Thursday, December 30, 2010

personal finance books

Benjamin Weaver is an outsider in eighteenth-century London: A Jew among Christians; a ruffian among aristocrats; a retired pugilist who, hired by London's gentry, travels through the criminal underworld in pursuit of debtors and thieves.

In A Conspiracy of Paper, Weaver becomes entangled with a crime of the most personal sort, involving the mysterious death of his estranged father, a notorious stock-jobber. To find the answers he seeks, Weaver must contend with a garrulous prostitute who knows too much about his past, estranged relatives who remind him of his alienation from the Jewish faith, and a cabal of powerful men in the world of British finance who have disguised their business dealings with an intricate web of deception and violence.

The more Weaver discovers, the darker the truth becomes, until he realizes that he is following too closely in his father's footsteps-and they just might lead to his own grave. Relying on brains and brawn, Weaver uncovers the beginnings of a strange new economic order based on stock speculation - a way of life that poses great risks for investors, but real dangers for Weaver and his family.

An enthralling historical thriller, A Conspiracy of Paper will leave readers wondering just how much has changed in the stock market in the last three hundred years..."

By the end of 2010, Harlequin Enterprises will have sold a grand total of more than 6 billion books in the company's 60-year history. But on Dec. 28, Harlequin will try to sell its first personal finance book.

The Frugalista Files, written by former Miami Herald personal finance blogger Natalie McNeal, is a diary of the year that one 34-year old spent trying to pay off her credit card debt -- "without giving up the fabulous life."

McNeal's book is written in a diary format, with all the personal details and emoticons entailed in that approach: "I admit it. My name is Natalie. I am a spending slut." It's certainly not a book that targets my college-age demographic, but many readers will find her story inspiring. If Natalie can do it, so can you.

"My book is for anyone who is a promiscuous spender and is looking for real-life tips on how to be financially chaste," McNeal tells DailyFinance. "It's highly personal personal finance."

Katherine Orr, Harlequin's vice president of public relations, sees the move into financial advice as a logical step for the world's largest publisher of romance novels.

"For 60 years, we've provided escape from problems, and now we can help solve the problems," she says. She calls McNeal's book "very prescriptive. It's clear and simple, and it's helping young singles navigate in a tough world."

Harlequin first began publishing nonfiction in October 2008 with a book from syndicated radio host Delilah. Subsequent titles have included fitness guru Tosca Reno's best seller Your Best Body Now: Look and Feel Fabulous at Any Age the Eat-Clean Way, along with titles like The Happy Baker: A Girl's Guide to Emotional Baking; Life Beyond Your Eating Disorder; The Dog Who Healed a Family; and Queen of Your Own Life.

The market for pink-covered personal finance books for women hasn't been especially strong. None of financial adviser Suze Orman's mega-bestselling money books have boasted a pink cover, and none of the slew of recently released girl-talk guides for women have sold well. Titles like Shoo, Jimmy Choo!; Bitches on a Budget: Sage Advice for Surviving Tough Times in Style; andA Purse of Your Own: An Easy Guide to Financial Security have all failed to register much of an impact in terms of sales.

Kimberly Palmer, the personal finance editor with US News & World Report and the author of Generation Earn, says many financial guides for women are marketed as "simplified [and] dumbed-down."

"Women don't like to be talked to as if we're bad with money, because we're not," she says. "Too many books for women assume that we overspend on shoes and cosmos when we're really just looking for the same kind of smart, solid financial advice that men want."

But if there's one publisher in America that knows what women are looking for when they buy a book, it's Harlequin. Perhaps it'll be able to reach a segment of the population badly in need of financial advice -- one that other publishers have so far been largely unable to connect with.

surface encounters rock tops surface encounters rock tops surface encounters complaints surface encounters rock tops surface encounters rock tops surface encounters surface encounters complaints surface encounters surface encounters surface encounters review surface encounters rock tops surface encounters complaints surface encounters surface encounters complaints surface encounters rock tops surface encounters complaints surface encounters complaints surface encounters surface encounters complaints surface encounters rock tops

Kidney Donation Set as Condition of Miss. Sisters - AOL News

Gov. Haley Barbour has pardoned Gladys and Jamie Scott, who were each serving life sentences for an $11 armed robbery. But to be released, Gladys, 36, must donate a kidney to her 38-year-old sister, Jamie, who requires dialysis and ...

