Wisdom from The Action Wisdom In Action

From CNN Money.

"The legislation provides for 13 more months to apply for extended jobless benefits, but not everyone who's unemployed will be eligible for these extended benefits.

In fact, residents in at least five states won't have access to the same level of unemployment benefits as their peers nationwide.

That's because the unemployment rate in those states is improving, so, according to federal law, the jobless there can't receive checks for as long as those in harder-hit states."

Surprise! The 99-weekers are done. I mentioned this stuff when the legislation first passed a week ago. CNN is just now getting this picture?

"Here's how the system works: The jobless collect up to 26 weeks of state benefits before shifting to the extended federal program. Federal benefits consist of up to 53 weeks of emergency compensation, which is divided into four tiers, and up to another 20 weeks of extended benefits. The maximum is 99 weeks.

But not everyone can collect benefits for that long. Extended benefits, as well as the last two tiers of emergency compensation, are tied to state unemployment rates. So as their state job picture brightens, the jobless stop qualifying for long-term benefits.

To be eligible for the fourth tier of emergency benefits, which last up to six weeks, the average state's unemployment rate must be above 8.5% for three months. Similarly, states lose their eligibility for the third tier of benefits, which last up to 13 weeks, if their rate falls below 6%. Extended benefits have a more complicated formula tied to different gauges of unemployment."

Either they find work, or they accept the new reality--frugality and a one-income family.

"Those in the midst of a tier can continue to collect benefits until they exhaust that tier, but they cannot advance to the next level. This does not sit well with those who cannot find a job."

...

"Those that had opposed continuing benefits say another extension would be too expensive and would dissuade people from finding jobs.

Advocates argue that the safety net has always existed during periods of high national unemployment. The Obama administration echoes their position, saying that people will naturally fall off the rolls as state unemployment rates improve."

Poverty should be uncomfortable--Ben Franklin. Why should it be uncomfortable? To encourage you to work hard to get out and stay out of it--it should be something you avoid, not embrace! These people have already had a nearly two-year paid vacation--how much more do they want?

From Martin Weiss Research.

The article rehashes a lot of Bernanke's failed and failing policies of a weak dollar coupled with a weak interest rate, which I imagine will continue through to 2012. Here's a list of the damage that's occurred just this month:

"November Producer Price Index (PPI) for finished goods surged 0.8 percent, almost double most economists estimates. Moreover, the inflation is not stemming just from rising energy prices. Overall, the cost of food rose 1 full percentage point in November, equivalent to 12 percent annual inflation. Egg prices led the way higher, jumping 23 percent in November, while the price of fruit jumped an astounding 14 percent.

Think these are one-time, freak price jumps?

Think again, because since the first of this month… the price of corn is up more than 3 percent … coffee is up more than 8 percent … sugar is up 8.49 percent … oats are up nearly 6 percent … while cotton prices are up more than 16 percent — all of this in just 15 days!

The consumer price index hasn’t started jumping yet. But just like night follows day, it will as companies pass on higher wholesale costs."

The important part I wanted you to see is this: what to do about it as far as future investment placement goes.

"With interest rates rising and the Fed continuing to print money and buy bonds, despite a zero percent success rate so far, how can you protect yourself?

First, avoid long-term bonds of almost any kind. The longer the maturity on a bond, the more sensitive its price is to interest rate fluctuations. The surge in rates we’re seeing is crushing bond investors and the pain will only get worse the higher rates go.

Second, consider foreign debt as an alternative to U.S. bonds. Many foreign countries are in better fiscal shape than we are. The European PIIGS nations are an obvious exception. But in places like South America and Asia, opportunity abounds. Explore some of the exchange traded funds (ETFs) and mutual funds that invest there, focusing on shorter-term securities.

Third, to hedge your interest rate risk, consider inverse ETFs that RISE in value when bond prices FALL. You can even buy exchange traded notes (ETNs) that allow you to profit from a steepening in the yield curve, like we have now.

Fourth, remember that all bond market meltdowns present opportunity. If you sidestep the price declines — then scoop up bonds when their prices are cheap and their yields are high — you can lock in hefty returns for the long-term. That’s what I plan to do at the right time, and I recommend you do too!"

I'd also like to add dividend plays (ETFs, indexes, funds) to this list, because recently, this was broadcast on Bloomberg. Because Nouriel Roubini doesn't see the government making any serious moves to rectify our debt and deficit problems, the 2011 and possibly 2012 stock markets are going to plunge--traders and investors are going to send the markets a signal that they aren't pleased with the inaction.

To me, this is the first sign of a coming double-dip recession (actually it would be the triple-dip, or West Virginia (WV) economy I've mentioned some time ago). Obama's latest spending bill was actually a stimulus in disguise, and it won't work just like the first and second one didn't.

So what can you do about it? Instead of going down with the ship, jump to a rising one. Stocks are going to tank, so shift to bonds (short- and medium-term ones at first, then longer term ones as the plunge hangs on--this is precisely when to buy bonds), or ride the positive aspects of sinking stocks by riding the dividend horse--as stocks sink in value, the dividend rises to pay you to hang on in tough times. Real estate is another way--either through home-buying, rental buying, or REITS. Continue to stay away from gold, as selling it is more hassle than it's worth, and it isn't useful in any application--not even feeding yourself.

A new opportunity for stocking foodstuffs may also be coming, but it would take a big miracle to do away with the dollar devaluation overnight--just that alone is the cause of 30-40% of our inflation, and a year or two isn't going to erase it completely. When Wall St. sees real and measurable positive effects on reducing the deficit, then traders will have confidence in and will buy our dollar. This will help to erase that currency deflation, and consequently, our hidden inflation. As this devaluation subsides, retailers will no longer have an excuse for raising prices or shrinking product sizes just to eke out a profit, and food prices should come down, even if a little bit.

Is this light at the end of the tunnel? No--we're entering a darker, deeper tunnel. You have to provide your own light, because the government hasn't paid its light bill for decades. The game of politics is one of job security, and politicians are only interested in staying employed, not solving problems--that's for the next administration. Capitol Hill is only going to kick the can down the road--that's all it knows how to do.

