by Preston Gralla from PC World
Our downloads guru selects the 15 best utilities, productivity tools, and other apps of 2007 from PC World's vast Downloads Library.
As a frequent downloads reviewer for PC World, I look at lots of downloadable software every year--more apps than I care to count. As a result, each week, I encounter and test-drive the great, the not-so-great, and the feeble.
Every once in a while, a piece of software so clearly outclasses its peers that it deserves special commendation. For this article, I've assembled my 15 favorite dowloads of 2007, selected from a wide range of categories--everything from antivirus and security tools to system tweakers, from media managers to system speedups.
Among them you'll probably find some old favorites, but also plenty of unfamiliar apps that you'll grow to love.
Process Explorer
Do you really know what's running right now on your PC? In all likelihood the answer is no. Dozens of processes or services may run in the background without your being aware of it. And though it can show you what's running, Windows' Task Manager is a poor tool for diggng deeper than that.
Process Explorer (a free download) provides exceptionally detailed information about every process and service, as well as identifying any applications associated with them. In Task Manager, you have no idea what each process and service do. But because Process Explorer often shows applications associated with each process and service, you'll be able to tell whether shutting them down is safe. The tool can also uncover clues indicating that a service or process may be spyware or malware.
Price: Free
Avast Anti-Virus Home Edition
These days, most antivirus programs come as part of an expensive, bloated, RAM-hungry suite that sucks up system resources, slows your system to a crawl, and requires you to pay for a new subscription every year. If you're tired of paying through the nose for antivirus protection, and want a slim, svelte anti-virus tool that does everything that high-price software does, get Avast Anti-Virus Home Edition. It has everything you need in an antivirus tool--notably live protection to ensure that you don't get infected in the first place. It also protects against instant messenger viruses, e-mail- and Web-mail-borne viruses, and viruses spread through peer-to-peer file sharing programs. It also scans your system for viruses, and eliminates any it finds.
Avast Anti-Virus Home Edition is free and extremely customizable: You can change the level of protection that any of its individual shields provides from normal to high, or create your own customized rules. So ask yourself, do you really need your current, high-priced suite?
Price: Free
Communicate, Copy, and Protect
SnagIt
If you need to capture or annotate screens for any reason--and who doesn't?--you need this program. It's simply the best screen-capture app you'll find anywhere. With SnagIt you can capture entire screens, portions of screens, active windows, menus, or scrolling screens. Or use its built-in timer to capture screens after a given amount of time. Grab screens with the cursor visible, or eliminate the cursor. And save your capture in any major graphics format. On top of all that, you can print the captured image, send it via e-mail, send it via an instant messenger program, and more.
Want to add special effects to your capture? SnagIt can do that as well, automatically adding drop shadows, watermarks, and many other effects as you direct. The program also has a very good editor for annotating screen shots, and an image browser for looking through graphics on your PC.
Price: Shareware ($40)
WinPatrol 2007
Want to rid your PC of unnecessary programs that run on startup, and help keep it free of spyware and other forms of malware? How about doing that for free--and getting other nice freebies as well, such as a cookie remover? WinPatrol 2007 delivers all that and more, conveniently and intuitively.
Set up WinPatrol, and thereafter whenever a program tries to add itself to the set of apps that start up automatically when Windows boots, you get an alert that invites you to block interloper. Click WinPatrol's Startup Programs tab, and you'll see a detailed list of every program that your PC automatically launches at system startup--including the app's manufacturer, the date the app was added to the startup set, and its file name. A clever feature called Delayed Start lets you tell certain programs to delay launching for up to an hour after Windows boots, so Windows can start up quickly and the program can still load later on. You also get a list of all the Internet Explorer add-ins currently running, along withthe ability to remove any you don't want to keep.
Price: Free
Flock
If you enjoy social networking sites and believe that the Web is as much about connecting to other people as about connecting to Web sites, this browser for you. It's particularly useful if you participate in multiple social networks, such as Twitter and Facebook. In a left-hand pane, it lists friends from all of your social networks, so you can quickly see any changed information about them--an updated profile, say. You may also share media and Web content with them.
In addition, it displays photo and multimedia content from sites like YouTube and Flickr in a kind of scrollable filmstrip. Grab any photo or multimedia media thumbnail with your mouse, drag it to a friend's profile on the left-hand pane, and they'll be able to see it.
Increasingly, businesses are using social networking sites; if you find that work is drawing you to use such sites--even if you have no interest in them as leisure-time destinations--you may want to make Flock your browser of choice. ( Editor-in-Chief Harry McCracken wrote an in-depth review of this browser in October 2007.)
Price: Free
Trillian Basic
For years, without the assistance of third-party software,users of AOL Instant Messenger haven't been able to communicate with users of Yahoo Messenger or users of MSN Messenger (or whatever Microsoft calls it these days), and vice versa.
That's where this freebie comes in. From one clean, simple interface, you can communicate with anyone who uses AOL Instant Messenger, Yahoo Messenger, MSN Messenger, or ICQ. It's easy to add new buddies and accounts; you can organize contacts in any way you want; and small, colored buttons show you which instant messaging networks each of your contacts uses.
Trillian simplifies switching from your current instant messaging program because it imports all of your passwords, contacts, and buddy lists. Other pluses: You can check your e-mail on the various services; and Trillian supports video chat and audio chat.
Price: Free
Power Tools
Comodo Firewall Pro
The firewall built into Windows XP includes no outbound protection. And the Vista firewall, though it provides some outbound protection, is remarkably user-hostile. Just try to configure the outbound firewall--it's nearly impossible.
Enter Comodo Firewall Pro, a top-rated free firewall that's easy to use and configure. This tool automatically protects your inbound connections; and for outbound connections, it notifies you every time a program attempts to make a connection. You can then approve the connection, if you recognize the program, or else forbid it.
An overview screen shows all of your current Internet traffic and maintains a history of defense and threats. The firewall is network-friendly, too: If you're on a home network when you first run it, the program will automatically recognizes this fact and ask you whether you want all of the other PCs on the network to be trusted.
Price: Free
IrfanView
IrfanView is the best graphics file viewer and all-around utility you can get. It's lightning fast, displaying graphics files faster than any other editor or viewer. It lets you view graphics files and play video and audio files in dozens of formats.
In addition, IrfanView lets you edit photos and images--flipping, rotating, and resizing them; increasing their color depth; converting them to grayscale, auto-adjusting the colors; and removing red eye. It does a fine job of converting graphics files from one format to another, and it can handle batch conversions of such files, too.
Price: Free
Launchy
This small, free, open-source program enables you to launch programs and open documents without having to hunt, peck, and mouse around.
When you install the program, nothing seems to happen initially. But press Alt-Space, and you'll see a big black empty box in the middle of your screen. Start typing the name of the program or file that you want to launch, and Launchy will display a matching list. Select the program or file from the list, and the chosen item launches. You can use wild cards, command-line options, plug-ins, and skins to customize a launch.
Winner of the community choice award for best new project of 2007 at the open-source site Sourcegorge.net, Launchy is simple, fast, useful, and free.
Price: Free
CCleaner
Your PC and its applications are filled with junk that slows down your PC, consumes precious disk space, and may be used to invade your privacy.
The author of the free CCleaner claims that the utility has been downloaded 100 million times. No wonder: It gets rid of such Windows junk as temporary files, log files, and Recent Documents. It cleans out files from multiple browsers, including Internet Explorer, Firefox, and Opera. It even removes junk from third-party programs such as Google Toolbar, Microsoft Office, Nero, and Adobe Acrobat. And it has a Registry cleaner, for cleaning junk from the sensitive Windows Registry.
Price: Free
More Must-Haves
PC De-Crapifier
This utility removes "craplets" and other junk that commonly come pre-installed on new PCs. But it's useful for cleaning up older PCs, too, because they fill up with junk of their own.
TAmong the space-wasting dross that this program removes are AOL's installation program, McAfee and Norton programs, and MusicMatch. Run it, tell it what to dispatch, and it quickly goes about its work.
Price: Free
Download Accelerator Plus
If you live to download, this free program can solve just about every download problem you have. To accelerate downloads, the utility divides them into pieces and then downloads the pieces simultaneously from the fastest servers it can find. The program claims it can improve download speeds by up to 400 percent. Mmmmaybe. It certainly gets downloads onto your system faster, particularly when you're downloading multiple files.
The program automatically launches and begins work when you specify that you want to download a file while in your browser. You can add downloads to the program manually, too, if you like.
Download Accelerator Plus can complete broken downloads, lets you pause and resume downloads, and gives you tools for managing all of your downloads. A useful history manager shows you all of the files you've ever downloaded, including their size and date of download. Double-click any entry in the history list, and you'll launch the downloaded file.
Price: Free
MediaMonkey
MediaMonkey does a great job of organizing your music files, playing them, ripping and burning CDs, converting files into different audio formats, creating playlists, synchronizing music between your PC and your iPod or other MP3 player, and more. And it's free.
Extras include the ability to automatically look up and add tags to your MP3s, and the ability to automatically find album art. MediaMonkey is perfect for people who have large music collections, because its organizing tools are so superb, but any music buff will find it useful.
Price: Free
FileZilla
Sometimes the best choice for transferring files is the old-fashioned FTP protocol--say, when you need to transfer files too large for your ISP to tolerate, or when you need to transfer multiple files. On such occasions, FileZilla is a wonderful tool to have.
Despite being easy to use, this free FTP client provides a multitude of features such as the ability to configure transfer speed limits, and to resume the transfer of files larger than 4 GB. It supports every FTP protocol you might need, including FTP, FTP over SSL/TLS (FTPS) and SSH File Transfer Protocol (SFTP). And the site manager is superb and simple.
Price: Free
Vista Manager
If you'd like to customize your version of Windows Vista to make it look different or perform better, Vista Manager can help. This app allows you to change aspects of the operating system at a granular level, and it helps you optimize your system's performance by adjusting its its RAM, cache, and hard-disk settings. It also cleans your system, improves your security, customizes the way your network works, and lets you manage system startup and shutdown.
As an example of Vista Manager precision, it gives you control over ten different settings for the Taskbar alone, plus another six for the notification area on the Taskbar.
Price: $40 (Shareware)
2007年12月30日 星期日
Thirty-Five Minutes to Riches
by Asa Fitch, Amanda Gengler, Josh Hyatt, and Ismat Sarah Mangla
Find out your credit score
Time it takes: 7 minutes
Know how lenders see you. Take seven minutes to download a free credit report at annualcreditreport.com. (For year-round monitoring, get a report from one of the three major credit bureaus every four months.) If you spot an error, notify the bureau (online, by phone or by mail) and the creditor (call and also send a letter). You won't find your credit score here, so when you request a report from Equifax, pay $7.95 for your FICO score, the most commonly used score. The range is 300 to 850 - 700 and above is good.
Raise your credit score
Time it takes: 8 minutes
It takes time to recover from major credit lapses, but you can do two things fast that will improve your credit score. Both will lower the size of your outstanding debt as a percentage of your total borrowing power.
1. Pay down a balance. 2. Call your issuer and ask for a higher credit limit. And don't spend it.
Triple the return on savings
Time it takes: 10 minutes
Do you have cash going nowhere in a checking or savings account? Bank money-market accounts typically pay less than 1%. You can open a savings account with HSBC Direct that recently paid 5.05%. No minimum balance is required.
With your driver's license and Social Security number handy, visit hsbcdirect.com and click on Sign Me Up. You'll be walked through screens to enter personal information. Want to fund your account immediately? Have a check with your bank account number and routing code handy to authorize an electronic transfer.
Stop junk mail
Time it takes: 5 minutes
Call 888-5OPTOUT to remove your name from credit issuers' mailing lists. The result of that five-minute talk with a computer? Fewer temptations and a mailbox filled with letters, not offers for pre-approved cards.
Most important, you'll cut the risk of an identity thief raiding your mailbox or garbage can and applying for credit in your name. Stolen paper mail accounts for 9% of identity fraud cases, according to Javelin Strategy & Research.
Note: Because we're talking credit bureaus, you'll have to provide your Social Security number. It's okay.
Freeze your credit
Time it takes: 25 minutes
Doing this prevents anyone from issuing credit in your name. (You, of course, can temporarily lift the freeze when you need a loan.) Nearly 30 states allow freezes even if you haven't been an ID theft victim. In some states you'll pay about $30 to place or remove-temporarily or permanently- the freeze. Go to consumersunion.org/securityfreeze.htm for instructions.
Haggle down your credit rate
Time it takes: 8 minutes
Dial your issuer and ask for a lower rate. If your credit score tops 720, do not be satisfied until your rate is less than 10%, says Curtis Arnold of CardRatings.com. Your biggest weapon: Make it clear that you'll stop using the card if the issuer refuses. Our reporter, helped by the fact that she's been a good customer for seven years, got the rate on her Discover card cut by four percentage points.
Upgrade to a better card
Time it takes: 30 minutes
Rewards, rates and fees change often. So search CardTrak.com to make sure you have the best deal. Among the lowest-rate cards on the site recently: Simmons First National Bank in Arkansas (800-636-5151) offers a fixed rate as low as 7.25% with no annual fee to consumers who have excellent credit.
Add to your 401(k)
Time it takes: 3 minutes
You signed up for your plan right after you found the office vending machines. Now do more: Raise your contribution by a point. Save 10% of a $50,000 salary in your 401(k) and you'll have $1.4 million in 35 years, assuming 8% returns and 4% annual raises. Ramp that up to 11% and you'll earn around $140,000 more.
Call your plan or visit your 401(k)'s website. At 401(k)s administered by Fidelity, for example, raising your contribution takes all of three minutes.
Manage like a pro
Time it takes: 4 minutes
If you have a diversified portfolio, a run-up in one asset class can throw your mix out of line, increasing risk and eroding returns. An unrebalanced $10,000 portfolio of 80% stocks and 20% bonds would have grown to $21,620 over the past 10 years.
If you'd rebalanced annually, you'd have $22,213, or $593 more - and taken less risk to get there. Retooling a 401(k) is easy: With a big plan administrator like Fidelity or Hewitt, rebalancing online takes minutes. In a taxable account, simply direct new money into the lagging fund categories.
Buy a forever portfolio
Time it takes: 25 minutes
Putting together a complete fund portfolio was once a time consuming chore. Nowadays target-date funds, which adjust the stock and bond allocation to smooth returns as you near a "target" retirement year, do it for you in minutes. Many 401(k)s offer them.
For direct investments, use the low-cost options from Vanguard (800-851-4999) or T. Rowe Price (800-638-5660). At vanguard.com, click on the tab labeled Research Funds and Stocks. Find the fund that corresponds to your planned retirement year, then download and look over the prospectus. Next click on the Buy This Fund link and follow the instructions. Have your checkbook ready to deposit funds electronically.
Find promising funds
Time it takes: 5 minutes
You can cut through the 8,000 or so mutual funds out there by sticking to the MONEY 70. Or run a screen for similar funds at morningstar.com (click on the Funds tab and go to the Mutual Fund Screener link). Pick a category, and then limit expenses to less than the category average. Next screen for funds whose managers have five years of tenure or more - greater experience is linked to better performance. Cut funds that failed to beat their five- or 10-year category averages.
Track your returns
Time it takes: 35 minutes
It's a pain to figure out how your investments are doing, especially if your money is scattered among several accounts. Spend 35 minutes setting up the portfolio tracker at portfolio.morningstar.com (you must first register at the site) so that you can start calculating your own rate of return. For a Web tool that can be clunky, Morningstar's tracker is particularly well designed and easy to use. You will, however, have to update it when you reinvest dividends or buy more shares.
Find out if you're paid enough
Time it takes: 15 minutes
Before you can make your case for a raise, you need something to measure yourself against. Salary.com offers Salary Wizard for free. Plug in your title and zip code and you'll get the median pay in your area for comparable positions. Or spend 10 minutes filling out a questionnaire with more variables, such as the size of your employer, and get 12 pages of data by buying a Personal Salary Report for $29.95 to $79.95 (the price varies by title).
Run a retirement plan
Time it takes: 5 minutes
On the road to riches, the key question is whether you're on track for financial independence. So pull out your retirement and investment account statements, plus projections for any pensions. Running that simple math can be surprisingly valuable: Researchers have found that people who plan for retirement have a higher net worth than those who do nothing.
Estimate your life insurance
Time it takes: 35 minutes
How much coverage is enough? For a fast ballpark estimate, multiply your annual income by five. With 35 minutes you can use the detailed calculator from the Life and Health Insurance Foundation for Education (life line.org). You'll be asked for your assets and debts, plus answers to tough questions like how long your family would need income after your death. If you find you need more coverage, get a quote on a term policy in five minutes at accuquote.com.
