all this far north of the Arctic Circle. But Karen Margrethe Kuvaas says she has not been able to sleep well for days.
What is keeping her awake are the far-reaching ripple effects of the troubled housing market in sunny Florida, California and other parts of the United States.
Ms. Kuvaas is the mayor of Narvik, a remote seaport where the season’s perpetual gloom deepened even further in recent days after news that the town — along with three other Norwegian municipalities — had lost about $64 million, and potentially much more, in complex securities investments that went sour.
The interactions between the short-term Fed funds rate (the rate that the Fed controls most directly) and the longer term rates that influence mortgages are complex.
Inflationary expectations feed into the market rate for long-term money, and excessive Fed rate cuts can feed fears of inflation and actually push rates up. In the same way, a Fed rate hike might well bring long-term rates down, if that reduces the expected future inflation.
On the other hand, the cost of money drives the cost of all lending rates, and a Fed rate cut reduces the cost of borrowing. Unless the cut produces a change in the market psychology, the result is often lower rates across the board.
It's very hard to foresee what effect Fed action on short-term rates will have on long-term rates. The Fed pretty much just has to take action and then see what happens.
I Love this one !!! It's all in the presentation. 9 x 3 Is indeed 27 +2 = 29. If you take it apart another way the buck is still there you are just being told otherwise.
25 for the room +1 +1 +1 FOR EACH GUY + 2 IN HOMEY'S POCKET =30
The key to this one is to get the focus on the story math 9x3+2 and not leave room for the real math 25+1+1+1+2
I use this one on the kids at school tell 'em ona friday just to keep 'em going all weekend (It's a wonder they don't hate me LOL)
The Fed cuts to date have had minimal impact so far and there is no reason to expect the upcoming cut to be any different. There may be other benefits to the cut (as Guest in #8 stated) but lower reset rates are probably not one of them.
$9 x 3 = $27 is telling you how much the guys paid the receptionist for the room.
$27 - 2 = $25 is how much the hotel is getting after the receptionist pocketed 2 dollars.
The confusion arises because the first $27 ignores the $3 refund and instead tries to add the receptionists $2 which is already included in that figure.
It's also amusing that your CAPTCHA asks math questions ;-)
Living in a priced out market like the sf bay area, I can't really justify owning a home over renting. But then again, I am lazy when it comes to investing so tough choice for me.
Yeah, I have heard it before and I still had to think about it for a minute. The $2 is taken out of the $27 that they paid, so it would make no sense to add it.
The Fed rate cuts aren't really going to do a single thing for the rate resets. It does keep the credit markets from locking down to the point it becomes a drag on credit worthy individuals and businesses and that is why the cuts are needed.
I am firmly in the camp of those who would like to see very little done to bail out homeowners who entered into these high risk deals. Plenty of people who knew exactly what they were getting into but took a risk that housing prices would continue to escalate at ridiculous rates and that they would be able to refinance down the road. Housing prices turned around, credit markets seized up, banks aren't willing to renegotiate anything and the risk takers got caught.
When I place my bets in the stock market and it has a losing year I don't go crying to the government about my lost money. I knew the risks and accepted them. Same for these home buyers. The only difference being there was no surprise about what was coming in terms of when and how much their monthly mortgage payments were going to increase.
I have no idea what makes them so special. The homeowners should get burned and the banks/mortgage firms that generated and are now holding these loans should feel the pain of their poor business practices as well.
Free markets correct. Free markets work out problems just fine on their own. Just say no to a bail out.
Related to this topic, people might want to read my Interview with AFFIL executive director Jim Campen. Americans for Fairness in Lending is a non-profit organization that works to raise awareness of abusive lending practice.
Our discussion covered exactly the topics raised in the comments here.
We haven't had a TV since my son was a baby and it's been great. But at 3 years old, he has still cottoned on to the fact that things are for sale and that he can nag for them. The hilarious thing is that he asks for things that don't exist, or aren't for sale! For instance, he points to construction trucks that we see on the road and asks if he can have them when he's a big man. Or he'll ask for a dump truck with purple and yellow propellers on the wheels and full of chocolate grape cake...
Anyway, it's much easier to say "No" when it's the only option.
We also cycle our toys-- have 3 big plastic tubs and rotate them every so often. But because we expect there will be another flood of stuff at Christmas (lots of grownup relatives, only 2 grandchildren) I'm going to have my son help me fill a tub of stuff to give away entirely, on the grounds that otherwise there won't be room for new toys.
Having living in Germany for 12 years, I can already attest to some of these things already happening such as numbers 2, 3, 5, and 6. There is one thing though, I will NOT pay for the use of a shopping cart. I don't mind putting $.25 or even $.50 to borrow a cart so long as I get my money back, but I will not shop at a store that does not offer free carts.
As for the airports, I just scour the airport until I find a free cart. I believe that most people are of the opinion that, if they already paid $3 for the cart, they aren't going to bother returning it for a measly $.50.