From USA Today.

"Stephanie Edwards-Musa finished her Christmas shopping early this year. Her 13-year-old daughter is getting a PlayStation 2 and clothing from Hollister and Aeropostale. For her 5-year-old son, it's a bundle of toys, mostly "Star Wars"-themed.

The bill? $45.

Edwards-Musa, a Houston Realtor, found these items used on ThredUp.com, an online toy exchange that launched last week. Parent-to-parent swapping sites like this one, growing in popularity, offer families a way to clear their closets of toys and clothes their children have outgrown in exchange for items cast off by older kids."

...

"Thrifty parents are finding plenty of places to barter on the Web. At the online community SwapMamas.com, hip moms trade goods from baby slings to clarinets without any money changing hands. Swap-seekers place hundreds of listings a day on classifieds service Craigslist.org, while parents just looking for freebies gravitate to the local forums on Freecycle.org.

ThredUp CEO James Reinhart says the site has benefited from middle-income Americans' heightened frugality; its membership, now at 50,000, has grown steadily since it debuted with clothing only back in April."

...

"Even in hard times, "parents still want to do whatever it takes to create magic for their kids on Christmas and give them that pleasure," said toy analyst Chris Byrne — one reason toy sales have held steady over the past few years while other categories fell.

Americans spend more than $21 billion a year on toys and games, according to market research firm NPD Group, and many of these items end up getting thrown away or stuffed in basements and attics. ThredUp Marketing Manager Karen Fein says the company expects to save parents $500,000 this holiday season.

Of course, many parents unload their kids' outgrown goods the old-fashioned — and most eco-friendly — way: by handing them down to friends and family.

Used playthings are not always greener, however. Some product-safety groups caution against buying toys secondhand because it's tough to guarantee the products meet safety standards regarding lead and other chemicals. Also, when a resold toy lacks its original packaging, parents may not recognize whether it's age-appropriate or contains pieces that are choking hazards, said Scott Wolfson, spokesman for the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission.

Still, the secondhand market for children's clothes and toys generates $3 billion in sales annually. ThredUp's investors, led by Silicon Valley's Trinity Ventures, hope the start-up can carve out a sizeable chunk.

To facilitate a swap, ThredUp provides a flat-rate shipping box a parent can fill with giveaways. The donor lists the contents of the box on the site, where the bundles are organized by age and gender. To claim a box, a user pays $5 to ThredUp plus $10.70 for shipping, and ThredUp e-mails the sender a prepaid shipping label. Members rate each other based on the quality of the stuff they receive.

The emphasis on convenience is a response to what Reinhart sees as "massive inefficiencies" in the used-clothing market. Parents are too busy to spend time "digging through the racks for those diamonds in the rough at Goodwill," he said."

...

"ThredUp users are quick to point out it's not an anonymous marketplace but a community. On the site's Facebook page, members share pictures and make special requests like "any toys with a ladybug theme." For Snowden, a first-time mother, the camaraderie is as enticing as the dirt-cheap stuff.

"I can ask, 'What toys is my baby going to want when she's 2,' and I get a lot of really helpful responses," she said. "These are like-minded people with their own kids, and I trust them."

UPDATE: Now that I've had time to think about this whole thing, it occurs to me that these parents are merely shifting their consumerism to different sources--they aren't actually learning to do without, or teaching their children about what's important in life. Yeah, sure, kids need clothes, and swapping is what should've been going in since birth, but how many of us need a Play Station 2 just to exist? That gift alone is going to generate hundreds of headaches and heartaches when obtaining desired games for it, or even accessories, becomes difficult at best on the used market.

My father once told me a tale of sisters and a dress: it all starts with a dress (Depression days). Then the dress requires a slip, shoes, a hat, a purse, some gloves, nylons, and pretty soon that dress costs three times what the price tag reads. How many other items can you attribute that train of though to...besides game stations? Gardens come to mind, but at least they pay you back in food.

Yeah, okay, so the Play Station didn't end up in a landfill--but it will some day, along with all the rest of the unwanted, obsolete electronics that choke our world as it is.

Another consideration: how much exercise is that kid going to miss out on (and how much future obesity is he/she going to endure) because of being planted in front of the TV on nice days?

Clothes and toys--swap. Occasional dinners--swap. Ideas, tools, and one-use machines/clothing--swap or borrow. Electronics, especially ones that enslave you to the TV and/or marketing--avoid, or swap to get rid of.

As for the question "What toys is my baby going to want when she's 2?" She will want whatever you give her as long as she isn't exposed to marketing and want creation. Our brains don't fully mature until we reach 25, so we don't really know what we want until then. It's the parents job to teach then what they want, and parenting by consensus isn't really parenting--it's guided consumerism.

From Fox Business News.

"If you ask Deanne Anderson what a top school is worth, she's got a specific answer: 25 percent of your home's value."

...

"This seemingly subtle difference in school districts has a dramatic impact on home prices, says Anderson, who works for Coldwell Banker in La Cañada. Homes in the Sagebrush area sell for about $100 less a square foot than those in the La Cañada school district."

...

"housing prices in the A-rated districts immediately jumped 10 percent over those in areas where the schools were good, but not great--in other words, where the schools received B or even B+ grades. When schools proved consistently better over time, the price difference got wider.

In fact, Figlio's research confirms Anderson's evaluation almost to the percentage point. He says a consistently top district commands a 23 percent premium in housing prices over homes in even B+ school districts. While housing prices may rise and fall, this cost differential remains, and Realtors say houses in top school districts sell faster, too. But watch out if there's any chance that the schools will deteriorate or re-zone, says Figlio.

"Schools are an asset," he says. "Even people who don't have kids are willing to pay more for houses in a good school district because they know that when they sell, they are going to be able to sell for more."

...

"At today's mortgage rates, you'd be better off spending an extra $75,000 per child on a house with access to good public schools than on even a relatively inexpensive private parochial school.

