Your Questions About Successful Trading Plans

Thomas asks…

PLEASE HELP ME OR I WONT PASS!!! =*(?

This has to be 1000 words and im absolutly stumped!!! PLEASE help me???? Please just try to leangthen this in any way you can and ill give you 10 points immediatly!

John Wanamaker and John Jacob Astor

These were both great businessmen. They both made good and bad decisions, but in the long run made it into success. John Wanamaker was born on July 11, 1838. He attended a public school until he was the age of fourteen, and then he became an errand boy for a bookstore. After that he was a retail-clothing salesman from the year 1856 until 1861. John opened his first store in 1861. John’s store was called “Oak hill”. The site of his first store was in Philadelphia.

One of the successful decisions he made was buying an old Railroad depot. He made this depot a store and named it “The Grand Depot”. Wanamaker was a very intelligent man who was known for keeping his word. He was also an inventor and a very religious man. He also eventually became a politician. In 1889 John Wanamaker made the first Penny Savings Bank. Some people also credit him for being the first one to introduce the commemorative stamp. John Wanamaker died on December 12, 1922.

John Jacob Astor was born on July 17, 1763. He was born in Walldorf, Germany. John’s Father was a butcher. When John was working with his brother, George Astor (Making musical Instruments), he learned English. He came to the United States right after the revolutionary war, in March 1784. He started a fur goods shop in the late 1970’s, in New York City.

The Jay Treaty, Really helped John out. When it opened up Canada and the great lakes region for trading. By 1800 he had already made almost a quarter million dollars. He was now a leading “figure” in the fur trade industry. John traded tea, furs, and sandalwood to china in 1800, he benefited from it a lot.

In 1822, John Jacob Astor established the Astor House on Mackinac Island as headquarters for the reorganized American Fur Company. After retiring from his business, Astor spent the rest of his life as a patron of culture. At his death, on March 29, 1848 he was the wealthiest person in the United States Of America. John Jacob Astor is buried in the Trinity Churchyard Cemetery in the New York City borough of Manhattan.

MY OPINION

I like both John Jacob Astor’s buisness plan as well as John Wannamaker’s. There are many things that I would use and many things I would try to Avoid. I would deffinatly want to adopt what John Wanamaker did. His “plan” seemed more effective and all around better. He just opened a store and slowly grew his buisness through smart choices.

John answers:

What did Wanamaker sell at his 1861 store? How many years did it run? What other places did he open stores? Does his store still exist? Did he run into any trouble?
When did he buy the Depot? What did he sell there? How successful was it?
What did he invent?
What religion did he follow and how did this effect his life as a businessman, if at all?
What were his political views? What kind of politician -mayor, congressman, senator blah blah When was he a politician?
How did opening the bank effect the local and wider community?
What people credit him with the commemorative stamp?
Where did he die? Did he leave any family behind? Did he retire or die on the job? Who inherited anything from him What happened to his businesses after he died?

Lots of the same questions for Astor.

What are their lasting legacies?

Make sure your spelling is consistent.

You’ve done pretty well setting up a biography of each man. But, all you have described so far is some basic results of life decisions – to open a shop or not, to buy a building or not, to sell furs or not… Not very business-planny. You need to describe their business plans.

What things would you use out of the plans. What things would you avoid? What things would you need to alter for the modern age?

If you wrote another paragraph after every paragraph you would get your 1000 words!

James asks…

What Australian Political Party Should I join?

I’ve always been fascinated by politics and more recently, particularly after our last federal election result I suppose, I’m seriously considering joining a political party. It doesn’t have to be one of the two major ones, because they don’t really appeal to me at all. I’m wondering if you have a suggestions of a party that agrees with a majority of my personal beliefs;