The prospect of the government undermining contract law and changing it after the fact should be horrifying to anyone who understands how commerce works. The borrowers and lenders both aught to have been aware of the bankruptcy and foreclosure laws.
The people who foolishly moved into houses they could not afford should put the keys in the mail box and walk away. If they instead restructure their loans to an amount that takes every free penny they will make for twenty or thirty years, they become slaves to the bankers. If the government is to get involved, it should change the personal bankruptcy laws back to what they were a few years ago.
I have remained a renter precisely because the house too expensive. I have no desire to see tax payer money used to bail out either the borrowers or the lenders who could not see the obvious. They made their deals, and that's that.
We too, went through a debt consolidation plan. My husband and I BOTH had one when we were married, each worth about $15,000. We have been married 5 years, and I'm proud to say that we have both paid ours off! Whenever we have even a little extra money, we've put away for an emergency fund. We seem to have an emergency annually that almost takes everything (medical, car repairs, lay-offs, etc.) we never usually come out very far ahead, but we haven't gone hungry yet.
Keep up the great work! Some day you'll look back and be so glad to have saved even a little bit. And the debt consolidation will be something you'll be proud of later!
Those who gambled that they could flip or refinance their mortgages and that market/credit conditions wouldn't drop, have just learned a painful lesson -- don't gamble what you can't afford to lose.
Why don't we just subsidize all failed gamblers -- From the horse track to Vegas to the Lotto?
i'd much rather visualize this story with 3 drunken females sharing the room...
wait...
i guess i am sexist.
Plastic bags at our local IKEA (I'm not sure about nationwide) are now 5 cents each. I know it's nothing compared to what I spend on items, but it makes me cranky because I already have to bag my own items and assemble them myself. I never remember to bring my own bag so I just make sure to limit what I buy to what I can stuff in my purse and arms and balance on the flat IKEA cart, which I guess will eventually cost a few bucks. I guess I shouldn't complain, since it's actually making me spend *less* money.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/02/world/europe/02norway.html?em&ex=11967...
Free, but may require login.
Opening:
NARVIK, Norway, Nov. 30 — At this time of year, the sun does not rise at all this far north of the Arctic Circle. But Karen Margrethe Kuvaas says she has not been able to sleep well for days.
What is keeping her awake are the far-reaching ripple effects of the troubled housing market in sunny Florida, California and other parts of the United States.
Ms. Kuvaas is the mayor of Narvik, a remote seaport where the season’s perpetual gloom deepened even further in recent days after news that the town — along with three other Norwegian municipalities — had lost about $64 million, and potentially much more, in complex securities investments that went sour.
The interactions between the short-term Fed funds rate (the rate that the Fed controls most directly) and the longer term rates that influence mortgages are complex.
Inflationary expectations feed into the market rate for long-term money, and excessive Fed rate cuts can feed fears of inflation and actually push rates up. In the same way, a Fed rate hike might well bring long-term rates down, if that reduces the expected future inflation.
On the other hand, the cost of money drives the cost of all lending rates, and a Fed rate cut reduces the cost of borrowing. Unless the cut produces a change in the market psychology, the result is often lower rates across the board.
It's very hard to foresee what effect Fed action on short-term rates will have on long-term rates. The Fed pretty much just has to take action and then see what happens.
Those Oxford low-tops look really nice. I'm going to pick up a pair. Thanks Paul!
Try freebizmag.com, that's what I use and I get everything from Wired to Elle (for my wife...ahem)
"It's also amusing that your CAPTCHA asks math questions ;-)"
We considered other systems like "identify the greatest lines from Bob Dylan songs" and "what is the color of Orange"? But somehow I got out voted.
Most you can read online - such as Newsweek.com, etc also Newspapers except wsg!
So where do we go to get all the free magazines?
I Love this one !!! It's all in the presentation. 9 x 3 Is indeed 27 +2 = 29. If you take it apart another way the buck is still there you are just being told otherwise.
25 for the room +1 +1 +1 FOR EACH GUY + 2 IN HOMEY'S POCKET =30
The key to this one is to get the focus on the story math 9x3+2 and not leave room for the real math 25+1+1+1+2
I use this one on the kids at school tell 'em ona friday just to keep 'em going all weekend (It's a wonder they don't hate me LOL)
The Fed cuts to date have had minimal impact so far and there is no reason to expect the upcoming cut to be any different. There may be other benefits to the cut (as Guest in #8 stated) but lower reset rates are probably not one of them.
$9 x 3 = $27 is telling you how much the guys paid the receptionist for the room.
$27 - 2 = $25 is how much the hotel is getting after the receptionist pocketed 2 dollars.
The confusion arises because the first $27 ignores the $3 refund and instead tries to add the receptionists $2 which is already included in that figure.