If you'd send your kids to the pricier non-sectarian schools, boost that figure by $100,000, he says. In reality, private schools would cost you more than $225,000. But Wilson figured you'd pay more for property taxes and insurance with the more expensive home too, so he factored that in for his apples-to-apples comparison."

Okay, I have questions:

1. Is "school score" another intangible that supposedly adds to the perceived value of the house, like neighborhood and ambience?

2. Should people who have no kids (or no kids left at home) even take this into consideration?

3. At the rate in which people move around (more frequently as the housing market sinks), is it even worth the effort to seek out the best school districts and pay more for what amounts to a short-term rental from the bank?

4. Does any of this even take into consideration that school districts can be improved by the people already living in it?

5. What's the point of spending more money when your job outlook is shaky, and the prospect of selling is even shakier?

Instead of spending more money for so-called "better schools", why not work to better the schools you live near RIGHT NOW? This amounts to throwing money at a school problem, and is equivalent to throwing money at a perceived "global warming" problem by buying a hybrid car. It's still a car that takes oil to produce, rare earths to produce, and takes oil to run...not to mention coal in the form of electricity.

What's the point of seeking out better school districts when you know you aren't going to live there for very long? Your money is going to real estate commissions when you sell anyway--the real estate agent will pass on this intangible benefit to the next buyer, getting a higher price (and higher commission) along the way. The house itself hasn't changed, and neither has the school district. Only the perception of value (aided by the agent and his/her "intangibles") has changed.

Can you say M-A-R-K-E-T-I-N-G?

I'm buying a HOUSE, not a school district! That extra money for better districts only ends up in the seller's, agent's, and eventually, the tax collector's pocket, instead of going to improving my own property and its TRUE worth.

Unless you're buying the house when the kids are young (or not even born yet), and plan to stay there until they graduate and go to college, NO IT ISN'T WORTH THE EXTRA MONEY. Living in a "good" school district for a few years out of a kid's life isn't going to help the kid or your wallet...which leads me to another question: how long should you stay in and continue to pay for that "better district" when your own kids are grown and gone, and you have no further use of the "good" school district? Who can afford to buy your house THEN?

From CNN Money.

"In the period between Thanksgiving and New Year's, American households generate 25% more waste. That's about 1 million extra tons of trash each year, according to the Environmental Protection Agency.

That includes everything from food to wrapping paper, holiday decorations, packaging, and old cellphones and laptops that are unceremoniously dumped as soon as the latest models emerge from under the Christmas tree."

...

"Linda Gabor, vice president of marketing for Call2Recycle, which operates a free rechargeable battery and cell phone collection program in North America says that during this season of giving, people should also give some thought to the waste they create.

"After all the gifts are opened on Christmas, this is one last gift that people can give each other that doesn't require any ribbons or bows," said Gabor. "Cut down on trash, recycle and and properly dispose your garbage."

Despite the annual surge in waste during the holidays, Gabor and Berry are encouraged by the recent trends.

In 2008, Americans generated about 250 million tons of trash and recycled and composted 83 million tons of this material, at about a 33.2% percent recycling rate, according to the latest available data from the EPA."

...

"Here are a few simple ways to reduce your holiday waste:

* Christmas trees: Many people think they are helping the environment by not buying a real Christmas tree. Not true, said Berry. "There are 500,000 acres of farmland in North America dedicated to Christmas trees," she said. "When you buy a real tree, you are buying it from one of these farms and not from a national forest." Also, for every tree that's cut down, the farmer will plant three to four new trees. "So you are not contributing to deforestation," she said.

After Christmas, it's important to properly dispose of your tree. Tree recycling programs vary from state to state. The mulch from the recycled tree has many uses, Berry said. You can take it back to your house and use it in your backyard. It's also used in community pathways in parks and in playgrounds. Additionally, Christmas trees are being used on beachfronts as part of erosion protection measures.

* At parties: Lots of leftover food winds up in the trash. Instead, stock up on doggy bags and send leftovers home with the guests. Also, Berry suggests holiday party hosts set up a recycling bin right next to the trash bin to make it convenient for people to separate the garbage from the recycling.

* When gift wrapping: Most of us probably don't realize that the cute shiny wrapping paper is generally not recyclable. It contains dyes and other difficult-to-process additives. Eco-friendly wrapping paper is a better option although it is more expensive that regular wrapping paper, said Berry. Other common-sense tips -- bunch gifts together and use one sheet of wrapping paper. "Old maps or book pages are other creative solutions that don't look tacky," she said.

* When traveling: Many environmentally-conscious holiday travelers already participate in programs that let them use their air miles to offset their carbon footprint. But for those who don't participate, Berry has other tips. "We consume a lot of products en route, such as bottled water, soda, chips and we simply throw these away in the trash at the airport," she said. Some carriers have in-flight recycling programs. But if they don't, simply carry your trash with you and put it in a recycling bin at the airport, if there is one, or once you get home.

* Holiday lights: Always recycle your old Christmas lights. Berry said consumers can find several resources on how to do that through her company or by simply doing a little research."

Speaking of holiday trash, here's what I had to deal with back when I lived in an apartment: Post-Holiday Commentary 2005-2006-2007, Post-Holiday Commentary 2008, Post-Holiday Commentary 2009. Since I now live in a house, the post-holiday commentary will be restricted to my neighbor--other than that, I'm surrounded by retirees whose kids left the nest long ago. As it is, this neighbor regularly overflows her weekly trash (with only one kid), so I'm anxious to see what damage they can do over Christmas.

Back when we lived with the in-laws (eons ago), whatever didn't get saved for next year got burned in the fireplace--the wrapping paper made for some colorful flames.

Needless to say, the people I feel most sorry for over the holidays aren't the poor people, but the trash haulers and dump workers.

From Accredited Online Colleges. Question: why restrict it to only college students?

"Like many college students, you’re probably on a pretty tight budget. Sometimes that might mean that by the end of the month, you don’t have too much cash lying around to buy groceries with. Luckily, you can put your college education to work and use your smarts, and a little elbow grease to finagle a free meal. Here are 50 fun, sneaky and sometimes downright desperate ways to get free food while you’re a college student."

Too many to list--please see original article link above.

From Bankrate.com. Done in gallery format--you have to go there to see them.

From CNN Money. Yes, this is an article about grocery brand mergers and acquisitions. Why does this concern you? Two reasons: now you know why all the fuss is being made with coupons, and the slow whittling away of choice is happening, as I described here (last 2 paragraphs).

"With improved access to credit and mountains of capital ready to deploy, private-equity and strategic buyers are hot to snap up food companies. Thanks to their stable cash flows, food firms are generally safe bets, especially for highly leveraged private-equity deals where debt repayment is a priority.

There is one complicating factor, however: brands are fading, and the biggest consumer food companies are built on brands. So while there has been buzz about possible buyouts of, for example, Sara Lee (SLE), ConAgra (CAG), and J.M. Smucker (SJM), there has been no reported movement toward a deal for any of them.

Even before the recession, private-label (or store brand) products were ascending, taking market share away from branded products. The downturn has only made things better for private labels and worse for many brands as consumers have sought out cheaper fare.

In many cases, those consumers have discovered that private-label products are just as good as the branded ones, or at least close enough. For that reason, some analysts believe that private labels -- which according to the research firm Packaged Facts now make up nearly a fifth of the grocery market, up from just 14% in 2005 -- will continue to eat away at certain brands even after the economy picks up. Once viewed as commodities, private-label products are developing a "brand" of their own. They represent an $87 billion market, Packaged Facts says.

This raises several questions for both strategic and private-equity investors. Should would-be acquirers wait to see how the recovery might affect sales of private-label products? Which brands are most vulnerable to the rise of private labels? Not all brands are the same – many will remain strong for years to come."

And to make matters worse, who do you think owns a majority of the organic labels out there? Yup--the Big Food brands, like Kraft, Heinz, Dole, Del Monte, etc.

Now you begin to understand the method behind the Coupon Queens' madness--they are paid by the big brands to entice you into buying big brands by using coupons in hyper-fashion. Generics and lower price-per-unit foods have won out, and the big brands are flailing around trying to survive, even though they're the makers of the generics.

When a company gets sold to private equity firms, the company is usually a step away from bankruptcy, and private equity is the only thing to save it from default. Witness Burger King, Hardees, Kmart, and Sears--all fell by the wayside, only to be saved by private equity firms. If they don't make a profit for the private equity firms, they get spun back out into bankruptcy, or get merged with another private equity holding, or just dissolved altogether. Rarely do firms get sold back into public domains and return to the stock market.

"Just look at Bumble Bee, the once-venerable tuna brand that has lost its luster over the years. Last month, Centre Partners Management, the tuna company's private-equity owner, sold Bumble Bee to Lion Capital, another PE shop. The price was a reported $980 million, or only about 7.5 times earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization. That's well below the valuation of 9 to 11 times earnings that food companies are commanding on average.

In one sense, Centre Partners did well – it got a 250% return on its investment. But Centre could have gotten a better return elsewhere. And just compare this deal to the last time Centre bought and sold Bumble Bee. It purchased the company from ConAgra in 2003 and sold of the last of its stake in 2005. That series of deals netted Centre an 850% return. But the brand has faded since then, and so has the valuation.

Consumers tend to be more brand-loyal to bigger names. And grocers, overwhelmed by the variety of products on their shelves, are more likely to trade out mid-tier brands for their own brands than to stop stocking the best-known products.

Those crowded shelves also have implications on the deal front. Expect more consolidation among makers of private-label products. For retailers, buying products from dozens of private-label suppliers is highly inefficient and costly. Buying from just a handful allows grocers to get the full benefit of making thin-margin private-label products available."

...

"Consolidation is also happening in private-equity deals. Fieldbrook Foods recently agreed to be acquired by Arbor Investments, which specializes in food and beverage companies. Terms weren't disclosed, but Fieldbrook is the largest supplier of private-label ice cream east of the Mississippi. It got that way by spending the past decade snapping up other companies.

Meanwhile, private equity and strategic buyers are wondering what to do with brands that are being hurt by the rise of private labels. In October, shares of Sara Lee spiked after reports that private-equity firms including Kohlberg Kravis Roberts and Apollo Global Management, perhaps smelling blood in the water, were eyeing the struggling company. But there has been no reported movement on a deal (and Sara Lee says it no longer wants to sell). The stock has continued to rise.

Last month, Sara Lee sold its North American bakery unit to Mexico's increasingly gargantuan Grupo Bimbo for a bargain-basement price of $959 million (it was reportedly hoping for something more like $1.5 billion), signaling that it no longer wanted to compete with private-label bakers.

Bimbo, which has snapped up brands such as Entenmann's and Thomas' English Muffins, is on a mission to get most of its sales from the United States. Through acquisitions, it's getting close.

Whether or not Sara Lee is bought out in whole, such spinoffs of particular units might become a trend if wholesale deals can't be struck. Analysts have said that companies like Sara Lee and ConAgra might not be attractive, but some of their parts surely are."

...

"Brands that are strong today might, like Bumble Bee, start fading tomorrow. On the other hand, the recovery might send shoppers flocking back to their favorite brands, making some private-label deals less valuable. It will likely be a few years before we know who is making the smartest bets in the grocery store."

Now you see the reason for all the coupon hype--the brands are trying to save themselves any way they can. All the coupon tricks in the world aren't going to get me to buy their overpriced stuff--what happens when the coupons go away, as well as the product choice? It's coming in the form of street markets just like Europe.

These companies HAVE to give away their food to compete with price-per-unit. Those coupons are an indicator of how much you're overpaying for the product. In-store sales are a magnifyer of that overpayment. Put them together, and you get a food company freebie because they can't sell it for a reasonable price--it isn't worth it! They're admitting they can't compete.

