Raise the money by renting out college buildings and class spaces that are currently used just to give lectures. With video conference technology students can attend lectures from their room. I would prefer that if rented out class space meant I can receive more financial aid to pull it through in this bad economy.
http://thinkaloo.com
Showing posts with label financial. Show all posts
Showing posts with label financial. Show all posts
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Monday, August 17, 2009
Let casino CEOs run banks!
A friend of mine who used to work for a bank that doesn't exist anymore used to tell me that a banker's real job is actually very very boring. Take deposits, give loans, call on borrowers to ask them to pay etc etc Yes really boring stuff. So when a banker is really bored he dreams of being in exotic places doing exotic things and then allows his in-house trader to design exotic trades and instruments for him. He used to say the only way to add spice to his job was to let bankers gamble selling it as 'financial innovation' which they did and here we are. So I wonder why not let casino CEOs run the remaining banks that are left? They're good at what they do, aren't they? When you go to a casino you always end up losing your money up to your pain point but the point is that the house Never goes bankrupt!! That's way better for the rest of us who are not gamblers, isn't it?
http://www.thinkaloo.com
http://www.thinkaloo.com
Saturday, July 25, 2009
How They Won...
This is not a story of an imaginary pun. This thought association is live and taking place as I type it in the plane. I'm copying and pasting the text as I'm reading it right now from the stranger businessman sitting next to me on our flight to Zurich. He's reading the Financial Times and is too absorbed to see me typing off his copy of the newspaper which I find very amusing. The article reads "The South Korean Won lost 4.7% of its value on fears that the Korean government will stop intervening to support the currency..."
I'm thinking of the journalist who wrote these lines. Did he see the pun but left it there in the hope his readers will see it too? Why couldn't he phrase it otherwise so that the words 'won' and 'lost' don't read next to each other? How can something that is Won be actually Lost?
Perhaps he saw it but left it there intentionally. Perhaps not. My mind veers suddenly into an imaginary ad propping up the 'lost' South Korean currency. A full-page flashing George Soros and Warren Buffet side by side. The world's two most iconic and revered investors describing 'How They Won...' by investing where else in the South Korean Won!
Perhaps the story of how the South Korean Won Lost serves as the perfect metaphor of our times. Something Won Lost because it was all Made off. Who knows why the journalist contrived the sentence so that the words won and lost parade next to each other.
A few years ago perhaps no one would have noticed. But now, amidst the worst financial crisis, nothing of the sort can go unnoticed. I am too tempted to ask my neighbor if he noticed the pun but I hold back. Perhaps it's better that I keep it to myself for now.
My mind drifts again. The most unexpected associations can sometimes come just by taking a glance at the newspaper of the person sitting next to us. Even if I never read the finance and business sections of the news - I admit I find them too boring - at some funny level I guess we can all somehow find humor in words whereby we can then converge or diverge our thoughts.
It's simply amazing, isn't it? The stranger sitting next to me is too engrossed in his reading of the finance world. But what is he reading? He is reading of a South Korean Won which lost 4.7% of its value where as I am reading of a South Korean Won which is 'Lost' and making the most unexpected and unrelated associations in my mind while killing flight time. Does the guy next to me also see anything funny in them?
How can anyone not find it funny, ironic or paradoxical when something that is so Won is also so Lost? The story perhaps starts to make sense to the reader as he jumps to the next article describing how Madoff lost what his rich world clientele had won over the years.
I guess it's only when it is made off from the start that something arguably so hard won can also be so easily lost at the same time...
http://www.thinkaloo.com
I'm thinking of the journalist who wrote these lines. Did he see the pun but left it there in the hope his readers will see it too? Why couldn't he phrase it otherwise so that the words 'won' and 'lost' don't read next to each other? How can something that is Won be actually Lost?
Perhaps he saw it but left it there intentionally. Perhaps not. My mind veers suddenly into an imaginary ad propping up the 'lost' South Korean currency. A full-page flashing George Soros and Warren Buffet side by side. The world's two most iconic and revered investors describing 'How They Won...' by investing where else in the South Korean Won!
