Thursday, April 22, 2010
The normal saying is "Rent is dead money", I proved that rent is not dead money if the differences between the rent and mortgage repayments is put into another investment.
Low and behold, the New York Times "Is it better to buy or rent" has investigated just the differences between rent and mortgage interests and come to the same conclusion that after 7 years it is better to buy.
What they didn't cover was the effect of saving the difference.
Note to self, I need to get some funky graphics to demonstrate this in the future.
The other thing which I didn't cover was that houses built after 1985 can be depreciated at 2% per year on the asset value of the house not the property value.
Saturday, February 06, 2010
Now the party begins, the unions are beginning their big push to increase their power (and money into their coffers again).
Note: I know a bunch of people who are union members, but most of the anti-liberty scum tend to be union staffers who use their positions to push failed ideologies ... sorry marxist leninist socialism has failed how many times? killed how many 100's of millions of people?
Here we have two examples of indoctrination (from The Australian) these blokes are so up themselves and have been fed their ideas by their union secretary mates that they can say the following,
"One Pluto construction worker, who wants to be known only as "Doug", says he and his workmates are angry that they effectively work 12-hour shifts and only get paid for 10 hours. The other two hours, he says, are spent getting to and from the Pluto construction site."
Questions for Doug:
- How many people in any major capital city in Australia commute to work each day for more than 1 hour each way?
- How many of those people earn $150,000 in salary?
"It (motelling) is a nuisance," William says. "It goes back to the days of the caveman when you would live in the one cave and you would draw paintings on the wall.
"This is about standing up to them, or we will just get walked on again. If the Polish people had stood up to the Nazis when they were invading, they might have been able to repel them.""
Comments for William:
- If you don't like the motelling you could rent a place for yourself in Karratha and your mates . This is a simple solution if you actually thought about it. You accept the conditions that the company offers you and then you complain about your own decision.
- If this decision was made by the Union for you, that still doesn't stop you making your own decision, acting your own and renting a place.
- The whole Poland Nazi thing... rather than repeating someone's else words do yourself a favour, go and read about the Polish contribution in World War 2. I have a couple of Polish friends who would been tempted to show you how well the Polish fought in WW2.
Here is the thing, if you decide to allow someone else to make decisions for you then you are dependent on them. You are a child.
Some areas you have to delegate your authority to someone else but have to right to change who if you want. eg. voting for your local, state and federal member.
Many other areas you are free to choose between allowing someone else to make decisions for you or doing it yourself.
Being independent means you have chosen to accept responsibility for your decisions.
This is the crux of the liberty vs anti-liberty fight. Liberty means being free to make your own decisions and being responsible for them (being an man), Anti-liberty is the opposite, you delegate your responsibility for decisions to someone else. That someone else is historically a power hungry freak who wants to control not only their own life but everyone else's life and is surrounded by many others like that, if given a chance would love that position of power.
Tuesday, January 05, 2010
The film was in 3D, I was expecting a little more use of the theatre i.e. the use of 3D images which project far out from the screen, however I was a little disappointed.
On the plot, this was a US vs Red Indian guilt trip redone in 2100.
I know it is a movie so it has to play along with the designated ending, but I was waiting for the space launched missiles or some kind of standoff weapon ala artillery or airplane, you know like most wars since 0AD (artillery) or 1916 (airplane). The aim of any commander of note is to cause the most causalities on your enemy for the least number on losses. So this aim as lead to technology which increases the distance between you and your enemy whilst routinely increasing how lethal your weapon is...
I am sorry, the one tree would have been hammered by a space launched kinetic warhead and ditto the holy tree.
The natives had nothing to gain from the Skywalkers? What about stories about a galaxy far far away... or better yet taking them, letting them travel in space.
The happy ending would have been just end of the beginning. Whoops the natives just destroyed the helicopters and big helicopter and space plane.... here comes those ballistic missiles we didn't use before.
You know the different story could have used the same new creatures and had them fighting an tyrant of their own kind or what about invading Predators or Aliens (who are already the "bad" guys). It didn't need the anti-US, anti-business BS at all.