* I accept that climate change is likely to be occurring, and that humans may be somewhat responsible, but I disagree with an expensive “carbon tax” or emissions trading or cap-and-trade scheme as a solution. I believe that we should look at renewable energy alternatives and protecting our oceans and forests more instead.
* Like Dick Smith (and many others) I believe in a “sustainable population” and Australia’s immigration needs to be reduced substantially until we have the water, infrastructure and opportunities to cater for extra people. However, there is a good point made for people who live here to continue having more children as our population is aging.
* I believe that asylum seekers arriving by boat in Australia should be processed off-shore and treated humanely. I accept that being a signatory to the UNHCR (Refugee Convention) Australia has a responsibility to ensure that people fleeing a war-torn country for a better life should be safe and treated humanely even during the process of refugee settlement (including off-shore settlement) but we should not open our borders for people to enter (and stay) in our country illegally.
* While I can see some merit in the governments’ Broadband plan, I don’t believe that fibre optics to every home and business (at a cost of AT LEAST $43 billion) is the best plan for our communications and technology needs. Fibre Optics is good, but doesn’t last very long and will need to be replaced in 15-20 years at a similar cost, and no private company is going to fund that! While I do agree that we need better, faster broadband… I just don’t think the NBN is the best idea.
* I disagree with any plan to censor the internet, and believe that it is the role of parents to monitor their child’s computer usage to keep them safe. The government can assist with optional home filters if a parent wants them, but it must not be mandatory.
* I support an Australian Republican model with our head of state (President) being popularly elected by the people.
* I support Citizens Initiated Referendum (CIR) allowing a section of the community to insist on a national vote on any issue with enough community support for it to be tabled.
* I accept that we are part of an international community and we should do what we can to help others and avoid war and conflict where possible, but ultimately – we should support Australia and our fellow Australians first. This makes me a nationalist. I am somewhat concerned about international movements like the UN and their motives pushing for an unelected global world government. We can be part of the UN, but we should not sign over any of our sovereignty and national identity.
* I don’t believe that governments should sell off public assets and corporations to make a quick buck. The money they make should be spent on more public infrastructure. Since the Telstra sell-off I have noticed that Telstra’s customer service has dropped significantly and they still bully competitors out of the marketplace.
* Hospitals should be paid for successful OUTCOMES and not on the number of patients seen or operations performed. Medicare should cover basic dental checkups and and people should be encouraged to have (and use) private health insurance – even extended to cover 100% of private GP doctor consultations where possible, so there will be no medicare “gap” payments.
* Schools and universities should not be funded based on students grades or outcomes. The schools with the highest achievers should get no more than those with lower scores. Perhaps schools could get a bonus payment based on student attendance instead of test results. Schools should also focus more on basic english, mathematics and personal health (PE) subjects.
* I support the right of same sex couples to get married in just the same way as heterosexual couples can. A “civil union” does still not equal a marriage.

Anyway, thanks for reading (I know it was long) and I’m looking for answers that are intelligent and unbiased. Any suggestions of a possible political party that might be closely aligned with my views… or should I start my own?!
Also,

* I don’t agree with the “work for the dole” program, clearly if a job needs doing – we should be paying them a wage to do it. Instead, mutual obligation activities for dole payments should consist of volunteer work, training with community organisations (like the SES) or further education.
* I believe that the tax-free threshold should be raised to $20,000 and those that earn more money ($150,000+) should expect to pay more tax.
* I believe that “working mothers” should not be entitled to more government money than mothers who chose to stay at home with their babies in the first 12 months of their child’s life. While I do agree with a paid parental leave policy, it should not discriminate against mothers who don’t work
Thanks for the answers so far… I’m starting to think maybe the AUSTRALIAN SEX PARTY sounds like a good political option?… Hmmm?
*** Thanks for the quiz ink “Minutes to Midnight” I did it and it came up exactly to the south of the ALP, a little closer to “Liberal Democracy”. The Australian Democrats did appeal to me for a little while, but now I’ve noticed that they have too many policies I just can’t bring myself to agree with. In the recent election, I found myself supporting quite a few Abbott coalition policies – and that made me more confused than ever!

Thanks for all the responses so far, it’s great!

John answers:

Hmmm – sounds like you’re committed to a Republic party for Oz – same as me. At the moment there is a Republic Party of Australia (RPA – sounds like a hospital – snuckle).