Witness all those little KFC/Taco Bell/Pizza Hut combo stores--those are also a private equity conglomeration called Yum Brands. Each brand separately can't compete, but put the three together, and POW! Yum Brands is on the stock market, which means public domain, but each individual INSIDE Yum Brands is a private entity. In other words, they had to put three brands together to make a decent company. The same goes for Sears and Kmart--separately, they each suck on ice, but cobbled together, into Sears Holdings, they do better. I have the feeling that eventually the Kmart name will disappear, leaving only the Sears name in the future.

This is what you can expect to happen with grocery stores and grocery brands. Your choice of stores will dwindle, as will your choice of brands, so you may as well ditch the loyalty before it's taken away from you. Expect to see Kroger-Meier-ShopRite stores, or some mash-up of whatever's in your area in the next decade.

From the Wall St. Journal. Of course--they counted on (and profited from) our lack of ability to comparison shop on the spot, but technology changed all that. Now all we need is a local grocery store price comparison app, and BAM! Coupon queens everywhere will suddenly be unemployed, as will marketers.

"Tri Tang, a 25-year-old marketer, walked into a Best Buy Co. store in Sunnyvale, Calif., this past weekend and spotted the perfect gift for his girlfriend.

Last year, he might have just dropped the $184.85 Garmin global positioning system into his cart. This time, he took out his Android phone and typed the model number into an app that instantly compared the Best Buy price to those of other retailers. He found that he could get the same item on Amazon.com Inc.'s website for only $106.75, no shipping, no tax.

Tri Tang uses his mobile phone app, TheFind, to scan product bar codes and immediately troll online for the best price at various retailers.

Mr. Tang bought the Garmin from Amazon right on the spot. It's so useful," Mr. Tang says of his new shopping companion, a price comparison app called TheFind. He says he relies on it "to make sure I am getting the best price."

...

"Until recently, retailers could reasonably assume that if they just lured shoppers to stores with enticing specials, the customers could be coaxed into buying more profitable stuff, too.

Now, marketers must contend with shoppers who can use their smartphones inside stores to check whether the specials are really so special, and if the rest of the merchandise is reasonably priced.

"The retailer's advantage has been eroded," says Greg Girard of consultancy IDC Retail Insights, which recently found that roughly 45% of customers with smartphones had used them to perform due diligence on a store's prices. "The four walls of the store have become porous."

Some of the most vulnerable merchants: sellers of branded, big-ticket items like electronics and appliances, which often prompt buyers to comparison shop. Best Buy, the nation's largest electronics chain, said Tuesday that it may lose market share this year, a downward trend that some analysts are attributing in part to pressure from price comparison apps."

Unfortunately, the entry fee for that arena is running at about $80/month for the Smartphone voice/data plan. If shopping this way leads to $960 or more per year, it might be worth it. But then again, how often are you going to be in the market for a TV, computer, or other electronic stuff? This is why I 'd like to see an app made for local grocery stores--this way, EVERYBODY can make use of this no matter where they live (since grocery store chains tend to be regional), and EVERYBODY would be sure to save at least the $80/month it would cost just to pay for the phone plan. Since some Smartphones can be found for free (but you have to sign up for certain plans), the cost of these plans could very well be paid for just in grocery savings.

I'm going to look into these now, and in the future, as plan prices will surely drop as time goes by.

"Although store executives publicly welcome a price-transparent world, retail experts don't expect all chains to measure up to the harsh judgment of mobile price comparisons. Some will need to find new ways to survive.


"Only a couple of retailers can play the lowest-price game," says Noam Paransky, senior manager at consultancy Kurt Salmon Associates. "This is going to accelerate the demise of retailers who do not have either competitive pricing" or a standout store experience.

I wrote previously about dwindling competition, dwindling choice, and dwindling sales here (last 2 paragraphs).

Because consumers made more frugal by the economic downturn are flocking to the cheapest offers they can find, comparison shopping via smartphones is making it harder for many retailers to charge higher prices in stores than on their websites."

...

"The shift in consumer behavior also imperils some of the most lucrative aspects of selling in stores, such as the ability to use salespeople to lure customers into making impulse buys, or entice them to buy one thing after they came in for another. A 10-country study by management consultant Accenture this year found that 73% of mobile-powered shoppers preferred peering into their phones for basic assistance over talking to a retail clerk.

For diehard deal-hunters such as Mary Saunders, a Virginia mother of two, the phone is fast becoming the weapon of choice in the battle for the best bargain. Hunting for Christmas gifts on a recent afternoon, Ms. Saunders used her iPhone at several stores to scan bar codes on every item on her children's Christmas wish lists, saving $2 here and $3 there.

Ms. Saunders still gathers newspaper circulars and visits all the big stores near her home in Stephens City, Va., to scrutinize specials. But her phone gives her a new sense of empowerment.

"I am slightly obsessed with getting the best deal," says Ms. Saunders, a substitute teacher. "So to me, the bar code scanner is the coolest thing in the world."

While e-commerce experts say many U.S. retailers have been slow to react to the mobile trend, some are starting to see that there is upside as well as disruption: Now retailers can virtually target customers inside competitors' stores."

...

"The hard sell doesn't stop there. If a customer inside a Best Buy compares prices through TheFind and discovers a better deal elsewhere, the retailer also makes one last pitch for the sale with ads showing them deals on other products at the store, such as a similar Blu-ray player that comes with a free movie disc.

"Instead of letting that person walk out, you are telling the customer, 'Look, we know you're already here, let's make a deal,'" says TheFind's Chief Executive, Siva Kumar. "It is not a consumer-only game. Retailers can use it to their advantage."

From MSN Money.

"Your scores can play a role in your ability to rent an apartment, qualify for a loan or even get a job. They can also affect how much you'll pay on interest charges, insurance and even cell phone contracts.

Make building stellar scores a priority while you're young and you could actually save hundreds or thousands of dollars over your lifetime. However, if you don't take your credit seriously, bad scores -- or even nonexistent scores -- will cost you."

So who's keeping score? Lenders, insurers, landlords, employers, and cell phone carriers. That about covers all your life bases.