Learn your tax bracket
Time it takes: 20 minutes
Knowing what rate you pay on the last dollar you earn can help you to, among other things, pick a taxable vs. a municipal bond fund. Pull out your most recent 1040 and look for taxable income (line 43 in 2006). Adjust for any big changes in your income or the deductions you expect to take this year, then find where you fit in at irs.gov (search for "2007 federal tax rate schedule").
To choose between a muni and a taxable fund, divide the muni's yield by 100% minus your tax rate. If that number is higher than the taxable yield, go tax-free.
Escape late fees
Time it takes: 6 minutes
Why mess with checks and trips to the post office? Why risk a late payment when, according to Consumer Action, 85% of credit-card issuers impose penalty rates that average 24.5% if you're late on one or two bills? Pay bills online at your bank. First register at the site. Then gather your bills. Many bank sites have a pull-down menu of merchants; select yours and enter your account number. Or plug in the name, address and account number manually.
Write bounce-proof checks
Time it takes: 9 minutes
The median fee for bouncing a check recently hit $27.50, according to Bankrate.com. Call your bank or visit its website to sign up for overdraft protection. With that service, the bank will cover your check with money from a linked savings account. It may cost you $10, but that's less than half the charge for insufficient funds - not to mention what the payee demands.
Get bank alerts
Time it takes: 4 minutes.
Avoid bounced checks and spot ID theft early by having your bank notify you when your balance falls below a certain level or when there's unusual activity in your account. Citibank, for example, offers alerts via e-mail or text message. To activate them, log into your online account and select Account Info and then E-mail and Wireless Alerts. You can add up to two e-mail addresses and a mobile-phone number for alerts. Use the menu of options to designate what updates you want.
Pay less in auto insurance
Time it takes: 7 minutes
Simply raising your deductible can save you up to 30%. With an old car, drop your collision and comprehensive coverage when the car is worth less than 10 times what you pay for the insurance. Or shop for a lower premium at insweb.com, an easy-to-navigate comparison site. You'll be guided through five screens of information such as driving history, car make and model. A few minutes later the site will give you the lowest quote from its database (which doesn't include all the biggest insurers). Agents will also e-mail or call you with quotes from other insurers.
Double-check your taxes
Time it takes: 35 minutes
Next April remember this: Before you seal the envelope or tap the key that whisks your return to the IRS, spend 35 minutes looking for easy-to-spot errors. Overlook a dependent (the one at college may count) and you could owe an extra $1,000 in taxes. Transpose your Social Security number and your refund may never arrive. Did you sign your return?
Keep more of your paycheck
Time it takes: 30 minutes
A generous tax refund means you are overpaying the government. To have fewer dollars plucked from your paycheck, claim more exemptions on your W-4 form (to see if you can, use the withholding calculator at irs.gov). Print out a W-4 at the IRS site or from your company's intranet. With last year's tax return, a pay stub and a calculator handy, filling out the worksheet on page 2 takes about half an hour.
Get a tax break for day care
Time it takes: 35 minutes
Make this the fall that you finally sign up for a flexible spending account for healthcare and dependent-care expenses. Your boss takes pretax dollars from your paycheck; you tap the account for contact lenses, day care and the like.
Pay less for your cell
Time it takes: 1 minute
Know what your employer hates? Raises. What he likes? Perks that cost him nothing. At some firms, employees qualify for cell-phone discounts of up to 20%. To see if you get a Verizon discount, go to verizonwireless.com/getdiscount and plug in your e-mail address; for AT&T, go to wireless.att.com/home.
Cut drug costs
Time it takes: 16 minutes
Many employers use a pharmacy benefit manager (PBM) such as Medco or Caremark to administer prescription drug coverage. Call your PBM or go to its website (have your prescription drug coverage card handy) to check mailorder prices and sign up.
No more waiting rooms
Time it takes: 15 minutes
Can't get in and out of the doctor's office in 35 minutes? You can see a physician's assistant or a nurse practitioner in about 15 minutes, or so, says MinuteClinic, one of the largest of the chains of walk-in medical centers cropping up in pharmacies or stores such as Target or Wal-Mart. That's fine for basic ailments like earaches, strep throat and pinkeye. Your insurance may not be accepted, which could leave you footing the entire $59 ear-infection fee. But you can stop by at lunch and not miss hours, or even a day, of work.
Burn more calories
Time it takes: 30 minutes
Nibbling an extra 100 calories a day will pack on 10 pounds in a year. Doing moderate exercise for 30 minutes a day will prevent that gain - and save you money. Obese Americans spend 26% more out of pocket on health care than normal-weight workers, according to a study in Health Affairs. They also take nearly twice as many prescriptions and earn $1.42 less per hour.
Be like Buffett
Time it takes: 35 minutes
It takes seven seconds on a high-speed Internet connection to download Berkshire Hathaway's annual report (available at berkshirehathaway.com/reports.html). Reading Buffett's letter to shareholders might take a full 35 minutes. The wisdom therein could put your investing head on straight for 35 years.
Save for college
Time it takes: 35 minutes
A state 529 college savings plan is the best way to invest for your kid's higher education. With one check, you can buy a diversified portfolio that becomes more conservative as your child nears school. See Money Magazine's guide to 529s in every state (link below).
Stick with your local 529 if it's a Money pick. But if your homegrown options are fee-laden and offer no local tax breaks, go with the Utah Educational Savings Plan (800-418-2551; uesp.org). Click on the Forms tab and download the program description and "form 100." Figure on 15 minutes to read, 19 minutes to fill out the agreement, one minute to fax.
Automate your savings
Time it takes: 10 minutes
If a $10,000 minimum investment is keeping you out of mutual funds, you have a quick work-around. Lots of funds let you in for much less if you agree to have your investment automatically taken out of your bank account. With T. Rowe Price's automatic asset builder (troweprice.com), you can invest in T. Rowe Price Blue Chip Growth (TRBCX), T. Rowe Price New Era (PRNEX) and many other exemplary funds with just $50 a month.
Get credit, even in a crunch
Time it takes: 15 minutes
Apply for a home equity line of credit. Don't tap it now unless you must (average rates are 8.75%). But in an emergency - say, when you've lost your job - you may find it tougher to qualify. Start by calling your bank, but go to bankrate.com to compare its offer with those from other nearby lenders.
Read your mortgage
Time it takes: 30 minutes
Only now are many borrowers with risky loans finding that they misunderstood the terms. First pull out the one-page Truth in Lending Disclosure your lender gave you: The APR on it is the best estimate of what you are paying. Lower rates mentioned in other loan documents are likely come-on offers. If your rate is variable, scan the adjustable-rate disclosures section of your mortgage for the date it changes and the highest it can go. Examine every page for the words "prepayment penalty."
Stop overpaying on your mortgage
Time it takes: 9 minutes
If you carry private mortgage insurance but now have 20% equity in your home, see whether you can cancel. Your mortgage servicer (the phone number is listed on your bill) usually must oblige if your down payment and principal payments exceed 20% of your home's original value. Many will do so if rising prices have pushed your equity to 20%.
In this case, canceling will take longer: Most mortgage companies require an appraisal, which costs around $300. But at homegain.com, realestateabc.com or zillow.com you can get an idea of whether your home value has risen enough to justify a call.
Create an insurance record
Time it takes: 29 minutes for a 2,200 sq ft home
Walk around your house with a camera. Shoot closeups of your jewelry, artwork and other valuables. If disaster strikes, this proof of what you owned will speed your claim and help you get a better settlement. Keep copies of the video or photos in your safedeposit box or elsewhere outside your home.
Curb impulse buys
Time it takes: 10 minutes
By one estimate, two-thirds of all purchases are unplanned. To keep impulse shopping in check, ask the clerk to hold your wished for item, then take a 10-minute stroll. Next ask yourself whether you truly need this sweater/video game/golf club and how you'll pay for it.
Spend consciously
Time it takes: 35 minutes
At the grocery store, you're up against tempting displays and smells in every aisle. To avoid being ambushed, you need to follow a strict plan. Take 35 minutes to make a shopping list that follows the layout of the store (no straying) and calls for stocking up on sales items. To see the specials at stores nearby, enter your zip code atmygrocerydeals.com.
Slash recurring charges
Time it takes: 10 minutes
It seemed like a good idea - for just $16.99 a month, you could rent three DVDs at a time as often as you wanted. But how often is that really? Scan your credit-card statement for those automatic monthly charges you normally just pay. Ask yourself whether you're getting your money's worth. How often do you go to the $75-a month gym? How about that cheese-of-the-month club? Cancel what you're not using.
Boost your mileage
Time it takes: 7 minutes
About half of car owners don't test the air pressure on their car tires often enough, according to the Rubber Manufacturers Association. The recommendation: Do it once a month or before any long trip. The payoff: Properly inflated tires improve your fuel economy by 3.3%. You can buy a pencil tire gauge for less than $10. Check the pressure when your tires are cold. If they need air, head to a gas station within a mile of home.
Find it cheaper online
Time it takes: 30 minutes
Before you buy anything on the Web (or at a mall), spend a few minutes at a comparison shopping site. Shopping.com and Shopzilla.com both scour the Net for bargains at a large number of online stores, but their results can vary. Looking to buy a Garmin GPS for your car? Shopping.com found one from a top retailer for $357.95; Shopzilla's find was $212.54.
Demand a lower cable bill
Time it takes: 15 minutes
Okay, it's not as simple as that - but almost. Call and complain that your bill is too high; repeat your message calmly ("This just isn't worth it to me anymore"). Make sure to casually use the words "satellite dish" (as in "I wonder how that compares with a satellite dish") or maybe "phone company." This strategy translated into a $20 monthly discount (for a year) in our test.
Save on drinking water
Time it takes: 4 minutes
At $1.50 a pop for a gallon of bottled water at the supermarket, the desire for healthy hydration adds up. By purchasing a water filter, you can cut your family's water costs to 19¢ a gallon. Order a Brita Riviera pitcher at amazon.com for $27. Replacement filters good for two months are $9 each.
Six 35-second solutions:
Time it takes: 35 seconds
1. Say no to a new store credit card.
With rates typically above 20%, interest can wipe out that initial 10% discount. The new credit application will hurt your credit score, and you'll have yet another temptation to spend.
2. Check yes to reinvesting your dividends.
If you'd put $10,000 in an S&P 500 index fund in 1997 and reinvested dividends all along, you'd have $22,446 at the end of 2006. If you didn't, you'd end with just $19,147.
3. Say no to an extended warranty.
It'll cost you $30 to $200, and with electronics so reliable nowadays, you're unlikely to need it. Besides, if your computer breaks in two years, you'll want the new model, not a replacement.
4. Fill your tank with regular.
Premium gas is about 8% more expensive, and no matter what the manufacturer says, cars don't need pricier gas to run smoothly and resist wear.
5. Swipe your debit rather than credit card.
If your purchase will further fatten your balance on a high-rate credit card, you're better off paying with the money that's in your bank account. If asked, say "credit" rather than "debit" and your debit card will be processed over the credit-card network. You'll have more liability protection and less chance of paying a fee.
6. Delete any e-mail asking for account information or your social security number.
It may be a scam. No reputable financial services firm will ask.
Very long read, but lots of useful information.
Find out your credit score
Time it takes: 7 minutes
Know how lenders see you. Take seven minutes to download a free credit report at annualcreditreport.com. (For year-round monitoring, get a report from one of the three major credit bureaus every four months.) If you spot an error, notify the bureau (online, by phone or by mail) and the creditor (call and also send a letter). You won't find your credit score here, so when you request a report from Equifax, pay $7.95 for your FICO score, the most commonly used score. The range is 300 to 850 - 700 and above is good.
Raise your credit score
Time it takes: 8 minutes
It takes time to recover from major credit lapses, but you can do two things fast that will improve your credit score. Both will lower the size of your outstanding debt as a percentage of your total borrowing power.
1. Pay down a balance. 2. Call your issuer and ask for a higher credit limit. And don't spend it.
Triple the return on savings
Time it takes: 10 minutes
Do you have cash going nowhere in a checking or savings account? Bank money-market accounts typically pay less than 1%. You can open a savings account with HSBC Direct that recently paid 5.05%. No minimum balance is required.
With your driver's license and Social Security number handy, visit hsbcdirect.com and click on Sign Me Up. You'll be walked through screens to enter personal information. Want to fund your account immediately? Have a check with your bank account number and routing code handy to authorize an electronic transfer.
Stop junk mail
Time it takes: 5 minutes
Call 888-5OPTOUT to remove your name from credit issuers' mailing lists. The result of that five-minute talk with a computer? Fewer temptations and a mailbox filled with letters, not offers for pre-approved cards.
Most important, you'll cut the risk of an identity thief raiding your mailbox or garbage can and applying for credit in your name. Stolen paper mail accounts for 9% of identity fraud cases, according to Javelin Strategy & Research.
Note: Because we're talking credit bureaus, you'll have to provide your Social Security number. It's okay.
Freeze your credit
Time it takes: 25 minutes
Doing this prevents anyone from issuing credit in your name. (You, of course, can temporarily lift the freeze when you need a loan.) Nearly 30 states allow freezes even if you haven't been an ID theft victim. In some states you'll pay about $30 to place or remove-temporarily or permanently- the freeze. Go to consumersunion.org/securityfreeze.htm for instructions.
Haggle down your credit rate
Time it takes: 8 minutes
Dial your issuer and ask for a lower rate. If your credit score tops 720, do not be satisfied until your rate is less than 10%, says Curtis Arnold of CardRatings.com. Your biggest weapon: Make it clear that you'll stop using the card if the issuer refuses. Our reporter, helped by the fact that she's been a good customer for seven years, got the rate on her Discover card cut by four percentage points.
Upgrade to a better card
Time it takes: 30 minutes
Rewards, rates and fees change often. So search CardTrak.com to make sure you have the best deal. Among the lowest-rate cards on the site recently: Simmons First National Bank in Arkansas (800-636-5151) offers a fixed rate as low as 7.25% with no annual fee to consumers who have excellent credit.
Add to your 401(k)
Time it takes: 3 minutes
You signed up for your plan right after you found the office vending machines. Now do more: Raise your contribution by a point. Save 10% of a $50,000 salary in your 401(k) and you'll have $1.4 million in 35 years, assuming 8% returns and 4% annual raises. Ramp that up to 11% and you'll earn around $140,000 more.
Call your plan or visit your 401(k)'s website. At 401(k)s administered by Fidelity, for example, raising your contribution takes all of three minutes.
Manage like a pro
Time it takes: 4 minutes
If you have a diversified portfolio, a run-up in one asset class can throw your mix out of line, increasing risk and eroding returns. An unrebalanced $10,000 portfolio of 80% stocks and 20% bonds would have grown to $21,620 over the past 10 years.
If you'd rebalanced annually, you'd have $22,213, or $593 more - and taken less risk to get there. Retooling a 401(k) is easy: With a big plan administrator like Fidelity or Hewitt, rebalancing online takes minutes. In a taxable account, simply direct new money into the lagging fund categories.
Buy a forever portfolio
Time it takes: 25 minutes
Putting together a complete fund portfolio was once a time consuming chore. Nowadays target-date funds, which adjust the stock and bond allocation to smooth returns as you near a "target" retirement year, do it for you in minutes. Many 401(k)s offer them.
For direct investments, use the low-cost options from Vanguard (800-851-4999) or T. Rowe Price (800-638-5660). At vanguard.com, click on the tab labeled Research Funds and Stocks. Find the fund that corresponds to your planned retirement year, then download and look over the prospectus. Next click on the Buy This Fund link and follow the instructions. Have your checkbook ready to deposit funds electronically.
Find promising funds
Time it takes: 5 minutes
You can cut through the 8,000 or so mutual funds out there by sticking to the MONEY 70. Or run a screen for similar funds at morningstar.com (click on the Funds tab and go to the Mutual Fund Screener link). Pick a category, and then limit expenses to less than the category average. Next screen for funds whose managers have five years of tenure or more - greater experience is linked to better performance. Cut funds that failed to beat their five- or 10-year category averages.
Track your returns
Time it takes: 35 minutes
It's a pain to figure out how your investments are doing, especially if your money is scattered among several accounts. Spend 35 minutes setting up the portfolio tracker at portfolio.morningstar.com (you must first register at the site) so that you can start calculating your own rate of return. For a Web tool that can be clunky, Morningstar's tracker is particularly well designed and easy to use. You will, however, have to update it when you reinvest dividends or buy more shares.
Find out if you're paid enough
Time it takes: 15 minutes
Before you can make your case for a raise, you need something to measure yourself against. Salary.com offers Salary Wizard for free. Plug in your title and zip code and you'll get the median pay in your area for comparable positions. Or spend 10 minutes filling out a questionnaire with more variables, such as the size of your employer, and get 12 pages of data by buying a Personal Salary Report for $29.95 to $79.95 (the price varies by title).
Run a retirement plan
Time it takes: 5 minutes
On the road to riches, the key question is whether you're on track for financial independence. So pull out your retirement and investment account statements, plus projections for any pensions. Running that simple math can be surprisingly valuable: Researchers have found that people who plan for retirement have a higher net worth than those who do nothing.
Estimate your life insurance
Time it takes: 35 minutes
How much coverage is enough? For a fast ballpark estimate, multiply your annual income by five. With 35 minutes you can use the detailed calculator from the Life and Health Insurance Foundation for Education (life line.org). You'll be asked for your assets and debts, plus answers to tough questions like how long your family would need income after your death. If you find you need more coverage, get a quote on a term policy in five minutes at accuquote.com.
Learn your tax bracket
Time it takes: 20 minutes
Knowing what rate you pay on the last dollar you earn can help you to, among other things, pick a taxable vs. a municipal bond fund. Pull out your most recent 1040 and look for taxable income (line 43 in 2006). Adjust for any big changes in your income or the deductions you expect to take this year, then find where you fit in at irs.gov (search for "2007 federal tax rate schedule").
To choose between a muni and a taxable fund, divide the muni's yield by 100% minus your tax rate. If that number is higher than the taxable yield, go tax-free.
Escape late fees
Time it takes: 6 minutes
Why mess with checks and trips to the post office? Why risk a late payment when, according to Consumer Action, 85% of credit-card issuers impose penalty rates that average 24.5% if you're late on one or two bills? Pay bills online at your bank. First register at the site. Then gather your bills. Many bank sites have a pull-down menu of merchants; select yours and enter your account number. Or plug in the name, address and account number manually.
Write bounce-proof checks
Time it takes: 9 minutes
The median fee for bouncing a check recently hit $27.50, according to Bankrate.com. Call your bank or visit its website to sign up for overdraft protection. With that service, the bank will cover your check with money from a linked savings account. It may cost you $10, but that's less than half the charge for insufficient funds - not to mention what the payee demands.
Get bank alerts
Time it takes: 4 minutes.
Avoid bounced checks and spot ID theft early by having your bank notify you when your balance falls below a certain level or when there's unusual activity in your account. Citibank, for example, offers alerts via e-mail or text message. To activate them, log into your online account and select Account Info and then E-mail and Wireless Alerts. You can add up to two e-mail addresses and a mobile-phone number for alerts. Use the menu of options to designate what updates you want.
Pay less in auto insurance
Time it takes: 7 minutes
Simply raising your deductible can save you up to 30%. With an old car, drop your collision and comprehensive coverage when the car is worth less than 10 times what you pay for the insurance. Or shop for a lower premium at insweb.com, an easy-to-navigate comparison site. You'll be guided through five screens of information such as driving history, car make and model. A few minutes later the site will give you the lowest quote from its database (which doesn't include all the biggest insurers). Agents will also e-mail or call you with quotes from other insurers.
Double-check your taxes
Time it takes: 35 minutes
Next April remember this: Before you seal the envelope or tap the key that whisks your return to the IRS, spend 35 minutes looking for easy-to-spot errors. Overlook a dependent (the one at college may count) and you could owe an extra $1,000 in taxes. Transpose your Social Security number and your refund may never arrive. Did you sign your return?
Keep more of your paycheck
Time it takes: 30 minutes
A generous tax refund means you are overpaying the government. To have fewer dollars plucked from your paycheck, claim more exemptions on your W-4 form (to see if you can, use the withholding calculator at irs.gov). Print out a W-4 at the IRS site or from your company's intranet. With last year's tax return, a pay stub and a calculator handy, filling out the worksheet on page 2 takes about half an hour.
Get a tax break for day care
Time it takes: 35 minutes
Make this the fall that you finally sign up for a flexible spending account for healthcare and dependent-care expenses. Your boss takes pretax dollars from your paycheck; you tap the account for contact lenses, day care and the like.
Pay less for your cell
Time it takes: 1 minute
Know what your employer hates? Raises. What he likes? Perks that cost him nothing. At some firms, employees qualify for cell-phone discounts of up to 20%. To see if you get a Verizon discount, go to verizonwireless.com/getdiscount and plug in your e-mail address; for AT&T, go to wireless.att.com/home.
Cut drug costs
Time it takes: 16 minutes
Many employers use a pharmacy benefit manager (PBM) such as Medco or Caremark to administer prescription drug coverage. Call your PBM or go to its website (have your prescription drug coverage card handy) to check mailorder prices and sign up.
No more waiting rooms
Time it takes: 15 minutes
Can't get in and out of the doctor's office in 35 minutes? You can see a physician's assistant or a nurse practitioner in about 15 minutes, or so, says MinuteClinic, one of the largest of the chains of walk-in medical centers cropping up in pharmacies or stores such as Target or Wal-Mart. That's fine for basic ailments like earaches, strep throat and pinkeye. Your insurance may not be accepted, which could leave you footing the entire $59 ear-infection fee. But you can stop by at lunch and not miss hours, or even a day, of work.
Burn more calories
Time it takes: 30 minutes
Nibbling an extra 100 calories a day will pack on 10 pounds in a year. Doing moderate exercise for 30 minutes a day will prevent that gain - and save you money. Obese Americans spend 26% more out of pocket on health care than normal-weight workers, according to a study in Health Affairs. They also take nearly twice as many prescriptions and earn $1.42 less per hour.
Be like Buffett
Time it takes: 35 minutes
It takes seven seconds on a high-speed Internet connection to download Berkshire Hathaway's annual report (available at berkshirehathaway.com/reports.html). Reading Buffett's letter to shareholders might take a full 35 minutes. The wisdom therein could put your investing head on straight for 35 years.
Save for college
Time it takes: 35 minutes
A state 529 college savings plan is the best way to invest for your kid's higher education. With one check, you can buy a diversified portfolio that becomes more conservative as your child nears school. See Money Magazine's guide to 529s in every state (link below).
Stick with your local 529 if it's a Money pick. But if your homegrown options are fee-laden and offer no local tax breaks, go with the Utah Educational Savings Plan (800-418-2551; uesp.org). Click on the Forms tab and download the program description and "form 100." Figure on 15 minutes to read, 19 minutes to fill out the agreement, one minute to fax.
Automate your savings
Time it takes: 10 minutes
If a $10,000 minimum investment is keeping you out of mutual funds, you have a quick work-around. Lots of funds let you in for much less if you agree to have your investment automatically taken out of your bank account. With T. Rowe Price's automatic asset builder (troweprice.com), you can invest in T. Rowe Price Blue Chip Growth (TRBCX), T. Rowe Price New Era (PRNEX) and many other exemplary funds with just $50 a month.
Get credit, even in a crunch
Time it takes: 15 minutes
Apply for a home equity line of credit. Don't tap it now unless you must (average rates are 8.75%). But in an emergency - say, when you've lost your job - you may find it tougher to qualify. Start by calling your bank, but go to bankrate.com to compare its offer with those from other nearby lenders.
Read your mortgage
Time it takes: 30 minutes
Only now are many borrowers with risky loans finding that they misunderstood the terms. First pull out the one-page Truth in Lending Disclosure your lender gave you: The APR on it is the best estimate of what you are paying. Lower rates mentioned in other loan documents are likely come-on offers. If your rate is variable, scan the adjustable-rate disclosures section of your mortgage for the date it changes and the highest it can go. Examine every page for the words "prepayment penalty."
Stop overpaying on your mortgage
Time it takes: 9 minutes
If you carry private mortgage insurance but now have 20% equity in your home, see whether you can cancel. Your mortgage servicer (the phone number is listed on your bill) usually must oblige if your down payment and principal payments exceed 20% of your home's original value. Many will do so if rising prices have pushed your equity to 20%.
In this case, canceling will take longer: Most mortgage companies require an appraisal, which costs around $300. But at homegain.com, realestateabc.com or zillow.com you can get an idea of whether your home value has risen enough to justify a call.
Create an insurance record
Time it takes: 29 minutes for a 2,200 sq ft home
Walk around your house with a camera. Shoot closeups of your jewelry, artwork and other valuables. If disaster strikes, this proof of what you owned will speed your claim and help you get a better settlement. Keep copies of the video or photos in your safedeposit box or elsewhere outside your home.
Curb impulse buys
Time it takes: 10 minutes
By one estimate, two-thirds of all purchases are unplanned. To keep impulse shopping in check, ask the clerk to hold your wished for item, then take a 10-minute stroll. Next ask yourself whether you truly need this sweater/video game/golf club and how you'll pay for it.
Spend consciously
Time it takes: 35 minutes
At the grocery store, you're up against tempting displays and smells in every aisle. To avoid being ambushed, you need to follow a strict plan. Take 35 minutes to make a shopping list that follows the layout of the store (no straying) and calls for stocking up on sales items. To see the specials at stores nearby, enter your zip code atmygrocerydeals.com.
Slash recurring charges
Time it takes: 10 minutes
It seemed like a good idea - for just $16.99 a month, you could rent three DVDs at a time as often as you wanted. But how often is that really? Scan your credit-card statement for those automatic monthly charges you normally just pay. Ask yourself whether you're getting your money's worth. How often do you go to the $75-a month gym? How about that cheese-of-the-month club? Cancel what you're not using.
Boost your mileage
Time it takes: 7 minutes
About half of car owners don't test the air pressure on their car tires often enough, according to the Rubber Manufacturers Association. The recommendation: Do it once a month or before any long trip. The payoff: Properly inflated tires improve your fuel economy by 3.3%. You can buy a pencil tire gauge for less than $10. Check the pressure when your tires are cold. If they need air, head to a gas station within a mile of home.
Find it cheaper online
Time it takes: 30 minutes
Before you buy anything on the Web (or at a mall), spend a few minutes at a comparison shopping site. Shopping.com and Shopzilla.com both scour the Net for bargains at a large number of online stores, but their results can vary. Looking to buy a Garmin GPS for your car? Shopping.com found one from a top retailer for $357.95; Shopzilla's find was $212.54.
Demand a lower cable bill
Time it takes: 15 minutes
Okay, it's not as simple as that - but almost. Call and complain that your bill is too high; repeat your message calmly ("This just isn't worth it to me anymore"). Make sure to casually use the words "satellite dish" (as in "I wonder how that compares with a satellite dish") or maybe "phone company." This strategy translated into a $20 monthly discount (for a year) in our test.
Save on drinking water
Time it takes: 4 minutes
At $1.50 a pop for a gallon of bottled water at the supermarket, the desire for healthy hydration adds up. By purchasing a water filter, you can cut your family's water costs to 19¢ a gallon. Order a Brita Riviera pitcher at amazon.com for $27. Replacement filters good for two months are $9 each.
Six 35-second solutions:
Time it takes: 35 seconds
1. Say no to a new store credit card.
With rates typically above 20%, interest can wipe out that initial 10% discount. The new credit application will hurt your credit score, and you'll have yet another temptation to spend.
2. Check yes to reinvesting your dividends.
If you'd put $10,000 in an S&P 500 index fund in 1997 and reinvested dividends all along, you'd have $22,446 at the end of 2006. If you didn't, you'd end with just $19,147.
3. Say no to an extended warranty.
It'll cost you $30 to $200, and with electronics so reliable nowadays, you're unlikely to need it. Besides, if your computer breaks in two years, you'll want the new model, not a replacement.
4. Fill your tank with regular.
Premium gas is about 8% more expensive, and no matter what the manufacturer says, cars don't need pricier gas to run smoothly and resist wear.
5. Swipe your debit rather than credit card.
If your purchase will further fatten your balance on a high-rate credit card, you're better off paying with the money that's in your bank account. If asked, say "credit" rather than "debit" and your debit card will be processed over the credit-card network. You'll have more liability protection and less chance of paying a fee.
6. Delete any e-mail asking for account information or your social security number.
It may be a scam. No reputable financial services firm will ask.
Very long read, but lots of useful information.
Retire a Millionaire
provided by Kiplinger
Find out how much you need to save each month to reach $500,000, $1 million of $2 million by age 65.
The road to $1 million starts early, but if you're a late bloomer, help is at hand. The information below shows how much you need to save each month to accumulate $500,000, $1 million or $2 million by age 65, along with strategies for achieving that goal. At age 25, you're starting from scratch. At ages 35, 45 and 55, we assume you already have money in savings, on which you're earning 8% annually.
AGE 25
You've saved: $0
To reach $500,000, what you need to save per month: $143
To reach $1 million, what you need to save per month: $286
To reach $2 million, what you need to save per month: $573
Get help from Uncle Sam: You may qualify for a retirement-savings tax credit of 10% to 50% of the amount you contribute to an IRA, 401(k) or other retirement account. The credit can reduce your tax bill by up to $1,000. To qualify, your income must be $25,000 or less if you're single, $37,500 or less if you're a head of household or $50,000 or less if you're married.
AGE 35
You've saved: $0
To reach $500,000, what you need to save per month: $335
To reach $1 million, what you need to save per month: $671
To reach $2 million, what you need to save per month: $1,342
You've saved: $25,000
To reach $500,000, what you need to save per month: $152
To reach $1 million, what you need to save per month: $488
To reach $2 million, what you need to save per month: $1,159
Get help from your boss: If your employer offers a matching contribution, contribute at least enough to your 401(k) to capture the full match. Otherwise, you're walking away from free money. Try to save 15% of your gross income for retirement, including your employer match.
AGE 45
You've saved: $0
To reach $500,000, what you need to save per month: $849
To reach $1 million, what you need to save per month: $1,698
To reach $2 million, what you need to save per month: $3,395
You've saved: $25,000
To reach $500,000, what you need to save per month: $640
To reach $1 million, what you need to save per month: $1,489
To reach $2 million, what you need to save per month: $3,186
You've saved: $50,000
To reach $500,000, what you need to save per month: $431
To reach $1 million, what you need to save per month: $1,280
To reach $2 million, what you need to save per month: $2,977
You've saved: $100,000
To reach $500,000, what you need to save per month: $12
To reach $1 million, what you need to save per month: $861
To reach $2 million, what you need to save per month: $2,559
Play catch-up: Aim to contribute the maximum $15,500 to your 401(k) this year or $4,000 to your traditional or Roth IRA. Once you turn 50, you can contribute an additional $5,000 in catch-up contributions to your 401(k) and an extra $1,000 to your IRA.
AGE 55
You've saved: $0
To reach $500,000, what you need to save per month: $2,733
To reach $1 million, what you need to save per month: $5,466
To reach $1 million, what you need to save per month: $10,932
You've saved: $25,000
To reach $500,000, what you need to save per month: $2,430
To reach $1 million, what you need to save per month: $5,163
To reach $2 million, what you need to save per month: $10,629
You've saved: $50,000
To reach $500,000, what you need to save per month: $2,126
To reach $1 million, what you need to save per month: $4,859
To reach $2 million, what you need to save per month: $10,326
You've saved: $100,000
To reach $500,000, what you need to save per month: $1,520
To reach $1 million, what you need to save per month: $4,253
To reach $2 million, what you need to save per month: $9,719
You've saved: $200,000
To reach $500,000, what you need to save per month: $306
To reach $1 million, what you need to save per month: $3,040
To reach $2 million, what you need to save per month: $8,506
Stay on the job: Working a few years longer can boost your savings.
Source: Nuveen Investments
Copyrighted, Kiplinger Washington Editors, Inc.
Find out how much you need to save each month to reach $500,000, $1 million of $2 million by age 65.
The road to $1 million starts early, but if you're a late bloomer, help is at hand. The information below shows how much you need to save each month to accumulate $500,000, $1 million or $2 million by age 65, along with strategies for achieving that goal. At age 25, you're starting from scratch. At ages 35, 45 and 55, we assume you already have money in savings, on which you're earning 8% annually.
AGE 25
You've saved: $0
To reach $500,000, what you need to save per month: $143
To reach $1 million, what you need to save per month: $286
To reach $2 million, what you need to save per month: $573
Get help from Uncle Sam: You may qualify for a retirement-savings tax credit of 10% to 50% of the amount you contribute to an IRA, 401(k) or other retirement account. The credit can reduce your tax bill by up to $1,000. To qualify, your income must be $25,000 or less if you're single, $37,500 or less if you're a head of household or $50,000 or less if you're married.
AGE 35
You've saved: $0
To reach $500,000, what you need to save per month: $335
To reach $1 million, what you need to save per month: $671
To reach $2 million, what you need to save per month: $1,342
You've saved: $25,000
To reach $500,000, what you need to save per month: $152
To reach $1 million, what you need to save per month: $488
To reach $2 million, what you need to save per month: $1,159
Get help from your boss: If your employer offers a matching contribution, contribute at least enough to your 401(k) to capture the full match. Otherwise, you're walking away from free money. Try to save 15% of your gross income for retirement, including your employer match.
AGE 45
You've saved: $0
To reach $500,000, what you need to save per month: $849
To reach $1 million, what you need to save per month: $1,698
To reach $2 million, what you need to save per month: $3,395
You've saved: $25,000
To reach $500,000, what you need to save per month: $640
To reach $1 million, what you need to save per month: $1,489
To reach $2 million, what you need to save per month: $3,186
You've saved: $50,000
To reach $500,000, what you need to save per month: $431
To reach $1 million, what you need to save per month: $1,280
To reach $2 million, what you need to save per month: $2,977
You've saved: $100,000
To reach $500,000, what you need to save per month: $12
To reach $1 million, what you need to save per month: $861
To reach $2 million, what you need to save per month: $2,559
Play catch-up: Aim to contribute the maximum $15,500 to your 401(k) this year or $4,000 to your traditional or Roth IRA. Once you turn 50, you can contribute an additional $5,000 in catch-up contributions to your 401(k) and an extra $1,000 to your IRA.
AGE 55
You've saved: $0
To reach $500,000, what you need to save per month: $2,733
To reach $1 million, what you need to save per month: $5,466
To reach $1 million, what you need to save per month: $10,932
You've saved: $25,000
To reach $500,000, what you need to save per month: $2,430
To reach $1 million, what you need to save per month: $5,163
To reach $2 million, what you need to save per month: $10,629
You've saved: $50,000
To reach $500,000, what you need to save per month: $2,126
To reach $1 million, what you need to save per month: $4,859
To reach $2 million, what you need to save per month: $10,326
You've saved: $100,000
To reach $500,000, what you need to save per month: $1,520
To reach $1 million, what you need to save per month: $4,253
To reach $2 million, what you need to save per month: $9,719
You've saved: $200,000
To reach $500,000, what you need to save per month: $306
To reach $1 million, what you need to save per month: $3,040
To reach $2 million, what you need to save per month: $8,506
Stay on the job: Working a few years longer can boost your savings.
Source: Nuveen Investments
Copyrighted, Kiplinger Washington Editors, Inc.
The Other Liquid Gold
by Charles Wheelan, Ph.D
I've spent the last two weeks in the Middle East, mostly in Jordan and Israel. Among other challenges, these are both countries that have "problems with liquids," as one of my hosts explained. Neither country has any oil to speak of. And neither has enough water.
Indeed, one Jordanian businessman argued that the country is foolish to be exporting tomatoes and watermelons -- because the water they suck up and take with them out of the country is worth more than the fruit.
Down the Drain
After two weeks of talking about (and experiencing) scarce water, I've begun to wonder if the United States is paying nearly enough attention to water issues. Skyrocketing oil prices seem to have caught most of us off guard. Wouldn't it have been nice if we'd caught that one before prices soared to $100 a barrel? We have that chance with water.
There's plenty of evidence that the country already has water issues. Much of the Southeast was in drought all fall. In the Southwest, communities have been springing up and growing at a rate likely to outstrip the region's long-term water resources, at least if swimming pools and landscaped lawns in the desert remain the norm.
Even in the Great Lakes states the water issue has come up. I recently attended an academic presentation entitled "Is Water the Next Oil?" The speaker made two main points. First, water drawn from the Great Lakes is often not returned there, causing water levels to fall. Much runoff and sewage drain into other waterways, such as the Mississippi River, and ultimately run out sea.
Wake Up and Smell the Water
More provocatively, she asked what will happen when some parts of the country have enough water and others don't. When Nevada residents realize that there isn't enough water to support the recent housing boom, will U.S. taxpayers be asked to pipe new water to them? (Midwest voters won't like the expense of it, or having "their" Great Lakes piped out of town.) Think about that one for a while.
Perhaps the United States will never face major long-term water shortages. If that turns out to be the case, then great. We won't have to agonize over how much water we're sending out of the country every time we export a watermelon.
Or maybe we will. If you believe that there's a realistic chance that water is the next oil, then now is the time for the affected parties to wake up to that possibility:
Government: The most important role for government is to define the relevant property rights. Who "owns" the relevant water resources? Who gets to draw on them, and at what price?
The only thing worse than a scarce resource is a scarce resource with ambiguous property rights. Suppose Las Vegas does run short of water. Can Nevada demand a share of Lake Michigan?
There are secondary government policies that make sense in any case. Water ought to be priced sensibly, meaning: 1) Those who use more ought to pay more; and 2) Nobody ought to get subsidized rates -- not farmers, not water park owners, not anybody. If we don't price water as a scarce resource, then we'll pretty much ensure that no one will treat it as such.
I can't tell you how many times I've had conversations that go something like this:
Me: "You ought to pay the same price for water as everybody else."
Subsidized Water User: "What? Are you crazy? If I had to pay that much for water, I wouldn't be able to make any money growing rice here."
Me: "Perhaps it doesn't make much sense for you to be growing rice in the desert."
Subsidized Water User: "Do you know where I'm going to stick this irrigation pipe?"
And so on.
Business: What if the price of water doubled or tripled? That sounds unlikely, but so did oil at $90 or $100 a barrel. The underlying reality is that we're using more of a resource that exists in fixed supply. At a minimum, you should be asking how your business would change if you couldn't get unlimited cheap water. What opportunities would that create?
Environmentalists: Take 20 minutes off from the global warming campaign to think about water. There are many simple and inexpensive measures that can be taken at the local level to conserve water. For example, Chicago is considering permeable alleys, rather than asphalt, so that rain water will seep back into the water table instead of running into sewers that ultimately drain away from the city and Lake Michigan.
Investors: Do you want to own your own A380? Invent a cheaper way to desalinate and distribute sea water. That's what Israel and Jordan are trying to figure out right now. The rest of us could be there eventually.
Water on the Brain
Given the economic costs and political turmoil caused by the scarcity of oil over the past century, it would behoove us to take some time to think about the other precious liquid -- the one we really can't live without. Water -- it's clear liquid gold.
I've spent the last two weeks in the Middle East, mostly in Jordan and Israel. Among other challenges, these are both countries that have "problems with liquids," as one of my hosts explained. Neither country has any oil to speak of. And neither has enough water.
Indeed, one Jordanian businessman argued that the country is foolish to be exporting tomatoes and watermelons -- because the water they suck up and take with them out of the country is worth more than the fruit.
Down the Drain
After two weeks of talking about (and experiencing) scarce water, I've begun to wonder if the United States is paying nearly enough attention to water issues. Skyrocketing oil prices seem to have caught most of us off guard. Wouldn't it have been nice if we'd caught that one before prices soared to $100 a barrel? We have that chance with water.
There's plenty of evidence that the country already has water issues. Much of the Southeast was in drought all fall. In the Southwest, communities have been springing up and growing at a rate likely to outstrip the region's long-term water resources, at least if swimming pools and landscaped lawns in the desert remain the norm.
Even in the Great Lakes states the water issue has come up. I recently attended an academic presentation entitled "Is Water the Next Oil?" The speaker made two main points. First, water drawn from the Great Lakes is often not returned there, causing water levels to fall. Much runoff and sewage drain into other waterways, such as the Mississippi River, and ultimately run out sea.
Wake Up and Smell the Water
More provocatively, she asked what will happen when some parts of the country have enough water and others don't. When Nevada residents realize that there isn't enough water to support the recent housing boom, will U.S. taxpayers be asked to pipe new water to them? (Midwest voters won't like the expense of it, or having "their" Great Lakes piped out of town.) Think about that one for a while.
Perhaps the United States will never face major long-term water shortages. If that turns out to be the case, then great. We won't have to agonize over how much water we're sending out of the country every time we export a watermelon.
Or maybe we will. If you believe that there's a realistic chance that water is the next oil, then now is the time for the affected parties to wake up to that possibility:
Government: The most important role for government is to define the relevant property rights. Who "owns" the relevant water resources? Who gets to draw on them, and at what price?
The only thing worse than a scarce resource is a scarce resource with ambiguous property rights. Suppose Las Vegas does run short of water. Can Nevada demand a share of Lake Michigan?
There are secondary government policies that make sense in any case. Water ought to be priced sensibly, meaning: 1) Those who use more ought to pay more; and 2) Nobody ought to get subsidized rates -- not farmers, not water park owners, not anybody. If we don't price water as a scarce resource, then we'll pretty much ensure that no one will treat it as such.
I can't tell you how many times I've had conversations that go something like this:
Me: "You ought to pay the same price for water as everybody else."
Subsidized Water User: "What? Are you crazy? If I had to pay that much for water, I wouldn't be able to make any money growing rice here."
Me: "Perhaps it doesn't make much sense for you to be growing rice in the desert."
Subsidized Water User: "Do you know where I'm going to stick this irrigation pipe?"
And so on.
Business: What if the price of water doubled or tripled? That sounds unlikely, but so did oil at $90 or $100 a barrel. The underlying reality is that we're using more of a resource that exists in fixed supply. At a minimum, you should be asking how your business would change if you couldn't get unlimited cheap water. What opportunities would that create?
Environmentalists: Take 20 minutes off from the global warming campaign to think about water. There are many simple and inexpensive measures that can be taken at the local level to conserve water. For example, Chicago is considering permeable alleys, rather than asphalt, so that rain water will seep back into the water table instead of running into sewers that ultimately drain away from the city and Lake Michigan.
Investors: Do you want to own your own A380? Invent a cheaper way to desalinate and distribute sea water. That's what Israel and Jordan are trying to figure out right now. The rest of us could be there eventually.
Water on the Brain
Given the economic costs and political turmoil caused by the scarcity of oil over the past century, it would behoove us to take some time to think about the other precious liquid -- the one we really can't live without. Water -- it's clear liquid gold.
Financial Goals and How to Reach Them
By Sue Stevens, CFA, CFP, CPA
We are a materialistic society. For many people, "fun" revolves around spending money in one way or another. We're looking for immediate gratification, and we're willing to tap any available source--credit cards, home equity lines of credit, retirement plans, and so forth--to get it.
Unfortunately, this type of behavior can get us in trouble. Bills we can't pay. Credit-card debt that may take years to pay off. You don't have to be a financial genius to see that there has to be a better, smarter way.
Our school systems should teach kids about setting financial goals and calculating how much to save to reach those goals. This is a basic life skill, and everybody should know how to do it.
Sorting Your Goals by Time Horizon
Almost everybody has financial goals. They can be longer-term goals like sending your kids to college or having enough money to eventually retire. Or they can be shorter-term, such as buying a new car or taking a trip to Costa Rica. Whatever you're dreaming about, it probably comes with a price tag. Start by writing down everything you want that costs money.
The decisions you make about how to save and invest will be driven in part by how long you have to reach your goals. Take the goals you've identified above and sort them by time horizon.
Prioritizing Competing Goals
Some financial goals may be more important to you than others. For example, while you may need a new car in the near future, you may feel that your child's college fund is even more important. Most of you will have multiple, competing goals.
Crunching the Numbers
There are many helpful calculators available online that can help you figure out the total costs for different goals. Let's go through some examples together so you get the idea.
Goal: College for 6-year-old daughter
Time Horizon: 12 years
Price Tag: $12,000 a year for four years
Using a college savings calculator at Choose to Save, I entered the above information plus a 7% investment rate of return, a 6% inflation rate for tuition (it's higher than the general inflation rate), a federal tax rate of 28%, and a state tax rate of 3%.
The results show that I'd need to save about $440 a month to reach this goal. (Most of you can ignore the other two results: The rate of return is wildly optimistic, and most of you won't be able to put away a lump sum today.)
Goal: Trip to Costa Rica
Time Horizon: 1 year
Price Tag: $2,500
This time I used a savings calculator at Choose to Save. I entered that I need $2,500 in 12 months and that I plan to save $100 a month initially. My investment rate of return is 5%, and my tax information is the same as above.
The results show that I need to increase my monthly savings to about $200 a month.
Goal: Retire at 62
Time Horizon: 12 years
Price Tag: $1.7 million
Using Vanguard's retirement calculator, I entered these inputs:
Annual income: $100,000 Percent of income needed in retirement: 90% Social Security estimate: $23,500 Pension: $0 Savings balance: $360,000 Annual retirement savings: $20,000 Investment return: 8% Years until retirement: 12 Years in retirement: 25
Results show I'll need to increase what I'm currently saving to $2,800 a month. (If any of these monthly savings goals is just too much, start with a smaller amount and work toward this goal.)
Investing for Your Goals
Now that you've got a better idea of how much you need to save each month to meet your goals, let's think about how you should invest that money. The shorter the time horizon for the goal, the safer the investment should be.
For goals for which you expect to pay within the next year, money markets or CDs will probably be your best bet. You'll probably earn in the 4%-5% range on your savings.
For goals for which you expect to pay within the next one to three years, you still shouldn't invest much in the stock market. With a balanced fund you can expect to earn about 6%-8%.
For goals for which you expect to pay within the next three to 10 years, you'll probably still want a balanced portfolio. If you are at the long end of this range, you may want to tilt your portfolio toward growth--maybe 60%-65% stocks, 35%-40% cash and bonds.
For goals for which you expect to pay longer than 10 years from now, you can afford to invest more in stocks. But your risk tolerance will dictate just how much of your portfolio you'll feel comfortable investing in stocks. As you get closer to your goal, you'll need to adjust your investment mix so that less is at risk in the stock market.
Now that you know how much to save, treat that amount as another bill you pay each month. And remember, don't get so caught up in buying things that you don't enjoy the simple things that life has to offer, too.
We are a materialistic society. For many people, "fun" revolves around spending money in one way or another. We're looking for immediate gratification, and we're willing to tap any available source--credit cards, home equity lines of credit, retirement plans, and so forth--to get it.
Unfortunately, this type of behavior can get us in trouble. Bills we can't pay. Credit-card debt that may take years to pay off. You don't have to be a financial genius to see that there has to be a better, smarter way.
Our school systems should teach kids about setting financial goals and calculating how much to save to reach those goals. This is a basic life skill, and everybody should know how to do it.
Sorting Your Goals by Time Horizon
Almost everybody has financial goals. They can be longer-term goals like sending your kids to college or having enough money to eventually retire. Or they can be shorter-term, such as buying a new car or taking a trip to Costa Rica. Whatever you're dreaming about, it probably comes with a price tag. Start by writing down everything you want that costs money.
The decisions you make about how to save and invest will be driven in part by how long you have to reach your goals. Take the goals you've identified above and sort them by time horizon.
Prioritizing Competing Goals
Some financial goals may be more important to you than others. For example, while you may need a new car in the near future, you may feel that your child's college fund is even more important. Most of you will have multiple, competing goals.
Crunching the Numbers
There are many helpful calculators available online that can help you figure out the total costs for different goals. Let's go through some examples together so you get the idea.
Goal: College for 6-year-old daughter
Time Horizon: 12 years
Price Tag: $12,000 a year for four years
Using a college savings calculator at Choose to Save, I entered the above information plus a 7% investment rate of return, a 6% inflation rate for tuition (it's higher than the general inflation rate), a federal tax rate of 28%, and a state tax rate of 3%.
The results show that I'd need to save about $440 a month to reach this goal. (Most of you can ignore the other two results: The rate of return is wildly optimistic, and most of you won't be able to put away a lump sum today.)
Goal: Trip to Costa Rica
Time Horizon: 1 year
Price Tag: $2,500
This time I used a savings calculator at Choose to Save. I entered that I need $2,500 in 12 months and that I plan to save $100 a month initially. My investment rate of return is 5%, and my tax information is the same as above.
The results show that I need to increase my monthly savings to about $200 a month.
Goal: Retire at 62
Time Horizon: 12 years
Price Tag: $1.7 million
Using Vanguard's retirement calculator, I entered these inputs:
Annual income: $100,000 Percent of income needed in retirement: 90% Social Security estimate: $23,500 Pension: $0 Savings balance: $360,000 Annual retirement savings: $20,000 Investment return: 8% Years until retirement: 12 Years in retirement: 25
Results show I'll need to increase what I'm currently saving to $2,800 a month. (If any of these monthly savings goals is just too much, start with a smaller amount and work toward this goal.)
Investing for Your Goals
Now that you've got a better idea of how much you need to save each month to meet your goals, let's think about how you should invest that money. The shorter the time horizon for the goal, the safer the investment should be.
For goals for which you expect to pay within the next year, money markets or CDs will probably be your best bet. You'll probably earn in the 4%-5% range on your savings.
For goals for which you expect to pay within the next one to three years, you still shouldn't invest much in the stock market. With a balanced fund you can expect to earn about 6%-8%.
For goals for which you expect to pay within the next three to 10 years, you'll probably still want a balanced portfolio. If you are at the long end of this range, you may want to tilt your portfolio toward growth--maybe 60%-65% stocks, 35%-40% cash and bonds.
For goals for which you expect to pay longer than 10 years from now, you can afford to invest more in stocks. But your risk tolerance will dictate just how much of your portfolio you'll feel comfortable investing in stocks. As you get closer to your goal, you'll need to adjust your investment mix so that less is at risk in the stock market.
Now that you know how much to save, treat that amount as another bill you pay each month. And remember, don't get so caught up in buying things that you don't enjoy the simple things that life has to offer, too.
2007年12月19日 星期三
Those Underhanded Secret Deals
By Jerome Keating
The more they protest, the more time and verbiage they expend and the more they insist that they respect Taiwan's democracy, the more obvious it becomes. The US State Department, its officials and henchmen seem to have made another secret deal with China to limit and control the democracy and freedom of Taiwan.
American Institute in Taiwan (AIT) Chairman Raymond Burghardt recently finished up a special trip to Taiwan to talk to both presidential candidates; he also sought reassurances from President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) that he would honor his past pledges and do nothing drastic in his last months in office. Earlier, AIT Director Stephen Young visited Chen to also obtain similar assurances. During a round table with reporters on Dec. 6, US Assistant Secretary of State Thomas Christensen replayed the worn record of how much the US needed to make its position clear, very clear. We had heard the same lines from US Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte, NSC Senior Director for East Asian Affairs Dennis Wilder and Christensen in September.
Any rational person must wonder at the overkill, concern and effort to clarify ad nauseam that the US cares deeply about Taiwan's democracy -- except that it doesn't want Taiwan to practice it. The issue is Taiwan's UN referendum, a referendum that everyone agrees will have no binding power or consequence. So why all the effort? Shades of US secretary of state Henry Kissinger, the sellout king par excellence: Has the US made another secret deal with China and let China define the terms?
Credibility Ranking Zero: Will someone please throw these US officials more straws to grasp at. The lady doth protest too much. While they try to place the burden of sincerity and responsibility on Chen, the spotlight instead focuses on them.
These are the people who repeatedly insist that they have not changed their "one China" policy.
But they have. These are the people who justified war by insisting that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. But there weren't. These are the same people who insist that they have always done what is best for Taiwan. But they haven't.
Have you ever wondered why Taiwan is the only country that seems capable of upsetting the fictitious "status quo" in the Taiwan Strait? Have you ever wondered why Taiwan is the only country of the three (China, Taiwan and the US) that is bound to honor its pledges, that Taiwan is the only country that has had to spell out its pledges?
Can anyone clearly state what the US is obligated to do regarding Taiwan and the "status quo"? Can anyone clearly state what China is obligated to do regarding Taiwan and the "status quo"? The burden only falls on Taiwan and evidence shows that this burden comes from a secret deal that Taiwan was not privy to.
US policy on Taiwan and China is vacuous, vague and vapid. It has purposely been kept this way for more than half a century so that no one can clearly define the US' obligations. China, on the other hand, has always insisted that it has no obligations except the right to declare war when it feels offended and that it can move the goal posts that determine what offends it when it so pleases.
That so much effort has been expended over such minutia as Taiwan's UN referendum can only point to one thing: a secret deal with China in which the US contains Taiwan in the ways and minutiae that China wants Taiwan contained.
What exactly could or does the US gain from such a secret deal with China? Could it be a host of cheap products? Port privileges for its navy? Token help with North Korea? A promise of help with Iran after China finishes selling Iran what it needs to build nuclear weapons? What exactly is the US getting out of jumping through these hoops for China and why does it always let China define the terms and limits of the agreements?
This is the same US that does not hesitate to support Kosovo's independence in opposition to Russia. This is the same US that continues to force feed democracy on three disparate groups in Iraq. This is the same US that made secret deals with China prior to the Shanghai Communique.
Burghardt's message ended with the words that new leaders present a new opportunity to solve problems on important issues.
He did not want Chen to cause problems for his successor. It is no wonder that the US shows favoritism for wishy-washy KMT presidential candidate Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九), who is also China's favorite in the upcoming elections.
However, the US is also going to have a new leadership soon. Will its new president be bound by the secret deals of the past? Will he or she have a new opportunity to solve problems and deal with the important issues of the Taiwan Strait in a new way? Will we even see some new faces in the State Department?
Jerome Keating is a Taiwan-based writer.
The more they protest, the more time and verbiage they expend and the more they insist that they respect Taiwan's democracy, the more obvious it becomes. The US State Department, its officials and henchmen seem to have made another secret deal with China to limit and control the democracy and freedom of Taiwan.
American Institute in Taiwan (AIT) Chairman Raymond Burghardt recently finished up a special trip to Taiwan to talk to both presidential candidates; he also sought reassurances from President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) that he would honor his past pledges and do nothing drastic in his last months in office. Earlier, AIT Director Stephen Young visited Chen to also obtain similar assurances. During a round table with reporters on Dec. 6, US Assistant Secretary of State Thomas Christensen replayed the worn record of how much the US needed to make its position clear, very clear. We had heard the same lines from US Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte, NSC Senior Director for East Asian Affairs Dennis Wilder and Christensen in September.
Any rational person must wonder at the overkill, concern and effort to clarify ad nauseam that the US cares deeply about Taiwan's democracy -- except that it doesn't want Taiwan to practice it. The issue is Taiwan's UN referendum, a referendum that everyone agrees will have no binding power or consequence. So why all the effort? Shades of US secretary of state Henry Kissinger, the sellout king par excellence: Has the US made another secret deal with China and let China define the terms?
Credibility Ranking Zero: Will someone please throw these US officials more straws to grasp at. The lady doth protest too much. While they try to place the burden of sincerity and responsibility on Chen, the spotlight instead focuses on them.
These are the people who repeatedly insist that they have not changed their "one China" policy.
But they have. These are the people who justified war by insisting that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. But there weren't. These are the same people who insist that they have always done what is best for Taiwan. But they haven't.
Have you ever wondered why Taiwan is the only country that seems capable of upsetting the fictitious "status quo" in the Taiwan Strait? Have you ever wondered why Taiwan is the only country of the three (China, Taiwan and the US) that is bound to honor its pledges, that Taiwan is the only country that has had to spell out its pledges?
Can anyone clearly state what the US is obligated to do regarding Taiwan and the "status quo"? Can anyone clearly state what China is obligated to do regarding Taiwan and the "status quo"? The burden only falls on Taiwan and evidence shows that this burden comes from a secret deal that Taiwan was not privy to.
US policy on Taiwan and China is vacuous, vague and vapid. It has purposely been kept this way for more than half a century so that no one can clearly define the US' obligations. China, on the other hand, has always insisted that it has no obligations except the right to declare war when it feels offended and that it can move the goal posts that determine what offends it when it so pleases.
That so much effort has been expended over such minutia as Taiwan's UN referendum can only point to one thing: a secret deal with China in which the US contains Taiwan in the ways and minutiae that China wants Taiwan contained.
What exactly could or does the US gain from such a secret deal with China? Could it be a host of cheap products? Port privileges for its navy? Token help with North Korea? A promise of help with Iran after China finishes selling Iran what it needs to build nuclear weapons? What exactly is the US getting out of jumping through these hoops for China and why does it always let China define the terms and limits of the agreements?
This is the same US that does not hesitate to support Kosovo's independence in opposition to Russia. This is the same US that continues to force feed democracy on three disparate groups in Iraq. This is the same US that made secret deals with China prior to the Shanghai Communique.
Burghardt's message ended with the words that new leaders present a new opportunity to solve problems on important issues.
He did not want Chen to cause problems for his successor. It is no wonder that the US shows favoritism for wishy-washy KMT presidential candidate Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九), who is also China's favorite in the upcoming elections.
However, the US is also going to have a new leadership soon. Will its new president be bound by the secret deals of the past? Will he or she have a new opportunity to solve problems and deal with the important issues of the Taiwan Strait in a new way? Will we even see some new faces in the State Department?
Jerome Keating is a Taiwan-based writer.
The KMT Stereotypes Mainlanders
Former Presidential Office secretary-general Chen Shih-meng (陳師孟) launched an online campaign earlier this week titled "I am a Mainlander, and I am against Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石)." A Mainlander himself, he urges the country's Mainlanders to work to support Taiwan's democratization and reject manipulation by politicians.
Kudos to Chen, as it is about time some people came forward to point out the absurdity of allowing politicians to take Mainlanders for granted.
In Taiwan, the term benshengren is generally used to describe people who came to Taiwan from China hundreds of years ago and their descendants, whereas the term waishengren (Mainlander) is used to describe people who came from China with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) after the Chinese civil war, and their offspring.
For a long time however, under the guise of looking out for their physical and material well-being with laws such as the Statute Governing Reconstruction of Old Military Dependents' Villages (國軍老舊眷村改建條例), the KMT has seemingly taken Mainlanders for granted.
It is one thing for the party to treat Mainlanders as a voting bloc, but another to define their image by associating them with the KMT.
The notion was noticeably brazen in the recent fight over the changing of the inscription on the National Taiwan Democracy Memorial Hall's main arch.
Many pan-blue politicians objected to the renaming of the plaza to "Liberty Square" with the installment of the Chinese characters ziyou guangchang (自由廣場) on both sides of the arch. News clips repeatedly showed some emotional veterans, protesting the dismantling of the original inscription dazhong zhizheng (大中至正), weeping and lamenting as they attempted to crawl over the barricades set up by police.
It is understandable that these elderly veterans felt this way, as many of them came to Taiwan decades ago on the promise of dictator Chiang Kai-shek that one day he would lead them back to their homeland in China.
But certain pro-China news outlets are happy to promote the notion that Mainlanders are and should be against the removal of Chiang-related artifacts. It as if Mainlanders are inherently opposed to democracy and adore dictators.
Mainlanders should not be automatically viewed as pro-China just as a benshengren should not automatically assumed to be pro-independence.
There can be no political assumptions made about Mainlanders or benshengren.
The real question is whether one identifies with Taiwan or China.
It is unwise for political parties to manipulate ethnic issues whenever election time rolls around. It is even more unwise for political parties to "kidnap" a certain ethnic group at election time to serve their own political ends.
Taipei Times Editorial, December 20, 2007.
Kudos to Chen, as it is about time some people came forward to point out the absurdity of allowing politicians to take Mainlanders for granted.
In Taiwan, the term benshengren is generally used to describe people who came to Taiwan from China hundreds of years ago and their descendants, whereas the term waishengren (Mainlander) is used to describe people who came from China with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) after the Chinese civil war, and their offspring.
For a long time however, under the guise of looking out for their physical and material well-being with laws such as the Statute Governing Reconstruction of Old Military Dependents' Villages (國軍老舊眷村改建條例), the KMT has seemingly taken Mainlanders for granted.
It is one thing for the party to treat Mainlanders as a voting bloc, but another to define their image by associating them with the KMT.
The notion was noticeably brazen in the recent fight over the changing of the inscription on the National Taiwan Democracy Memorial Hall's main arch.
Many pan-blue politicians objected to the renaming of the plaza to "Liberty Square" with the installment of the Chinese characters ziyou guangchang (自由廣場) on both sides of the arch. News clips repeatedly showed some emotional veterans, protesting the dismantling of the original inscription dazhong zhizheng (大中至正), weeping and lamenting as they attempted to crawl over the barricades set up by police.
It is understandable that these elderly veterans felt this way, as many of them came to Taiwan decades ago on the promise of dictator Chiang Kai-shek that one day he would lead them back to their homeland in China.
But certain pro-China news outlets are happy to promote the notion that Mainlanders are and should be against the removal of Chiang-related artifacts. It as if Mainlanders are inherently opposed to democracy and adore dictators.
Mainlanders should not be automatically viewed as pro-China just as a benshengren should not automatically assumed to be pro-independence.
There can be no political assumptions made about Mainlanders or benshengren.
The real question is whether one identifies with Taiwan or China.
It is unwise for political parties to manipulate ethnic issues whenever election time rolls around. It is even more unwise for political parties to "kidnap" a certain ethnic group at election time to serve their own political ends.
Taipei Times Editorial, December 20, 2007.
2007年12月14日 星期五
China may sue over German Terracotta Warrior Scam
BEIJING (AFP) — Chinese cultural authorities are threatening legal action over fake "Terracotta Warriors" that appeared at a German museum in a scam that fooled thousands of people, state press reported.
"It is a serious act of fraud and has implications for intellectual property rights," said Chen Xianqi, a spokesman for the cultural heritage bureau in Shaanxi province, home of the original 2,200-year-old life-size clay soldiers.
"The museum of the 'Terracotta Army' in Xian has not sent any authentic objects for display in Germany recently, and currently no such relics are on display in Germany," he said, Xinhua news agency reported late on Thursday.
Hamburg's Museum of Ethnology admitted on Thursday that their eight clay statues on display that purportedly belonged to China's legendary "Terracotta Army" were only copies, and promptly closed the exhibition.
The museum said in a statement it had been defrauded by the co-organisers of the exhibition, the Centre of Chinese Art and Culture in Leipzig, which "had been contracted to furnish originals".
However Chen appeared to direct his anger at both parties responsible.
"The bureau knew nothing about the exhibition. The Hamburg Museum of Ethnology and the German Centre of Chinese Arts and Culture have organised the exhibition with no consultation with us," he said.
Xinhua, paraphrasing Chen, said Chinese cultural authorities were considering legal action, but gave no more specifics.
Chen and other officials at the Shaanxi Provincial Cultural Heritage Exchange Centre were not available to comment when contacted by AFP on Friday.
The Hamburg museum said about 10,000 people had seen the exhibition, entitled "Power in Death," since it opened on November 25.
"The museum would like to apologise to the public," it said, adding it was prepared to reimburse its customers.
In an interview with the German television station NDR, a spokesman for The Centre of Chinese Art and Culture said it had only ever intended to deliver "authentic copies" of the warriors.
The discovery of the original terracotta soldiers, buried along with China's first emperor, counts as one of the great archaeological sensations of the 20th century.
"It is a serious act of fraud and has implications for intellectual property rights,"
Uttered by a Chinese official... simply priceless...
"It is a serious act of fraud and has implications for intellectual property rights," said Chen Xianqi, a spokesman for the cultural heritage bureau in Shaanxi province, home of the original 2,200-year-old life-size clay soldiers.
"The museum of the 'Terracotta Army' in Xian has not sent any authentic objects for display in Germany recently, and currently no such relics are on display in Germany," he said, Xinhua news agency reported late on Thursday.
Hamburg's Museum of Ethnology admitted on Thursday that their eight clay statues on display that purportedly belonged to China's legendary "Terracotta Army" were only copies, and promptly closed the exhibition.
The museum said in a statement it had been defrauded by the co-organisers of the exhibition, the Centre of Chinese Art and Culture in Leipzig, which "had been contracted to furnish originals".
However Chen appeared to direct his anger at both parties responsible.
"The bureau knew nothing about the exhibition. The Hamburg Museum of Ethnology and the German Centre of Chinese Arts and Culture have organised the exhibition with no consultation with us," he said.
Xinhua, paraphrasing Chen, said Chinese cultural authorities were considering legal action, but gave no more specifics.
Chen and other officials at the Shaanxi Provincial Cultural Heritage Exchange Centre were not available to comment when contacted by AFP on Friday.
The Hamburg museum said about 10,000 people had seen the exhibition, entitled "Power in Death," since it opened on November 25.
"The museum would like to apologise to the public," it said, adding it was prepared to reimburse its customers.
In an interview with the German television station NDR, a spokesman for The Centre of Chinese Art and Culture said it had only ever intended to deliver "authentic copies" of the warriors.
The discovery of the original terracotta soldiers, buried along with China's first emperor, counts as one of the great archaeological sensations of the 20th century.
"It is a serious act of fraud and has implications for intellectual property rights,"
Uttered by a Chinese official... simply priceless...
2007年12月13日 星期四
Serendipity and the Power of Public-Private Partnership
By John Markoff
As a young NASA engineer during the 1980s, Milo Medin liked to irritate his managers by building scientific computer networks using freely available Internet software that outperformed more costly commercial systems.
He was a member of a rebel generation of engineers and scientists that created what would become the commercial Internet during a tumultuous decade. And this group did so by ignoring conventions and adopting a cooperative spirit that turned into the hallmark of the open source software movement.
Some 220 of the original Internet pioneers met in Arlington at the end of last month to celebrate the 20th anniversary of the NSFnet, the scientific data network that was originally constructed to tie together the US' five supercomputer centers and that would ultimately explode into today's Internet. By the time the academic network was shut down in 1996, it connected 6.6 million host computers and extended to 93 countries.
The story of the network and its impact on the world is a case study in the role of serendipity in technology design and in the power of a deftly managed public-private partnership.
Internet pioneers met in Arlington to celebrate the 20th anniversary of NSFnet, the scientific data network that led to today's Internet
"It has to be one of the most successful handoffs in history," said John Marburger III, the science adviser to the president, who spoke at the conference.
At the heart of the partnership's success was a technological gamble: the decision by the National Science Foundation to support a relatively unproven set of software protocols known as TCP/IP that had been developed at Stanford with Pentagon support in the 1980s. It was an idea that is obvious in retrospect, but it was radical at the time.
TCP/IP served as a vital lingua franca between previously incompatible computer networks.
"For the first time in the history of computing, all of the computing platforms spoke the same language," said Allan Weis, a veteran IBM researcher who played a crucial role in the commercialization effort.
Although discussions of industrial policy and the federal government's role in shaping innovation have been muted during the Bush administration, a number of scientists and corporate executives who were at the reunion said NSFnet remained a powerful example of how a handful of government bureaucrats in concert with an equally small number of scientists made a set of carefully considered federal policy decisions, in this case leading directly to the modern Internet.
The researchers who built the original network believe that the NSFnet experience can be translated to advance the country's science and technology policies more broadly. "There are so many important areas where this country could lead," Weis said. "If we learned one thing with the NSFnet experience, I think it was that the government has the ability to help advance science and technology in this country by holding out a carrot and using the stick as a pointer."
The lesson learned, he said, is that it is crucial for government and industry to share financial risks. That would make it possible to move forward in areas as diverse as materials technology, biology and energy efficiency.
The specific form would be to create new "grand challenges" in technology, Weis said.
Though it is almost impossible now to imagine living in a world without the Web, the transition from the academic and scientific NSFnet to the commercial Internet did not come without conflict. There were bitter arguments among the participants over whether commercialization should take place at all.
And when the National Science Foundation contracted with a partnership of IBM, the MCI Corp and the Merit Network -- a group of Michigan universities and a state agency -- to manage the network's backbone, the resulting Non-Profit Advanced Network Services created bitter resentment among early commercial Internet service providers.
"The idea of network as a service was a new thing and it was difficult to convince everybody (a) that it was a good idea and (b) that it was legal," said Steve Wolff, director of network research at the National Science Foundation from 1986 to 1995. A wide range of conference participants said the NSFnet ultimately succeeded because of both the hacker culture of engineers that built the system and the very nature of the network they were creating; it fostered intellectual collaboration in a way not previously possible.
"The model of a network where no one is in charge is a model that can scale," said Douglas Van Houweling, the chairman of the Merit Network when the NSFnet backbone was constructed.
Giving the network time to develop was vital, he said, because the Internet "was an alien concept to the communication industry when it began growing."
While there was no risk for MCI, which was then an upstart trying to gain ground on AT&T, that was not true of IBM. While the company played a crucial role in the development of the Internet, it did so despite the fact that the new network was a direct competitive threat to its multibillion-dollar communications networking business, based on a competing standard known as Systems Network Architecture.
"Although we had the blessing of senior management at IBM, they had no idea how disruptive this would be," said John Armstrong, IBM's director of research at the time the NSFnet was built. "IBM was a large and complex organization, and the decision was made by part of IBM."
In the 2000 election, Al Gore, then the vice president, was derided by opponents who claimed that he had said he "created" the Internet. But many of the scientists, engineers and technology executives who gathered to celebrate the Web's birth say he played a crucial role in its development and expressed bitterness that his vision had been so discredited.
Gore had been instrumental in introducing legislation, beginning in 1988, to finance what he originally called a "national data highway."
"Our corporations are not taking advantage of high-performance computing to enhance their productivity," Gore, then a senator, said in an interview at the time. "With greater access to supercomputers, virtually every business in America could achieve tremendous gains."
Ultimately, in 1991, his bill to create a National Research and Education Network did pass. Funded by the National Science Foundation, it was instrumental in upgrading the speed of the academic and scientific network backbone leading up to the commercialized Internet.
"He is a hero in this field," said Lawrence Landweber, a computer scientist at the University of Wisconsin who in 1980 made the pioneering decision to use the basic TCP/IP Internet protocol for CSNET, an academic network that preceded NSFnet and laid the foundation for "internetworking."
For engineers and scientists like Medin, who went on to be a co-founder of (AT)Home Networks and is now trying to build a national wireless data network, the NSFnet experience provides a lesson about interplay between technology and government policy.
"In that era the government said, `Let's experiment and move everyone forward,"' he said. "If you had waited for a market, it would never have funded an NSFnet."
NY TIMES NEWS SERVICE, VIRGINIA
As a young NASA engineer during the 1980s, Milo Medin liked to irritate his managers by building scientific computer networks using freely available Internet software that outperformed more costly commercial systems.
He was a member of a rebel generation of engineers and scientists that created what would become the commercial Internet during a tumultuous decade. And this group did so by ignoring conventions and adopting a cooperative spirit that turned into the hallmark of the open source software movement.
Some 220 of the original Internet pioneers met in Arlington at the end of last month to celebrate the 20th anniversary of the NSFnet, the scientific data network that was originally constructed to tie together the US' five supercomputer centers and that would ultimately explode into today's Internet. By the time the academic network was shut down in 1996, it connected 6.6 million host computers and extended to 93 countries.
The story of the network and its impact on the world is a case study in the role of serendipity in technology design and in the power of a deftly managed public-private partnership.
Internet pioneers met in Arlington to celebrate the 20th anniversary of NSFnet, the scientific data network that led to today's Internet
"It has to be one of the most successful handoffs in history," said John Marburger III, the science adviser to the president, who spoke at the conference.
At the heart of the partnership's success was a technological gamble: the decision by the National Science Foundation to support a relatively unproven set of software protocols known as TCP/IP that had been developed at Stanford with Pentagon support in the 1980s. It was an idea that is obvious in retrospect, but it was radical at the time.
TCP/IP served as a vital lingua franca between previously incompatible computer networks.
"For the first time in the history of computing, all of the computing platforms spoke the same language," said Allan Weis, a veteran IBM researcher who played a crucial role in the commercialization effort.
Although discussions of industrial policy and the federal government's role in shaping innovation have been muted during the Bush administration, a number of scientists and corporate executives who were at the reunion said NSFnet remained a powerful example of how a handful of government bureaucrats in concert with an equally small number of scientists made a set of carefully considered federal policy decisions, in this case leading directly to the modern Internet.
The researchers who built the original network believe that the NSFnet experience can be translated to advance the country's science and technology policies more broadly. "There are so many important areas where this country could lead," Weis said. "If we learned one thing with the NSFnet experience, I think it was that the government has the ability to help advance science and technology in this country by holding out a carrot and using the stick as a pointer."
The lesson learned, he said, is that it is crucial for government and industry to share financial risks. That would make it possible to move forward in areas as diverse as materials technology, biology and energy efficiency.
The specific form would be to create new "grand challenges" in technology, Weis said.
Though it is almost impossible now to imagine living in a world without the Web, the transition from the academic and scientific NSFnet to the commercial Internet did not come without conflict. There were bitter arguments among the participants over whether commercialization should take place at all.
And when the National Science Foundation contracted with a partnership of IBM, the MCI Corp and the Merit Network -- a group of Michigan universities and a state agency -- to manage the network's backbone, the resulting Non-Profit Advanced Network Services created bitter resentment among early commercial Internet service providers.
"The idea of network as a service was a new thing and it was difficult to convince everybody (a) that it was a good idea and (b) that it was legal," said Steve Wolff, director of network research at the National Science Foundation from 1986 to 1995. A wide range of conference participants said the NSFnet ultimately succeeded because of both the hacker culture of engineers that built the system and the very nature of the network they were creating; it fostered intellectual collaboration in a way not previously possible.
"The model of a network where no one is in charge is a model that can scale," said Douglas Van Houweling, the chairman of the Merit Network when the NSFnet backbone was constructed.
Giving the network time to develop was vital, he said, because the Internet "was an alien concept to the communication industry when it began growing."
While there was no risk for MCI, which was then an upstart trying to gain ground on AT&T, that was not true of IBM. While the company played a crucial role in the development of the Internet, it did so despite the fact that the new network was a direct competitive threat to its multibillion-dollar communications networking business, based on a competing standard known as Systems Network Architecture.
"Although we had the blessing of senior management at IBM, they had no idea how disruptive this would be," said John Armstrong, IBM's director of research at the time the NSFnet was built. "IBM was a large and complex organization, and the decision was made by part of IBM."
In the 2000 election, Al Gore, then the vice president, was derided by opponents who claimed that he had said he "created" the Internet. But many of the scientists, engineers and technology executives who gathered to celebrate the Web's birth say he played a crucial role in its development and expressed bitterness that his vision had been so discredited.
Gore had been instrumental in introducing legislation, beginning in 1988, to finance what he originally called a "national data highway."
"Our corporations are not taking advantage of high-performance computing to enhance their productivity," Gore, then a senator, said in an interview at the time. "With greater access to supercomputers, virtually every business in America could achieve tremendous gains."
Ultimately, in 1991, his bill to create a National Research and Education Network did pass. Funded by the National Science Foundation, it was instrumental in upgrading the speed of the academic and scientific network backbone leading up to the commercialized Internet.
"He is a hero in this field," said Lawrence Landweber, a computer scientist at the University of Wisconsin who in 1980 made the pioneering decision to use the basic TCP/IP Internet protocol for CSNET, an academic network that preceded NSFnet and laid the foundation for "internetworking."
For engineers and scientists like Medin, who went on to be a co-founder of (AT)Home Networks and is now trying to build a national wireless data network, the NSFnet experience provides a lesson about interplay between technology and government policy.
"In that era the government said, `Let's experiment and move everyone forward,"' he said. "If you had waited for a market, it would never have funded an NSFnet."
NY TIMES NEWS SERVICE, VIRGINIA
Changing Course on "One China"
By Tom Tancredo
By now, everyone has heard about the Chinese government's refusal to allow the USS Kitty Hawk battle group and its crew of 8,000 to make a port call in Hong Kong for Thanksgiving -- as well as China's supposed reversal of the decision on "humanitarian" grounds after the flotilla had already steamed out to sea. We now know the Chinese reversed their decision when they tracked the USS Kitty Hawk's battle group sailing back to Japan through the Taiwan Strait. So much for China's "humanitarian" concerns.
Beijing's foreign minister initially told US President George W. Bush the incident was a "misunderstanding," but his own ministry insisted the following day that there was no such "misunderstanding."
Instead, the Chinese said the decision was in retaliation for the Bush administration's decision to approve a US$1 billion upgrade to Taiwan's missile defense system and Congress' presenting the Dalai Lama with the Congressional Gold Medal.
This provocative move by Beijing should come as a surprise to no one. After all, the US relationship with China has long been one of "give and take" -- the US gives, and China takes. Each time the US makes an accommodation, Beijing sees only weakness and becomes more aggressive -- which in turn prompts the US State Department to offer yet more concessions.
Since late 2003, the Bush administration has bent over backwards to appease China; President Bush publicly denounced President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) a few years ago on national television while standing shoulder to shoulder with Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao (溫家寶).
State Department officials have also refused to allow Chen to transit through continental US en route to Latin America. In August, Bush dispatched US Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte to parrot the language of China's "Anti-Secession" Law and criticize an upcoming referendum in Taiwan -- on a Chinese television station.
And most recently, the Bush administration inexplicably refused to act on Taiwan's request for F-16s -- despite the fact that the White House has spent the last five years criticizing the Taiwanese government for failing to make sufficient investment in defense.
And for all of this pandering, what has the Bush administration gained?
Half-hearted Chinese cooperation in the "Six Party Talks," Chinese obstruction in the human tragedy unfolding in Sudan, renewed Chinese threats of military action against Taiwan, and now the brazen and public humiliation of the US in barring the USS Kitty Hawk from Hong Kong's harbor.
And China, certainly no help in encouraging transparency in Tehran's nuclear ambitions, is now using the latest National Intelligence Estimate on Iran as a rationale for pressuring the US, the Europeans and the International Atomic Energy Agency to ease off on demands for access to what is still a very troubling ongoing uranium enrichment program.
Since 1979, when the US recognized China, the US has repeatedly attempted to use Taiwan as a bargaining chip in an effort to establish some kind of quid pro quo with the Chinese.
Aside from the moral shortcomings inherent in this duplicitous policy -- the approach simply hasn't worked -- numerous US "quids" over the years have never produced any meaningful Chinese "quo."
Late last month, for example, a Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman responded to a question about whether Beijing would support additional UN measures to curb Iranian nuclear enrichment efforts if the US scaled back arms sales to Taiwan. The spokesman responded by saying that China would "never trade its sovereignty or principle" on the matter.
The US relationship with Taiwan isn't the only thing that has suffered as a result of our hopeless policy of appeasement vis-a-vis China.
It highlights a glaring hypocrisy in US foreign policy, undermines our international image, emboldens our enemies and enhances the credibility of our detractors like China.
The Bush administration's practice of trying to limit Taiwan's democratic development and diplomatic space in return for China's illusory "cooperation" on North Korea, Myanmar, Iran or Sudan sends the message that the US is ceding Asia to China's hegemony.
A poll conducted earlier this month found that a plurality of Europeans now believe that China will replace the US as the dominant world power by 2020. Unless the US becomes more forceful in standing up for its principles and asserting its interests, this alarming perception could very likely become a reality.
If the US wants to reverse this dangerous trend it must start by changing its antiquated China policy.
The "one China" road the US started down in the 1970s has failed to resolve the "Taiwan Problem" or yield any tangible benefits for the US.
It is time the US rejected this anachronistic and ineffective policy in favor of a more honest and defensible "two-state solution" that extends full diplomatic recognition to both Taiwan and China.
Such a move would have a number of advantages -- beyond just providing US sailors with a friendly Taiwanese port in which to spend Thanksgiving with their families next year.
Establishing normal diplomatic ties with democratic Taiwan would also remedy a nagging inconsistency in US foreign policy. And -- as dual recognition did with East and West Germany -- might also open the door for an even-handed dialogue between the two sides, providing a real opportunity for Beijing and Taipei to resolve their differences peacefully -- whatever that resolution might be.
Tom Tancredo represents Colorado's 6th Congressional District in the US House of Representatives and is a member of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.
By now, everyone has heard about the Chinese government's refusal to allow the USS Kitty Hawk battle group and its crew of 8,000 to make a port call in Hong Kong for Thanksgiving -- as well as China's supposed reversal of the decision on "humanitarian" grounds after the flotilla had already steamed out to sea. We now know the Chinese reversed their decision when they tracked the USS Kitty Hawk's battle group sailing back to Japan through the Taiwan Strait. So much for China's "humanitarian" concerns.
Beijing's foreign minister initially told US President George W. Bush the incident was a "misunderstanding," but his own ministry insisted the following day that there was no such "misunderstanding."
Instead, the Chinese said the decision was in retaliation for the Bush administration's decision to approve a US$1 billion upgrade to Taiwan's missile defense system and Congress' presenting the Dalai Lama with the Congressional Gold Medal.
This provocative move by Beijing should come as a surprise to no one. After all, the US relationship with China has long been one of "give and take" -- the US gives, and China takes. Each time the US makes an accommodation, Beijing sees only weakness and becomes more aggressive -- which in turn prompts the US State Department to offer yet more concessions.
Since late 2003, the Bush administration has bent over backwards to appease China; President Bush publicly denounced President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) a few years ago on national television while standing shoulder to shoulder with Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao (溫家寶).
State Department officials have also refused to allow Chen to transit through continental US en route to Latin America. In August, Bush dispatched US Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte to parrot the language of China's "Anti-Secession" Law and criticize an upcoming referendum in Taiwan -- on a Chinese television station.
And most recently, the Bush administration inexplicably refused to act on Taiwan's request for F-16s -- despite the fact that the White House has spent the last five years criticizing the Taiwanese government for failing to make sufficient investment in defense.
And for all of this pandering, what has the Bush administration gained?
Half-hearted Chinese cooperation in the "Six Party Talks," Chinese obstruction in the human tragedy unfolding in Sudan, renewed Chinese threats of military action against Taiwan, and now the brazen and public humiliation of the US in barring the USS Kitty Hawk from Hong Kong's harbor.
And China, certainly no help in encouraging transparency in Tehran's nuclear ambitions, is now using the latest National Intelligence Estimate on Iran as a rationale for pressuring the US, the Europeans and the International Atomic Energy Agency to ease off on demands for access to what is still a very troubling ongoing uranium enrichment program.
Since 1979, when the US recognized China, the US has repeatedly attempted to use Taiwan as a bargaining chip in an effort to establish some kind of quid pro quo with the Chinese.
Aside from the moral shortcomings inherent in this duplicitous policy -- the approach simply hasn't worked -- numerous US "quids" over the years have never produced any meaningful Chinese "quo."
Late last month, for example, a Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman responded to a question about whether Beijing would support additional UN measures to curb Iranian nuclear enrichment efforts if the US scaled back arms sales to Taiwan. The spokesman responded by saying that China would "never trade its sovereignty or principle" on the matter.
The US relationship with Taiwan isn't the only thing that has suffered as a result of our hopeless policy of appeasement vis-a-vis China.
It highlights a glaring hypocrisy in US foreign policy, undermines our international image, emboldens our enemies and enhances the credibility of our detractors like China.
