Adidas though is the main Olympic sponsor for the 2008 games according to the official Beijing Olympics website. Forty percent of the Chinese populace actually believed that Nike is the official sponsor of the games. Nike did give a great deal of money to the games and they did so without paying the massive nine digit sponsorship fee that Adidas did. Nike also has managed to have a more overall brand awareness level in China than Adidas, who has failed in every respect (despite their best efforts) that Nike has excelled in. Why is Nike viewed so highly in China then?

Nike involvement in China began in 1979. The same year that America recognized the government of the People’s Republic of China. The three years after the death of Mao Zedong allowed for China as a whole to open up and under the leadership of Deng Xiaoping western investment began to trickle in. One of the first companies to go in was Nike. They were in a dispute with their Korean workers who wanted to have their pay increased to $2.40 per hour. Nike moved the factories and paid their workers roughly twenty five cents per hour. By 1984, 93% of shoe production by Nike was done off shore, the majority of which was produced in China. Last year Nike sold over $3 billion dollars worth of shoes in the United States alone. In China though, Nike is a status symbol. It is widely regarded as “the coolest brand” by a majority of Chinese and is the modern equivalent of the washing machine that could also scrub potatoes of cool in China (the washing machine was a symbol of luxury in China in the early 90s).

Because Nike has been pumping so much money into China for as long as they have they are now basically given a great deal of leeway of what they can and cannot do. Recently an ad ran in China by Nike where Lebron James took on a series of Chinese kung fu figures. This ad was viewed as an offense to the national dignity of China by many Chinese people. It was so offensive in fact that Nike had to pull the ad. A few months later, the ad reappeared in China. No one complained this time. No explanation has ever been provided for this. Nike was allowed to show an ad in China that was seen as a slap to the face of Chinese dignity. Something strange was occurring here.

In the early 90s china received MFN (Most Favoured Nation) status by the United States. This status was made permanent in 2000. America’s business interests in China go back more than a century though. It was the dream of American business men to sell every Chinese male a hat at one time (literally, that was the plan, to sell them hats). The fact that they are such a large market has always interested the West and the Chinese have always been seen as a favourable investment to be made by American/Western companies. Nike is opening roughly 1.5 Nike stores in China a day. If they cannot sell them a hat, maybe they could sell them a pair of shoes or shorts or t-shirt or cologne or ice skates or soccer ball or basketball, etc. there is an estimated 250 million Chinese who could be classified as middle class, which is nearly eight times the population of Canada. That is a lot of households that need of good sports gear. This however is not the main focus of Nike. The rich already buy their products. What about the other 1.1 billion Chinese?

It is within Nike’s best interest to maintain a favourable status within the Chinese government. They are moving further into the interior of China; away from the more wealthy coastal cities into the major industrial areas with large numbers of Chinese workers will be a perfect purchasing market. Nike is also finally introducing minimum wage to all Nike employees as well as full health care benefits. China is ranked number 144 on the World Health Organization’s health system list. (America is number 37). Full health benefits would be an excellent advantage to many workers in China. A large amount of money is changing hands between private business and the Chinese government and Nike seems to be setting the standard of how much one is supposed to give.

Thirty-seven years ago, America abandoned the concept of Fordism. Fordism is when you pay your workers a salary where they can afford the very products they produce. The ford motor company did this in order to guarantee a market for the products they made. Make them cheap, make them fast and pay people enough so that they can buy them. That way you never really pay them anything at all. It is what made America great a century ago. This is exactly what Nike is doing in China now.

The special economic zones in China are the primary concentration of Nike factories. These are also China’s most profitable locations. The Special Economic Zones are the places that are producing the beanie babies, tube socks, lead-based toys, poisonous pet foods, tooth paste and the thousands of other small manufactured goods the West craves so constantly. Nike was one of the first companies to really take advantage of the zones. They were one of the first to go in, the first to make them appealing and the first to sell within them on mass. Nike is creating Fordism in China. When other companies were afraid to send their labour overseas, Nike jumped the boat very quickly. Nike set the bar for overseas production. They put large amounts of investment capital into China and this kick started the new Chinese economy.

While China has Most Favoured Nation status in America, Nike has Most Favoured brand status in China. It has managed to do so through years of investment and funding into the country and is now a major player in the world’s fastest growing economy. Nike has been steadily expanding in China for nearly thirty years. The Olympic Games in China are as much a celebration of Chinese power as they are of the status of Nike financial strength. In many ways, Nike’s presence has allowed China to open up, become less repressive and allow for incredible prosperity to occur. On the other hand, China is still a single party country. They silence the voice of dissent very effectively and functions in a very directed and controlled manner. Because there has been so much work done by Nike over the years, these can really be called their games. This is the celebration of corporatism in China and is in many ways a dark time for internationalism and sportsmanship since they have been so effectively co-opted. Just do it.

Post from: Cosmoloan

1. Cow Dung Bingo

Easily my favorite method for raising funds is to organize a good ole game of Cow Bingo. If you live in the city this might prove difficult, but if you have any farms or open fields within 30 minutes of the city it’s definitely worth the drive.

What you will need:

1. One cow.
2. A large field, preferably with elevated stands for spectators.
3. A chalk field liner with chalk. You can buy one new for about $130, but if you’re a true fundraiser you can find them cheap on Craigslist or eBay, or just ask your local high school gym teacher to borrow theirs for free.

The game is simple. Using the chalk field liner make a large grid across the entire field, then number each square. Invite participants to pick their squares, paying $X amount for each square purchased. Your goal should obviously be to fill the stands with spectators, with no squares left unaccounted for. Feel free to sell food and beverages at the event for extra cash. After giving it plenty of food and water, escort your beautifully groomed cow to the field and let the games begin. As time goes by tension rises in the crowd, as well as in the cow who will in essence “choose” the winner. You can set up side bets for which square(s) gets a hose down, but the real prize goes to the square getting nuked.

This and other weird ideas found here.

2. Mother-Son Dodgeball Dance

Found this one on a pissed off mom’s blog. She was ranting (and with just cause) about the lame fundraising events her son’s school keeps trying to involve her in, the most recent of which taking the lame cake: the Mother-Son Dodgeball Dance.

As much as any young boy relishes the idea of pelting the woman who brought him into this world with a large rubber ball at the risk of being grounded for life, I’d be surprised if any moms showed up given the ridiculous flyers that were sent out: “Boys… Here’s your chance to ‘Get Mom’ at the thing you do best! Mom… Here’s your chance to show him how you get your head in the game! When you’ve worked that out, get out and shake it! $20 includes admission for 2 with disc jockey, momento photo, sweatband, drinks, and treats! Sneakers required! It’ll be a blast!”

Wow. This fundraiser gets props for involving dodgeball, but gets booed off the stage for a) implying that dodgeball is what boys do best.
b) forcing moms to “get out and shake it” when they’d rather just stand there and whip that ball right back at their little s*** disturbing children.

3. Become a Ditch Monkey

In an effort to raise funds for The Woodland Trust, the UKs leading woodland conservation charity, Hugh Sawyer decided to ditch civilization to go live in a rainforest for a year. The project was only supposed to last for six weeks, but after breezing through them with relative ease, Hugh decided to push it to fifty-two. He calls himself “The Original Ditch Monkey” and he collected online sponsors while living amongst real monkeys. It’s unclear whether he lasted the entire year but he did manage to raise close to $13,000 (£6,118) and he kept an interesting blog of his woodland adventures.

4. Follow the Bouncing Boob

Walk-a-thons are boring. A boob-a-thon, on the other hand, transforms ordinary walking into a spectator sport Boob-bouncing is an easy and entertaining way for bold ladies or overweight middle-aged men to raise significant amounts of money. It may show up in the form of crumpled dollar bills, but money nonetheless.

What you need: Boobs

Best known in London as “The Booby Sisters”, Tania Amazon and Laura Hawkins managed to raise over £322 for breast cancer, by ironically bouncing their boobs from The London Eye to Parliament Square across the Westminster bridge.

5. Swimming with Sharks

Dave Spence risked life and limb for the Henshaws Society for Blind People by scuba diving with ten-foot sand tiger sharks. Without a cage to protect him, Dave wins for most extreme method of fundraising.

6. Sponsored Hair Waxing

Excruciatingly painful, but extremely hilarious, waxing for cash is becoming an increasingly popular method for men to raise funds and awareness. If Harrison Ford can do it for the rainforests then you can do it for…whatever the hell you’d want to do it for. Good luck finding sympathy or support from the ladies however, they already pay enough hard earned money having their own hair ripped out.

Post from: Cosmoloan

I assume that the way the majority films that receive funding in Hollywood is based heavily on whose assistant can give the best “oral explanation” to the studio executives. I picture in my head a bunch of guys sitting around in suits throwing buzzwords at each other until someone says “alright, I’ll throw 25 million behind that, lets get a script, what is Kevin Smith up to, he can churn out swill.” Then come the hookers and everyone gets blown.

Often I see a group of mid-thirties university educated pseudo accountants throwing words around like: dolphin, penguins, Bill Murray, orange cat, Time Machine, Space Iguanas, Ghetto Rap, Peanut butter billionaire (the original pitch for The Godfather was about a Billionaire Peanut Butter maker in space, maybe). Somehow out of these bizarre little corporate circle jerks arises The Departed or Schindler’s List. Yet at the same time out of these same circles comes such classics as Virtuosity or The Brave Little Toaster. One has to ask the question, how do these movies get funding?

(Schindler’s List)

(Virtuosity)

The other side is movies that are just so weird and unpleasant that no one knows how they were funded in the first place. I am talking about creepy art house projects that are designed to make a human being feel self hate just for walking in the theatre. There are also plenty of B-movies that are just thrown out every year because they make enough returns through DVD sales (see Roger Corman’s IMDB page) so they are excused for being quick money makers. The most profitable genre is horror because no one cares who is in it as long as there are breasts and blood.

The quick list of films that don’t make sense how/why they were made. Of course, the list is by no means exhaustive, but the following are some definite notables that come to mind:

1. Crispin Glover’s What Is It?

From what I understand, this movie is about a guy who is killing snails, smoking them, and then becomes a snail. At the same time it’s a man who is travelling between a number of worlds and is tormented by racist, hubrist spirits. Crispin Hellion Glover is a weird dude. He acted in two Charlie’s Angels movies to fund this.

No idea what the hell any of that means. I know a number of its actors have Down’s syndrome. I know for the sequel there are a large number of porn stars in it and that the whole thing is a planned trilogy. This film haunts my dreams.

2. Tom Green’s Freddy Got Fingered

I saw this the day it came out in theatres.  I was rather confused. I grew up in the same city as Tom did so he was kind of a local hero. I went to the same skatepark and my elementary school was close to his parents’ house. Man was I let down. Apparently The original script was amazing. This film strikes me that a bunch of suits said: “hey, that Canadian fella is popular, lets give him a movie.”

Tom Green proceeded to create a strange anti-comedy and commit career suicide. It is awesome in the sense that he took a lot of money and made Freddy, but at the same time - why?

3. Carnosaur 1, 2, 3 and 4

Just before Jurassic Park came out, this shiny turd hit the video shelves. I assume a bunch of people picked up on the fact that Spielberg was making something big, slapped together a movie, released it a month before and made some money. The first film I could understand but three sequels? Hell no. especially when you consider that they became increasingly goofy as time went on to the point where they were just ripping of Aliens (the sequel to Alien (1979)). There should be an award in film for most effective rip off of Aliens.

GAME OVER MAN!

4. Takashi Miike – Pretty much everything he has ever made

Takashi Miike isn’t so much a filmmaker as he is a pornographer. His work is not really a movie as much as it is basically every major extreme one can imagine. It is unpleasant to watch. Miike once said that the reason one his films (Ichi the Killer) could not be played in North America was that we as an audience just weren’t open minded enough. Maybe North Americans are a little squeamish or maybe we just don’t like our sex scenes to involve chainsaws. In his scenes you can expect anything from murder, to sadomasochism, to bestiality.

5. Catwoman

Did Halle Barry win an Oscar before she made this? Yes, yes she did. It is regarded as one of the worst made films of all time according to Rotten Tomatoes. So let me get this straight, you want to make a Catwoman movie, no Batman, with Sharon Stone, no real plot, with bullet time, and it’s destined to suck? Go for it!

6. The Brave Little Toaster

What demented business school educated bumble-fuck would think that these movies would be profitable? I’m sure on paper the concept of a toaster missing its family and going off on quest to find them with a rag tag group of household appliances made a ton of sense, but when someone looks at it, really, what the hell comes to mind. What were they smoking is another question that pops up, the best part is that it is a completely Christian movie. Yeah, take that your long cherished childhood memories. Poor Phil Hartman (he played the air conditioner).

7. Jason X

I thought these films stopped being profitable after Jason went to hell or took Manhattan. They just keep making them and stoned high school students without girlfriends keep watching them. I am still waiting for Freddy versus Jason Versus Ash (from Evil Dead) versus the old chick from Sex and The City (which one? They are all old). Hurray Wrinkles!

Further Crispin Glover wackiness:

Which did I miss?

Post from: Cosmoloan

One of the quickest ways to flush a friendship down the toilet is by loaning out money. You want to do the right thing, you want to be there when your friend is in need, but unless your middle name is MoneyBags and you don’t care whether you ever, EVER seeing that cash again, like crack just say “No.”

Life does toss us curve balls sometimes and emergencies do happen, but chances are when you loan money to a friend you are enabling the irresponsible financial behavior which led them to you in the first place. So you can count on them being just as irresponsible when it comes to paying you back. They’ll tell you they can’t pay until next month, but you’ll watch in amazement as they go out to dinners, go camping for the weekend, buying round after round of Yage

r Bombs at the bar. The worst part is you’ll feel guilty interfering with their good time, and since you don’t charge interest or harass them with letters or phone calls, you’ll drop to the bottom of their priority list. Months will go by, you won’t see a dime, and the resentment will grow inside you like a weed, until finally you’ll just want to drop kick the head off that dandelion and watch the white liquid ooze out.

Not Convinced?

So, you’ve decided “to hell with sound advice” and that your friendship means very little. Well, even though you’d be better off lighting the money on fire, if you choose to loan it to your friend there are steps you can take to help get it back without having to call Johnny “NoThumbs” to help you out.

Get it in writing

Even if it’s a small amount (small loans are easy to forget), write down how much they owe, and when they expect to pay it back. Let them see you mark the payback date on your calendar. You might slip to the backs of their minds, but it’s a good place to pick at them when you’re out of sight.

Charge interest

You know your friends. You watch how they conduct their daily affairs. Are they constantly late paying their bills? Do they always complain about being up to their eyeballs in debt? There is a word for these types of borrowers, and it’s a word that brought Bear Stearns, the 5th largest investment bank in the US to its knees: subprime. Sure you love them and they’re hilarious at parties, but these friends are high risk borrowers and you should treat them as such when loaning them money, within reason of course.

Suggest an alternative source:

If you’re really worried about never seeing the money again but you still want to help, send them to Prosper . Let people who don’t know either of you dish out the cash. Your friend will avoid ridiculous bank loan interest rates, and you don’t have to kiss a friendship goodbye.

Your Pride and Joy

Never a good idea. No matter how good a driver they are or how hot the date they want to take out is, pay for the taxi before you hand over your baby to a friend. This is of course assuming that your car is your baby and not some clunk-box you’d rather see orphaned. The problem is with the word “accident”. Should your friend bring your vehicle home with a dented fender you aren’t allowed to get angry because “it was an accident.” They will also be shielded from your wrath with statements like “it’s just a car, what matters is that you’re okay.” So you bury your fury, sort of glad your friend walked away unscathed, making higher insurance payments for the baby your friend broke.

Not Convinced?

Also, did you know that in certain States if you lend your car to a friend who becomes involved in a felony where someone is killed, you are held responsible and could go to prison for murder? Check out this article and think twice before handing over the keys to your trouble- making buddies.

Your Girlfriend

This one’s simple. Never lend your girlfriend to anyone, especially if that someone owns a yacht.

Your DVD collection

The two main reasons you will never see your favorite DVDs again are pride and memory.
Pride: In the same way lawyers show off their knowledge by surrounding themselves with entire walls of leather-bound books, we like to show off our cinematic knowledge with extensive and colorful DVD collections. Like the peacock, the more colorful the DVD display the faster your friends are drawn towards it. Don’t expect friends to ask to borrow DVDs, expect them to tell you which ones they are taking. They haven’t even removed their coats off yet and they’ve already built a pile of DVDs they intend to “borrow”.

Memory:

Assuming you have more than one friend and a semi-decent DVD collection, you can expect to have multiple films loaned out at the same time. There is a reason Blockbuster uses a computer to track its rentals: humans forget. A typical movie is about 2 hours long, but by the time your friends get around to watching it, scheduling a time to see you again, and actually remembering the bring the movie with them when they do, you won’t be seeing your DVD for about 6 months. Of course by then you will have forgotten you even lent them Reservoir Dogs in the first place. Pretty soon your alphabetized collection is missing movies F through K and you have no idea who has what.

What to do…

Hide your DVDs. The best way is to buy a large storage binder for the disks themselves, and to lock away or bury their colorful cases in the backyard. If you know a friend is coming over to watch a movie, try to pick one before hand so you can have it in the player when they arrive. If they are already over ask them what they would like to watch, and then disappear into a room with a lock to get it. Never let them see your DVD binder. If they do, they will borrow disks without cases and will surely end up scratching your Snatch.

Not Convinced?

Should you decide to lend out your DVDs make sure you write down who and when you loaned what to. Keep a database in your computer. Every time you see them sneak in comments like “So what did you think about 21 Grams?” or “Wasn’t Old School hilarious?” Become so annoying they’ll think twice about borrowing from you again.

Post from: Cosmoloan

As we inch closer to November, different issues gain and lose priority. Even the Iraq war has been somewhat ironically eclipsed by concerns for an economy in recession, without enough attention to the roughly $1 billion per week price tag. In fact, the mismanagement of funds has been a central theme of the Bush presidency. One issue that has fallen slightly off the radar amidst wars abroad and pocketbook concerns is the separation of church and state.

A specific discussion of where the presidential candidates stand on funding for religious organizations has been lacking so far this election cycle. The religious focus so far has been over the Rev. Wright controversy, the overblown relevance of Obama’s former pastor and his inflammatory statements about America. Thus far, one of the main criticisms leveled at Wright, and, by curious extension, at Obama, is that his attitude is clearly unpatriotic. (This is to say nothing of lapel pins.) However, to me, the more important discussion arising from this situation is the separation of church and state, and why this on-paper separation does not extend to politics.

Why is it so important that Obama’s pastor is a model citizen? Under what circumstances can one man be blamed for another man’s opinions? Well, when you’re running for president in a religious country, and the opinions belong to your chosen pastor, the man who’s meant to be your spiritual guide. Interestingly enough, there’s no separation granted between spiritual nourishment and the political opinions of the man who provides that godly guidance.