"Even if you don't plan on applying for a loan or getting a new apartment or a new insurance policy anytime soon, it's a good idea to start building your credit scores now so they're there when you need them."

...

"Knowing what goes into your credit scores can help you manage your debts well. Here's how to make the best impression on your credit history:

* Pay on time. 35% of your scores depend on your payment history.

* Don't max out your cards. 30% of your scores are based on how much you owe. You want to keep your credit utilization ratio -- the percentage of your credit limit that you've actually used -- no higher than 30% of your available credit limit. And pay off the balance in full every month.

* Start while you're young. 15% depends on the average age of your accounts.

* Avoid opening several accounts at once. Not only will this lower the average age of your accounts, but lenders will worry that you might go on a borrowing binge. 10% of your scores depend on new credit.

* Get the right kind of credit. This accounts for the final 10% of your scores. Your experience with revolving credit, such as credit cards, on which you control how much you charge and pay off each month, carries more weight than installment debt, such as car loans and mortgages, with fixed payments. But don't simply stock up on a pocketful of Visas -- lenders like to see that your money skills are well rounded."

From MSN Money.

"Your tax planning for your 2010 return should have started last December. It's more complicated this year because tax laws have changed again. They always do.

Still, there are moves you can and should make before Dec. 31 to trim your 2010 tax bill.

Let's start with the simple things:

FSA spending

mortgage interest

real estate taxes

homebuyer credits

pension or IRA contributions

medical or miscellaneous deductions

capital gains/losses"

Now, the not-so-simple things:

AMT

buy stuff (such as energy-efficient appliances)

Please refer to the original article link above for details on each. For year-round advice, check out Jeff Schnepper's "Pay Zero Taxes" books, and find out why I call him my tax god.

From a college student: “ I was in Economics class today and the professor asked us to list 10 things that we wanted. These ten things had to be either manufactured goods or services.

I had difficulty with this assignment, because there aren't many things I want. I wasn't able to write down ten things, nor even five things. My list:

· A degree, which I was working on.
· A house, which I will have some day.
· A new vehicle, not really a requirement.
· A soda, because I was thirsty.

So why don't I want a lot of things, when everyone else in the classroom felt a limit of 10 things wasn't enough? Well I think its because I don't want things, plain and simple.

I live my life by necessities and not by accessories. For those who don't know the difference, necessities are things like water, electricity, food, clothes (nice, but not elaborate) and so on. Accessories are things like a fancy car, dinning out, satellite dish or even cable, and so on. I do have some things that are listed on the accessory part, but I can do without them and if need, they'd go.

Another reason I'm able to live within or below my means is that I don't have friends. Some say they are the best things in the world, but I just haven't seen that. They seem like another expensive luxury, among other things. I'm not saying that any of the things I listed above are wrong, its just that I live by the motto: "I'm not cheap, I just don't want a lot".

So what are YOUR 10 things, dear reader? Can you even come up with 10 things?

Buy a box of groceries for one or two families in need.

Buy health & beauty supplies for a battered women’s shelter (shampoo, tampons, Q-tips, deodorant, etc.).

Buy books for 10 kids (or a library in a poor community) who can't afford books.

Buy diapers for your local day care center.

Buy space heaters for those who can't afford them in the winter.

Pay part of someone's electric bill during the cold winter or hot summer.

Adopt a senior that has no family nearby. Take them for rides, shopping and lunch or a special dinner on their birthday.

Buy smoke alarms or carbon monoxide alarms for 2-3 families. You may save a life.

Commit to mentoring 1 student with the goal of making sure that student graduates from high school.

Buy $50 of fresh fruit and vegetables and donate it to a senior or child day care center.

Adopt a family. Be responsible for presents on holidays and birthdays and special dinners on holiday occasions.

Help a senior or single mother with monthly cleaning chores or home repairs.

Pay toward a dental exam for one needy child.

Commit $50 toward college books for a worthy student.

Round up clothing in your neighborhood and give it to a domestic violence shelter along with $50 to augment supplies.

Buy a car seat and donate it to your local hospital or health department for families who cannot afford proper restraints for their children.

Give $50 worth of general school supplies (paper, crayons, pencils, etc.) to your local school.

Buy $50 worth of coats at your local thrift shop and donate them to a local homeless shelter.

Buy $50 worth of yarn or fabric for local sewing or knitting clubs that make quilts and afghans for those in need.

Buy $50 of paint and painting supplies to cover over graffiti and gang insignia in a downtown neighborhood (get permission first).

Buy $50 worth of pet foods and litter to help animal shelters in need, or contribute to a spay/neuter/vaccination fund for low-income families in need.

Ways to Change Your World For $50/Month

Pick any activity from the above list and repeat it twelve times, or pick any twelve activities and only do them once each.

Dedicate $50 a month to sponsor inner city children for summer camp.

Commit $50 a month toward a needy college tuition fund.

Donate $50 a month to your local United Way. Each local United Way is autonomous. Check with your local United Way to find out how your donations can be leveraged to help greater numbers of your neighbors.

From CNN Money. The article spends a great deal of column length fretting and wringing hands about losing income and personal productivity, so I only brought over the pertinent parts to the article.

"The cost of not working

Whatever the right mix of reasons, the fallout is crippling. Economically, long-term joblessness means fewer dollars for consumption. For deficit control, it means fewer taxpayers contributing to government revenues and tens of billions more spent on unemployment insurance. Then there is the psychological toll on individuals and families -- and on the nation.

Early on in the recession, popular culture seized on the romantic notion of tightening our belts and looking inward to frills-free fun with our friends and families, after a decade of borrowed hyperconsumption. Now we need to ask a less romantic question: What happens when millions of Americans lose the habit of work, a habit that lends balance, structure, dignity -- and, of course, economic support -- to lives?

The longer people are unemployed the less employable they become. Skills become rusty; managers look more suspiciously at someone who has been out of work for years than a candidate already employed. I remember an old conservative saying: Graduate from high school; get a job -- any job; get married -- stay married; and (statistically speaking) your chances of landing in poverty are practically nil.