Perhaps the story of how the South Korean Won Lost serves as the perfect metaphor of our times. Something Won Lost because it was all Made off. Who knows why the journalist contrived the sentence so that the words won and lost parade next to each other.
A few years ago perhaps no one would have noticed. But now, amidst the worst financial crisis, nothing of the sort can go unnoticed. I am too tempted to ask my neighbor if he noticed the pun but I hold back. Perhaps it's better that I keep it to myself for now.
My mind drifts again. The most unexpected associations can sometimes come just by taking a glance at the newspaper of the person sitting next to us. Even if I never read the finance and business sections of the news - I admit I find them too boring - at some funny level I guess we can all somehow find humor in words whereby we can then converge or diverge our thoughts.
It's simply amazing, isn't it? The stranger sitting next to me is too engrossed in his reading of the finance world. But what is he reading? He is reading of a South Korean Won which lost 4.7% of its value where as I am reading of a South Korean Won which is 'Lost' and making the most unexpected and unrelated associations in my mind while killing flight time. Does the guy next to me also see anything funny in them?
How can anyone not find it funny, ironic or paradoxical when something that is so Won is also so Lost? The story perhaps starts to make sense to the reader as he jumps to the next article describing how Madoff lost what his rich world clientele had won over the years.
I guess it's only when it is made off from the start that something arguably so hard won can also be so easily lost at the same time...
http://www.thinkaloo.com
Thursday, June 11, 2009
unfinancial times
a newspaper that reports business news but doesn't report anything financial. the content is geared toward explaining how the businesses work rather than how much money they made or lost. no numbers, no financial predictions, only words and text.
http://www.thinkaloo.com
http://www.thinkaloo.com
Friday, May 1, 2009
Make money creating the crisis. Make money solving it!
Here's the skinny. The guy gives tons of loans to people who can't afford them and sets the stage for the sub-prime crisis. The crisis erupts. He buys the loans back from the government ridiculously cheaper than the government bought them from the banks using taxpayers money. As a result he can afford to lower the interest homeowners pay on those loans and still make a 20% profit from them. Desperate to keep their houses, homeowners will gladly say thank you to him for helping them keep their houses.
And I want to ask a very simple question. Why is the government selling the loans to him? Why can't the government hire Him or other people like him to do the job of lowering the interest rate on those loans itself? Why let Him do the job via PennyMac and let Him keep the 20% profit? Why not have the government do the job and return the 20% profit to taxpayers whose money it used to buy the loans in the first place?
Is our government stupid, incapable or what? Or is the former No2 of Countrywide Financial that brilliant?
I have to say, just by looking at the name of his company PennyMac, he is a brilliant shyster. Penny for thriftiness and Mac for creative! Son-of-a...spiv :((
Check the full story here
http://www.thinkaloo.com
And I want to ask a very simple question. Why is the government selling the loans to him? Why can't the government hire Him or other people like him to do the job of lowering the interest rate on those loans itself? Why let Him do the job via PennyMac and let Him keep the 20% profit? Why not have the government do the job and return the 20% profit to taxpayers whose money it used to buy the loans in the first place?
Is our government stupid, incapable or what? Or is the former No2 of Countrywide Financial that brilliant?
I have to say, just by looking at the name of his company PennyMac, he is a brilliant shyster. Penny for thriftiness and Mac for creative! Son-of-a...spiv :((
Check the full story here
http://www.thinkaloo.com
Sunday, April 5, 2009
Toxic Asset ruminations...
Hmmm, what shall we do with the financial so-called Toxic Assets?
a) bury them?
b) send them to space?
c) re-cycle them?
d) derive them?
e) re-rederive them?
Well!
Ok, a few hints before you make your pick
Choices d and e are sarcastic (as if the phrase Toxic Asset isn't). They were added to bring the number of multiple choices to 5, so it really comes down to a, b and c...
What do we usually do with things toxic when we also happen to view them as assets?
Obviously and despite the trillion dollar bailouts, it seems we can't afford to send them to outer space, otherwise Obama would have put NASA in charge, not Geithner.
Option b gets eliminated. So b as it may, we are left with options a and c. Now we have a real di-lemma!
If something is toxic, is it an asset or waste?
That's a tough one and goes beyond mere semantics. It depends really. If the waste is human or animal, it still is toxic but can safely and productively be recycled. Shit happens all the time, but it's good for you. Human shit goes into the ground and cow farts up the sky where they eventually get aircycled or if they can escape earth's gravity they might economically dissolve their way into outer space (can cow or any farts really escape earth's gravity??)
But seriously now, if the waste Is nuclear we don't recycle it, we insulate it and bury it as deep as we can.
So, where does that leave us in terms of our beautifully aromatic current predicament?
If it's shit, it Is an Asset because it can be Recycled. But if it's Nuclear it definitely Is Non-Recyclable Waste. So, which Is it we are dealing with here?
Before you say they are both shit anyway, ask yourself:
Even if it's shit, how much shit can we really take before it becomes detrimental to our health?
Perhaps until the coroner determines toxicity levels as cause of death, we might be better off calling them shitty assets and stick with the recycling for now.
Or, perhaps the coroners might be the first to go from too much shit in our media, so we might never find out what it was that caused Our going next!
a or c?
Pick your favorite answer but even if it's a, don't stop recycling your toxic assets.
So long as you call them assets, there will always be people willing to take your shit and pass it around!
Our media is so brilliant, isn't it??
Toxic Asset My Ass!
Perhaps, if Bush and Obama had named it TAMA instead of TARP, we might have smelled the humor and seen better results...
Perhaps!
www.thinkaloo.com
a) bury them?
b) send them to space?
c) re-cycle them?
d) derive them?
e) re-rederive them?
Well!
Ok, a few hints before you make your pick
Choices d and e are sarcastic (as if the phrase Toxic Asset isn't). They were added to bring the number of multiple choices to 5, so it really comes down to a, b and c...
What do we usually do with things toxic when we also happen to view them as assets?
Obviously and despite the trillion dollar bailouts, it seems we can't afford to send them to outer space, otherwise Obama would have put NASA in charge, not Geithner.
Option b gets eliminated. So b as it may, we are left with options a and c. Now we have a real di-lemma!
If something is toxic, is it an asset or waste?
That's a tough one and goes beyond mere semantics. It depends really. If the waste is human or animal, it still is toxic but can safely and productively be recycled. Shit happens all the time, but it's good for you. Human shit goes into the ground and cow farts up the sky where they eventually get aircycled or if they can escape earth's gravity they might economically dissolve their way into outer space (can cow or any farts really escape earth's gravity??)
But seriously now, if the waste Is nuclear we don't recycle it, we insulate it and bury it as deep as we can.
So, where does that leave us in terms of our beautifully aromatic current predicament?
If it's shit, it Is an Asset because it can be Recycled. But if it's Nuclear it definitely Is Non-Recyclable Waste. So, which Is it we are dealing with here?
Before you say they are both shit anyway, ask yourself:
Even if it's shit, how much shit can we really take before it becomes detrimental to our health?
Perhaps until the coroner determines toxicity levels as cause of death, we might be better off calling them shitty assets and stick with the recycling for now.
Or, perhaps the coroners might be the first to go from too much shit in our media, so we might never find out what it was that caused Our going next!
a or c?
Pick your favorite answer but even if it's a, don't stop recycling your toxic assets.
So long as you call them assets, there will always be people willing to take your shit and pass it around!
Our media is so brilliant, isn't it??
Toxic Asset My Ass!
Perhaps, if Bush and Obama had named it TAMA instead of TARP, we might have smelled the humor and seen better results...
Perhaps!
www.thinkaloo.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