I need to look more closely at their ideas on how it might work, and I’m surprised they didn’t try for more public focus on the issue because of the Kevin Rudd debacle, and the calls of ‘the man elected to do the job’, which, of course, denies the reality of our political system.

Contact:-

peter@therepublicans.com.au

The guy’s name is Peter Consandine, and he’s been active for years on the Republic issue.

I’m considering standing myself as an Independent Republic Candidate – not sure about his movement and its workings.

ADDS:- Nice quiz thing. Just as I suspected – Middle of the Road – somewhere between Labor and Democrats – though I don’t agree with many of their policies – it’s more an outlook – remember the quiz only covered certain issues.

Lizzie asks…

What will Obama gain by this?

I’ve always been taught to “Follow the money” when it comes to political and corporate motivation; I’m wondering if anyone else has come up with this theory, or if you agree/disagree with me.

There is much debate on both sides as to how much, if any, responsibility the US Government bears with regard to the Gulf oil spill. There seems to be a clear case for negligence and cost-cutting on the part of BP, but there is also the issue of the lax regulatory enforcement, the “sweetheart deals”, the campaign contributions and the support by BP of Obama’s Cap and Trade initiative.

Notice I said lax “enforcement”, not “regulation”. The regulations are there, they were not enforced properly.

There is also the issue of the cleanup. I have contended, as have many others, that the US Government bears most of the responsibility for all these expenses – that they had the opportunity to accept enough help early enough so that this entire mess would be contained within a 50 mile radius of the spill site, but they did not. The Government, the EPA and the Coast Guard are, by many accounts, impeding efforts to clean up now, by enforcing technical regulations, stopping and boarding skimmer ships looking for certificates, and not allowing certain vessels to aid based on their nationality.

Meanwhile, there is absolute zero government admission of any liability or responsibility at all. Obama does not hesitate to demonize BP and their executives at every turn. His boot is at their neck, there is no question about the fact that the US government is going to go after them with everything they have. The PR has been successful – most public opinion has turned against BP, and the people of the US are like a pack of wolves with a bloodied prey.

So – if $20 billion is “only a down payment”, and if there is no cap for liability suits, there is no question that BP is headed for bankruptcy. It’s just a matter of time. What then? Who pays the lawsuits? Who takes care of the families? Who pays for the cleanup?

It is at this time that the government can step in and take over. It will still be taxpayer dollars that pay the final bill, but with two important considerations –

1. No admission of Government Liability
2. A government bail-out. This means that the US Government will, just like they did with Chrysler, now own a big chunk of this country’s oil industry.

The last person to do this was Hugo Chavez.

Here’s another twist to this question – I don’t think there is any doubt that, whatever the cause, this whole thing was a horrible accident – by this I mean there was clearly no conspiracy involved – but once the spill happened, I cannot help but think of Rahm Emanuel’s famous quote – “Never let a crisis go to waste”.

A huge environmental disaster can go a long way to underscore the emotion behind a political initiative like Cap and Trade, further restrictions/regulation on drilling – green initiative. I don’t discount the possibility that once this disaster happened the Government did NOT just fumble around and make mistakes – that they sat down together in the situation room and outlined every possibility, no matter how remote, and came up with this plan. I cannot imagine them saying, “We won’t need any foreign help. BP said everything was fine, and I believe them”. Rather, I can see Emanuel leaning over and saying, “Mr. President – the bigger this spill gets, the more political capital we will gain – and we won’t lose much more than a few miles of coastline …”

I don’t think our Government makes mistakes like this. I think the Government is just fine with having the public believe that they are morons, as long as they get what they want.

Any thoughts?
EDIT – Desk3: I understand that it was an accident, I never claimed it wasn’t. We have no way of knowing if this would have happened had there been better oversight or less cost-cutting; my point is entirely about what is happening AFTER the accident.

I believe that the environmental disaster, the haphazard and insufficient cleanup effort, the loss of jobs, the loss of industry, the economic hardship of the Gulf states is all part of the plan – cobbled together in the White House back room during the first few days of the spill, for the reasons outlined above.

John answers:

You are absolutely on the right track. Now keep going.