The Bush administration's practice of trying to limit Taiwan's democratic development and diplomatic space in return for China's illusory "cooperation" on North Korea, Myanmar, Iran or Sudan sends the message that the US is ceding Asia to China's hegemony.
A poll conducted earlier this month found that a plurality of Europeans now believe that China will replace the US as the dominant world power by 2020. Unless the US becomes more forceful in standing up for its principles and asserting its interests, this alarming perception could very likely become a reality.
If the US wants to reverse this dangerous trend it must start by changing its antiquated China policy.
The "one China" road the US started down in the 1970s has failed to resolve the "Taiwan Problem" or yield any tangible benefits for the US.
It is time the US rejected this anachronistic and ineffective policy in favor of a more honest and defensible "two-state solution" that extends full diplomatic recognition to both Taiwan and China.
Such a move would have a number of advantages -- beyond just providing US sailors with a friendly Taiwanese port in which to spend Thanksgiving with their families next year.
Establishing normal diplomatic ties with democratic Taiwan would also remedy a nagging inconsistency in US foreign policy. And -- as dual recognition did with East and West Germany -- might also open the door for an even-handed dialogue between the two sides, providing a real opportunity for Beijing and Taipei to resolve their differences peacefully -- whatever that resolution might be.
Tom Tancredo represents Colorado's 6th Congressional District in the US House of Representatives and is a member of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.
2007年12月6日 星期四
Africa's Energy Oasis
A solar power plan backed by a Jordanian prince could provide the EU with one-sixth of its electricity needs and cut carbon emissions.
Europe is considering plans to spend more than £5 billion* (US$10.1 billion) on a string of giant solar power stations along the Mediterranean desert shores of northern Africa and the Middle East.
More than 100 of the generators, each fitted with thousands of huge mirrors, would generate electricity to be transmitted by undersea cable to Europe and then distributed across the continent to EU member nations.
Billions of watts of power could be generated this way, enough to provide Europe with one-sixth of its electricity needs and to allow it to make significant cuts in its carbon emissions.
At the same time, the stations would be used as desalination plants to provide desert countries with desperately needed supplies of fresh water.
Last week Prince Hassan bin Talal of Jordan presented details of the scheme -- named Desertec -- to the European Parliament.
"Countries with deserts, countries with high energy demand and countries with technology competence must cooperate," he told the parliament.
The project has been developed by the Trans-Mediterranean Renewable Energy Corporation and is supported by engineers and politicians in Europe as well as Morocco, Algeria, Libya, Jordan and other nations in the Middle East and Africa.
Europe would provide initial funds for developing the solar technology that will be needed to run plants as well as money for constructing prototype stations. After that, banks and financial institutions, as well as national governments, would take over the construction program, which could cost more than GBP$200 billion* over the next 30 years.
"We don't make enough use of deserts," said physicist Gerhard Knies, co-founder of the scheme. "The sun beats down on them mercilessly during the day and heats the ground to tremendous temperatures. Then at night that heat is radiated back into the atmosphere. In other words, it is completely wasted. We need to stop that waste and exploit the vast amounts of energy that the sun beams down to us."
Scientists estimate that sunlight could provide 10,000 times the amount of energy needed to fulfil humanity's current energy needs. Transforming that solar radiation into a form to be exploited by humanity is difficult, however.
One solution proposed by the scheme's engineers is to use large areas of land on which to construct their solar plants. In Europe, land is costly. But in nations such as Morocco, Algeria and Libya it is cheap, mainly because they are scorched by the sun. The project aims to exploit that cheap land using a technique known as "concentrating solar power."
A plant consists of banks of several hundred giant mirrors that cover a large area of land of around a square kilometer. Each mirror's position can be carefully controlled to focus the sun's rays onto a central metal pillar that is filled with water. Prototype stations using this technique have already been tested in Spain and Algeria.
Once the sun's rays are focused on the pillar, temperatures inside start to soar to 800 Celcius. The water inside the pillar is vaporized into superhot steam which is channeled off and used to drive turbines, which in turn generate electricity.
"It is proven technology," Knies said. "We have shown it works in our test plants."
Only small stations have been tested, but soon plants capable of generating 100 megawatts of power could be built, enough to provide the needs of a town. The Desertec project envisages a ring of a thousand of these stations being built along the coast of northern Africa and round into the Mediterranean coast of the Middle East. In this way, up to 100 billion watts of power could be generated: Two-thirds of it would be kept for local needs, while the rest -- around 30 billion watts -- would be exported to Europe.
An idea of how much power this represents is revealed through Britain's electricity generating capacity, which totals 12 billion watts.
But there is an added twist to the system. The superheated steam, after it has driven the plant's turbines, would then be piped through tanks of sea water which would boil and evaporate. Steam from the sea water would piped away and condensed and stored as fresh water.
"Essentially you get electricity and fresh water," Knies said. "The latter is going to be crucial for developing countries round the southern Mediterranean and in north Africa. Their populations are rising rapidly, but they have limited supplies of fresh water. Our solar power plants will not only generate electricity that they can sell to Europe, they will supply drinkable water that will sustain their thirsty populations."
There are drawbacks, however. At present electricity generated this way would cost around 15 eurocents to 20 eurocents (US$0.22 to US$0.29) a kilowatt-hour -- almost twice the cost of power generated by coal. At such prices, few nations would be tempted to switch to solar.
"Unless it is extremely cheap, it won't stop people using easy-to-get fossil fuels," John Gibbins, an energy engineer at Imperial College London, told Nature magazine last week.
However, Desertec's backers say improvements over the next decade should bring the cost of power from its plants to less than 10 eurocents a kilowatt-hour, making it competitive with traditionally generated power.
Other critics say that the plants would be built in several unstable states that could cut their supplies to Europe. Again, Knies dismissed the danger.
"It's not like oil. Solar power is gone once it hits your mirrors. It would simply be lost income," he said.
The European Parliament has asked Desertec to propose short-term demonstration projects.
By Robin McKie , THE OBSERVER, LONDON.
Europe is considering plans to spend more than £5 billion* (US$10.1 billion) on a string of giant solar power stations along the Mediterranean desert shores of northern Africa and the Middle East.
More than 100 of the generators, each fitted with thousands of huge mirrors, would generate electricity to be transmitted by undersea cable to Europe and then distributed across the continent to EU member nations.
Billions of watts of power could be generated this way, enough to provide Europe with one-sixth of its electricity needs and to allow it to make significant cuts in its carbon emissions.
At the same time, the stations would be used as desalination plants to provide desert countries with desperately needed supplies of fresh water.
Last week Prince Hassan bin Talal of Jordan presented details of the scheme -- named Desertec -- to the European Parliament.
"Countries with deserts, countries with high energy demand and countries with technology competence must cooperate," he told the parliament.
The project has been developed by the Trans-Mediterranean Renewable Energy Corporation and is supported by engineers and politicians in Europe as well as Morocco, Algeria, Libya, Jordan and other nations in the Middle East and Africa.
Europe would provide initial funds for developing the solar technology that will be needed to run plants as well as money for constructing prototype stations. After that, banks and financial institutions, as well as national governments, would take over the construction program, which could cost more than GBP$200 billion* over the next 30 years.
"We don't make enough use of deserts," said physicist Gerhard Knies, co-founder of the scheme. "The sun beats down on them mercilessly during the day and heats the ground to tremendous temperatures. Then at night that heat is radiated back into the atmosphere. In other words, it is completely wasted. We need to stop that waste and exploit the vast amounts of energy that the sun beams down to us."
Scientists estimate that sunlight could provide 10,000 times the amount of energy needed to fulfil humanity's current energy needs. Transforming that solar radiation into a form to be exploited by humanity is difficult, however.
One solution proposed by the scheme's engineers is to use large areas of land on which to construct their solar plants. In Europe, land is costly. But in nations such as Morocco, Algeria and Libya it is cheap, mainly because they are scorched by the sun. The project aims to exploit that cheap land using a technique known as "concentrating solar power."
A plant consists of banks of several hundred giant mirrors that cover a large area of land of around a square kilometer. Each mirror's position can be carefully controlled to focus the sun's rays onto a central metal pillar that is filled with water. Prototype stations using this technique have already been tested in Spain and Algeria.
Once the sun's rays are focused on the pillar, temperatures inside start to soar to 800 Celcius. The water inside the pillar is vaporized into superhot steam which is channeled off and used to drive turbines, which in turn generate electricity.
"It is proven technology," Knies said. "We have shown it works in our test plants."
Only small stations have been tested, but soon plants capable of generating 100 megawatts of power could be built, enough to provide the needs of a town. The Desertec project envisages a ring of a thousand of these stations being built along the coast of northern Africa and round into the Mediterranean coast of the Middle East. In this way, up to 100 billion watts of power could be generated: Two-thirds of it would be kept for local needs, while the rest -- around 30 billion watts -- would be exported to Europe.
An idea of how much power this represents is revealed through Britain's electricity generating capacity, which totals 12 billion watts.
But there is an added twist to the system. The superheated steam, after it has driven the plant's turbines, would then be piped through tanks of sea water which would boil and evaporate. Steam from the sea water would piped away and condensed and stored as fresh water.
"Essentially you get electricity and fresh water," Knies said. "The latter is going to be crucial for developing countries round the southern Mediterranean and in north Africa. Their populations are rising rapidly, but they have limited supplies of fresh water. Our solar power plants will not only generate electricity that they can sell to Europe, they will supply drinkable water that will sustain their thirsty populations."
There are drawbacks, however. At present electricity generated this way would cost around 15 eurocents to 20 eurocents (US$0.22 to US$0.29) a kilowatt-hour -- almost twice the cost of power generated by coal. At such prices, few nations would be tempted to switch to solar.
"Unless it is extremely cheap, it won't stop people using easy-to-get fossil fuels," John Gibbins, an energy engineer at Imperial College London, told Nature magazine last week.
However, Desertec's backers say improvements over the next decade should bring the cost of power from its plants to less than 10 eurocents a kilowatt-hour, making it competitive with traditionally generated power.
Other critics say that the plants would be built in several unstable states that could cut their supplies to Europe. Again, Knies dismissed the danger.
"It's not like oil. Solar power is gone once it hits your mirrors. It would simply be lost income," he said.
The European Parliament has asked Desertec to propose short-term demonstration projects.
By Robin McKie , THE OBSERVER, LONDON.
2007年12月3日 星期一
There is Beauty in all that Chaos
It would be difficult these days to ignore all the grumbling about how "messy" the road to next year's legislative and presidential elections has become. And with election time just around the corner, those voices are bound to become even louder.
It has not, indeed, been a pretty picture. The electoral painting so far consists of precious few strokes of originality, several blotches of character assassination and equal daubs of sheer stupidity, gallons of promises, layer upon layer of empty rhetoric and swaths of unused canvas. Moreover, the two principal artists who have worked on the project have not been given the same amount of paint, which has resulted in an imbalanced artwork, with far more blue than green.
We've also seen the machinations to rig (or refashion, depending on one's view) the Central Election Commission in the hopes of avoiding a deplorable historical truth, accusations of platforms stolen, repetition ad nauseam of a supposedly sagging economy, the "one vote" versus "two vote" war of attrition and the UN referendum, joined at the hip by its Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT)-hatched evil twin.
Throughout all this we have had the probes into alleged corruption and the Democratic Progressive Party's asinine proposal yesterday that the immediate relatives of those responsible for the 228 Incident be legally accountable to the victims' families -- all cynical efforts that only the long dead would fail to associate with the elections. Ugly indeed.
But before you start planning something other than a visit to the polling booth on election day, think of this: Are elections elsewhere -- in countries where elections are actually possible -- any better? A brief survey should enlighten us.
In the democracy of democracies, US President George W. Bush, who lost the 2000 election by any reasonable measure, has been in the White House for seven long years. Across the Florida Strait, Cuban President Fidel Castro, who likes to call Cuban elections "the most democratic in the world," is not even directly elected by citizens.
Populists, meanwhile, like to boast of popularity levels that are so laughable as to be equaled only by former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein's -- and that was at gunpoint. Hugo Chavez has sought (but seems to have failed and will likely blame the US) to become president for life, while Russian President Vladimir Putin, whose term is up, is trying to devise a way to stay in power. In Pakistan, meanwhile, Pervez Musharraf has been dismembering democracy one judge at a time in preparation for elections, the outcome of which is known by all.
Closer to home, the Philippine president cannot even leave the country without fearing she might not be president when she returns. Thailand, for its part, has had so many coups we've lost count, while in Hong Kong, despite pro-democracy Anson Chan's (陳方安生) welcome win yesterday, one would nevertheless be advised to refrain from putting too much money on universal suffrage coming anytime soon.
The truth is that democracy is a cacophony and the inherent freedoms it guarantees allow individuals to exploit and contort and distort. Imperfect though it is, Taiwan's democracy works, and when you weigh it against the many other democracies and quasi-democracies of this world, it doesn't fare too badly. Transfer of power has occurred peacefully, the military is safely under civilian control and will not take to the streets whenever the president leaves the country.
And anyone who would propose becoming president for life would be laughed out of town so fast that he or she would have no choice but to flee to China or any other country whose political system makes a travesty of democracy.
Taipei Times Editorial, December 4, 2007.
It has not, indeed, been a pretty picture. The electoral painting so far consists of precious few strokes of originality, several blotches of character assassination and equal daubs of sheer stupidity, gallons of promises, layer upon layer of empty rhetoric and swaths of unused canvas. Moreover, the two principal artists who have worked on the project have not been given the same amount of paint, which has resulted in an imbalanced artwork, with far more blue than green.
We've also seen the machinations to rig (or refashion, depending on one's view) the Central Election Commission in the hopes of avoiding a deplorable historical truth, accusations of platforms stolen, repetition ad nauseam of a supposedly sagging economy, the "one vote" versus "two vote" war of attrition and the UN referendum, joined at the hip by its Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT)-hatched evil twin.
Throughout all this we have had the probes into alleged corruption and the Democratic Progressive Party's asinine proposal yesterday that the immediate relatives of those responsible for the 228 Incident be legally accountable to the victims' families -- all cynical efforts that only the long dead would fail to associate with the elections. Ugly indeed.
But before you start planning something other than a visit to the polling booth on election day, think of this: Are elections elsewhere -- in countries where elections are actually possible -- any better? A brief survey should enlighten us.
In the democracy of democracies, US President George W. Bush, who lost the 2000 election by any reasonable measure, has been in the White House for seven long years. Across the Florida Strait, Cuban President Fidel Castro, who likes to call Cuban elections "the most democratic in the world," is not even directly elected by citizens.
Populists, meanwhile, like to boast of popularity levels that are so laughable as to be equaled only by former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein's -- and that was at gunpoint. Hugo Chavez has sought (but seems to have failed and will likely blame the US) to become president for life, while Russian President Vladimir Putin, whose term is up, is trying to devise a way to stay in power. In Pakistan, meanwhile, Pervez Musharraf has been dismembering democracy one judge at a time in preparation for elections, the outcome of which is known by all.
Closer to home, the Philippine president cannot even leave the country without fearing she might not be president when she returns. Thailand, for its part, has had so many coups we've lost count, while in Hong Kong, despite pro-democracy Anson Chan's (陳方安生) welcome win yesterday, one would nevertheless be advised to refrain from putting too much money on universal suffrage coming anytime soon.
The truth is that democracy is a cacophony and the inherent freedoms it guarantees allow individuals to exploit and contort and distort. Imperfect though it is, Taiwan's democracy works, and when you weigh it against the many other democracies and quasi-democracies of this world, it doesn't fare too badly. Transfer of power has occurred peacefully, the military is safely under civilian control and will not take to the streets whenever the president leaves the country.
And anyone who would propose becoming president for life would be laughed out of town so fast that he or she would have no choice but to flee to China or any other country whose political system makes a travesty of democracy.
Taipei Times Editorial, December 4, 2007.
2007年12月2日 星期日
Taiwan can Learn from the Elections in Australia
By Bill Chang
As the opposition Australian Labor Party swept to power in the federal election against the incumbent Liberal-National coalition, party leader Kevin Rudd was poised to become the 26th prime minister of Australia, ending 11 years of conservative rule.
This result is a useful reference for Taiwan, as it will hold legislative and presidential elections next year.
First, "striving for economic progress" is a very boring slogan for Australian voters.
After 11 years in power, the ruling party, led by Prime Minister John Howard, has achieved significant economic growth and brought Australia's unemployment rate to its lowest level since the 1960s.
In addition, the Australian government even cut taxes because of a fiscal surplus in 2005 and cut them again last year.
Although this was close to a miracle for a Western welfare state, prosperity didn't help the Howard administration win the election.
The reality, however, is that Australian voters care more about politics that one would think.
Looking at Taiwan, the Democratic Progressive Party's (DPP) strategy of using a referendum for UN membership constitutes a more innovative idea.
