The Leading Business Education Network for Doctors, Financial Advisors and Health Industry Consultants

Occupy Wall Street – and Doctors?

5 Responses

1. D. Kellus Pruitt DDS, on November 8, 2011 at 11:35 AM said:

   Want to see what’s wrong with Wall Street?

   “Quality Systems ranks on Forbes list” (no byline) was posted on Dentistry iQ today.

   http://www.dentistryiq.com/index/display/article-display/2911341070/articles/dentisryiq/industry/2011/11/quality-systems_forbes.html

   Regardless of the fact that QSI Dental EDR systems are both costlier and more dangerous than paper dental records, Wall Street trend-setters consider mandated dental software to be swell investment, and CEO Steve Plochocki is their sweetheart:

   “We are honored to be selected again, and have continually demonstrated this growth to the marketplace and the investment community. We thank all our dedicated clients and every Quality Systems employee for their commitment to the success of this organization and their contributions to our consistent, notable growth.”
   Growth is overrated.

   Here’s what Forbes missed: In August, QSI Vice President Kathleen Noll told an audience at the ADA’s Annual Dental Benefits Conference that her company’s EDR system offers a return on investment, yet she never responded to requests for data to support her claim. In fact, nobody has such data.

   Do you know what they call an EDR system that doesn’t offer a return on investment? A hobby.

   D. Kellus Pruitt DDS

   LikeLike
2. Gordon, on November 15, 2011 at 11:09 AM said:

   Dissension among the ranks at Occupy Wall Street [OWS]

   Some protesters feel left out of decisions, fret about how they’ll keep camp life going

   http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45285979/ns/us_news-life/

   IOW: Who will pay for their protest?
   Money talks – U know what, walks!

   Gordon

   LikeLike
3. Dr. David Edward Marcinko MBA, on November 16, 2011 at 10:33 PM said:

   Seek Tax On Stock Trades
   [Anger at Wall Street Hides Dire Far-Reaching Consequences]

   Introduced November 2nd 2011 as the Wall Street Trading and Speculators Act, this proposal levies a small tax of three basis points (three cents on $100) on financial transactions, including stocks and bonds along with derivative contracts, options, puts, forward contracts, swaps and other complex instruments at their actual cost.

   According to FA Digital, the tax is small enough ($3 on $10,000 of trading) that long-term investors would barely notice it. Its sting would be felt by traders who move in and out of positions and by those with high-speed robot computers that generate thousands of trades in the blink of an eye.

   For example, proponents say the tax would raise $353 billion over the next nine years. That’s nearly a third (29%) of the $1.2 trillion the congressional “super committee” is supposed find for debt reduction.

   Backers also contend the tax would reduce the volume of speculation, which they blame for the high volatility of recent years.

   What do you think docs and FAs

   Dr. David Edward Marcinko MBA

   LikeLike
4. Rick Kahler CFP® MS ChFC CCIM, on January 19, 2012 at 11:36 AM said:

   Income Inequality

   I am not sure if there is an “Occupy Windhoek” movement, but there should be. Windhoek is the financial capital of Namibia, which has a Gini Index rating of 70.7, giving it the largest gap in the world between its wealthiest 1% and the rest of its citizens. The Gini Index is a measure of statistical dispersion. A value of zero represents absolute equality, while 100 indicates absolute inequality (such as one person having all the income).

   Based on the Occupy Wall Street folks, one would expect the U.S. to be close behind Namibia in income inequality. This is from an Occupy website: “We are getting nothing while the other 1 percent is getting everything. We are the 99 percent.”

   But according to the CIA World Factbook 2011, the U.S. Gini Index rating is 45.0, exactly what it was in 1929. That puts us slightly above the global median, which is 41.0. The worst 30 countries have ratings of 48.0 to 70.7.

   We’re not in the top 30, however. Sweden leads that group, with a rating of 23.0. Six of the top ten countries with the least income inequality are in Scandinavia and Eastern Europe.

   Interestingly, the most economically free economy, Hong Kong, has an index of 53.3 and Singapore, the second most free, is 48.1. It makes intuitive sense that the high tax/big government Scandinavian countries have more income equality than capitalistic countries like Hong Kong, Singapore, and the United States. Still, having a free economy and a lower income inequality ranking is not unobtainable. Australia, New Zealand, Switzerland, Canada, Ireland, and Denmark all have economies ranked more free than ours and also have better income inequality index ratings.

   Worldwide, it’s true that the top 1% own a disproportionate share of the wealth. One percent of the world’s population own 40% of the global assets. The richest 10% own 85%, while 50% of the population own less than 1% of the global assets.

   This is hardly a “99% vs. 1%” division marked by an arbitrary line. Instead, income comparisons are a scale. Those whose income level puts them at 92%, say, are hardly in the same boat as those at 4% or 5%.

   What is the real motivating factor behind the erroneous OWS claims that “We are getting nothing while the other 1% is getting everything”? Anger and fear, certainly, over a perception that the economy is out of control and wealthy Wall Street types are to blame. Envy is probably a factor, as well. Research shows that the more we envy someone, the greater our pleasure at his or her downfall.

   But is it a surprise or inherently wrong that the upper percentiles of income earners receive a disproportionate share of the wealth? It would seem reasonable that someone who works harder, risks more, and makes timely and smart decisions will make and acquire more than someone who doesn’t.

   What is ironic is that the success of the top earners does not take anything away from those who earn less. In the U.S., the top 1% pay the highest percentage of taxes on their earned income, thus contributing heavily to our capitalistic system. Interestingly, if you have an individual income of over $34,000 you are in the world’s top 1% and are among the globally “rich”.

   Envy of the rich is almost universal. It also can be motivating. Contrary to common perception, 85% of the top 2% didn’t inherit wealth but are first generation millionaires or billionaires. Perhaps envy didn’t drive them to try to tear down what others had achieved. Instead, it motivated them to build their own success.

   Rick Kahler CFP® MS ChFC CCIM

   LikeLike
5. Jada, on May 18, 2012 at 10:03 PM said:

   OWS and Nurses

   A coalition of nurses’ unions is calling for a “Robin Hood” tax on Wall Street, which they say could generate up to $350 billion a year, in the first major protest ahead of this weekend’s NATO summit in Chicago.

   http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/18/11757222-nurses-yes-nurses-lead-charge-for-wall-street-sin-tax?lite

   Coincidental to the FB IPO today?

   Jada

   LikeLike