Saturday, August 08, 2009
I am always interested in new techniques or software if that software can increase my productivity. This post is writing using Windows Live Writer.
Things to do
- Test numbered lists
- Test bulleted lists
- Test displaying code
- This is the bulleted list.
- Yeh boring eh?
- Thought so…
- moving right along
So you made this far without clicking away. Here is some SQL code which reports the current usage of a datafile versus the allocated size and then generates some SQL using our old friend Dynamic SQL for each datafile.
-- Builds on dbf_hwm script
set lines 140
set pages 300
set verify off
column file_name format a50 word_wrapped
column smallest format 999,990 heading "Smallest|Size|Poss."
column currsize format 999,990 heading "Current|Size"
column savings format 999,990 heading "Poss.|Savings"
break on report
compute sum of savings on report
column value new_val blksize
select value from v$parameter where name = 'db_block_size'
ceil( (nvl(hwm,1)*&&blksize)/1024/1024 ) smallest,
ceil( blocks*&&blksize/1024/1024) currsize,
ceil( blocks*&&blksize/1024/1024) -
ceil( (nvl(hwm,1)*&&blksize)/1024/1024 ) savings
from dba_data_files a,
( select file_id, max(block_id+blocks-1) hwm
group by file_id ) b
where a.file_id = b.file_id(+)
order by 1
column cmd format a100 word_wrapped
select 'alter database datafile '''||file_name||''' resize ' ||
ceil( (nvl(hwm,1)*&&blksize)/1024/1024 ) || 'm;' cmd
from dba_data_files a,
( select file_id, max(block_id+blocks-1) hwm
group by file_id ) b
where a.file_id = b.file_id(+)
and ceil( blocks*&&blksize/1024/1024) -
ceil( (nvl(hwm,1)*&&blksize)/1024/1024 ) > 0
order by 1
Monday, October 20, 2008
It is a breath of fresh air to read something which actually nails the real cause of the problem and
what the problem is (solvency vs liquidity)
It is like people complaining about shares going down and their super (like 401k) being down 40% this year after 4 years of more of 20% gains!
Year 1: $100,000
Year 4: $207,000
Year 5 $124,000
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Blame it on capitalism and use it as an opportunity for another experiment with socialism.
Doesn't Russia's 75 year bloody detour into hell tell you something, what about North Korea....
No the enlightened, elected few and their many unelected advisors believe they can do better to "manage" the economy.
With a fundamentally socialist organization at the core of each "free market" economy, I am talking a reserve bank, it is not capitalism, never was. It is what is called a mixed economy.
What the reserve bank does is set its target rate, which is normally what banks can borrow money from it.
It defends this rate by either buy or selling bonds. It is based on the idea of a natural rate of interest.
Here is the BS that is peddled by reserve banks and economists the world over. They set their interest rates in line with the natural rate of interest, which is in fact indeterminable (unknownable) at the time they set their rate.
Set it too low and the reserve bank is said to be running an "easy" money policy...
Set it too high and the reserve bank is said to be running a tight money policy.
So reserve banks the world over have been running a easy money policy, pretty much from 9/11/2001. Eventually the easy money, at one time confused as excess savings finds it way to the most profitable game in town and then beyond, causing inflation to rise.
The reserve banks begin to raise interest rates, the media reports, "Reserve banks has a tightening bias" and suddenly things which only work when money is close to free (to banks) are no longer profitable, whoops we need to blame, executive greed, extreme capitalism, mean street, the masters of the universe.
I actually want those idiots to go to the wall and go bankrupt. That is the best thing which could happen to them and their unproductive use of money. Shuffling/merging/bundling crap loans with good and calling them Triple A assets, is like wrapping a dogshit in a bun and calling it a hotdog. Both are going to cause violence reactions.
We have a solvency crisis (not a liquidity crisis), the only way banks are going to lend to each other, rather settle accounts with each other (noone trusts the solvency of the other bank) is when the Government owns 51% of the bank and forces the banks to lend and settle.
Simple as that.
The bankers are doing, at the moment, what makes good bankers, that is, being cautious and prudent.
The Governments of the world want them to go back to be incautious and reckless.
No doubt the music will begin again when reserves banks reach that magical point again where it is easy, close to free money and all the unproductive businesses (and profits) can start again.
Then we have this bloke saying zero rate interest is going to happen.
Noone asks the Japanese how their little experience with zero interest rate went... whoops a 15 year period in the doldrums. No thanks I would rather have money mean something.
Here is the point.
The reserve banks are to blame, they are the root cause, and provided the incentives for all the unproductive use of capital. Trying to control/manage and thereby corrupting the price signal that money provides through time (I am talking the interest rate) they have corrupted the whole structure of the economy.
That people who are fundamentally opposed to free markets are using Wall Street and Capitalism as the scapegoat is nothing new.
Mostly they are control-freaks who hate the idea that things just work out without requiring government policy or intervention. Otherwise they are peddling a social agenda which takes from the productive and gives to the people who will vote them back into office.
If the local Australian government really wanted to fix things and use their surplus properly, they should give everyone back their money their paid in taxes rather than a select group.
The worse advice I have even seen was from Wayne Swan and Lindsay Tanner (who should know better).
Go and spend the payment!!! don't save it, spend it! FFS why not helicopter everyone $1000 dollars so we can all spend it! It will make us all richer won't it.... but wait, don't stop with $1000, what about $10,000 or even $100,000. How about everyone wins lotto courtesy of the government. That seems to be working in Zimbabwe and worked in the Wiemar Republic, and John Law's Mississippi Bubble as well didn't it?
They should bring it forward to have the payments arrive on the first Monday in November (before the first Tuesday ala Melbourne Cup) it will have the same effect.
The words of the late Kerry Packer come to mind...
"if anybody in this country doesn't minimise their tax, they want their heads read".
"the Government wasn't spending it so well that we should be donating extra".
Nice to see my tax dollars at work allowing people to blow it on the pokies, drink and piss it against the wall or spend it on retail goods.... I can do that as well, without having to support the ATO and government bureaucracy along the way. But wait, the politicians don't give a toss either, they are living off the tax money as well.
Have Fun (on my hard earned tax dollars)
Sunday, June 01, 2008
Basically the local price for natural gas is completely disconnected (at least for most Eastern states) from the global price for natural gas by the tune of roughly 250-350%.
There are companies both in Australia and overseas trying to cash in on that difference.
One such company is Origin Energy, they hold a large amount of natural gas reserves (recently updated). Last week they rejected in offer from BG (British Gas) to be taken over. What BG and others are looking at is creating a LNG train and export facility in Queensland.
So why would this increase the price of natural gas in Australia?
In setting up a new demand source (exporting natural gas as LNG to China, US, Japan etc) whilst the supply remains relatively fixed means the price must increase. Export demand will mean that gas producers will export into that market in preference to supplying locally until the market price locally is almost the same as they can receive selling overseas.
Look at the numbers for Origin Energy.
It has Proven, Probable and Possible (3P) reserves of 10,222 Petajoules (PJ).
Australian natural gas prices are quoted in dollars per GigaJoules around $3.80 per GJ (see Govt. research paper)
1 PJ is 1 million GJ.
So 10,222 PJ is 10,222,000,000 GJ
So Origin has $38.8 billion dollars of natural gas and a market value (capitalisation) of $13.7 Billion.
Here is the reason for this article.
One Gigajoule is approximately equal to one thousand cubic Feet (Mcf).
The Henry Hub futures price in the US is around $12.50 per Mcf. That is a 328.95% difference in price compared to the local Australian natural gas price.
So if Origin were to export all that gas. It would mean those gas reserves are worth $127.7 Billion.
Now if the local market has discounted this new reserve information in, has it discounted in the price those reserves are worth at world prices or Australian prices?
Is it worth $14.60 or $48.08?
See what I mean about more pain in the pipeline for retail consumers who rely gas for heating or cooking. How would a 328% increase in your bill feel like?
Australian Government research paper of Natural Gas
LNG Conversation tables
ABC Inside Business Origin CEO interview
GJ per Mcf 1.000
EastAus per GigaJ (GJ) $3.80
EastAus in McF $3.80
US Henry Hub McF $12.50