In comparison, the Chinese Nationalist Party's (KMT) call for improving the domestic economy, its focus on previous KMT economic achievements and its criticism of the DPP leaders' character is akin to the Australian Labor Party's criticism of Rudd's occasional rashness and lack of leadership experience.
In other words, although the KMT is the opposition party, its campaign strategies so far have been very similar to those adopted by the Australian ruling coalition.
It will be very interesting to see if the KMT heads down Howard's path in next year's elections.
Based on figures alone, Taiwan's economic performance in recent years has been no worse than Australia's.
However, the KMT has constantly complained that the economy was dragging and has argued that the only remedy would be to open direct links with China, promote investment in China and lift the ban on Chinese tourism.
If a similar situation had occurred in Australia, it would quickly have become a target of media censure.
Aside from the fact that these are groundless exaggerations (Taiwan trade with China has made tremendous progress in recent years), no Australian politician would believe that betting a nation's economic progress solely on one country is a politically viable option -- even if that country happens to be the US, a country with a common language and strong bonds of alliance.
In fact, Howard's attitude of blindly following in the US' footsteps was one of the direct causes of his failure.
Failure was not the result of heavy casualties following Australia's decision to join the US in the invasion of Iraq -- only one soldier was killed -- or depleted national resources -- there were tax reductions -- but purely because certain Australian intellectuals believe that a country must diversify its foreign relations rather than emphasize or boast of specific ties with a single country.
Doing so, they know, impairs a nation's dignity and hurts its reputation, especially when that one ally is authoritarian and hostile toward other countries. Taiwan should learn from this experience as it moves closer to the elections.
By Bill Chang 張國城. He is a doctoral candidate at the University of New South Wales. Translated by Ted Yang.
As the opposition Australian Labor Party swept to power in the federal election against the incumbent Liberal-National coalition, party leader Kevin Rudd was poised to become the 26th prime minister of Australia, ending 11 years of conservative rule.
This result is a useful reference for Taiwan, as it will hold legislative and presidential elections next year.
First, "striving for economic progress" is a very boring slogan for Australian voters.
After 11 years in power, the ruling party, led by Prime Minister John Howard, has achieved significant economic growth and brought Australia's unemployment rate to its lowest level since the 1960s.
In addition, the Australian government even cut taxes because of a fiscal surplus in 2005 and cut them again last year.
Although this was close to a miracle for a Western welfare state, prosperity didn't help the Howard administration win the election.
The reality, however, is that Australian voters care more about politics that one would think.
Looking at Taiwan, the Democratic Progressive Party's (DPP) strategy of using a referendum for UN membership constitutes a more innovative idea.
In comparison, the Chinese Nationalist Party's (KMT) call for improving the domestic economy, its focus on previous KMT economic achievements and its criticism of the DPP leaders' character is akin to the Australian Labor Party's criticism of Rudd's occasional rashness and lack of leadership experience.
In other words, although the KMT is the opposition party, its campaign strategies so far have been very similar to those adopted by the Australian ruling coalition.
It will be very interesting to see if the KMT heads down Howard's path in next year's elections.
Based on figures alone, Taiwan's economic performance in recent years has been no worse than Australia's.
However, the KMT has constantly complained that the economy was dragging and has argued that the only remedy would be to open direct links with China, promote investment in China and lift the ban on Chinese tourism.
If a similar situation had occurred in Australia, it would quickly have become a target of media censure.
Aside from the fact that these are groundless exaggerations (Taiwan trade with China has made tremendous progress in recent years), no Australian politician would believe that betting a nation's economic progress solely on one country is a politically viable option -- even if that country happens to be the US, a country with a common language and strong bonds of alliance.
In fact, Howard's attitude of blindly following in the US' footsteps was one of the direct causes of his failure.
Failure was not the result of heavy casualties following Australia's decision to join the US in the invasion of Iraq -- only one soldier was killed -- or depleted national resources -- there were tax reductions -- but purely because certain Australian intellectuals believe that a country must diversify its foreign relations rather than emphasize or boast of specific ties with a single country.
Doing so, they know, impairs a nation's dignity and hurts its reputation, especially when that one ally is authoritarian and hostile toward other countries. Taiwan should learn from this experience as it moves closer to the elections.
By Bill Chang 張國城. He is a doctoral candidate at the University of New South Wales. Translated by Ted Yang.
US Presidential Hopefuls Quiet on Asian Policy
Of the six leading Republican and Democratic contenders for presidential nominations, only Republican Senator John McCain and Democratic former senator John Edwards have produced comprehensive policies toward Asia that each would implement if elected to the White House.
Two more, Democratic Senator Hillary Clinton and former Republican governor of Massachusetts Mitt Romney have sketched out proposals for approaches to Asia. The last two, former New York mayor, Rudy Giuliani, a Republican, and Democratic Senator Barack Obama have said little about this issue.
McCain's plan, laid out in an essay in the journal Foreign Affairs, is perhaps the most extensive.
"Power in the world today is moving east; the Asia-Pacific region is on the rise," he wrote.
Moreover, "The linch pin to the region's promise is continued American engagement," he said.
"I welcome Japan's international leadership and emergence as a global power," he said.
He supports Japan's effort to become a permanent member of the UN Security Council alongside Britain, China, France, Russia and the US. He would encourage a partnership with India, a stronger alliance with Australia and would rebuild frayed relations with South Korea.
McCain, however, is cautious about China: "Dealing with a rising China will be a central challenge for the next American president."
On the sensitive issue of Taiwan, McCain says: "When China threatens democratic Taiwan with a massive arsenal of missiles and warlike rhetoric, the United States must take note."
The senator would seek an "elevated partnership" with Indonesia and would "expand defense cooperation" with Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, and Vietnam. That last is intriguing since McCain, a naval aviator shot down over North Vietnam during the Vietnam war, spent five-and-a-half years as a prisoner of war and was brutally beaten many times.
Edwards is not so detailed as McCain but more sweeping than opponents within his party. Overall, he says on a Web site, the US must "strive to maintain our strong partnerships with longtime allies, including the United Kingdom, Japan and the transforming European Union."
Edwards says US relations with China are "delicate."
"China's influence and importance will only continue to grow" and asserts that "our overarching goal must be to get China to commit to the rules that govern the conduct of nations," he said.
On India, Edwards said: "The United States and India are natural allies, and the US-Indian strategic partnership will help shape the twenty-first century."
He advocates reforming the UN to include a place for India on the Security Council.
Clinton has stirred discussion in Asia with a declaration about China that is at odds with the views of many other US politicians.
"Our relationship with China," she said in an essay in Foreign Affairs, "will be the most important bilateral relationship in the world in this century."
In contrast, her husband, former US president Bill Clinton, reflected a widespread view among both Democrats and Republicans.
While he was in the White House, he said: "The United States has no more important bilateral relationship than our relationship with Japan. We are strategic allies and our futures are bound up together."
Moreover, Senator Clinton said: "We must persuade China to join global institutions."
Yet the CIA's World Factbook reports that China, one of five nations with a permanent seat on the UN Security Council, belongs to about 70 international organizations. (In comparison, the US belongs to about 80.)
In another surprising statement, Senator Clinton writes that Kuala Lumpur was one of the "springboards for 9/11," the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington.
Yet most reports say Osama bin Laden, a Saudi, and his al-Qaeda followers, also Saudis, as having conspired in Afghanistan to hijack the airliners that crashed into the twin towers in New York and the Pentagon in Washington.
Romney sees Asian nations, particularly China, as economic competitors rather than as security partners or adversaries.
"China and the rest of Asia," he says on his Web site, "are on the move economically and technologically."
He lumps all Asians together despite differences in political systems, economic development and social order, saying: "They are a family oriented, educated, hard-working, and mercantile people."
"If America acts boldly and swiftly, the emergence of Asia will be an opportunity," he said.
Romney's opponents might agree with his concluding thought: "If America fails to act, we will be eclipsed."
By Richard Halloran. He is a writer based in Hawaii.
Two more, Democratic Senator Hillary Clinton and former Republican governor of Massachusetts Mitt Romney have sketched out proposals for approaches to Asia. The last two, former New York mayor, Rudy Giuliani, a Republican, and Democratic Senator Barack Obama have said little about this issue.
McCain's plan, laid out in an essay in the journal Foreign Affairs, is perhaps the most extensive.
"Power in the world today is moving east; the Asia-Pacific region is on the rise," he wrote.
Moreover, "The linch pin to the region's promise is continued American engagement," he said.
"I welcome Japan's international leadership and emergence as a global power," he said.
He supports Japan's effort to become a permanent member of the UN Security Council alongside Britain, China, France, Russia and the US. He would encourage a partnership with India, a stronger alliance with Australia and would rebuild frayed relations with South Korea.
McCain, however, is cautious about China: "Dealing with a rising China will be a central challenge for the next American president."
On the sensitive issue of Taiwan, McCain says: "When China threatens democratic Taiwan with a massive arsenal of missiles and warlike rhetoric, the United States must take note."
The senator would seek an "elevated partnership" with Indonesia and would "expand defense cooperation" with Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, and Vietnam. That last is intriguing since McCain, a naval aviator shot down over North Vietnam during the Vietnam war, spent five-and-a-half years as a prisoner of war and was brutally beaten many times.
Edwards is not so detailed as McCain but more sweeping than opponents within his party. Overall, he says on a Web site, the US must "strive to maintain our strong partnerships with longtime allies, including the United Kingdom, Japan and the transforming European Union."
Edwards says US relations with China are "delicate."
"China's influence and importance will only continue to grow" and asserts that "our overarching goal must be to get China to commit to the rules that govern the conduct of nations," he said.
On India, Edwards said: "The United States and India are natural allies, and the US-Indian strategic partnership will help shape the twenty-first century."
He advocates reforming the UN to include a place for India on the Security Council.
Clinton has stirred discussion in Asia with a declaration about China that is at odds with the views of many other US politicians.
"Our relationship with China," she said in an essay in Foreign Affairs, "will be the most important bilateral relationship in the world in this century."
In contrast, her husband, former US president Bill Clinton, reflected a widespread view among both Democrats and Republicans.
While he was in the White House, he said: "The United States has no more important bilateral relationship than our relationship with Japan. We are strategic allies and our futures are bound up together."
Moreover, Senator Clinton said: "We must persuade China to join global institutions."
Yet the CIA's World Factbook reports that China, one of five nations with a permanent seat on the UN Security Council, belongs to about 70 international organizations. (In comparison, the US belongs to about 80.)
In another surprising statement, Senator Clinton writes that Kuala Lumpur was one of the "springboards for 9/11," the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington.
Yet most reports say Osama bin Laden, a Saudi, and his al-Qaeda followers, also Saudis, as having conspired in Afghanistan to hijack the airliners that crashed into the twin towers in New York and the Pentagon in Washington.
Romney sees Asian nations, particularly China, as economic competitors rather than as security partners or adversaries.
"China and the rest of Asia," he says on his Web site, "are on the move economically and technologically."
He lumps all Asians together despite differences in political systems, economic development and social order, saying: "They are a family oriented, educated, hard-working, and mercantile people."
"If America acts boldly and swiftly, the emergence of Asia will be an opportunity," he said.
Romney's opponents might agree with his concluding thought: "If America fails to act, we will be eclipsed."
By Richard Halloran. He is a writer based in Hawaii.
Is the Dollar Leading Us into A Depression
A fallen greenback could mean economic turmoil, or it could trigger an economic crisis. Economists are having trouble predicting the outcome because investors are not behaving rationally
The falling US dollar has emerged as a source of profound global macro-economic distress. The question now is how bad that distress will become. Is the world economy at risk? There are two possibilities. If global savers and investors expect the US dollar's depreciation to continue, they will flee the currency unless they are compensated appropriately for keeping their money in the US and its assets, implying that the gap between US and foreign interest rates will widen. As a result, the cost of capital in the US will soar, discouraging investment and reducing consumption spending as high interest rates depress the value of households' principal assets: their houses.
The resulting recession might fuel further pessimism and cutbacks in spending, deepening the downturn. A US in recession would no longer serve as the importer of last resort, which might send the rest of the world into recession as well. A world in which everybody expects a falling US dollar is a world in economic crisis.
By contrast, a world in which the US dollar has already fallen is one that may see economic turmoil, but not an economic crisis. If the US dollar has already fallen -- if nobody expects it to fall much more -- then there is no reason to compensate global savers and investors for holding US assets.
On the contrary, in this scenario there are opportunities: the US dollar, after all, might rise; US interest rates will be at normal levels; asset values will not be unduly depressed; and investment spending will not be affected by financial turmoil.
Of course, there may well be turbulence: When US wage levels appear low because of a weak US dollar, it is hard to export to the US, and other countries must rely on other sources of demand to maintain full employment. The government may have to shore up the financial system if the changes in asset prices that undermined the US dollar sink risk-loving or imprudent lenders.
But these are, or ought to be, problems that we can solve. By contrast, sky-high US interest rates produced by a general expectation of a massive ongoing US dollar decline is a macroeconomic problem without a solution.
Yet so far there are no signs that global savers and investors expect a US dollar decline. The large gap between US and foreign long-term interest rates that should emerge from and signal expectations of a falling US dollar does not exist. And the US$65 billion needed every month to fund the US current-account deficit continues to flow in. Thus, the world economy may dodge yet another potential catastrophe.
That may still prove to be wishful thinking. After all, the US' still-large current-account deficit guarantees that the US dollar will continue to fall. Even so, the macroeconomic logic that large current-account deficits signal that currencies are overvalued continues to escape the world's international financial investors and speculators.
On one level, this is very frustrating: We economists believe that people are smart enough to understand their situation and capable enough to pursue their own interests. Yet the typical investor in US dollar-denominated assets -- whether a rich private individual, a pension fund, or a central bank -- has not taken the steps to protect themselves against the very likely US dollar decline in our future.
In this case, what is bad for economists is good for the world economy: We may be facing a mere episode of financial distress in the US rather than sky-high long-term interest rates and a depression. The fact that economists can't explain it is no reason not to be thankful.
By J. Bradford DeLong, professor of economics at the University of California at Berkeley; was assistant US Treasury secretary during the Clinton administration.
The falling US dollar has emerged as a source of profound global macro-economic distress. The question now is how bad that distress will become. Is the world economy at risk? There are two possibilities. If global savers and investors expect the US dollar's depreciation to continue, they will flee the currency unless they are compensated appropriately for keeping their money in the US and its assets, implying that the gap between US and foreign interest rates will widen. As a result, the cost of capital in the US will soar, discouraging investment and reducing consumption spending as high interest rates depress the value of households' principal assets: their houses.
The resulting recession might fuel further pessimism and cutbacks in spending, deepening the downturn. A US in recession would no longer serve as the importer of last resort, which might send the rest of the world into recession as well. A world in which everybody expects a falling US dollar is a world in economic crisis.
By contrast, a world in which the US dollar has already fallen is one that may see economic turmoil, but not an economic crisis. If the US dollar has already fallen -- if nobody expects it to fall much more -- then there is no reason to compensate global savers and investors for holding US assets.
On the contrary, in this scenario there are opportunities: the US dollar, after all, might rise; US interest rates will be at normal levels; asset values will not be unduly depressed; and investment spending will not be affected by financial turmoil.
Of course, there may well be turbulence: When US wage levels appear low because of a weak US dollar, it is hard to export to the US, and other countries must rely on other sources of demand to maintain full employment. The government may have to shore up the financial system if the changes in asset prices that undermined the US dollar sink risk-loving or imprudent lenders.
But these are, or ought to be, problems that we can solve. By contrast, sky-high US interest rates produced by a general expectation of a massive ongoing US dollar decline is a macroeconomic problem without a solution.
Yet so far there are no signs that global savers and investors expect a US dollar decline. The large gap between US and foreign long-term interest rates that should emerge from and signal expectations of a falling US dollar does not exist. And the US$65 billion needed every month to fund the US current-account deficit continues to flow in. Thus, the world economy may dodge yet another potential catastrophe.
That may still prove to be wishful thinking. After all, the US' still-large current-account deficit guarantees that the US dollar will continue to fall. Even so, the macroeconomic logic that large current-account deficits signal that currencies are overvalued continues to escape the world's international financial investors and speculators.
On one level, this is very frustrating: We economists believe that people are smart enough to understand their situation and capable enough to pursue their own interests. Yet the typical investor in US dollar-denominated assets -- whether a rich private individual, a pension fund, or a central bank -- has not taken the steps to protect themselves against the very likely US dollar decline in our future.
In this case, what is bad for economists is good for the world economy: We may be facing a mere episode of financial distress in the US rather than sky-high long-term interest rates and a depression. The fact that economists can't explain it is no reason not to be thankful.
By J. Bradford DeLong, professor of economics at the University of California at Berkeley; was assistant US Treasury secretary during the Clinton administration.
訂閱：
文章 (Atom)