Despite the ongoing separation of church of state in the letter of the law, the spirit of American politics tells a different story. Indeed, the religion to morality to government administration chain has been used and argued for, rather explicitly, from the Bush administration – “I am a religious man, therefore a moral man, and therefore you should elect me.” Bush went even so far as to imply a kind of divine endorsement for attacking Iraq. In an address to the National Religious Broadcasters on March 11^th, 2008, Bush said:

The effects of a free Iraq and a free Afghanistan will reach beyond the borders of those two countries. . . It will show others what’s possible. And we undertake this work because we believe that every human being bears the image of our maker. That’s why we’re doing this. No one is fit to be a master, and no one deserves to be a slave.

Another gem from the same speech: “The liberty we value is not ours alone. Freedom is not America’s gift to the world; it is God’s gift to all humanity.” Audience members called out “Amen!”

This rationale – if there’s anything rational about it – is especially disturbing for the non-religious, or even non-Christians, who face a growing body of people with increasing political power who believe in a rapturous near-future.

In 2002, Bush’s “faith-based initiatives” began, letting contractors modify their hiring practices along religious lines, and notably increasing funding for religious organizations that provide social services. Apologizing in advance, Bush put the “fund” into fundamentalist.

As far as funding is concerned, the argument is compelling. If the organizations that are in place to offer services are religious, then kudos to them for stepping up to the plate to get government help. Indeed, in many cases, the groups that do try to help are the religious ones, and it’s a shame to not let them do their part for those in need. Considering Republican traditional party values of small government and low taxes, a policy of systematically redistributing government money for those kinds of social services is strange, but religion trumps when donations and votes are involved. The issue becomes especially problematic when a specific doctrinal message is mixed with the help. The group can be religious, but the help should be secular. And when the money is given directly to the organization, that separation can’t be trusted to take place.

It also doesn’t cut both ways: the Boston Globe reported several cases of secular groups being denied funding because they emphasized the distribution of condoms or worked with sex-workers in efforts to combat the spread of the AIDS virus.

In fact, there are religious figures that insist on a separation of church and state, on social grounds. In April 2006, the Rev. Welton Gaddy, president of The Interfaith Alliance, argued that state funding of religious organizations conflicts with religious liberty, with an inevitably damaging favoritism. Those are the concerns that spawned the original separation of church and state. While Bush maintained that he was looking to give fair treatment to religious groups that were excluded from funding, there can be no doubt about which groups benefited most.

So where do we stand with religious funding in the current election? While there hasn’t been much direct discussion, no running candidate is clearly against it. Democrats could stand to distance themselves from Bush’s pioneer policies, but it’s not always easy to take away money from religious groups, rather than just not give – especially when you’re trying to get elected in the United States. In the Bush-Kerry battle of 2004, religion was front and center. No running candidate can afford to be labeled anti-religious in any way, which is one of the reasons Obama’s attempts to deflect the Rev. Wright issue walk a very fine line. Clinton is the only of the remaining three being explicitly pro-religious funding, while neither Obama nor McCain have expressed a firm position. In fact, the only familiar name that is against governmental religious funding is Ron Paul, who happened to be the candidate who most stressed the harsh economic ramifications of the Iraq war.

(image from CBS news)

Post from: Cosmoloan

1. If his own family won’t lend him cash, why the heck would you? Only a desperate idiot would commit financial suicide by taking out a loan with the ridiculous interest rate of 99.25%!

2. This interview gives a broad stroke (ha) of his life and career. And he’s calling us idiots? Whatchu talkin’ ‘bout Gary?

3. As much as this pic does exemplify “awesome”, it’s not the kind of awesome that would garner an investment from me.

4. Now You Know Better. Yet another example the lows to which old Gary is willing to sink to make a buck. Plus, who knows if he’ll relapse into butter binging. Unpredictability makes for a bad investment.

5. Anyone who can’t stand up to a crack over the head with a guitar by Double J Jeff Jarrett obviously lacks resilience. With the US recession in mind, why would you loan to someone who can’t stand on his own two feet?