What does Obama gain from failing to enforce existing laws?

More killed and mutilated workers. More anti-capitalist propaganda.

Look up the Cloward and Piven strategy. Never let a crisis go to waste – so why not create some more crisis.

Non-enforcement => worst oil spill in history => blame it on the company.

The same for the worst coal mine explosion in 40 years.

Non-enforcement => dead miners => blame it on the company.

Non-enforcement => illegal immigration => blame it on the businesses that hire them

If Bush was in office, you know who would get the blame.

But when Obama is in office, everything is portrayed as a failure of capitalism.

What does Obama stand to gain?

There’s your answer.

Not quite convinced? Then why did oil gush unimpeded for one full month before there was ANY attempt to stop it or even slow it down? Why did Obama allow the oil to spill UNTIL it was the worst spill in history? And he told us he was “calling all the shots” from the beginning.

HE INTENTIONALLY MADE IT THE WORST SPILL IN HISTORY for more anti-capitalist propaganda.

Ken asks…

Aspirations in Real Estate and future success, advice, tips?

I am kind of in a pivotal moment in my life and I would like some input.

I am 17 years old and I have always wanted to be wealthy. I do not want to work for anyone else to make their dreams come true. I want to be a business owner, investor and real estate guru. I have read many books/audio books, taken business classes, gone to financial seminars (where I was by FAR the youngest attendee) and talked to other gurus and wealthy investors. I have an investment account where I work on trading options and stocks.

I am not very good in school and various subjects. But I spend virtually all my free time educating my self financially and about business and real world subjects. I refuse to go to college. I don’t want to follow the traditional… go to college, graduate, get married, get a safe job, save for retirement, live frugally etc. etc. All my friends say that I will never be wealthy if I don’t go to college and get a high paying job.

My current written and planned out goal of 2 years now is to become a millionaire by age 25. I am constantly thinking about this, every night before I go to sleep and every morning when I wake up. Do you think the is a realistic goal? I plan to go to real estate school once I graduate from high school with a like-minded friend of mine. We plan to go into business and real estate together.

I’m tired of people telling me that it is risky and that real estate is bad. Half of the people that tell me these types of things have never done it themselves anyway, and they are typically poor.

What advice or tips would be good for someone like me who wants to be successful and wealthy?

John answers:

I doubt you can become a millionaire by 25, but I suppose anything is possible. The downside is that it will be tough to get some people to take you seriously being so young and having no education. We are talking about serious investments here, the biggest investments most people make, and trusting this to an uneducated young adult is going to be a tough sale.

I know those guys on Bravo TV do it, but they are well connected, come from wealthy family backgrounds and you do not mention any of those things.

I know you are tired of hearing it, but real estate is risky now, times are tough, lending criteria is extremely challenging to work with. Commercial lending is very tight. And if you want to be investor, you are going to need capital. Being a young adult with probably limited credit history, no experience and limited employment history, you are not getting a loan and no investor is going to be willing to front you capital without significant track record of successful investing.

“Refusing” to go to college is a mistake. At least take some business, finance and/or marketing courses. You have to be able to at least speak the language where you want to go. Going to college does not mean you have to follow a traditional path that you describe.

Taking classes in RE and investing are great. Doing it successfully is a whole different thing.

Good luck.

Chris asks…

precis of the following paragraphs?

