Jim Nelson says savvy investors can make huge profits in the first 100 days of the Obama presidency. Three sectors facing a makeover under the new administration are biotechnology, renewable energy and defense. Jim says new legislation and funding could mean big gains for these three companiesa This from Penny Sleuth: We dona t play politics at Penny Sleuth. Frankly, we cana t agree on politics. But that doesna t mean smart investors should ignore what Washingtona s doing.

More info about >>> Read more...

My colleague Cord asked me about proposing a tech agenda for Congress given the ascendancy today of Henry Waxman to Energy and Commerce Chairmanship; my immediate answer was
Anyway, the big news is that Rep Henry Waxman challenged John Dingell for Energy and Commerce Committee chairmanship, and won. EC has jurisdiction over, well, everything.
Waxman has been a member of Congress since 1975, reminding us of the saliency of term limits. What matters, one might argue, is not that constituents have a right to continue electing a member to the House if they want to; but that the rest of the nation for whom he makes binding law never gets the opportunity to kick the guy to the curb. Nothing personal, but33 years?
Anyway thats irrelevant now:  Waxmans focus will be health care, most assuredly, and energy policy also (have a look at President-elect Barack Obamas platform for reassurance about this). Keeping Michigans Dingell in the EC chairmanship would have meant that the Democrats favorite energy-and-renewable-mandate policies would have been blocked by the leading Michigan Democrat. So he obviously had to go. The auto industry is tough and can take a dose of Waxman, I guess is what they figure. Never mind all that business over the past couple weeks about a Detroit bailout; it’s Thursday, all that stuff was the other day.
But on tech policy: since the committee has jurisdiction over the Federal Communications Commission and the Chairman represents Hollywood, he is newly influential over copyright issues and broadcast concerns like for candidates and obsure stuff like net neutrality (which is the idea that internet infrastructure belongs to everybody except those who built it). Watch for the Fairness Doctrine issue to re-emerge. If memory serves, this is the notion championed by Democrats who are upset that Oprah gave such an infusion of support to Barack Obama, so I think theyll be trying to make her showcase some Republicans on her show. Pretty noble of the Congressman and the party.

Americano new top 10 >>> Read more...

1. Its now recognized as fact that economic growth, or should I say excessive economic growth, was largey driven during the past decade by the excessive issuance of credit.
2. Excessive credit issuance by financial institutions, mostly banks, was enabled by the creation and use of the now widely recognized SIV (Structured Investment Vehicle). The backbone of most SIVs issued were loans which the banks essentially packaged and sold to a host of buyers worldwide and made most of the money from fees associated with the construction and sales of these SIvs.
3. As the banks no longer had any significant loan liabilities on their books, since they packaged and sold them to others like your state and local investment autorities, your pension fund, etc., their increasing capital structure from the fees generated from sales of these SIVs, allowed them to create and sell even more SIVs, i.e. more loans, more credit! And so the wheel turned for about a decade, really picking-up speed following 9/11!
4. The struggle to understand approximately how much credit was issued during the past decade is at the core of the current financial and economic crisis, since so many now understand that a large fraction of global economic growth was enabaled by the of this etherial credit market! Fannie and Freddie may be, lets hope so!, some of the worst regards exceesive credit issuance? Think they were about 130 to 1, meaning they each lent about 130$ for every 1$ of real capital. The big name banks on Wallstreet, some of which are no longer with us, were somewhat more leveraged between 30 to 50 times their capital base!
5. Prior to the invention and use of the securitized loan and the SIV, financial institutions were mostly leveraged in the range of 8:1 to 10:1.
Back to the question, wheres the bottom? Well, until we get much closer to the historical debt to equity, or credit to capital ratios were probaly not near or at the bottom. How much excess has already been wrung out of the system? Dont know for sure, but Ive read its now about $60 trillion worldwide! Ok, but where does that leave us regards current leverage ratios? If anyone or any agency really knows, theyre not telling but Ive also read that were only about 1/3rd of the way through (the proverbial 3rd inning!) the process of credit , a process which will also return most asset prices to sustainable levels!
So, dont think weve hit the final bottom yet, but Im actually more concerned about life after the final bottom! A life in which there will and should be much less from the credit markets for all to sniff.