Salvatore A. Giunta to Drop the Times Square Ball and 5 Other New ...

Salvatore A. Giunta, the first living person to receive the Congressional Medal of Honor since the Vietnam War, is this year's Times Square ball drop guest of honor. Surge Desk offers 5 facts about the famous New York tradition.

Fox News Channel's Kimberly Guilfoyle: Ignore CPAC boycotters ...

Former first lady of San Francisco tells groups boycotting February convention to participate if they want to be heard.

surface encounters complaints surface encounters rock tops surface encounters review surface encounters complaints surface encounters complaints surface encounters complaints surface encounters rock tops surface encounters review surface encounters rock tops surface encounters rock tops surface encounters complaints surface encounters complaints surface encounters surface encounters surface encounters surface encounters rock tops surface encounters review

Tuesday, December 28, 2010

Being Right or Making Money

From the diaries by Erick

Investing in math and science is the way to solve the economy. A great idea. And somehow liberals have co-opted it to make it sound like their own.

Today’s Los Angeles Times for instance contains an article entitled, “Fixing the Economy the Scientific Way,” arguing that the federal government must spend more money on math and science education. They point to the fact that over the last 40 years the government’s support of science has declined 60% as a portion of GDP. They then argue that Republicans will only make the problem worse, pointing to their pledge to reduce federal spending on nondefense-related science research to pre-stimulus levels.

There is a lot wrong with this argument. For instance, given that the stimulus was a one-off, emergency spending measure, I’m not sure you can call a return to pre-stimulus investment a “reduction.” If we simply kept all stimulus programs intact forever and ever it would be akin to adding $800 billion to our deficit annually, not exactly a financially or politically sound proposition.

The bigger problem is that liberals’ argument ignores the reason governmental support of science funding has been declining relative to GDP. The problem is that the government over the last four decades has been forced to spend on other things. Our mandatory spending, on such things as Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, has been driven upwards, leaving less and less to be spent on discretionary budget items. Moreover it is not going to get better without major changes. The CBO predicts that “federal spending on major mandatory health care programs will grow from roughly 5 percent today to about 10 percent in 2035 and will continue to increase thereafter. “

As the following chart from the Heritage Foundation shows, the increase in costs of entitlements and anti-poverty programs are forcing reductions elsewhere.

If we want to increase our investment and math and science as a pathway to future prosperity we must understand one thing: we are not working with unlimited funds. We can’t simply increase science investment because it is a good idea. A budget requires prioritization. Making math and science a priority means making something else less of a priority.

Sadly, prioritization is even difficult given that our budget is being tyrannized by entitlement spending. Now, and especially in the future, these programs are taking up such a large slice of the budgetary pie that there simply isn’t enough money to pay for core government functions, much less science grants. That is why fiscal conservatism, through principled spending, is the true path toward promoting scientific advancement.

For an example as to why, look no further than Texas. Doing research for this post, I googled “math and science investment” in an attempt to find long term trends in how much the government spent. To my surprise one of the top returns was an article entitled “Perry announces math and science investment.” The Perry the article is referring to is the Republican governor of Texas, Rick Perry. As it turns out, in 2009, right in the heart of the recession, Texas announced it was investing $160 million to expand Texas Science, Technology, Engineering and Math academies. But how!?! After all, Texas doesn’t have an income tax and has one of the nation’s lowest overall tax burdens. Yet through shrewd spending and their ability to attract businesses to the state, Texas has weathered the economic storm better than most, even managing to maintain an $8 billion “rainy day “ fund. This financial flexibility, accomplished by keeping government spending relatively low, is what enabled them to increase their science and math spending in response to a need. The federal government lacks that flexibility.

Don’t be fooled into thinking that solving our economic issues are as simple as giving more money to math and science. It would be a good start and a great investment. But Medicare and Social Security, programs liberals love, are stopping us from doing so.

by Brandon Greife, Political Director of the College Republican National Committee

http://speakout.crnc.org/blog/2010/12/28/investing-in-math-and-sciences-first-requires-entitlement-reform/

Embracing New Opportunities Is Being Defeatist?

from the please-explain dept

A few months back a columnist for the Guardian, Helienne Lindvall wrote a laughably confused argument claiming that people who explained how "free" was an important element of a business model should not be trusted because they also made money. That made no sense, and lots of people explained why. She also got an awful lot of the basic facts wrong.