Nevertheless, Russia is not going to be as easy to deal with as it was in the 1990s. Elements of its industrial policy and greater state regulation of the economy will make trade negotiations and financial transactions more complicated and will cause problems in American domestic politics for certain sectors in which Russia can compete, such as steel. Russian defense spending will increase, partly in order to stem the crisis in Russia’s conventional forces, partly in connection with the defense sector portion of the economic development policy. In order to prosecute the war in Chechnya, the Putin leadership found $1 billion: unlimited funds are not available, but a shift in priorities can support levels of defense spending greater than those in recent years. This increased defense spending is not a direct threat to U.S. security in itself, but it has indirect implications for American security policy, including an increase in Russian efforts to sell arms on the international market, the shift in military balances that will concern Russia’s neighbors, and the effects on Russian democracy and the state itself.
Most problematic will be negotiations in the area of nuclear arms control, particularly concerning American hopes for modification of the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty in order to deploy a form of national missile defense. Given the heightened threat assessment in the new security concept and the increased emphasis on the importance of Russia’s nuclear deterrent to cope with threats against itself or its allies, Russian defense officials have become very sensitive to any developments that might erode the strength of that deterrent capability. In addition, Russia’s belief that the United States violated past assurances and agreements when it enlarged NATO’s membership and mission makes Russian defense officials skeptical that the United States would abide by any negotiated restrictions that proved inconvenient in the future. Russian analysts do not fear that American plans for NMD to cope with “rogue” state threats erode Russia’s deterrent, but they do believe that such systems will provide the United States with a “break-out” capability that may prove tempting in the future, given the trends toward American unilateralism in international affairs. If the United States hopes to gain Russian agreement on modifying the ABM Treaty, the absolute minimum deal will depend on clear and reliable provisions that are directed explicitly and narrowly on the North Korean scenario. To do this, not only must interceptors be limited in number and range, but the Russian military will demand provisions for transparency and assurances so that it can plan for a reliable, long-term strategic nuclear force with retaliatory capacity against both the United States and China.
The most important implication for U.S. policy is the need to understand that the Russian security leadership links national sovereignty and territorial integrity, terrorism and WMD, instability and conflict in the Caucasus and Caspian regions, NATO’s membership and mission enlargement, and U.S. unilateralism. The United States may not agree that these elements are connected. However, it will not be able to devise a successful Russia policy unless it understands that the Russian political leadership will base its security policy on this assessment into the 21st century. The most important policy implication of this connection is that NATO’s primary security mission for the next few years must be repairing relations and trust with Russia. Putin has signaled interest in thawing the freeze on the NATO-Russian relationship, which was Russia’s response to Kosovo. Both Russia and the United States have to decide that they will make the mechanism for discussion and consultation between NATO and Russia—the Permanent Joint Council—a meaningful forum for confidence building and discussion of European security issues. It is difficult for the United States to involve Russia in NATO, but the 2000 security concept and military doctrine makes clear that Russia’s relations with NATO have global implications in a range of issues, including non-proliferation and control of WMD.

John answers:

Elements of its industrial policy and greater state regulation of the economy will make trade negotiations and financial transactions more complicated and will cause problems in American domestic politics for certain sectors in which Russia can compete, such as steel.

Russian defense spending will increase, partly in order to stem the crisis in Russia’s conventional forces, partly in connection with the defense sector portion of the economic development policy.

In order to prosecute the war in Chechnya, the Putin leadership found $1 billion: unlimited funds are not available, but a shift in priorities can support levels of defense spending greater than those in recent years.

This increased defense spending is not a direct threat to U.S. Security in itself, but it has indirect implications for American security policy, including an increase in Russian efforts to sell arms on the international market, the shift in military balances that will concern Russia’s neighbors, and the effects on Russian democracy and the state itself.

Most problematic will be negotiations in the area of nuclear arms control, particularly concerning American hopes for modification of the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty in order to deploy a form of national missile defense.

Given the heightened threat assessment in the new security concept and the increased emphasis on the importance of Russia’s nuclear deterrent to cope with threats against itself or its allies, Russian defense officials have become very sensitive to any developments that might erode the strength of that deterrent capability.

In addition, Russia’s belief that the United States violated past assurances and agreements when it enlarged NATO’s membership and mission makes Russian defense officials skeptical that the United States would abide by any negotiated restrictions that proved inconvenient in the future.

Both Russia and the United States have to decide that they will make the mechanism for discussion and consultation between NATO and Russia—the Permanent Joint Council—a meaningful forum for confidence building and discussion of European security issues.

It is difficult for the United States to involve Russia in NATO, but the 2000 security concept and military doctrine makes clear that Russia’s relations with NATO have global implications in a range of issues, including non-proliferation and control of WMD.

Powered by Yahoo! Answers

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *