Thursday, April 7, 2011

Liquidity of Time

As I'm about to graduate with my MAcc in two weeks, I have often thought about what I have learned over the past five years. Undoubtedly I feel a tinge of embarrassment when I reflect upon all the information I once knew before entering the testing center and have now willingly placed from my mind. However, something we learned about last semester has, in a way, completely changed my life...

The matter of liquidity.
Liquidity can also be used to describe the ability of an asset to be converted to cash in order to meet current, necessary, financing obligations. For example, an airplane ticket may be worth $150, but you couldn't trade your plane ticket for a gorgeous pair of $150 shoes...even though their worth is equivalent. A plane ticket is a pretty illiquid asset.

A professor once asked us in class...Who is wealthier? Me or you? To which, of course, we responded "YOU!" "Not true," he responded, "You have more wealth than just haven't received your paychecks yet. I have earned my wealth and spent it already. You have more wealth...but you just haven't converted your college degrees into careers yet...think of what they will be worth to you in life! What you actually have is a liquidity problem."

I thought about this for the rest of the day. Not only do I have a liquidity issue in terms of my finances...but time is the most illiquid of all assets. I cannot 'cash out' on time in the future, until that day comes. Days are like annuities in that they are like time payments made to us consistently, and in the same amount.

When prioritizing in is so easy for us to get things confused. But what happens, for example, when you have children? They're only little for a few years...and only in those specified years. You cannot access that time asset later, or earlier. You only have it when you have it.

I remembered laughing when I watched the movie "Wall Street II" and it said, "Time is the most valuable asset". Well it's also the most access it appropriately.

Saturday, May 15, 2010

A Common Misconception~

My friend Britt Linde and I discuss relationships a lot, and today I explained a thought i had to her. I was running last night...listening to Mahler's 5th symphony. Yes I know, who does that? And I was thinking. Ahh, very dangerous. I was thinking about love and past relationships I have been in and came to this conclusion. Because my other blog Further Frivolity is dripping with sarcasm and a lot of things that I, quite frankly, do not mean, my friends Britt and Serena suggested I make this 'sister blog' if you will, and write down my more serious thoughts.


There are two scenarios, where in, if you find yourself or someone are not in love. The first is the typical scenario we all know too well...In fact, I should probably say I know too well as well :)

Scenario 1:
You know those really annoying couples who break up ALL the time and get back together? Or the ex that despite breaking up with someone well over a year ago, just can't seem to keep his/her distance? This may also refer to the couple where distance/time/circumstances keeps them apart, and little is said while away, but when together, the flame is rekindled. When in one of these relationships I've often had people mention, "Oh are you seeing 'so and so' again Maggie? You two just can't get enough of each other!" Umm...FALSE, we can, we haven't spoken for four months until last week.

I know this all too well because of my 6 ex-boyfriends...4 of them are guilty of this. Well, maybe I'm guilty too. I had one ex tell me, "Maggie, I just can't stay away from you...when I'm not with you I can't breath." To which I believe I said, "That's charming, but you're drowning when you're with me. Find another way to live."

Scenario 2:
This is perhaps the most annoying! This is the relationship where one, or both (heaven help you if you witness this!) involved completely loses it! They can't do anything without each other, they forget who they are and one even exclaims, "With out him/her I'd DIE!" Proudly, I have never been in this situation (unlike the first scenario lol!)

Let me tell you why neither of these are love. the first is a matter of convenience. When something in the scenario stops being convenient...someone bails. "But he can't stay away from me...he must love me!" No sweetheart, have you ever been on a diet? Candy isn't good for you...but odds are if it's placed in front of you...YOU'LL eat it! Despite your best efforts you will still eat it! I would know, I just did it yesterday! Something about your relationship makes you bad for each other...and only tolerable and mildly tempting when in each other's presence...He might care...but not enough. And 'enough' is what matters!

Scenario 2 is also not love for this reason. Self preservation is human instinct...if a man told me he needed me to survive, honestly, I would think less of him! Do you not have confidence in your own ability? Do you lack independence? Why are you incapable of functioning with out me? Are you using me for your own self preservation? I'm offended you are with me...not because you want to...but because you need to!

"I'm nothing without you!" one might exclaim. If someone tells you this, RUN AWAY! because they've basically told you their being is worthless. You already have you, so you having him/her which only has value because of you...leaves you with...yourself! Congratulations, you've added 1+1 and gotten 1 not 2. That's mathematically impossible, and tragically your future.

My point is this:
Only if someone doesn't need you, can they love you. Only the person who will be fine without you, but wouldn't have it any other way is there because of love! And Only if someone can function without you can someone be capable of loving you. Top this off with moments when there is an element of inconvenience, and you can be certain this person has proved their love for you.

But let's all remember...I am undoubtedly...still single ;-)