Question #1:
Which out of currencies, commodities or shares am I best to start spread betting with for a living?
I have just applied for a live spread betting account with capital spreads and I've been practicing with them also with their demo platform. What I have discovered is that I'm quiet good at trading currencies and commodities and only good at shares with information on companies, but thats illegal - isn't it?What I would like to know is, if I am to do spread betting for a living, what is the best market I could trade out of currencies, commodities, stocks, bonds or interest rates? Please help/advise me here if you can. Thanks. Please, I really need your help.
Question #2:
The Cove, have you watched it if not why not?
The movie is beyond disturbing and it is an issue I have been researching for years. This is something that needs to be seen by every man, woman and child. If things do not change now things will never change. Japan has a lock on the market when it comes to the International Whaling Commission. Japan buys votes and puts countries not even along a water line on the board of commissioners. President Obama appointed Ms. M. Medina as head of the United States on the IWC. Not only did Ms. Medina not vote when it came to the issue of Dolphins being considered under the current whaling laws but she did not even show up to the meeting and it was in Florida. This is a shame and a disgusting practice that is not only sustained by Japan but other nations. Write your legislature after seeing this movie and demand change.Question #3:
Are there any examples of true libertarianism actually working? Which country has the freest market?
I can't find any examples of free market-libertarian systems working. How are we supposed to know that making government very small and nearly powerless is supposed to work? Looking through history and much of the world I do find many mixed economies. Which country comes closest to practicing free market principles?Question #4:
Public option aside: The medical industry's cost to consumers has risen far more than any other?
instance of business (discloses government spending). What would you attribute this to? Here are some possible answers, but I'm not really sure.Frivolous Malpractice: Hundreds of millions of dollars a year in unnecessary costs which are spread to the consumer.
Pharmaceutical Companies: The average cost to even introduce medicine on the market per drug is about $1,000,000.00. They use vast profits from other drugs to pay for these.
Doctor's pay: At a hospital with around 100 doctors making an AVERAGE of $150,000.00 a year, the cost to pay those doctors runs 1.5 million per year.
Medical School: Medical School puts doctors in debt for years after medical school (when they are
making relatively small amounts of money as interns and residents), forcing their cost of living to be higher and higher in order to pay it off. (increased cost of living increases needed pay)
Insurance Companies: The birth of insurance companies, though noble, allowed some dishonest doctors to charge their losses to the insurance companies through radical increase of prices for treatment normally given directly to the patient at a much lower cost. This practice became more wildly acceptable over the course of decades and is now commonly applied to increase of costs across the board (wages to equipment) (This is the one I believe in the least, because it seems to be a consequence of high cost, rather than a strong reason)
Medical Equipment
Medical Equipment requires high cost due to the research needed to develop it. This makes a machine that normally would cost a few thousand to make from scratch sell for several million dollars a peice. The problem is that the price doesn't decline (or doesn't decline by much) once research and development is paid off.
Which of these (or any others) are key contributors to the gigantic cost of health care, which contribute very little if anything, and are there any I missed?
Tally of contributing factors,
1 for medical school, 1 against doctors (doctors are not to blame for high prices)
Question #5:
I need help in marketing my PT practice to the local community, any suggestions?
Question #6:
Since Ford bought Volvo what has changed?
My mother and I absolutely loathe American engineering because, well, it's crap. I am a BMW fanatic and she loves Volvo with a passion. I've owned 2 BMW's and they were both great--my 1988 735i drove til over 400,000 and my other BMW i only owned for about three months, but it was still amazing. Anyway we had to go car shopping a few months back and since my mother was the one with the money (I'm only 17) she looked for Volvo's (as she has owned five or six now and loved them all) and I looked for BMW's. Needless to say we ended up getting a Volvo because we found it first and now own two 240 wagons, mine is an 87 and hers is an 89. They both run great (mine has over 300,000 miles on it and my mechanic says it has at the very least another 100,000 left) and get great gas mileage, like all of her previous Volvo's, though most of them were late 90's models. I know they also have excellent safety standards and overall I am very impressed (it's no BMW, but then again what is?--though neither of my BMW's got 40 miles to the gallon as does my current wagon). Anyway my question really could have been asked without all this background information (I just felt like telling a story is all), which is: since Ford took over Volvo in 1999 what has changed? Is the engineering now inferior or are have the safety standards declined? I would like to know because I am considering buying a Volvo as my ext car, but need to know if I should be reluctant to purchase anything manufactured after 99. It's not like a car company such as Ford went in and bought Volvo and simply let them keep all of their old marketing practices while they took in the revenue--that would be counter-intuitive, they must have changed something so that Volvo operated the way that they saw best for the best marketing results. So what has changed?Thanks :]
Question #7:
New Real Estate Agent Advice?