Americano news >>> Read more...

Americano top 10 >>> Read more...

Everyone's talking about Real Estate Search Engine Optimization (SEO) and the Midas touch of some SEO experts to convert a downtrodden real estate company, into an energized money-making machine, simply by featuring some keywords in its website's content, that work like mantras of success. How fast and how easy is it to make money in real estate, if one rides on the waves of search engine optimization? Is there money at all?
Some Real Estate companies basked in the able stewardship of seasoned SEO experts, thus, their experience is entirely different from those who chose to do their own SEO, or may have tried to get professional SEO help, but failed. The importance of partnering with the right SEO company, therefore, cannot be downplayed.
The influx of SEO companies and the number of Real Estate sites seeking their help register an impression that SEOs have the magic formula on how to compete successfully in the global market, by way of the internet. As Real Estate companies capture their winning streak over their competitors, through an optimized website that ranks high in various search engines, money reels in. The real challenge begins.
In the internet marketplace, securing a high ranking is not yet winning, staying on top of the rankings is. The cutting edge, therefore, is in hiring the services of a Real Estate SEO company or expert who knows SEO like the back of his hand. It could also help, if you, the real estate businessman, understands a trait of search engine optimization:
Search Engine Rankings are never permanent.
Hope for the best, but prepare for the worst. This can serve as your guiding principle when you enlist your site and your business in the crafty world of search engine optimization.
Search Engines operate by their special algorithm that ranks a website for a certain keyword. When algorithms are altered, naturally, your rank for a particular keyword is affected. Your rank can plummet, and so your chances of being seen by your potential buyers.
How do you avert this imminent danger?
Optimizing your website for different search engines is a smart move. The age-old wisdom of not putting your eggs in one basket applies to search engine optimization, as well.
An antidote to ranking failures due to alteration in algorithms is simply, again, to optimize. A Real Estate website that is highly optimized has a higher chance to survive any revamps in search engine algorithms because it can even out easily over a short period of time.
Major shakeup in search engines algorithms happen occasionally as a way of warding off spam sites. Even sites managed by the best SEO companies can fall off the high horse of search engines results.
Understanding this impermanence in search engine ranking and its probable effects on your site (and your real estate business), can now make you level expectations with your SEO company.
Your choosing of a dedicated Real Estate SEO program or service to jumpstart your site for the ranks is ideal for success. Choose a SEO company that commits for the long-term, not on casual, short-time deals. This will assure you of continuous support when you encounter problems with your site?s rankings.
Potential buyers are led to your web site easily by high search engine rankings. As high search engine rankings become your paramount goal, so is finding your Real Estate SEO company. One simply could not survive without the other.
Christiene Socorro C. Villanueva
Jump2Top - SEO Company
Christiene Socorro C. Villanueva - http://www.jump2top.

Best sites about >>> Read more...

Dear Sir/Madam,
I recently received a letter from you about registering to vote. The letter – I thought – was a little threating.
It began – and I quoteSt Albans City and District
Register of Electors 2008/2009
YOU ARE REQUIRED BY LAW TO COMPLETE AND RETURN THIS FORM
As is clear this is hardly the most cordial of openings. And marks a distinct change of tone from last years registration form.
But what was worse was the attached document. Which statedHave your say
Register your right to vote
If you DONT register
YOU WILL LOSE YOUR RIGHT TO VOTE
YOU MAY NOT BE ABLE TO OBTAIN CREDIT
YOU MAY NOT BE ABLE TO OPEN A BANK ACCOUNT
YOU MAY BE LIABLE TO A FINE OF UP TO £1000
This is very threatening language. Especially when it relates to the subject of democracy. Which I believe is meant to be one of the corner stones of our free society.
However, what is of real concern to me is this. While you make a number of grand statements about how I am required to register you provide me with no legal guidance on the subject.
You dont point me in the direction of any law. And you dont state where your power of coercion comes from. Which means I am completely unaware of what my actual rights are. As I cannot easily check the relevant legislation.
As a result. And because of your new found aggressive tone. I thought it best if I had a look into the law. I have reviewed the Representation of the People Act 1983, the RPA 2000 and the Electoral Administration Bill 2006. I have also checked your website – the Electoral Services section.
But nowhere can I find where it states that I have to register and if I dont you can fine me. Or that I will lose my right to vote.
Therefore I would be most grateful if you can provide me with the legal information that states
1. I must register to vote.
2. That if I do not register you can fine me £1,000
3. That if I do not register I will lose my right to vote
Also could you please explain why you need to use such aggressive language. Its very disturbing. As it makes you sound more like a loan sharks goon squad. Rather than a democratically elected council.

