Archive for June, 2010
best medical transcription companies. MxSecure is the # 1 provider of transcription services to clinics nationwide. Our services are internet-based, providing secure, accurate and affordable 24-hour or better turnaround.
Visit http://www.mxsecure.com.
Duration : 2 min 23 sec
www.investigativetraining.org – PI Johnston Blakley demonstrates the various film qualities in the video surveillance industry.
Duration : 2 min 48 sec
For example, recently Wall Street traders for investment banks like Goldman Sachs have been able to pull down bonusus of a million dollars or more as a reward for their contribution to the economy.
Since the economy is in trouble right now, do we really need to do something to let the Goldman Sachs bond traders earn more, so they can spread the wealth to the rest of us?
Or take the example of the oil giant BP. In 2008, the total executive compensation for the company’s top management rose by 19.12 percent over the year earlier, and the CEO of BP earned $16.5 million.
To spur more economic growth in the US today, and incidentally to motivate the CEO of BP to do a better job, should all Americans do what we can to raise the total compensation package for the company management even further?
In the future, should average consumers and government policy makers do whatever we can to push to top compensation of BP’s chief executive officer to $20 million a year, or $40 million, so that he’ll do a better job?
Or looking at the question of pay a little more broadly, the average pay of the top executives at US companies used to be about 48 times the average pay of the lowest-level employees of these companies. However, executive pay packages grew a lot over the last 20 years, until today, the average corporate CEO earns a salary hundreds of times bigger than the pay of the lowest-level employees.
Is this really enough, though, if we want to see US economic growth stimulated through "free market" incentives? Should Americans really do whatever we can to insure that in a few years, the CEO of a big company will earn 1,000 times the salary of the lowers level workers?
That would certainly give the richest Americans more disposable income and allow them to spend more on luxury goods and invest more in new business growth.
So is that the direction the USA should follow — towards the emergence of an economic super-elite whose ability to spend & invest will be virtually unlimited, so that they can then hire the rest of us?
Why stop there?
Why not have all the wealth concentrated to just one, ULTRA -RICH person?
Then this person can spend their money as they see fit and decide who gets what.
They alone could save the economy of the country and even the world!!!!
…. if they choose.
Or they could hoard it all and everyone else gets nothing.
The sham for 234 years has been once in a blue moon secret voting in a constitutional republic that tells everyone their form of Democracy is in a ballot cast that one can not monitor like they might a bank account.
The truth is there is no form of direct democracy of/by/for the citizens and never been any. This is the missing check & balance in our system plus ultimate up or down approval and full legislation should be in the hands of the citizens.
We the citizens should have rule & control over money/business/govt. No representative govt just fire at will implementing employee’s under management that is effective & useful unlike NOW.
That’s like saying the employees should run the company. It just won’t work. How much wealth would be spread in this country if you left it up to the citizens. In fact, that has been our problem. The wealthier group has gotten wealthier, while the Middle Class, once the ruling class in this country, has sunk into poverty.
We hear it still….the Poor are lazy, the autoworkers were greedy, the Unions are bad, "why should we give our money to some poor slob who doesn’t want to work?" This ideology, if you can call it that, is the philosophy of greed. Each man wants to take his money and, if circumstances, intellect, or some other quality keeps you from earning the money ……. well, tough luck, too bad for you, you’re on your own.
The ideal society and one that a Democracy really should be is..one for all, and all for one. The Bible says it clearly…"you are your brother’s keeper." This is no reason not to garner wealth for yourself, but it is a clear reason why each of us should form a government that works for all, the poor, the sick, the mentally disturbed, the homeless.
I have the Meryill Lynch Accolades Credit Card and was wondering if it makes one rich like the AMEX Black Credit Card(Centurion). It seems like having this card through Wealth Management makes shows your worthiness to the Bank. It seems like its a good card to have since it comes with access to Priority Pass Lounges.
Your comments are greatly appreciated.
https://card.ml.com/MLRewardsCenter/View…/Accolades.htm
The ML Accolades card is a credit card; AMEX black is a charge card
The ML card has a minimum balance of $5000; that means that people making $40000 a year can get this card; to be eligible for the AMEX Black card, you need to charge $150,000 per year.
Based on the benefits of the Accolades card compares with the benefits of the AMEX Platinum card. The AMEX Platinum card is available for a $450 annual fee. The AMEX Black card cost $5000 initiation fee and $2500 yearly annual fee.
To get the Accolades card for FREE, you need to have $250,000 in a ML Wealth Management account. The card is available for a fee to anyone.
Neither the Black, Platinum, or Accolades card shows your worthiness to a bank. You are eligible for these cards because of your worthiness to the bank (it’s the opposite).
20% of the top income earners in USA have over 80% of the nations wealth!
Leaving the 80% of working class income earners with less than 20% of the nations wealth to fight over. This is just how great & fair our form of Capitalism is. "it sucks unless your lucky enough to be in the top 20%".
