jump to navigation

Loss of Liquidity – The Bigger Guys Saturday, 28 February 2009

Posted by R Garfield in Bemused, Oversimplified Economics.
Tags: , , , ,

In speaking to the Scott County Democratic Party, Jon Bowerbank made mention of the loss of liquidity his firm – a successful firm, with no duns or dings on record – has experienced as a result of the economic downturn. What this loss meant to his firm was that resources needed for his firm to do its job had to be purchased immediately from cash on hand before he billed his clients. In the pre-liquidity freeze days, the company could purchase the materials for a future job and pay for those materials at the same time or after billing the clients.

That may not seem like a huge change, because either way the materials do, after all, have to be paid for. But the change actually has a significant impact: less liquidity means more resources are tied up in each job; which in turn may limit the number of jobs being able to be pursued at one time. Even if it doesn’t limit the number of jobs, it would limit flexibility in responding to changes foe specific jobs.

Instead of the jobs paying for themselves as they go forward, they are instead being paid for by the prior jobs. If a client is late paying, company resources stay tied up even past job closure dates – further restricting liquidity.

There’s a cycle here, and it’s not a pretty one: the less liquidity available, the more providers – banks and credit card companies – seem to be moving to limit remaining liquidity. Because they are limiting liquidity, you have less, and because you have less, they lower it even further.

If this is the way the economy deals with a successful, strong, ongoing small business, then the impact on individuals would be even greater.

Note: this is my oversimplified thought process based on what Mr. Bowerbank said; at no point do I quote him directly in writing this.


Anybody’s content… parva componere magnis Saturday, 6 October 2007

Posted by R Garfield in Bemused, People.
Tags: , , ,
add a comment

This is a return to a favorite topic of mine to bore people with: the way-too-level playing field that the Internet offers people.

Don’t get me wrong … I like the fact that everyone has a voice. I do think – there go my left-wing leanings again – that everyone has a right to have their voice heard. I really like sites like wordpress.com, for instance, which let a fair number of people access the mike, and croon away. Or Wikipedia, which lets even someone like myself edit and correct information. I try to limit myself to topics I actually know about, so I’m not a prolific editor.

My problem tonight isn’t with people having their voices heard. Instead, it’s with sites like Associated Content, or more specifically, the use some people make of them. Associated Content is billed as “The people’s media company.” Essentially, it allows someone to put their content online, in multiple formats, and potentially monetize it.

Fine by me. Have your voice heard and earn a buck or two. It’s all good, right?

Not so, young grasshopper.

My problem is with the fact that AC is billed as a ‘media’ outlet, and yet, some people use it as they would a personal blog. ‘Media,’ to me, brings to mind television, newspaper and radio – and Internet sites like WikiNews. You know, like ‘mainstream media,’ ‘left wing media,’ and some blogs. News, or at the least, well-thought-out reviews, not personal rants.

In researching a store credit card, on Blogger or wordpress.com, the title “Why not to apply for the (store name) credit card” would clue me in that it might just be a personal rant. However, on a media site, I expect a bit more of a fair and balanced report … or what I was looking for in the first place, a review.

I don’t expect someone old enough to apply for credit crying because she maxed out her (store name) credit card, didn’t read the notices the card company sent her, got charged a large late fee, and calling everyone that doesn’t agree with her that (store name) is inherently evil for treating her this way “ignorant.”

That’s fine … on a blog. As media, it sucketh mightily. Far too level a playing field.

Actually, it reminds me of a quote that sums up the Internet’s free speech dichotomy far more succinctly than I will ever be capable of doing:

“Just because your voice reaches across the world does not mean that you are any wiser than when it reached the end of the bar.”

-Edward R. Murrow

What I am is … Friday, 2 March 2007

Posted by R Garfield in Bemused, Political.
add a comment

Moderate Liberal PopulistAccording to OnTheIssues.org, I am a  “Moderate Liberal Populist.”

Jim Webb is considered a populist; I can go with that.

Apparently Hillary Clinton is considered a moderate liberal populist, as is Dennis Kunich (sp?).

Since my opinion on Ms. Clinton is decidely undecided, I don’t know how happy I am with this designation.

Ah, well … I’m happy enough with Wikipedia’s  overview of ‘populist,’ as long as you leave the White Supremacists out of the equation.

(Hopefully, very far out…)

Ask Yahoo! team has confidence in Google Search Friday, 12 January 2007

Posted by R Garfield in Bemused, Technology.
add a comment

We, like Yahoo!, have confidence that the  Google search  results will point us inthe right direction…Google on, Yahooers!

Democrats Hate Families Saturday, 16 December 2006

Posted by R Garfield in Bemused, Political.
add a comment

At least, according to one Republican Congressman enamored of a 3-day work week they do. According to Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Ga.), forcing someone like himself to work 5 days a week, just like the the people who elected him do,  demonstrates only one thing: “The Democrats could care less about families — that’s what this says.”

Kingston generally spends a grueling 3 days a week in Washington: Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday.

3 days seems sufficient for rubber stamping someone else’s agenda. It doesn’t seem like nearly enough time to actually work on something. To be fair, Kingston and others like him can work outside the office. But do they? Make no mistake: being elected to Congress should mean you have a job, not a sinecure.

But then again, I haven’t worked under 40 hours a week in a long time. Maybe I should be taking time management lessons from the 103 day GOP congress.