I recently took licensing classes, passed my exam, and am in the process of affiliating with a small but longstanding brokerage. I'm really in unfamiliar territory here. I don't feel like class really taught me much as far as actually being out there, in the field, with all those contracts. They only prepared us as far as terminology, ethics, fair housing, etc. There was never once a practice of what it would be like to go through the whole entire process of selling a home. I talked to the other agents about it, and they all say "You just gotta get in there and do it!" I'm worried I will be just looking clueless when it comes down to starting a relationship with the buyers. I'm so lucky to have landed this job and I don't want to lose it because I'm unprepared. Can anyone help me get it together? I'm really a smart person, in fact I made the best scores out of everyone in my real estate course (not that it matters - nothing matters but that exam). And I have a sincere passion for this for so many reasons. I also happen to live in one of the few cities in the country that is in a real estate bubble, and the market is pretty good here. I'm scared of all the contracts, though. I hardly recieved any training as far as that goes. My company has some form of training, I'm not sure what it's going to do for me yet. I also question whether or not people will take me seriously as I'm young, and short, and (not to sound conceited) pretty. I wonder if they will see me as a silly girl playing dress up who needs to leave the business to the big boys. I have proper attire, though. I am competent enough to know not to do anything I'm not sure of, and to always get help where I need it, but I'm just wondering if anyone can give me some advice. It's getting ready to be my first day on the job: now what?Question #8:
whether young girl practice nudity in shopping mall,park,market and street in USA.?
I find a some video in internate in which some young girls are completely nude,and are shopping in a mall,and walking in a crowded street,then going to a park and dancing in the road.And also riding bike in nude.Whether these video are genuine.whether young girl practice nudity in shopping mall,park,market and street in USA or in other country.If yes in which place they do so.Question #9:
Is following the medium-long term trend the best way to spread bet currencies?
I just have a curious question on spread betting the foreign exchange markets or forex and if the best way to trade it is by following the medium-term to long-term trend, i.e. a few weeks to a few months? Is this the best way to trade it as this is what I did with my practice account and gained 426% in 2 weeks? Is this the best way to go about it as I know currencies usually trend long-term? Please help/advise. Thanks.Question #10:
India! Help!.....................?
G = geography (landforms/physical features, population, climate, etc)R = religion (top 3 practiced, # of people practicing each)
A = achievements (inventions, cultural advances, innovations)
P = political (types of government, leaders/administration, public opinion)
E = economic (money value, resources, job market: types of jobs & salaries)
S = social (fashion, entertainment, celebrities, holidays, food, media)
I need all of it, both then and now of India/South Asia.
Then as in 320 C.E - 550 C.E.
It's a REALLY big project for my history class. PLEASE PLEASE HELP.
This isnt even have of the project..
Question #11:
Are there any anthropological studies regarding forced assimilation/acculturation of hunter gathers....?
I'm looking for a theoretical framework specifically relating to changing food producing practices (i.e. a subsistence pattern focused on hunting to one based off of a market economy) and the effect that it may have on social customs/status.Question #12:
In economics mostly characterized by laissez faire practice, but still use gov influencesin the market place?
This is an attempt to:A) Correct the perceived inequity of the marketplace
B) Increase the efficiency of the marketplace
C) Ensure that individuals do not gain too much control over economy
D) Ensure macroeconomics stability
Thanks so much for any help.
Question #13:
Is a new investor like myself better to get some experience stock investing first before applying leverage?
I am 18 years of age and I will officially have a brand new, live share dealing account with my bank opened up this week. I have read books and have practiced for months on stock investing, spread betting and CFD trading. I don't, however, think I should immediately jump into leveraged products like spread betting or CFD's straightaway as I am a beginner to the financial markets regardless of the countless books I've bought snd read on investing and trading.What I would like to know is, from an experienced investor perhaps, is if this is a wise decision, i.e. get some experience in actual share investing for maybe 2-3 years until I turn 20-21 years of age and then apply leverage such as spread betting or CFD's to make my portfolio grow? Is that a better idea rather than jumping right into leverage straightaway with spread betting and CFD's? Please I really need your help/advice. Thanks.
Question #14:
What is a good market to start finacial spread betting with capital spreads on a starting balance of £200?
I have been practicing since last year on the financial spread betting demo account with capital spreads and I'm looking to go live with it. The only thing is that I've lent most of my money to family members and am left with £200 available capital to trade. What I want to know is what is a good market to start spread betting with with such a small sum of money, i.e. a market that has the least volatility, doesn't move much in terms of £1/point and is best/easiest to trade for such a small sum? Please, I really need your help. This is a serious question. Thanks.Question #15:
Am I better to use CFDs to trade or spread betting to trade? (My live account will be open in a weeks time).?
I will have a live trading account opened up in a weeks time with my bank. I know how to trade both with CFDs and spread betting as I've had some practice for months.I know that trading with the smallest stake £1/point on spread betting is like playing with 100 shares of stock, and with my bank, the CFDs are traded on margin at 10% which is like trading with 10 shares of stock.
What I would like to know is am I better to trade the financial markets with CFDs or spread betting as I'm not quite sure which is best? What I do feel, however is that CFDs are less risky as the leverage isn't as high as to the likes of spread betting, I don't care about if CFDs are taxed either, I just want the safest option out of the two?
Which would you recommend I use? Please I really need your help, thanks.
Question #16:
Why do republicans keep repeating the lie that "loans to minorities" created the crisis?
Almost all economic experts have said this is a lie. Even bush's top 2 banking appointees have said this is a lie.Bush appointee Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said "Experience runs counter to the charge that CRA was at the root of, or otherwise contributed in any substantive way to, the current mortgage difficulties." In a November 25, 2008, letter, Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke stated: "Our own experience with CRA over more than 30 years and recent analysis of available data, including data on subprime loan performance, runs counter to the charge that CRA was at the root of, or otherwise contributed in any substantive way to, the current mortgage difficulties."
Most subprime mortgages not issued by institutions under CRA. In a paper published on the website of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, Michigan law professor Michael Barr stated that as of 2005: "Only 25 percent of subprime loans were made by banks and thrifts, and the Federal Reserve reports that only six percent of subprime loans were CRA-eligible." Similarly, a 2008 study by a law firm specializing in CRA compliance estimated that in the 15 most populous metropolitan areas, 84.3 percent of subprime loans in 2006 were made by financial institutions not governed by the CRA.
Bush appointee FDIC chairwoman Shelia Blair said in the following speech:
Remarks by FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair to The New America Foundation conference: "Did Low-income Homeownership Go Too Far?": Washington, DC
December 17, 2008
Good morning and thank you for inviting me to speak.
What I'd like to do today is bury two myths that have been circulating lately. The first myth is that the Community Reinvestment Act caused the financial crisis. And the second myth is that working with troubled homeowners to reduce foreclosures lacks urgency and may be akin to a fool's errand.
CRA as a scapegoat
I think we can agree that a complex interplay of risky behaviors by lenders, borrowers, and investors led to the current financial storm. To be sure, there's plenty of blame to go around. However, I want to give you my verdict on CRA: NOT guilty.
Point of fact: Only about one-in-four higher-priced first mortgage loans were made by CRA-covered banks during the hey-day years of subprime mortgage lending (2004-2006). The rest were made by private independent mortgage companies and large bank affiliates not covered by CRA rules.
You've heard the line of attack: The government told banks they had to make loans to people who were bad credit risks, and who could not afford to repay, just to prove that they were making loans to low- and moderate-income people.
Let me ask you: where in the CRA does it say: make loans to people who can't afford to repay? No-where! And the fact is, the lending practices that are causing problems today were driven by a desire for market share and revenue growth ... pure and simple.
CRA isn't perfect. But it has stayed around more than 30 years because it works. It encourages FDIC-insured banks to lend in low and moderate income (or LMI) areas, and I quote, -"consistent with the safe and sound operation of such institutions".
Another question: Is lending to borrowers under terms they can not afford to repay "consistent with the safe and sound operations"? No, of course not.
CRA always recognized there are limitations on the potential volume of lending in lower-income areas due to safety and soundness considerations. And, that a bank's capacity and opportunity for safe and sound lending in the LMI community may be limited.
That is why the CRA never set out lending "target" or "goal" amounts. That is why CRA supporters, many of you here today, have labored for three decades to figure out how to do it safely. It makes no sense to give a loan to someone under terms you know they can't pay back. That's a set up for failure.