It's also amusing that your CAPTCHA asks math questions ;-)
[)amien
I created an online version. Amortization Calculator
Living in a priced out market like the sf bay area, I can't really justify owning a home over renting. But then again, I am lazy when it comes to investing so tough choice for me.
Rent or Buy Calculator
Yeah, I came up with the same (correct) result in a different sort of way.
Think of it as if all three guests (nice sexism dodge) paid with ten one dollar bills.
Desk clerk now has 30 $1 bills. Returns $1 each to guests, now has $27 in $1 bills. Clerk puts $25 in the till and pockets the remaining $2.
Yeah, I have heard it before and I still had to think about it for a minute. The $2 is taken out of the $27 that they paid, so it would make no sense to add it.
$30 = $25 (room) + $2 (taken) + $3 (given back)
That simple huh? And it made so much sense (without making any sense) before.
It makes sense if you think about it a different way.
They each payed $9 for a total of $27.
$27 - $2 (the guy kept) = $25 paid for the room. You have to subtract that $2 from what they paid, not add it.
The Fed rate cuts aren't really going to do a single thing for the rate resets. It does keep the credit markets from locking down to the point it becomes a drag on credit worthy individuals and businesses and that is why the cuts are needed.
I am firmly in the camp of those who would like to see very little done to bail out homeowners who entered into these high risk deals. Plenty of people who knew exactly what they were getting into but took a risk that housing prices would continue to escalate at ridiculous rates and that they would be able to refinance down the road. Housing prices turned around, credit markets seized up, banks aren't willing to renegotiate anything and the risk takers got caught.
When I place my bets in the stock market and it has a losing year I don't go crying to the government about my lost money. I knew the risks and accepted them. Same for these home buyers. The only difference being there was no surprise about what was coming in terms of when and how much their monthly mortgage payments were going to increase.
I have no idea what makes them so special. The homeowners should get burned and the banks/mortgage firms that generated and are now holding these loans should feel the pain of their poor business practices as well.
Free markets correct. Free markets work out problems just fine on their own. Just say no to a bail out.
Related to this topic, people might want to read my Interview with AFFIL executive director Jim Campen. Americans for Fairness in Lending is a non-profit organization that works to raise awareness of abusive lending practice.
Our discussion covered exactly the topics raised in the comments here.
We haven't had a TV since my son was a baby and it's been great. But at 3 years old, he has still cottoned on to the fact that things are for sale and that he can nag for them. The hilarious thing is that he asks for things that don't exist, or aren't for sale! For instance, he points to construction trucks that we see on the road and asks if he can have them when he's a big man. Or he'll ask for a dump truck with purple and yellow propellers on the wheels and full of chocolate grape cake...
Anyway, it's much easier to say "No" when it's the only option.
We also cycle our toys-- have 3 big plastic tubs and rotate them every so often. But because we expect there will be another flood of stuff at Christmas (lots of grownup relatives, only 2 grandchildren) I'm going to have my son help me fill a tub of stuff to give away entirely, on the grounds that otherwise there won't be room for new toys.
Having living in Germany for 12 years, I can already attest to some of these things already happening such as numbers 2, 3, 5, and 6. There is one thing though, I will NOT pay for the use of a shopping cart. I don't mind putting $.25 or even $.50 to borrow a cart so long as I get my money back, but I will not shop at a store that does not offer free carts.
As for the airports, I just scour the airport until I find a free cart. I believe that most people are of the opinion that, if they already paid $3 for the cart, they aren't going to bother returning it for a measly $.50.
The prospect of the government undermining contract law and changing it after the fact should be horrifying to anyone who understands how commerce works. The borrowers and lenders both aught to have been aware of the bankruptcy and foreclosure laws.
The people who foolishly moved into houses they could not afford should put the keys in the mail box and walk away. If they instead restructure their loans to an amount that takes every free penny they will make for twenty or thirty years, they become slaves to the bankers. If the government is to get involved, it should change the personal bankruptcy laws back to what they were a few years ago.
I have remained a renter precisely because the house too expensive. I have no desire to see tax payer money used to bail out either the borrowers or the lenders who could not see the obvious. They made their deals, and that's that.
We too, went through a debt consolidation plan. My husband and I BOTH had one when we were married, each worth about $15,000. We have been married 5 years, and I'm proud to say that we have both paid ours off! Whenever we have even a little extra money, we've put away for an emergency fund. We seem to have an emergency annually that almost takes everything (medical, car repairs, lay-offs, etc.) we never usually come out very far ahead, but we haven't gone hungry yet.
Keep up the great work! Some day you'll look back and be so glad to have saved even a little bit. And the debt consolidation will be something you'll be proud of later!
Those who gambled that they could flip or refinance their mortgages and that market/credit conditions wouldn't drop, have just learned a painful lesson -- don't gamble what you can't afford to lose.
Why don't we just subsidize all failed gamblers -- From the horse track to Vegas to the Lotto?