The Last Free Trade Agreement: GIFTA
A few days ago, your NDT editor offered what he thought ws the last name in the plethora of X FTA's: UFTA, prononced "oof -dah". This notice was shared with the aforementioned editor's Minnesota relatives, who along with their quite Scandanavian neighbors, share an appreciation for "oof-dah".
This evening, Mrs "ed", while sharing the horror of the narrow passage of the CAFTA with yours truly offered the best-and-final-name for any of these "Free" trade agreements. Simply, it's:
the Global International Free Trade Agreement, or "GIFTA"
This may be pronounced a variety of ways: Mrs ed suggests "gift - duh", indicating a certain mindlessness on the part of us givers. Ed himself offers Gift A. This suggests a long list of gifts from us to you.
Whatever the interpretation, the name "GIFTA", belongs to Mrs ed, her insight, and the world is now the wiser for what our "leaders" are doing for (to!) us?
Friday, July 29, 2005
Tuesday, July 19, 2005
Friday, July 1, 2005
Financial Goals
One of the "sponsors" of the PBS News Hour advertises, "there are as many financial objectives as there are people". I beg to differ. I would assert there is only one financial goal: "maximize my net worth at any time, within the limits of my conscience".
In this way, my more modest financial goals are identical to those of, say, Bernie Ebbers.
The difference is not the financial goal, it's the limit of one's conscience.
I offer these insights as the Mrs and I approach the moment of "fixed income". I think we will be comfortable: our social-security-as-a percent-of-retirement-income figure is in the range of 25%. I'd be happier if that figure were lower; I know too many people for whom it's much closer to 100%.
In a side note, Brother Dan, along with other liberal commentators on the latest assault by the Bushites, is that there should be _no_ means testing for social security. The options are either a wellfare program, or, as originally conceived, a social security safety net.
Let's leave it at that. Social security = safety net. The less of that net we rely on, the better.
One of the "sponsors" of the PBS News Hour advertises, "there are as many financial objectives as there are people". I beg to differ. I would assert there is only one financial goal: "maximize my net worth at any time, within the limits of my conscience".
In this way, my more modest financial goals are identical to those of, say, Bernie Ebbers.
The difference is not the financial goal, it's the limit of one's conscience.
I offer these insights as the Mrs and I approach the moment of "fixed income". I think we will be comfortable: our social-security-as-a percent-of-retirement-income figure is in the range of 25%. I'd be happier if that figure were lower; I know too many people for whom it's much closer to 100%.
In a side note, Brother Dan, along with other liberal commentators on the latest assault by the Bushites, is that there should be _no_ means testing for social security. The options are either a wellfare program, or, as originally conceived, a social security safety net.
Let's leave it at that. Social security = safety net. The less of that net we rely on, the better.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