Despite our current problems, the homeowner is still one of the best credit risks in the world. Today, the delinquency rate on all home mortgages is only 3.6 percent. For subprime loans, there is a stark difference in the type of loan. The rate of seriously delinquent subprime fixed rate loans is a little more than one-third the rate for subprime adjustable rate mortgages.
Any family willing to work, save money, pay the mortgage on their house is a sound basis of credit and a sound basis for America.
So let the record show: CRA is not guilty of causing the financial crisis.
Question #17:
Why do republicans avoid questions that prove them wrong?
I have seen dozens of posts about how "dems forced banks to make bad loans" but when I provide proof, they won't respond.In fact, bush's own top banking appointees have said the "cra had nothing to do with the crisis"
Bush appointee Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said "Experience runs counter to the charge that CRA was at the root of, or otherwise contributed in any substantive way to, the current mortgage difficulties." In a November 25, 2008, letter, Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke stated: "Our own experience with CRA over more than 30 years and recent analysis of available data, including data on subprime loan performance, runs counter to the charge that CRA was at the root of, or otherwise contributed in any substantive way to, the current mortgage difficulties."
Most subprime mortgages not issued by institutions under CRA. In a paper published on the website of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, Michigan law professor Michael Barr stated that as of 2005: "Only 25 percent of subprime loans were made by banks and thrifts, and the Federal Reserve reports that only six percent of subprime loans were CRA-eligible." Similarly, a 2008 study by a law firm specializing in CRA compliance estimated that in the 15 most populous metropolitan areas, 84.3 percent of subprime loans in 2006 were made by financial institutions not governed by the CRA.
Bush appointee FDIC chairwoman Shelia Blair said in the following speech:
Remarks by FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair to The New America Foundation conference: "Did Low-income Homeownership Go Too Far?": Washington, DC
December 17, 2008
Good morning and thank you for inviting me to speak.
What I'd like to do today is bury two myths that have been circulating lately. The first myth is that the Community Reinvestment Act caused the financial crisis. And the second myth is that working with troubled homeowners to reduce foreclosures lacks urgency and may be akin to a fool's errand.
CRA as a scapegoat
I think we can agree that a complex interplay of risky behaviors by lenders, borrowers, and investors led to the current financial storm. To be sure, there's plenty of blame to go around. However, I want to give you my verdict on CRA: NOT guilty.
Point of fact: Only about one-in-four higher-priced first mortgage loans were made by CRA-covered banks during the hey-day years of subprime mortgage lending (2004-2006). The rest were made by private independent mortgage companies and large bank affiliates not covered by CRA rules.
You've heard the line of attack: The government told banks they had to make loans to people who were bad credit risks, and who could not afford to repay, just to prove that they were making loans to low- and moderate-income people.
Let me ask you: where in the CRA does it say: make loans to people who can't afford to repay? No-where! And the fact is, the lending practices that are causing problems today were driven by a desire for market share and revenue growth ... pure and simple.
CRA isn't perfect. But it has stayed around more than 30 years because it works. It encourages FDIC-insured banks to lend in low and moderate income (or LMI) areas, and I quote, -"consistent with the safe and sound operation of such institutions".
Another question: Is lending to borrowers under terms they can not afford to repay "consistent with the safe and sound operations"? No, of course not.
CRA always recognized there are limitations on the potential volume of lending in lower-income areas due to safety and soundness considerations. And, that a bank's capacity and opportunity for safe and sound lending in the LMI community may be limited.
That is why the CRA never set out lending "target" or "goal" amounts. That is why CRA supporters, many of you here today, have labored for three decades to figure out how to do it safely. It makes no sense to give a loan to someone under terms you know they can't pay back. That's a set up for failure.
Despite our current problems, the homeowner is still one of the best credit risks in the world. Today, the delinquency rate on all home mortgages is only 3.6 percent. For subprime loans, there is a stark difference in the type of loan. The rate of seriously delinquent subprime fixed rate loans is a little more than one-third the rate for subprime adjustable rate mortgages.
Any family willing to work, save money, pay the mortgage on their house is a sound basis of credit and a sound basis for America.
So let the record show: CRA is not guilty of causing the financial crisis.
Question #18:
Was it satisfying to see Obama own the republicans in the Health Care Summit?
The only thing Republicans had to say was "scrap the bill and start over." They have no substantive ideas.-Tort reform is not a silver bullet, it accounts for less than 2% of all costs. Certain states have their own restrictions on medical malpractice and premiums still go up.
