1. India now has 40 billionaires, according to this Forbes list (well, a few on the list were just short of $1 billion). The Indian stock market has surged 50% since last November 2006, when the Forbes list was published, so there are probably even more Indian billionaires now.
What to do with all that wealth? Read below.
2. NEW DELHI: UK-based luxury car maker Bentley Motors has wheeled in two new models in the Indian market. Called Azure (pictured above) and Continental GTC, the two convertible models come at a price tag of Rs 3.80 and 2.10 crore, respectively. The company is eyeing to sell at least 25 cars every year in the Indian market. Since its India foray in 2003, Bentley has sold over 40 cars in the super-luxury segment.
One crore is 10 million, so 38 million rupees and 21 million rupees would mean a dollar price of $970,000 and $536,000 respectively, at today’s exchange rate (Rs. 39.17/$). But, hey, $1 billion is 1,000 X $1,000,000, so even a $1,000,000 vehicle is only 1/10 of 1% (1/1000) of your wealth. You could buy several and not even notice any effect on your wealth….
Just another example of how rising wealth and income in one part of the world (India) can create jobs in another part of the world (UK), thanks to trade.
Michael Moore, listen up! There is new evidence from the largest-ever international study of cancer survival rates showing that cancer patients live longer in the United States than anywhere else in the world (see chart above).
According to the survey of cancer survival rates in Europe and the United States, published recently in Lancet Oncology:
1. American women have a 63% chance of living at least five years after a cancer diagnosis, compared to 56% for European women and 53% for British women.
2. American men have a five-year survival rate of 66% compared to only 47 percent for European men and 45% for British men.
3. These figures reflect the care available to all Americans, not just those with private health coverage.
4. Great Britain, known for its 50-year-old government-run, universal health care system -the National Health Service – (portrayed extremely favorably in Michael Moore’s movie “Sicko”) fares even worse than the European averages, and far below U.S. averages (see chart above).
5. Despite the large number of uninsured, cancer patients in the United States are most likely to be screened regularly, and once diagnosed, have the fastest access to treatment.
The study concludes that “International comparisons establish that the most important factors in cancer survival are early diagnosis, time to treatment and access to the most effective drugs. Some uninsured cancer patients in the United States encounter problems with timely treatment and access, but a far larger proportion of cancer patients in Europe face these troubles. No country on the globe does as good a job overall as the United States.”
Answer 11 questions to find out which of the presidential candidates are most aligned with your views and opinions at this website.
Followup to the post below:
Gangbuster positive data today on international trade. Adjusted for inflation the trade deficit in goods is the lowest since February 2004 and down $7.2 billion versus a year ago, the largest one-year drop on record. These numbers suggest trade will add about a percentage point to real GDP growth in the third quarter. As a result we are raising our forecast for real growth in Q3 to 4%.
In our view, many analysts have overestimated the damage to the economy from slower home building. Productive resources have shifted into the trade sector to take advantage of the weaker dollar and strong growth abroad.
From First Trust Advisors (Chief Economist – Brian S. Wesbury).
According to these retail sales reports in the WSJ from September and August, monthly retail sales at Wal-Mart ($34.4 billion in September) are about 2X the monthly sales of all of these other retailers, COMBINED ($17.5 billion):
J.C. Penney ($1.5B)
Abercrombie and Fitch ($425M)
American Eagle ($311M)
Ann Taylor (162M)
Hot Topic ($71M)
Sharper Image ($32M)
From today’s WSJ article “Ethanol Industry Is Losing Clout“:
Opposition to the ethanol industry’s goals has grown significantly stiffer, and even groups that were originally sympathetic to ethanol are drifting away.
The so-called barnyard lobby — representing the meat, livestock and poultry industries — says high corn prices are hurting its profits. The price of corn-based animal feed has increased about 60% since 2005, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
“Our single biggest priority is for Congress to reject a new renewable-fuels mandate,” says Jesse Sevcik, vice president of legislative affairs at the American Meat Institute, a meat and poultry trade association.
Some environmentalists say unchecked growth in ethanol production could lead to soil erosion and degradation of wildlife habitats as more land is turned over to corn production.
The spreading coalition against new ethanol mandates includes the American Petroleum Institute, representing the oil industry. It says it supports ethanol but prefers a market-driven approach, rather than one driven by the government.
“Many policy makers were seduced by ethanol,” says Cal Dooley, president of the Grocery Manufacturers Association. He opposes increasing federal support for ethanol.
MP: Saying politicians were “seduced” might be a polite way of saying they were “duped?” When you have environmentalists on the same side of an issue as the American Petroleum Institute, you know that ethanol is indeed “dangerous, delusional bullshit,” as Rollingstone magazine said in its article “Ethanol Scam: Ethanol Hurts the Environment And Is One of America’s Biggest Political Boondoggles.” Further, you also know that something’s wrong with ethanol when you have the NY Times, Rollingstone, and LA Times agreeing with the Wall Street Journal and Investor’s Business Daily that ethanol is a scam.
According to an analysis by the Tax Foundation, based on recently released data from the Internal Revenue Service for 2005 (see chart above, click to enlarge):
The top-earning 25% of taxpayers — those with an Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) over $62,068 — earned 67.5% of the nation’s income, but they paid 86% of taxes collected.
The top 1% of taxpayers (AGI over $364,657) earned about 21% of the nation’s income, yet paid more than 39% of all federal income taxes collected.
That means the top 1% paid about the same amount of federal individual income taxes as the bottom 95 percent, and the top 5% paid more (about 60% of all taxes collected) than the bottom 95% (about 40% of all taxes).
The IRS data also shows increases in individual incomes across all income groups:
Just as the highest earners lost the biggest percentage of their incomes during the recession of 2001, so they have prospered the most as the economy has continued to rebound.
Between 2000 and 2005, pre-tax income for the top 1% group grew by 19.1%, and the pre-tax income for the bottom 50% increased by 15.5% during the same period.
This pattern of income loss and growth at the top of the income spectrum is the same during every recession and recovery, says the Foundation. The net result has also been a sharp rise in federal government tax revenue from 2003-2005 compared to previous years.
Note: The top 1% paid 35.7% of all income taxes in 2004, and 39.38% of all income taxes in 2005, suggesting the “rich” now pay more as share of all income taxes than before and the tax burden on the rich has increased. Weren’t the income tax cuts of 2003 supposed to be “tax cuts for the rich?”