Lindvall is back, and rather than admitting her mistakes, she tries again, but comes across as even more confused and factually-challenged. The majority of the piece is about setting up more strawmen to knock over, with the two key ones being (1) that supporters of embracing new business models are "defeatist" because they suggest that file sharing cannot be stopped and (2) that while record labels may have ripped off musicians in the past, the companies ripping off musicians today are the "web 2.0" companies that are making money on content -- such as Google, Flickr and others.

Neither argument makes much sense when held up to any scrutiny. Lindvall seems to make the same mistake she made in her first piece (for which, I do not believe she has yet apologized). She takes a tiny part of an argument that someone has made, and pretends it's the entire argument. Just like she claimed that those who embrace free as a part of their business model are somehow being hypocritical in making money elsewhere, she now claims that people's entire argument is based on a tiny sliver of their argument, and ignores the important part.

The problem with her first strawman is that people aren't saying be "defeatist," and just accept that file sharing is file sharing and give up. They're saying that if file sharing isn't going away, and (here's the part she misses) you can use that to your advantage to make more money, why bother worrying about file sharing as being some sort of evil? The second strawman is a bit more nefarious, but goes back to the fallacy that web 2.0 sites are some sort of digital sharecropping, with the users "giving up everything," and the content creators getting nothing. That, of course, is hogwash. The reason people use these services is that they get something in return. What people like Lindvall forget or ignore is that in the days before YouTube, if you wanted to post your own video, you had to (a) buy expensive media serving software from the likes of Real Networks (b) install the crappy software and maintain it (c) host the files yourself, costing you server space (d) stream or download the files yourself, costing bandwidth. Then YouTube came along and made all of that both easy and free -- and you still want to complain that they're ripping you off? Seriously?

Fine: let's make a deal. For any project that Helienne Lindvall is involved in, she cannot make use of these tools which offer free services. Instead, she must set up the technology on her own server, and host and pay for all of it herself. Otherwise, she's just supporting the digital sharecroppers, right?

There are a few other whoppers in the article as well, such as this one:

Doctorow pointed out that numerous authors give away their work, while earning good money on the lecture circuit. I don't doubt that this model works for some authors, but there are fundamental differences between books and music.

Producing a record -- as opposed to writing most books -- tends to be a team effort involving a producer (sometimes several of them) and songwriters who are not part of the act, studio engineers and a whole host of people who don't earn money from merchandise and touring -- people who no one would pay to make personal appearances.

I love the "but we're different!" argument, because it comes up in every industry. I was just in Hollywood, where I explained how musicians were actually making use of these models and someone got upset and said "but we're the movie industry, and we're different!" Earlier this year, I met with a publisher, who also was looking at these models, and again exclaimed that "but book publishing is different!" Everyone wants to believe they're different, but everyone faces the same basic economics. Also, I'd imagine that my friends in the publishing industry would be pretty upset with Lindvall's false claim that a book is not a team effort. You have publishers and editors and agents, all of whom often take on quite similar roles to producers and songwriters and engineers.

That said, the really ridiculous part of her complaint here is that the same people she complains don't earn money from merchandise or touring also don't earn money from record sale royalties for the most part. There are some exceptions, but most of them are paid a flat-fee for their work, and that doesn't change either way under the new models, so her complaint here doesn't make sense. If a content creator can make money giving away some works for free, they can still afford to pay the fees for those who help out. The entire argument that an engineer "doesn't tour" is specious. The engineer doesn't make money from CD sales either.

Finally. Lindvall must be the first person to describe Jaron Lanier as an optimist, since he came out with his incredibly pessimistic book about how the internet was destroying everything good and holy in the world.

33 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Thursday, December 30, 2010

Tuesday, December 28, 2010

Embracing New Opportunities Is Being Defeatist?

from the please-explain dept

Thursday, December 23, 2010

Wednesday, December 8, 2010

Tuesday, December 7, 2010