Even if that was once true, that calculation has lost some relevancy in this far more complex economy. But the concept of getting people back on the ladder, even if it's on a lower rung, is a worthy one."

Then the article goes into more hand-wringing over the upcoming tax bill vote, and whether or not unemployment bennies will be extended. What nobody's paying attention to is the fact that the federal unemployment program is structured so that the states with the LEAST amount of unemployment relative to the national rate will get LESS MONEY. This means even if the bill does pass, hardly anybody will qualify for more money, unless they are newly- or recently unemployed--the so-called "99 weekers" won't see a dime. Only states with the same or higher unemployment percentages as the national average will see federal extension money, which means states that have 9.8% or higher unemployment levels will be the only recipients of federal monies, and surprisingly, many states are doing much better than the national average--Vermont, for example, is in the 5% range.

Also, this article misses the point of frugal living and calls it a "romantic notion"--when done properly, there's nothing romantic about frugal living. In fact, I've never been busier or more determined to save money in my life!

Anyway, what they haven't seen yet is the savings from NOT working. Just in tax credits and deductions alone, a SAHS (spouse) is worth at least $40k in writeoffs, and maybe more now, with new and inventive ways of cutting spending (you're welcome). Just because the job isn't outside the house, you don't work any less, and your work isn't worth any less--you're just as productive, but you don't answer to any boss but yourself.

Ahhhhh...that might be the problem!

Some people need a higher authority to answer to, and are uncomfortable with a lack of overseer. Throughout generations, we've been slowly trained to accept the bit of occupation and production, and now we get nervous when the bit isn't there. These are people who lack self-confidence or self-assurance to accept becoming their own boss over a different list of things to get done.

The economy has changed, but the psychology remains the same, and that will be the greatest downfall of the long-term unemployed. People haven't been trained to work INSIDE the home--only outside. Time (actually, PAST time) for some retraining.

To answer the title question "what happens when the unemployed give up?", the answer is find a new job--even if it means staying home and doing housework, yard work, wood working, or whatever. You finally have a chance to answer YOUR OWN priorities first, instead of someone else's, and Uncle Sam pays you handsomely (more than a stinkin' unemployment check ever will). BTW, this program isn't subject to the whims of Congress.

Here is the REAL cost (or rather, savings) of not working.

There are segments of the population that still find cheap, nutritious food unattainable for various reasons. These reasons can range from transportation to and from the food source to simply applying ineffective shopping skills. The population gamut runs from the unemployed high school dropout to some possessing a PhD.

The common denominator: the cupboards are bare, and the refrigerator’s empty.

I don’t know whether to chalk it up to poor shopping skills, poor food choices, under-education and under-employment, breeding beyond means, or a combination of all these things. Whatever the reasons, it’s a sad state to find one’s self in among one of the richest nations on earth.

Maybe it’s really a lack of reckoning with certain truths about the world we now live in. So much has changed, and so many can’t seem to keep up. For example:

Employment—businesses are in a constant scramble for profits, and will stop at almost nothing to preserve profit margins. Offshoring and outsourcing weren’t even in our vocabulary ten years ago, and now are tossed about every day in casual conversation. Since labor is the largest recurring cost for employers, they will find a way to do without labor or find cheaper sources. This means we must “recession-proof” our job skills through careful career choices and near-constant educational updates to stay current, useful, and in demand. We also have to stay current in the ways we FIND a job, and not fall victim to relying on methods that are no longer used.

Another priority we must fulfill is contribution to the boss’s bottom line. If you are a cost (liability) to him/her and not an asset, you won’t be employed long. Regular accomplishments that help bolster the bottom line at work (through sales increases, new customers/markets, cost-cutting, etc.) will help to ensure continued employability and can be used as bargaining chips for negotiating pay raises and bonuses. Those same accomplishments can also be applied to the resume’ for future employment and pay negotiations.

Choose a career that can’t be outsourced, sent offshore, or have software written to replace your presence. Achieve the maximum degree in it that will pay for itself, and this will require some research on your part (some Master’s and PhD’s don’t earn any more than a regular Bachelor’s, and turn out to be a waste of time and money). Fit the boss’s needs in with your regular job duties, and continue to job hunt while you’re already employed. Employers gain most of their new employees by poaching from other firms, so don’t be afraid to put your resume’ out or enlist the help of a headhunter (for discretion). The fact that you’re still employed means you are in demand, and demand attracts demand.

Spending—some people have a tendency to “reward” themselves for such hard work with short-lived and expensive trinkets. The want takes precedence over the need or even the consideration of options. The idea of having “something to show for all the hard work” is a fallacy that many people still seem to share.

Finding ways to save, even if it’s just a small amount, is imperative in today’s world. It’s also a tax benefit.

Shopping skills—as we all (or nearly all) know, judicious shelf label reading, coupon use, store selection, and product selection have maximum dollar savings. Too much focus is placed on the product price, and agencies that deal with food stamps ought to hold shopping and nutrition classes. It seems like so many people who use these programs don’t know how to shop correctly, and it’s no wonder—the schools no longer teach Home Economics like they did when Mom and Grandma went to school, nor is it explained at home. This “generational deficit” has led to buying salad in bags, vegetables in cans, and junk non-foods for lunchboxes. Familiar convenience items are now sought out at food banks and pantries, and they’re not going to be there.

Grandma had less money than we do now, so how did she get by? She had a garden and an oven, and she used them. As much as we may despise it, we need to get back into domesticity: cook from scratch, garden, learn portion control, and cost-per-unit shopping.

Breeding beyond our means—there just is no tactful way to say this, and I apologize to you readers. Choosing to have kids is a romantic reflex response to marriage, according to Dr. Phil. As we know, not all kids are planned, and we can’t send them back to where they came from. We can control their creation, however, with the myriad methods of birth control available.