6. No memories of his career on Diff’rent Strokes? You can see what’s coming… “What loan?” Lay off the crack indeed.

7. The woman who almost kicked his ass had “squishy” breasts. Sorry, Gary. You weak, you weak.

8. Falling into a pit after losing to Kato Kaelin on a gameshow? This guy’s got a knack for finding new lows, seriously.

9. In what might have been a cash-grab publicity stunt, in-his-40s and not-long-married and still recently-virginal Gary made recent his divorce from his 22-year-old wife public (see “new lows”, discussed previously). Can’t loan money to a guy who’s willing to do that.

10. Poor Gary couldn’t sell his 2007 Saturn Sy Convertible for what was actually a rather reasonable price of $25,000. Basically, he doesn’t know how to make his assets work for him, and obviously can’t leverage whatever star power remains.

Post from: Cosmoloan

I’d like to own my own bar/pub as much as the next guy (or girl), but who knew you could invest in one for less than $400? My kind of business grants. Just loan out money for this Christian Rural Aid Network project, and you can set up your own watering hole, your own place where everyone in Ghana knows your name. That being said, there’s something sad about a church group supporting the opening of a pub. I suppose we all need entertainment, but… it’s a christian group… and it’s a pub. Here is some information about Ghanaian culture and alcoholism in a book called Alcohol and Pleasure: A Health Perspective.

p.127
“A person who is dependent on alcohol is likely to be seen as being cursed or punished for sins committed in the past.”

p.128
“Over the years, prevention efforts have been aimed at total abstinence from alcohol use. This approach has not succeeded because alcohol is well established in the cultural life of Ghanaians. Although some Christian churches preach against the evils of excessive alcohol use, others see alcohol use as demonic and condemn its use in all forms. Some churches even have substituted mineral water for wine during Holy Communion.”

p.129
“It also is becoming increasingly clear that people will continue to drink alcohol no matter what laws are enacted. In the 1970s a military officer who was regional commissioner of one of the regions of Ghana banned the sale of akpeteshie in his area. The ban was enforced through prevention of importat of the drink from the south. Inhabitant immediately started distilling the beverage from local materials using rusty nails and powdered soap to enhance fermentation. The results were disastrous, and the ban disappeared quietly and completely.”

In any case, the culture’s relationship with alcohol is complex, and I’m not judging how people spend their free time. I guess I just find it a bit sad that the state of affars is such that a christian group would be compelled to support the opening of a pub, that’s all. Weird.

More about microloans and other grants

Post from: Cosmoloan

“Borrower called yesterday and I took and full 1003 app on a 2×2 yellow sticky I had in my car. Front and back. Subprime but hey it will close. What place, paper, object, area did you take a free note 1003 app? Thought we could end the 2007 year with a few laughs.”

Just look at these things……Hilarious!

I’ve never been called a “borrower” before. Makes me feel, kinda dirty. A full 1003 app on a 2×2 yellow sticky? Pure madness! I’d hate to bore people with my skydiving experiences next to this guy at a party.

Me: So after jumping out of the plane at 14,000ft, I completely missed my target and landed in someone’s swimming pool.

Loan Ninja: BORING! That’s why we call you people “bore-owers”. Last night I closed a subprime loan on a yellow post-it. Beat that!

Me(defeated): I can’t.

My favorite is when he throws out the question of where and how others have taken these wild and crazy 1003 apps, in an attempt to close out the year “with a few laughs”. My sides are splitting already. How starved for joy and humor are these poor souls, that loan application stories are being called in to entertain the troops? Well, believe it or not, I found one that actually made me smile, for the wrong reasons no doubt (I’ll explain later), but a smile nonetheless.

“Borrower told he was in the club business, told me to come to his place w/my laptop and take the loan app. at 10:00am. Well, showed up, heard the music bumping, okay! Walked in and it was auditioning time for Topless dancers, sat down took the loan app. and, well forgot to ask about the disclosures on the 3rd. page. Stayed for lunch, steak with all the fixings and mix drinks. Ya-ta-ya-ta-ya-ta, ended up doing tons of 100% SISA’s for the dancers! Now the girls know me as “Loan Man!” Great Times!”

