Hot off the Press – Facebook Income

There’s a new product launching on December 3rd called ‘Who Likes Money’.  This is for anyone looking to earn some money online and this is getting a ton of great feedback by the testers and reviewers out there.  The idea is to use fan pages to create income with this software.  What the software does is it automates the process from getting likes, getting email subscribers, and selling whatever affiliate product you are offering.  This is not for someone completely new to affiliate marketing, it is a bit more advanced.  What we like about this is that it appears to be a completely unique idea.  The best Who Likes Money review we could find was on this website: website link

We recommend you head over there and check it out.  The website gives great details about what the software does, how it works, and they give you the results from their test.  This is pretty amazing software and if you have ever messed around with Facebook fanpages, you can understand exactly how there is ways to make money with them.  A lot of businesses use these fan pages to bring in email subscribers, sell products, and promote their brands.  Now we can use it to create a decent affiliate income online with this well-designed software.

Ok, head on over there and check it out.  Leave a comment below with your thoughts or questions.

The Government and Gold

When talking about the government, and their failure to maintain the dignity and respect that we, as citizens, have always hoped for we can’t help but to think about how our economy is failing slowly.  The power of the dollar decreases, our country’s debt increases, and in the meantime countries are buying up gold all over the place.  Should we have never left the dollar standard? Well, it’s too late to even think about that now, but oh well, who knows how our debt would be if we never left it.

Silver and gold have risen greatly over the last few years as our economy has weakened and it has allowed a lot of people to invest in precious metals and profit off of our falling currency value.  To see how the price of gold is doing, check it out here or to find out a little more about putting your retirement in gold or silver click here they also write a Regal Assets review which is a company I love.  It seems like a good time to consider that and look into protecting your retirement, especially with our government dealing with yet another debt ceiling.  I think we can actually see gold hitting up to $2000 per ounce in the coming year with all of the concerns.

Of course if you don’t like the idea of precious metals, there is always stocks that you could throw your money at and hope it makes a run — much riskier we think, with the impending doom of our economy and just coming off a government shut down (are they just lazy??).  Stocks have always been hit or miss, but with a decent mutual fund your risk is much lower.  Take a look at this stock website for a brief look at how to make money in stocks, I think they still have the pdf download available.  It’s just a short little piece on trading stocks, but it’s pretty solid.

No matter what anyone THINKS the government is doing and how it will ultimately affect us, we all know it will in some way and the economy will likely suffer.  Looking into ways to protect yourself, your retirement, and your family’s wealth is really important.

That’s my two cents on it… cents, get it? Ya, I’ll see myself out.

The Rich and Greedy

This would only work if assets were available. None currently are, but the party is in government so policy is its biggest asset. Policy could be bid over so, for example, Murdoch might pay £10m to have the abolition of the licence fee in the manifesto. MPs and party members would doubtless object to many proposals, but the alternative is the NEC members becoming collectively bankrupt and party accounts being shut. There goes any election campaign.

The threat is very real. From the New Statesman comes this enlightening admission:

Quite how those who are courting this rapidly declining asset stand to benefit is unclear. Another businessman who is part of the “Syndicate”, as he puts it, is less guarded. If new Labour became a “limited liability party”, it might be possible, he says – not entirely jokingly – to “sell non-core policies, from a customer perspective, as three-to five-year options on implementation in office”. These could include policy sales to the nuclear industry or to the green lobby. “This,” he points out, “could help ensure that national policies achieve the highest returns. And that could only benefit the shareholders – or, as they used to be known, the party members.”

The part is in government. They can therefore hand policy over to whoever will pay. They become shareholders, and run effectively decide what the government does – much as shareholders do to businesses on the market. The NEC is saved from financial doom, the shareholders have their interests seen to, and the voters are forgotten.

It would, after all, be the voters who lose out here. They’re the ones who are meant to pass judgement on government policy, at election time. Whatever NS’ source says on core and non-core policies – already vague, given that at present “core” adds up to a washy commitment to equality for Labour – this system means that manifesto policies voted on at election could simply fly out the window. And with them, the very point of representative government.

“How is this any different to the current system?” you might ask. “Organisations already buy policy from parties, in practise if not theory. The unions and the tycoons for Labour, the tycoons and business for the Tories. It happens.”

And yes, it does happen. But nothing now could be as direct or as forceful as a shareholder system in subverting democracy. There’s at least a semblence of internal democracy in the political parties: members vote on major positions and changes. If a politician has taken cash from a donor and made a decision they oppose, they’ve the opportunity to pressure them and reverse the policy. And it’s relatively fair and equal: one member, one vote.

But there’s a very different semblence of democracy in shareholder-based organisations. Shareholders too can hold their appointees to account, with one, important difference. Where political parties give a vote per membership, and only allow you one membership, shaeholder systems allocate votes per share.

And you can own more than one share. So if you’re rich and interested and buy a majority holding, you can in effect force whatever you want through. One share, one vote – and lots of shares if you can afford it.

Rich shareholders would thus force policies on a party far more reliably than rich donors do at present. The Statesman’s source’s example of the nuclear lobby and the green lobby is a good example. The nuclear lobby tends to be far better funded than its opposition – energy companies versus concerned citizens. They could buy up a large quantity of shares and swamp the smaller, but more numerous, bulk of members. It potentially wouldn’t matter if there was a massive grassroots movement in the party against nuclear development – if the nuclear lobby had enough shares, they could outvote them. And we’d have nuclear power, whether we’d voted for it or not.

Major national decisions would end up in the hand of those that can pay. Very democratic.

If you want a taste of what this might lead to, see this chilling statement from another interested party:

“We have been watching how Silvio Berlusconi created Forza Italia in parallel to his business interests, and we believe that our idea offers a fascinating adaptation to British conditions.”

Silvio Berlusconi is a massive media tycoon who bought into politics with his wallet and his right wing populism. Look at where he is now, and what he’s done.

Rupert Murdoch is a massive media tycoon. Look at what he could do if he bought into politics…

It could happen. And democracy would be dead.