Reporters often complain that copy editors are picky, moving commas and hyphens arbitrarily, and changing spellings when it doesn't matter. "Readers know what I mean," they say. Not true. Readers only know what you say in your writing, not always what you mean. The goal is communication. If all you want is to impress people with your alleged erudition, go into politics, or become an academia nut.
General guideline: Stay with English, but if you must use a French or Spanish expression that has found common usage, at least spell it correctly. Example: On a menu, the soup of the day is soup du jour, spelled du, not de.
More pickings: The past tense of plead is pleaded, not pled. True enough that the past tense of bleed is bled, not bleeded. Look to linguistic history and derivation of the plead and bleed for a reason. If you find one, great. If not, consider that there is no reason, it just is.
Lot is a single word, as in a lot, meaning a large amount. You can then also have one lot, two lots, or more. Don't use alot, because then you are locked into two alots, three alots, etc. However, there is a verb, allot, with a double l and a different meaning.
And here's an old guideline from Strunk & White's Elements of Style, likely the best of its kind (it's certainly one of the briefest): -ly adverbs never take a hyphen. So, newly elected, recently enacted, and others of that ilk, no hyphens, please. However, "family" is a noun, not an adverb, so it's possible to write of a family-owned business. Even so, don't bother, because the meaning is clear without it. Likewise "small business man," unless the proprietor is a Munchkin; then you have a problem justifying a reference to size.
Monday, July 8, 2013
Credit This
News Item: Consumer credit increased at an annual rate of 8.25 percent in May, up from an annualized increase of 4.6 percent in April, according to new data from the Federal Reserve. Total consumer debt reached $2.795 trillion in May, up from $2.776 trillion in April. Depository institutions held the most, at $1.2 trillion, followed by finance companies, with $675.7 billion, the Fed said.
The nationwide average interest rate for credit cards was 11.95 percent, and for new car loans, the average was 4.13 percent for four years, according to the Fed.
So it would seem that despite all the chanting for cutbacks, Americans are spending more, and going into debt to do it. Moreover, with finance institutions able to acquire funds at a rate of less than 1 percent, and lending at more than 4 percent for auto loans and mortgages, plus 12 percent for credit card users (or double that for some), demands for austerity become suspect, as do claims that banks are suffering. If bankers are suffering, consider that it's more likely from poor management than from narrow margins between acquisition rates and lending rates.
The nationwide average interest rate for credit cards was 11.95 percent, and for new car loans, the average was 4.13 percent for four years, according to the Fed.
So it would seem that despite all the chanting for cutbacks, Americans are spending more, and going into debt to do it. Moreover, with finance institutions able to acquire funds at a rate of less than 1 percent, and lending at more than 4 percent for auto loans and mortgages, plus 12 percent for credit card users (or double that for some), demands for austerity become suspect, as do claims that banks are suffering. If bankers are suffering, consider that it's more likely from poor management than from narrow margins between acquisition rates and lending rates.
Sunday, July 7, 2013
Heading for Homes
Home sales, for both new and existing houses, continued to rise in May, according to the latest figures available. But as demand for housing rises, so do prices and mortgage rates, and that put a crimp in the number of loan applications made by hopeful buyers. Monetary policies by the Federal Reserve have tried to keep loan rates down, but demand for housing can counterbalance that somewhat.
The Mortgage Bankers Association reported an 11.7 percent drop in loan applications for the week ended June 28 compared to a week earlier. Refinancing activity also is down as rates rise, the MBA said. The interest rate on a 30-year mortgage rose to 4.58 percent, the MBA said, the highest since July 2011.
The National Association of Realtors reported that pending home sales rose to its highest level since 2006, and the NAR's chief economist estimated that the nationwide median price for an existing single-family home will rise more than 10 percent this year, as sales rise at almost the same rate.
Price-wise, the nationwide median for a single-family home was estimated to reach $195,000, the NAR said. And the National Association of Home Builders, citing Census Bureau figures for May, said the median sales price for a new home was $263,900.
These, of course, are nationwide figures, and do not apply to more expensive metropolitan living areas.
All in all, the numbers indicate that sales are rising as families try to catch the wave of low mortgage rates before they are priced out of the market. Assuming, of course, there is job security and sufficient income to maintain the mortgage payments. But that's another story.
The Mortgage Bankers Association reported an 11.7 percent drop in loan applications for the week ended June 28 compared to a week earlier. Refinancing activity also is down as rates rise, the MBA said. The interest rate on a 30-year mortgage rose to 4.58 percent, the MBA said, the highest since July 2011.
The National Association of Realtors reported that pending home sales rose to its highest level since 2006, and the NAR's chief economist estimated that the nationwide median price for an existing single-family home will rise more than 10 percent this year, as sales rise at almost the same rate.
Price-wise, the nationwide median for a single-family home was estimated to reach $195,000, the NAR said. And the National Association of Home Builders, citing Census Bureau figures for May, said the median sales price for a new home was $263,900.
These, of course, are nationwide figures, and do not apply to more expensive metropolitan living areas.
All in all, the numbers indicate that sales are rising as families try to catch the wave of low mortgage rates before they are priced out of the market. Assuming, of course, there is job security and sufficient income to maintain the mortgage payments. But that's another story.
Saturday, July 6, 2013
Gleanings
GLEANINGS of an Itinerant Speller -- When you counter someone's position, you present a "rebuttal," not a "rebuttle." Take care when using verb and noun variants, since leaving off a letter can result in "use" rather than "user." Spellcheck programs will not help here, since both words are correctly spelled.
SAY WHAT? -- A TV ad offered a mattress that would "customize your sleep experience." Restaurants are fond of promoting a "dining experience." And car dealers emphasize the joy of having a "driving experience." What happened to the days when we would simply drive to a restaurant, dine, and then go home to sleep?
WHO'S KIDDING WHOM? -- AT&T said it will start tracking the sites its wireless customers visit, and then tailor the advertising displayed on these customer devices, in order to "serve you better." Another company proudly announced it was changing its name "to better serve our customers."
A name change is rarely, if ever, for customer convenience. Rather, it aids corporate marketing. And tracking customer activity while promising privacy remains only a cover for corporate advertising efforts. One could argue, of course, and the company does, that such programs result in customers getting ads that they are more likely to be interested in. But that serves the advertiser interest as much as, if not more than, the customers.
SAY WHAT? -- A TV ad offered a mattress that would "customize your sleep experience." Restaurants are fond of promoting a "dining experience." And car dealers emphasize the joy of having a "driving experience." What happened to the days when we would simply drive to a restaurant, dine, and then go home to sleep?
WHO'S KIDDING WHOM? -- AT&T said it will start tracking the sites its wireless customers visit, and then tailor the advertising displayed on these customer devices, in order to "serve you better." Another company proudly announced it was changing its name "to better serve our customers."
A name change is rarely, if ever, for customer convenience. Rather, it aids corporate marketing. And tracking customer activity while promising privacy remains only a cover for corporate advertising efforts. One could argue, of course, and the company does, that such programs result in customers getting ads that they are more likely to be interested in. But that serves the advertiser interest as much as, if not more than, the customers.
Friday, July 5, 2013
Demand Side Economics
If you build it, they will come. If you make it, they will buy.
Which comes first, supply or demand? I can build it, but they may not come without money to buy a ticket.
News item: The Bank of England and the European Central Bank said they plan to hold interest rates down for "an extended period." Read: As long as it takes to revive the sagging economy. Their position now echoes that of the Federal Reserve in America. On both sides of the pond, interest rates for major borrowers is well below 1 percent, and in one case, zero, as monetary mavens try to make enough cash available to induce folks to get the economy moving.
Fiscal finches, meanwhile, the remnants of the Reaganauts and Thatcherites, continue to chant austerity, or spending cuts, even as central bankers in Europe and America call for more spending, not less.
News item: U.S. employment increased by 195,000 in June, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported, but the number of people without jobs was unchanged, at 11.8 million, and the number of jobless as a percent of the total labor force was also unchanged, at 7.6 percent. "Both measures have shown little change since February," the government said. Also showing little change were two other data points, the labor force participation rate and the employment-population ratio.
Conclusion: Work-wise, nothing's happening.
Meanwhile, across the pond, recessionary waves are still washing through the population. In the countries that use the euro as currency, the unemployment rate is above 12 percent, according to data released by Eurostat on July 1, and 11 percent throughout all 27 countries in the EU. Some 26.5 million people are out of work throughout the EU, with the highest jobless rates recorded in Spain and Greece -- both above 26 percent, according to Eurostat, the statistical office of the European Union.
Croatia has just joined the EU, adding its 4.4 million population to the total. But with 18.1 percent of the workforce out of jobs, and its economy sagging by 2 percent last year, that's not going to help the overall European economy.
Spending by consumers accounts for some 80 percent of total consumption (government accounts for some of the rest). But consumers can't consume without means to buy, and that means money. And those without jobs don't have it.
The monetary mavens are helping, by making more money available, but if too much cash inflates prices, the exercise becomes self-defeating. Fiscal finches and austerity crows only make things worse by not spending what money is available, especially by government, which doesn't have to worry about debt. At least, not in the short term.
It's not difficult. Government can, and should, step in and boot the economy by spending, hiring people and putting them on payrolls so they have cash to buy stuff, which induces makers to increase their output so more stuff is available, and the economy grows.
It's not new. It worked in the 1930s. and it can work again today. The director of the International Monetary Fund, Christine Lagarde, said a month ago that the U.S. recovery "is gaining ground and becoming more durable. However, it has a way to go." And that means to ease off spending cuts to boost the recovery.
Monetary policy, as it pushes interest rates near zero, doesn't have much more room. Therefore, it falls to government to act. If the austerity crows have their way -- as is happening in Europe and is proposed in America -- look for things to get worse before they get better.
Which comes first, supply or demand? I can build it, but they may not come without money to buy a ticket.
News item: The Bank of England and the European Central Bank said they plan to hold interest rates down for "an extended period." Read: As long as it takes to revive the sagging economy. Their position now echoes that of the Federal Reserve in America. On both sides of the pond, interest rates for major borrowers is well below 1 percent, and in one case, zero, as monetary mavens try to make enough cash available to induce folks to get the economy moving.
Fiscal finches, meanwhile, the remnants of the Reaganauts and Thatcherites, continue to chant austerity, or spending cuts, even as central bankers in Europe and America call for more spending, not less.
News item: U.S. employment increased by 195,000 in June, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported, but the number of people without jobs was unchanged, at 11.8 million, and the number of jobless as a percent of the total labor force was also unchanged, at 7.6 percent. "Both measures have shown little change since February," the government said. Also showing little change were two other data points, the labor force participation rate and the employment-population ratio.
Conclusion: Work-wise, nothing's happening.
Meanwhile, across the pond, recessionary waves are still washing through the population. In the countries that use the euro as currency, the unemployment rate is above 12 percent, according to data released by Eurostat on July 1, and 11 percent throughout all 27 countries in the EU. Some 26.5 million people are out of work throughout the EU, with the highest jobless rates recorded in Spain and Greece -- both above 26 percent, according to Eurostat, the statistical office of the European Union.
Croatia has just joined the EU, adding its 4.4 million population to the total. But with 18.1 percent of the workforce out of jobs, and its economy sagging by 2 percent last year, that's not going to help the overall European economy.
Spending by consumers accounts for some 80 percent of total consumption (government accounts for some of the rest). But consumers can't consume without means to buy, and that means money. And those without jobs don't have it.
The monetary mavens are helping, by making more money available, but if too much cash inflates prices, the exercise becomes self-defeating. Fiscal finches and austerity crows only make things worse by not spending what money is available, especially by government, which doesn't have to worry about debt. At least, not in the short term.
It's not difficult. Government can, and should, step in and boot the economy by spending, hiring people and putting them on payrolls so they have cash to buy stuff, which induces makers to increase their output so more stuff is available, and the economy grows.
It's not new. It worked in the 1930s. and it can work again today. The director of the International Monetary Fund, Christine Lagarde, said a month ago that the U.S. recovery "is gaining ground and becoming more durable. However, it has a way to go." And that means to ease off spending cuts to boost the recovery.
Monetary policy, as it pushes interest rates near zero, doesn't have much more room. Therefore, it falls to government to act. If the austerity crows have their way -- as is happening in Europe and is proposed in America -- look for things to get worse before they get better.
Thursday, July 4, 2013
Snob Appeal
How long should a sentence be? Long enough to convey the thought, but not so long as to confuse the reader.
Snob appeal shows up in writing when only other snobs are able to read it, or are even willing to try. If that's your target audience, go for it, and good luck.
However, if you want a wide readership, write for your neighbor and your mother-in-law.
Complexicated writing has plenty of snob appeal, but who are you trying to impress? From this editor's chair, the strategy is this: If the reader has to go back and puzzle through it a second or a third time, the writer has failed to communicate.
In broadcast writing -- news or commercial -- you get one chance to catch the viewer's ear and get the message across. Repetition is possible, of course, in advertising, but that carries the risk of annoying the audience. In print, readers can go back and read the text a second or a third time until they understand it, but they shouldn't have to. Don't make them.
In earlier years, the idea was to see how complex a writer could make a sentence and still maintain control of it. That was common through the 19th Century, but lost favor when mass circulation newspapers came to be, and competed with broadcasting for readers and listeners.
Politicians, academics and diplomats are fond of airy phrases that are full of sound and fury, but signify nothing, as Shakespeare wrote. Today, the general reader has little time or inclination to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous writing in tales told by those concerned with appearing more intelligent than they actually are.
Or, as our philosopher friend Pug Mahoney once put it, "If you sound like you know what you're talking about, people will assume you do. And if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with b.s."
Snob appeal shows up in writing when only other snobs are able to read it, or are even willing to try. If that's your target audience, go for it, and good luck.
However, if you want a wide readership, write for your neighbor and your mother-in-law.
Complexicated writing has plenty of snob appeal, but who are you trying to impress? From this editor's chair, the strategy is this: If the reader has to go back and puzzle through it a second or a third time, the writer has failed to communicate.
In broadcast writing -- news or commercial -- you get one chance to catch the viewer's ear and get the message across. Repetition is possible, of course, in advertising, but that carries the risk of annoying the audience. In print, readers can go back and read the text a second or a third time until they understand it, but they shouldn't have to. Don't make them.
In earlier years, the idea was to see how complex a writer could make a sentence and still maintain control of it. That was common through the 19th Century, but lost favor when mass circulation newspapers came to be, and competed with broadcasting for readers and listeners.
Politicians, academics and diplomats are fond of airy phrases that are full of sound and fury, but signify nothing, as Shakespeare wrote. Today, the general reader has little time or inclination to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous writing in tales told by those concerned with appearing more intelligent than they actually are.
Or, as our philosopher friend Pug Mahoney once put it, "If you sound like you know what you're talking about, people will assume you do. And if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with b.s."
Wednesday, July 3, 2013
Quantitative Easing vs Fiscal Consolidation
"Is a puzzlement," said the king.
Take my money ... please.
Let's start with a few brief definitions, to clear up euphemisms.
Fiscal consolidation -- austerity, or spending cuts.
Quantitative easing -- increasing the money supply.
But consider this: How can one government agency reduce its spending, while another increases the amount of money available? And what's the result?
Setting aside (sequestering) for the moment the inherent confusion of verbose and contradictory terms, the result of these two clashing policies means higher prices, as one side stops spending even as another pumps more money into the economy. In effect, one offsets the other, and the consequence of inflating the supply of cash available boosts prices.
Put another way, with more dollars in circulation and the same amount of goods and services available, that means higher prices.
One would think that in recessionary times, as demand for stuff falls, prices would follow, to induce folks to buy. But if the money supply increases, more dollars chase fewer goods, bidding up prices.
The clash of fiscal consolidation versus quantitative easing creates a battle where one side says stop spending, and the other says here's more money to spend. So more dollars are available, but fewer are being used.
However, is that true? Major firms often have first dibs at the finance counter because they deal in larger amounts, so they can borrow at near zero interest rates, pay down corporate debt and reward senior execs with big bonuses for their "great performance."
Where does that leave the rest of the people, with savings accounts yielding less than 1 percent interest and prices rising at 2 percent? Do the math; they lose money. So that means, spend it now because you can't afford it tomorrow. But that leaves you broke while senior execs stash the cash. Want evidence? Check the New York Times report the other day on executive compensation. It's soaring.
Looked at another way, there's really not much new here, just new names. Some ninety years ago, as the Gilded Era reached a zenith, America's super-rich enjoyed their "cottages" at Newport and their mansions on country estates, while workers struggled to form unions and get livable wages.
Those days may be gone, but the habits are still around, with new names.
But the good news for the day is that the U.S. exported $187 billion in goods and services in May, according to the Commerce Department. Over the past twelve months, exports totaled $2.2 trillion, 41 percent above 2009. The figures were released by the Export-Import Bank, an independent government agency that helps to finance overseas trade.
So how much of that boost can be attributed to "quantitative easing," the pumping of extra dollars into the economy?
It is, indeed, a puzzlement.
Take my money ... please.
Let's start with a few brief definitions, to clear up euphemisms.
Fiscal consolidation -- austerity, or spending cuts.
Quantitative easing -- increasing the money supply.
But consider this: How can one government agency reduce its spending, while another increases the amount of money available? And what's the result?
Setting aside (sequestering) for the moment the inherent confusion of verbose and contradictory terms, the result of these two clashing policies means higher prices, as one side stops spending even as another pumps more money into the economy. In effect, one offsets the other, and the consequence of inflating the supply of cash available boosts prices.
Put another way, with more dollars in circulation and the same amount of goods and services available, that means higher prices.
One would think that in recessionary times, as demand for stuff falls, prices would follow, to induce folks to buy. But if the money supply increases, more dollars chase fewer goods, bidding up prices.
The clash of fiscal consolidation versus quantitative easing creates a battle where one side says stop spending, and the other says here's more money to spend. So more dollars are available, but fewer are being used.
However, is that true? Major firms often have first dibs at the finance counter because they deal in larger amounts, so they can borrow at near zero interest rates, pay down corporate debt and reward senior execs with big bonuses for their "great performance."
Where does that leave the rest of the people, with savings accounts yielding less than 1 percent interest and prices rising at 2 percent? Do the math; they lose money. So that means, spend it now because you can't afford it tomorrow. But that leaves you broke while senior execs stash the cash. Want evidence? Check the New York Times report the other day on executive compensation. It's soaring.
Looked at another way, there's really not much new here, just new names. Some ninety years ago, as the Gilded Era reached a zenith, America's super-rich enjoyed their "cottages" at Newport and their mansions on country estates, while workers struggled to form unions and get livable wages.
Those days may be gone, but the habits are still around, with new names.
But the good news for the day is that the U.S. exported $187 billion in goods and services in May, according to the Commerce Department. Over the past twelve months, exports totaled $2.2 trillion, 41 percent above 2009. The figures were released by the Export-Import Bank, an independent government agency that helps to finance overseas trade.
So how much of that boost can be attributed to "quantitative easing," the pumping of extra dollars into the economy?
It is, indeed, a puzzlement.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)