Read more... <<< hot news

Is government patronage of the arts good for the arts? Scholarship and the arts in Canada depend largely on public funding for their support, far more than in the United States, where private foundations also contribute to their support, and where a much larger potential audience for both high and vulgar art (I use the word vulgar without negative connotation here) helps to make government contributions unnecessary. There are some people who argue that this support is bad for the public purse and ruinous for the arts, while others insist that the arts, in Canada at least, could not survive without public money.

Clio and her mortal are giving much thought to this issue thanks to an online debate at Canadian blog Still Seraphic, and one or two others to which Seraphic links. We are not certain where we stand. The idea that government money necessarily produces bad art seems to us false, but the idea that such money should be spent without regard for public taste seems wrong in a democratic age. Here is an expanded version of what we wrote in comment on Seraphic's blog:
Most artists in the visual arts and music were supported by tax money throughout European history. That is, they were supported by patrons in Church or state offices, or aristocrats, all of whose money came from taxes on the peasantry, artisans, and middle-class merchants. Much the same was true of writers. Perhaps the one region that was an exception to this rule was Holland, where the wealth of the middle classes, beginning in the seventeenth century, encouraged a large market for easel paintings to decorate houses.

It was not until the late eighteenth century that the growth of an educated and literate middle-class audience, made it possible for some artists to survive without such support. This transformation was far more successful in the case of literature than it was with other arts. Because music, at that time, and painting, did not lend themselves to mass production in the same way that books did, not without losing something in the transition, these art forms never had the opportunity to become truly popular.

Now, some people argue that none of the old tax-supported artistic apparatus was fair to the people who were forced to pay for it. On the other hand, artisans and peasants do appear to have taken pride in the artistic and architectural achievements of their cities and towns. What's more, the travellers who came to see the churches, the houses, the public buildings, sculpture and paintings, might spend their money in local shops. Such benefits helped somewhat to reconcile tax-payers to their compulsory support for this extravagant public spending.

So tax-funded support for the arts has a long and rather illustrious history. But a caveat must be interjected here: One real and important difference between elite (but tax-funded) patronage then and government patronage now is the democratization of patronage that requires works of art to be chosen by committee, for reasons that may be unconnected to the merit of the work. Members of a committee may indeed set out to choose the best work, but if there is a serious disagreement over which is best, it is very possible that they will reach their final decision upon the basis of such criteria as novelty, the wish to demonstrate regional or ethnic impartiality, or other non-artisitic concerns.

The modern kind of government patronage also breaks the connection between artist and audience, so that the artist is never clear on how his work is received by anyone except his government patrons, who are themselves making decisions not on their own behalf but for some imaginary "public". There's a difference between the Bishop of X in Paris in 1740 deciding he wants his house painted with frescoes by Boucher, hiring him to do so, and telling him what he wants, with the final decision a compromise between the wishes of the patron and those of the painter; and the Committee of Government Funding Group X getting together to choose this year's winners of the Committee's Arts Funding Grant. They pick their favourites only out of the submissions made to them; in other words, they don't go searching the "market" for what they lie, and for reasons, as we have pointed out, that may have nothing to do with what they personally like the best, or would ever consider buying for themselves.

That - choice by committee - is one of the major problems with grants in the visual arts today. I don't think the problem is quite the same where literature is concerned, though some of the same issues arise there too.

Another problem is that Canada's capitalists are not very public-spirited, while at the same time they themselves have a long habit of turning to the government for support in times of crisis. We don't have that many really rich men (or women), and of those we do have, only a few have been generous sponsors of the arts. Perhaps those who are against public support for the arts are correct, and if this country were taxed less, more of our capitalists would step up to the plate. But Clio and her mortal don't know. Old habits are hard to break.

