* Advertisement *
Pray That Your Competitor Doesn't Find Out
About This System Ahead Of You
I'm talking about the opportunity for you to profit massively. I'm also talking about a once-in a lifetime chance to learn fortune-building business secrets.
Hey, we’re practically giving away a revolutionary business growth system for pennies-on-the dollar!
If you want to start making a ton more money, doubling and keep redoubling your paycheck...and have a clear, direct path to real prosperity and business wealth, you’d be crazy to pass up this chance. Here’s everything you need to get going:
Understanding the "Inverted Yield Curve"
What's going on with yields of U.S. government bonds may be weird, but it's nothing to worry about.
Long-term bonds normally have a higher yield than short-term bonds - just like the interest on a 30-year mortgage is higher than on a 15-year mortgage. But every now and then, the relationship between long-term and short-term bonds reverses or inverts. When that happens, short-term bonds earn a higher yield than long-term bonds. This is called an "inverted yield curve."
It is considered a bad omen for the economy, because our last four recessions have been preceded by inverted yield curves. The last inverted yield curve happened at the very end of last year ... and it has made a lot of people very nervous.
But not all inverted yield curves lead to recession, and this one won't. The yield rate reversed because long-term rates have been going down and finally dipped under short-term rates. But these long-term rates would not be going down if there were a strong fear of inflation (which can turn bonds into a terrible investment). And inflation rightly isn't a big concern currently, because Chinese and Indian wages and prices are keeping it down.
- Andrew Gordon
[Ed. Note: Andrew Gordon, ETR's financial expert, is the editor of The Skeptical Advisor, our investment newsletter that gives you one incredibly undervalued stock recommendation every month. Check it out at http://skepticaladvisor.com.]
"Sex. In America, an obsession. In other parts of the world, a fact."
- Marlene Dietrich
"Using" Sexuality in the Workplace
By Michael Masterson
In Message #1633, I wrote an article titled "Women in Business." In response to some of the things I said in that article, a colleague wrote:
"You know I always read your advice to women with particular interest ... today was no different.
"I'm sure it's not conscious, but I've noticed that almost every time you address the issue of women in business, you warn us about not 'using our sexuality' for career advancement. And I've never once heard you admonish men about combining sexuality and business.
"Last time I checked, it took two to tango ... and men in powerful positions almost always come with libidos that correlate with the size of their egos. (Do we really think Bill Clinton was the first or only president to have sex in the Oval Office with someone other than his wife?)
"If women are 'using' sexuality - what are the men doing who are participating? And what is your advice to them?
"I'm not disagreeing with your advice, by the way. In fact, I'm trying to be better about taking it. But when it's so one-sided, it makes you seem paternalistic. And I think you are wiser and more insightful on the matter than that.
"For the record, I think the intoxicating combination of sexuality and business has more to do with the fact that in our personal lives we marry someone who is our opposite because we need that to balance us and be healthy. But in business, we are attracted to people who are more like us, and the chemistry grows out of that yearning for connection with the same energy. I also think that it is often more innocent (though no less foolish) on the part of women than the motive you ascribe to it. Is it not possible that some of us are, like men, weak to the charms and flirtations of the opposite sex? And that we succumb for reasons far more complicated than career advancement?"
Hmm. Seems to me I'm being accused of two counts of gender bias here. Let's see if I can defend myself:
Count Number One: "I've never once heard you admonish men about combining sexuality and business."
Guilty as charged.
I've never done that. And here's why ...
When I think about using sex in the workplace for career advancement, I think of women as the potential culprits. I don't think of men in that role, because I have a very old-fashioned, male-oriented view of sexiness. That is, I don't see men as sexy. Not at all.
Of course, I'm wrong. Brad Pitt, for example. He's a sexy guy. And Sean Connery.
If Brad Pitt or Sean Connery had ever worked for me, perhaps I would have realized the kind of havoc that can be caused by men wearing unbuttoned shirts and tight jeans. Much to the misfortune of my gender consciousness, the male characters that have played roles in my workaday life have been more of the John Belushi/Conan O'Brien variety.
But, seriously ...
I concede that I'm wrong in thinking that only women can be guilty of using their sexuality to gain favor in the workplace. It is certainly possible - though not easy - for a man to do the same thing.
And, to tell the absolute truth, I would like to think that I myself have once or twice been guilty of using my manly charms to close a deal or get a promotion. Unfortunately, nothing comes to mind.
Count Number 2: I am biased. ("If women are 'using' sexuality - what are the men doing who are participating?")
Not guilty.
Let me explain. When men (like Clinton) offer business incentives to gain sexual favors from women, they are doing something that is stupid, wrong, and self-destructive. And if a man were to use his sexuality to induce a female boss to give him a raise or some other business benefit, he'd be wrong and guilty of the same thing that I advise women against. It's a form of prostitution.
As I've suggested, I don't think men are often in the position of prostituting themselves in the workplace. They are, however, frequently in the position to play the john. Both roles should be avoided.