This post made me laugh for two reasons. The first being how the borrowee (take that!) capitalized the word “Topless”. Apparently the word has been elevated to the status of proper noun, much like the Golden Gate Bridge or Tito’s Taco Palace. Sorry dancers, no big letters for you, only for your lack of tops.

The second cause for laughter is the concept of an actual “Loan Man”. Worst superhero EVER.
Student: Man, how am I ever going to afford law school?

Random deep voice: “This looks like a job for….LOAN MAN”

Passer by: Look to the sky it’s a briefcase…..it’s a pocket protector….no, it’s Loan Man!”

Hiding behind his giant $, and a cape made entirely out of 1003 applications, Loan Man protects his secret identity: Alone Man.

Wow…..I need to quit drinking redbull. And maybe get a business loan and find something better to do that write posts about loan-based superheroes.

Post from: Cosmoloan

Imagine you’re playing poker, you’ve already folded and it’s down to two people. Excitement builds when the tycoon goes All-In with billions. The river card flips and you watch in horror as the tycoon loses everything. You are more than shocked to learn he bet everything he had on a pair of 3’s, and you are disturbed to discover the money wasn’t his to begin with, that it belonged to people who trusted him. You sneak a peek at your next hand, and sure enough, pair of 3’s. How quickly would you fold?

Private lenders watched in horror as Bear Stearns, the 5^th largest investment bank in the US, lost billions of dollars on weak-handed, high-risk subprime mortgages, forcing them to sell the whole kit-and-kaboodle to the competition for an embarrassing two bucks a share. Lenders are treating students from now on like pairs of 3’s, they are folding the hand and will not risk any money unless you are royalty.

There, poker analogies out of the system, we can continue.

From smaller companies like Nelnet Inc. to big fish like Sallie Mae, loans have either been abolished completely or have become extremely difficult for students to get. They are equating students with subprime borrowers and do not want to suffer the same fate as the real estate market. Next fall students and families will discover the criteria for private loan eligibility has become more stringent than ever and prices have increased dramatically.

Where can students go?

What many students could and should do is to follow Northeastern University’s decision to bypass all commercial lenders and get their loans directly from the federal government. Private loans have always out-advertised their federal counterparts, but people will soon discover the many advantages of applying for loans from the latter. First and foremost, federal loans have a fixed interest rate of 6.8%. An incredible fact when you consider the limitless rates imposed by private companies, rates which can often reach credit card heights of 20%. Students presently on federal loans are able to breathe easy during this tumultuous economic crisis as they are not affected by the market the way private loans are. You don’t need an immaculate credit history when applying for your federal loan as there is no credit check, and students in all income brackets are eligible.

For an in depth breakdown of the differences between federal and private loans, please visit http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_46/b3959126.htm

Will federal loans be available for everyone next fall?

According to the US undersecretary of Education, Sara Martinez Tucker, yes. During a public hearing she announced that the federal loans program has not been affected by the economic crisis surrounding the Bear Stearns meltdown, and that loans will be available for the expected 6.7 million applications in the fall.

A blessing in disguise?

The fact that private lenders like Sallie May are refusing loans to students they deem to be “weak bets” will actually save the students money in the long run. While federal loans might not afford them the Ivy League university of their dreams, students will not be stuck paying ridiculous amounts of interest for the next 30 years. In the end students should have nothing to fear in the wake of the Bear Stearns disaster. Aside from the fact that federal loans are cheaper, available to more people and easier to pay off, they will save students the agonizing experience of dealing with the Sallie May customer service department.

Post from: Cosmoloan

This Chinese group was not only charmed by the 500-years-old magnificent Walt Disney type castle, their main purpose was to enter the high quality Bordeaux wine market at a strategic moment: when the market is at the floor price.
Also a great timing with the Olympics Games coming this summer, many advertising spots are already been booked on main Chinese TV chains.
Did you know that the exportations of Bordeaux wine to China are on a 100% growth rate annually? No need to tell you to watch closely this Longhai International group.

Post from: Cosmoloan