As a scholar, CM was supported by government money (scholarships, not grants), and she is grateful. But she also believes that Canadian scholarship would improve in quality and in real diversity (i.e., not be so heavily favourable to fashionable political views), if there were more non-government sources of scholarship money. As it is, there's really only one Canadian agency to which Canadian scholars can turn.

Support for (some) bad art versus the collapse of the arts in Canada - is there any way out of this dilemma? Canadians and Americans alike are welcome to comment. Please be civil.

Americano the best top 10 >>> Read more...

More info about >>> government money

International agency Oxfam today welcomed action by the UK government in response to the crisis caused by rising global food prices but said that not all the money announced was new, and that definitive action was needed on biofuels.

Oxfam's Director of Policy, Phil Bloomer, who is attending a meeting with Prime Minister Gordon Brown today, said:

"Food price rises pose a significant threat to poor people in developing countries, many of whom spend more than half their income on food already and will face hunger and even starvation unless we act now. For this reason the money announced today by the Government is welcome, as is their recognition of the need for both short and long term responses. However, it seems that not all of the money is new.

"We urge the government to make genuine and concrete changes. They could start by scrapping mandatory targets for biofuels, which are not only pushing up prices, but are linked to land-grabs and labour rights abuses in poor countries.

"Indeed, the £455m package announced today is less than total UK tax rebate for biofuels - currently standing at £550m a year. The Government should not only scrap its own mandatory targets but must show leadership in Europe and make sure no further targets are set there."

Oxfam has produced a briefing on food prices that calls for action in response the crisis including:

· Reassessment of mandatory biofuels targets in light of negative social and environmental side effects in developing countries
· Increased donor and national government investment in small-scale agriculture in developing countries, especially in Sub-Saharan Africa.
· A better global system of safety nets, including social protection schemes such as minimum income guarantees and cash for work programmes
· Reform of the food aid system to be faster, more flexible, cheaper. Donors should provide cash rather than food 'in kind'.
· Space for national trade policies to manage food security and rural development
· Recognition that climate change is going to exacerbate these problems, requiring urgent mitigation and adaptation response

Phil Bloomer: "The current situation is a threat - but it is also an opportunity to address the underlying causes of the crisis. Deeper and more sustained investment in small-agriculture in developing countries is needed to enable poor marginalised producers and agricultural workers, especially women, to get out of poverty and benefit from agricultural trade.

"Also, climate change is causing increasingly erratic weather, which is impacting on supply and putting upward pressure on prices. So money to help poor countries adapt and action to mitigate further warming must be forthcoming.

News the best top 10 >>> government money

When you deposit the check, money will briefly appear in your account because it can take the bank a while to notice the check is counterfeit.
You'll be asked to wire money to someone else -- maybe for fees, or taxes or customs.
As soon as you wire that money, it's gone. Then you find out the check was fake -- and you're stuck paying back the bank for the money you wired.
In a variation of the scam, con artists use the grant scam as a ruse to get you to reveal personal information, like your Social Security or bank account number. They skip off to open new credit accounts in your name while you sit around waiting for a winnings check that never comes.
No government agency -- especially not the IRS -- randomly awards grants to citizens.
And no matter what a stranger may claim, there are no federal grants that you could use as a sort of slush fund to pay bills or get out of debt.

government money <<< hot news

Just to make sure you all got that straight, these purchase cards were meant to make government more efficient.  What they accomplished was facilitating a government bureaucrat spending spree so eggregious it defies belief.
I mean, panties?  A $13,000 steak dinner?  How did these people not expect to get caught?
Apparently some 300,000 government employees used these purchase cards.  With 50%  of those transactions being inappropriate, or at least inappropriately authorized, youd expect there to be a bloodbath of firings and embezzlement indictments.  Thats what would happen in the pricate sector.
But its the government, so instead Im sure a few scapegoats will be sacrificed and then well spend millions on some new purchasing program that will eventually be abused as bad as this one.

government money <<< hot news