These behaviors are wrong and unproductive - but I wouldn't classify them as ultra-evil. Sexual harassment, on the other hand (and by this, I mean real sexual harassment -threatening to fire or making someone miserable unless they have sex with you) is, and should be, a crime.
"Prostitution" at the office is mostly a woman-on-man thing. Sexual harassment is mostly a man-on-women thing.
Yes, there are exceptions. Which prove the rule.
I think there are all sorts of reasons we get turned on at the office. It's not just (as my colleague suggested above) by people who are different from our spouses. And it's not always a bad thing. In my "Women in Business" article, I never advised women to avoid sex or romance in the office. My warning was about using it for a business advantage.
I'll stand by that.
Big Pharma's Latest Attempt to Restrict Your Right to Choose
Wyeth Pharmaceuticals has petitioned the FDA to prohibit compounding pharmacies from providing natural, bio-identical hormones. (Compounding pharmacies are regulated by the states and create custom medications for patients.)
Wyeth charges that these pharmacies are "trying to dupe" unsuspecting patients, and that bio-identical hormones "endanger public health." These charges are groundless. First, compounding pharmacies only dispense hormones with a doctor's prescription. So how is the pharmacy trying to "dupe" the public by filling a doctor's order? Also, when prescribed properly, bio-identical hormones are highly effective and have a low incidence of adverse effects.
So what else might be behind this initiative? Here's a clue: Bio-identical hormones compete with the synthetic hormones manufactured by Wyeth. And the evidence suggests that it is Wyeth's drugs that "endanger public health."
In 2002, the Women's Health Initiative (WHI), a long-term national study, demonstrated that Wyeth's fake hormones (Premarin and Prempro) cause significant increases in breast cancer, blood clots, heart attack, and stroke. Since then, sales of these products have declined by 68%, equating to over a billion dollars in lost revenue. To stem their losses, Wyeth has petitioned the FDA to restrict access to natural alternatives, thus eliminating the competition. And if their petition is successful, women may lose the right to choose between a safe natural therapy and a proven synthetic menace.
If you are a doctor or a woman who has experience with bio-identical hormones, you can submit your opinion on this matter directly to the FDA up until April 4, 2006.
- Jon Herring
*
Advertisement *
Setting Goals - And Sticking To Them - Will Help You Achieve Financial Independence
Don’t take our word for it. That’s the headline from an AP article than ran in hundreds of newspapers across the nation last week.
"This is definitely the time of year to get things started," was how Barry Armstrong, a Boston financial planner with Woodbury Financial Services put it.
"For some people, it's a bitter message. There are things that you don't like doing. But they have to be done."
Former waitress Pamela Newman went from hand-to-mouth living to owning two condominiums in the San Diego area. What did it take? Resolve.
Resolve to make 2006 the year you kick it up a notch. Here’s how:
http://www.isecureonline.com/Reports/700SGB/E700G273/
Today's Action Plan
We want to hear from you. Do you have experience with synthetic or bio-identical hormones? Visit the ETR Speak Out Forum now and let us know. Please comment pro or con. Also, give us your thoughts on Wyeth's bid to restrict your right to choose.
It's Good to Know: How to Take Better Photos, Part 1
We asked the Board of Advisors for AWAI's new home-study program - "Turn Your Pictures Into Cash" - for some advice to help you take better photos. In this three-part series, we'll share their tips with you. Here are the first two ...
The best way to increase your chances of getting really outstanding photographs, is to take more pictures. You'll not only give yourself more choices, you'll also improve your skills at a much faster rate.
And if the extra film leaves you strapped for cash, consider going digital to save money on film and processing. Digital cameras help you learn faster, too, since you see your pictures immediately rather than having to wait for them to come back from the lab.
Instead of shooting random photographs in hopes of catching something good, pick out your subject and try to find creative ways to capture it. For instance, maybe your great-grandmother is in town. Get a shot of her stirring the gravy in the kitchen. Don't stand back and try to get the entire kitchen in the shot. Get in close with your camera (or your zoom lens) and let her fill 50%-70% of your image.
[Ed. Note: Find out more about AWAI's home-study photography program here: www.thephotographerslife.com/etr. Or join them in Bermuda for their next live event: www.thetravelwriterslife.com/bermuda/etr.]
*
Advertisement *
The Easiest and Fastest Way to Make Quick Cash…
And I’ve Proven it Works Over 300 Times
Eight years ago, I had just come out of a failed restaurant venture, I was going through a divorce, and I had a negative net worth. I only knew two things – I had to do something and I had no money.
I took the plunge into what I saw as my safest and most immediately profitable opportunity. Within my first 8 weeks I made $14,000. Today I average $20,000 profit per deal. And I have proven this works over 300 times!
I'd like to tell you how you can take the same road… without the trial and error… and without missing out on the opportunities that are available right now...
http://www.isecureonline.com/Reports/700SWFQC/E700G299/
Word
to the Wise: Fungible
"Fungible" (FUN-juh-bul) is another word for "interchangeable." It is derived from the Latin "fungi" ("to perform [in place of]").
Example (as used by Eugene Ludwig in a Forbes interview): "People think this tax is for Social Security. But tax monies are really fungible. They get raided all the time."