-Simply letting across the state lines competition won't do much. The credit card example was fantastic...once banks could sell credit cards across state lines, they all migrated to states with little regulation so they could charge all the fees they want.
-Creating state high risk pools only creates further discrimination. Sure, sick people will have coverage, but they will have to pay out the nose for it.
-HSA's are not coverage, it just allows you to set aside the little money you already make in case something happens. People with low incomes cannot afford to set anything aside.
-Let's not forget that Health Insurance industries, like oil companies, practice collusion. They get together and they price fix, or make deals on who and who they won't cover, so that no matter where you go, you will be paying the same. Making competition between private insurance companies won't do anything.
The ONLY way to guarantee true regulation of skyrocketing premiums is to offer an alternative that is not through private insurers. The public option alone would negate the need for any other reforms. The second someone gets denied, they drop them and go to the public plan. It would keep insurance companies honest. This is common sense. The free market does not work with the overwhelming amount of greed in this world today.
Question #19:
You're smart, help. Where do you think profits should go from the record-setting Petra/Cullinan diamond sale?
Please read the questions fully before answering.Realizing that the wars we are engaged in around the globe have to do with other people believing that we have either exploited or helped exploit their countries (in the Middle East) of natural and human resources, what are your feelings about what still other other countries (mainly European)continue to do to snatch the only significant-profit-producing resources from struggling third world countires, when it is almost certain that the European countries will call on our help, should the 3rd world countries gather allies and fight to get their livelihoods back?
Are we contributing to global market destabilization as well as political and military unrest by not, in some, way intervening?
Should we initiate global policy changes on fair market practices towards 3rd world (and all other) countries, considering our stake in the lives of our miltary, which will almost no doubt be at stake if what some from teh exploited regions call their "rape" is allowed to continue?
And, should we initiate sanctions against the exploiters, since we are allies to most of them, and, in need of reclaiming our previous position as the global voice of diplomacy and reason?
For info on the Petra/Cullinan diamond sale, please check out: Click Here
Question #20:
Do yahoo posters know more about economics than the Federal Reserve Chairman?
Federal reseve chairman, ben bernanke,appointed by bush, said the community reinvestment act had nothing to do with the crisis.FDIC chairwoman, shelia blair, appointed by bush, said the same things.
However, dozens of yahoo posters keep saying it caused the crisis.
Who is right?
Bush appointee Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said "Experience runs counter to the charge that CRA was at the root of, or otherwise contributed in any substantive way to, the current mortgage difficulties." In a November 25, 2008, letter, Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke stated: "Our own experience with CRA over more than 30 years and recent analysis of available data, including data on subprime loan performance, runs counter to the charge that CRA was at the root of, or otherwise contributed in any substantive way to, the current mortgage difficulties."
Remarks by FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair to The New America Foundation conference: "Did Low-income Homeownership Go Too Far?": Washington, DC
December 17, 2008
Good morning and thank you for inviting me to speak.
What I'd like to do today is bury two myths that have been circulating lately. The first myth is that the Community Reinvestment Act caused the financial crisis. And the second myth is that working with troubled homeowners to reduce foreclosures lacks urgency and may be akin to a fool's errand.
CRA as a scapegoat
I think we can agree that a complex interplay of risky behaviors by lenders, borrowers, and investors led to the current financial storm. To be sure, there's plenty of blame to go around. However, I want to give you my verdict on CRA: NOT guilty.
Point of fact: Only about one-in-four higher-priced first mortgage loans were made by CRA-covered banks during the hey-day years of subprime mortgage lending (2004-2006). The rest were made by private independent mortgage companies and large bank affiliates not covered by CRA rules.
You've heard the line of attack: The government told banks they had to make loans to people who were bad credit risks, and who could not afford to repay, just to prove that they were making loans to low- and moderate-income people.
Let me ask you: where in the CRA does it say: make loans to people who can't afford to repay? No-where! And the fact is, the lending practices that are causing problems today were driven by a desire for market share and revenue growth ... pure and simple.
CRA isn't perfect. But it has stayed around more than 30 years because it works. It encourages FDIC-insured banks to lend in low and moderate income (or LMI) areas, and I quote, -"consistent with the safe and sound operation of such institutions".
Another question: Is lending to borrowers under terms they can not afford to repay "consistent with the safe and sound operations"? No, of course not.
sorry, dozens of top economists and many top republicans all agree...the CRA had nothing to do with the crisis. Sorry you guys won't accept the fact that bush loaned 440 billion and created the bubble.
** Powered by Yahoo Answers