This is what 234 years of a constitutional republic or Banana Republic has brought to USA.
You want real change End the republic of the wealthy few! Legally replace it with a True daily direct Democracy of/by/for the citizens with full legislative power "only in the peoples hands’. All levels of govt should be smaller well managed fire at will employees made to be effective. Currently all management are lame loafer with degrees slopping at the public troth.
Good management gets productive results or replaces the staff.
The top 10% actually have 85-90% of the wealth in the US depending upon how you calculate it.
What is really strange is people resent giving 1% of the total wealth to the poorest 20% but they don’t mind giving 90% to the wealthy elite even though the poor do much more work than the wealthy.
The description should include how earnings are valued, how shareholder wealth can be maximized, and how management decisions affect stockholder wealth.
Financial management is the planning, directing, monitoring, organizing, and controlling of monetary resources of an organization. Planning is the formation of detailed plans to achieve a specific goal by a specific date and measured by a specific measure. Directing evolves building a conducive environment to attain the specific goal. Monitoring ensures that the work is being done to attain the goal by the specific date and measure. Organizing involves obtaining all of the necessary resources to attain the goal. And lastly, controlling is that act of managing the entire environment to make certain the goal is be pursued and hopefully attained.
-E
The rich grew richer last year, even as the world endured the worst recession in decades.
A stock market rebound helped the world’s ranks of millionaires climb 17 percent to 10 million, while their collective wealth surged 19 percent to $39 trillion, nearly recouping losses from the financial crisis, according to the latest Merrill Lynch-Capgemini world wealth report.
Stock values rose by half, while hedge funds recovered most of their 2008 losses, in a year marked by government stimulus spending and central bank easing.
"We are already seeing distinct signs of recovery and, in some areas, a complete return to 2007 levels of wealth and growth," Bank of America Corp (NYSE:BAC – News) wealth management chief Sallie Krawcheck said
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Worlds-rich-got-richer-amid-rb-2551769401.html?x=0
It’s not "redistribution of wealth" when the wealth gets distributed upwards.
I would like to suggest that Private Label Rights material is one of the most underutilized resources available on the Internet today.
This video shows you just some of the ways you can take advantage of PLR.
Duration : 4 min 51 sec
I know this question is quite ambiguous.But if you look closely at the history of many stars, you can clearly see they always started off looking innocent and cute.Then after a long time working with the INDUSTRY, these celebs look tired,anguished,fierce,self-centered and most of all,sexualized.Many may think that fame and wealth has changed them. However, I do think that they are FORCED to do so by their owners such as management team and record companies.They always have new images which tend to be more evil and immoral. Mainstream stars from Disney channels are the most typical.From Britney to Xtina Aguilera,Justin Timberlake…and soon to be Miley Cyrus.They all walked the same path and eventually became sex bombs.
To the main thing I want to share. The woman I used to adore and admire: Lady Gaga.I’m sure you wonder why Lady Gaga is brought up here, she’s already sexualized and flesh showing before she’s famous and that her songs are about sex and everything about her is sex, so there’s nothing to discuss here.Right, right.However, the change in Lady Gaga is quite clear and seems to be worse every time.Even the ignorant ones can see the difference in her appearance between the Fame and Monster.She looks dark, thinner, wickier…It’s like there are 2 of her.She did say that The Fame and Monster are 2 albums representing the Yin and Yang in her.I, however, doubt that she’ll ever be Yang again.It is quite clear that she is descending into the darkness.Start off with Bad Romance, she sings about trading her soul for fame,selling it for evil.In Telephone, she looks like a mindless person.If you notice, she always stare in one direction throughout the video (especially when poisoning Tyrese).She speaks like a sick person (except when singing) and we can almost see the sadness in her face.And in Alejandro….When I watched it,I almost fell off my chair seeing that there’s a picture of the cross right at her "private area".Isn’t that too disrespectful and blasphemous? I want the old Lady Gaga back….Quite Impossible however.
Recently, she has been going on about being haunted by evil and she’s very scared of Satan. However, on many live performances, she dresses diabolically and even has a Devil’s costume…. Perhaps it’s her evil doing that caused mental illnesses?.It’s not a simply a change of style, people.I want somebody to confirm this and if you want to, discuss and add some more points.
I am a huge fan of her but this is the first time I disapproved her work alejandro video. She mixed many things, including religion, sexuality, military, spirituality(which I worried about her most) into her video. I think some part of video is not appropriate and should be censored. She probably overlooked the fact that most of her fans are inspired by old Gaga style and majorities are still young for those stuff.
I’ve read that she has been learning spirituality from an indian philosopher. I have seen many artists who mixed their music with spiritual crap made their career went downhill completely. Now I am worried about her third album, because she said her third album will be about spirituality. If she is over-obsessed and has already fallen into those crap, her career may be over soon.
I think we should discuss this topic more so that she will be aware of how her fans response to her recent works like her blood-spattered show in U.K.