Having children before getting a sufficient education to sustain employment is one big mistake lots of people make. The cart frequently gets put before the horse, and we hear, “it’ll all work out in the end,”—but mostly it doesn’t. This can lead to abuse, neglect, abandonment, and having to rely on agencies and organizations for mere subsistence rations of food with negligible nutrition. We cannot always rely on the support of a devoted spouse to carry us through, and he/she may have their own set of problems with staying employed, saving, shopping, etc.

The number of children can also be a detriment if sufficient income isn’t present or cannot be had to support all those bodies—it’s just like creating more bills that have no hope of being paid. This isn’t fair to the children at all. They didn’t ask to suffer.

There are benefits and consequences to both having kids while young and waiting awhile. One of the benefits of waiting is maturity of the brain—our frontal lobes aren’t fully mature until we’re 25, and this part of the brain is responsible for things like risk assessment and quick decision making. If we wait until the income is right, the marital and mental units are stable, and a savings/spending program is under control, we stand a much better chance for family success. We are also less likely to fall to levels where reliance on food stamps and food pantries become the norm for our households.

Kids are not a requirement of marriage or any other sort of relationship, and it’s perfectly okay if you don’t have any at all. Sometimes we can end up waiting until it’s biologically too late for conditions to be just right, and so far, about 30% of the “breeding age” population has. All the more reason to make education, career selection, savings, and shopping skills a priority on your life while you’re young. If you don’t make it and lose to the biological clock, don’t sweat it—you have plenty of company.

Individual personal responsibility has got to kick in at some point. Food banks, pantries, and agency programs cannot be expected to pick up the slack for what amounts to poor prevention planning. Articles and advocates cry out for increased access to more nutritious food through these “emergency” outlets, but there’s the rub—these outlets are not meant for providing first-line sustenance. Furthermore, these outlets are subject to regulations, donations and budgets, and seasonal/supplier availability. They are just not meant as a first-line defense for under-employment, bad shopping/spending skills, and over-breeding. Here is where nutrition and need collide, and it’s preventable.

From Newsweek. I think it's more like what money and nutritional knowledge say about class, but hey, that's just me.

"For breakfast, I usually have a cappuccino—espresso made in an Alessi pot and mixed with organic milk, which has been gently heated and hand-fluffed by my husband. I eat two slices of imported cheese—Dutch Parrano, the label says, “the hippest cheese in New York” (no joke)—on homemade bread with butter. I am what you might call a food snob. My nutritionist neighbor drinks a protein shake while her 5-year-old son eats quinoa porridge sweetened with applesauce and laced with kale flakes. She is what you might call a health nut. On a recent morning, my neighbor’s friend Alexandra Ferguson sipped politically correct Nicaraguan coffee in her comfy kitchen while her two young boys chose from among an assortment of organic cereals. As we sat, the six chickens Ferguson and her husband, Dave, keep for eggs in a backyard coop peered indoors from the stoop. The Fergusons are known as locavores."

...

"In some neighborhoods, a lawyer who raises chickens in her backyard might be considered eccentric, but we live in Park Slope, Brooklyn, a community that accommodates and celebrates every kind of foodie. Whether you believe in eating for pleasure, for health, for justice, or for some idealized vision of family life, you will find neighbors who reflect your food values. In Park Slope, the contents of a child’s lunchbox can be fodder for a 20-minute conversation."

...

"...less than five miles away, some children don’t have enough to eat; others exist almost exclusively on junk food. Alexandra concedes that her approach is probably out of reach for those people. Though they are not wealthy by Park Slope standards—Alexandra works part time and Dave is employed by the city—the Fergusons spend approximately 20 percent of their income, or $1,000 a month, on food. The average American spends 13 percent, including restaurants and takeout."

...

“I can’t convince my brother to spend another dime on food,” adds Dave.

“This is our charity. This is my giving to the world,” says Alexandra, finally, as she packs lunchboxes—organic peanut butter and jelly on grainy bread, a yogurt, and a clementine—for her two boys. “We contribute a lot.”

...

"According to data released last week by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, 17 percent of Americans—more than 50 million people—live in households that are “food insecure,” a term that means a family sometimes runs out of money to buy food, or it sometimes runs out of food before it can get more money. Food insecurity is especially high in households headed by a single mother. It is most severe in the South, and in big cities."

...

"Food insecurity is linked, of course, to other economic measures like housing and employment, so it surprised no one that the biggest surge in food insecurity since the agency established the measure in 1995 occurred between 2007 and 2008, at the start of the economic downturn. (The 2009 numbers, released last week, showed little change.) The proportion of households that qualify as “hungry”—with what the USDA calls “very low food security”—is small, about 6 percent. Reflected against the obsessive concerns of the foodies in my circle, and the glare of attention given to the plight of the poor and hungry abroad, even a fraction of starving children in America seems too high.

Mine seems on some level like a naive complaint. There have always been rich people and poor people in America and, in a capitalist economy, the well-to-do have always had the freedom to indulge themselves as they please. In hard times, food has always marked a bright border between the haves and the have-nots. In the earliest days of the Depression, as the poor waited on bread lines, the middle and upper classes in America became devoted to fad diets. Followers of the Hollywood 18-Day Diet, writes Harvey Levenstein in his 1993 book Paradox of Plenty, “could live on fewer than six hundred calories a day by limiting each meal to half a grapefruit, melba toast, coffee without cream or sugar, and, at lunch and dinner, some raw vegetables.”

...

"...what you eat for dinner has become the definitive marker of social status; as the distance between rich and poor continues to grow, the freshest, most nutritious foods have become luxury goods that only some can afford."

...

"Corpulence used to signify the prosperity of a few but has now become a marker of poverty. Obesity has risen as the income gap has widened: more than a third of U.S. adults and 17 percent of children are obese, and the problem is acute among the poor. While obesity is a complex problem—genetics, environment, and activity level all play a role—a 2008 study by the USDA found that children and women on food stamps were likelier to be overweight than those who were not."

...

"...Americans’ food choices correlate to social class. He argues that the most nutritious diet—lots of fruits and vegetables, lean meats, fish, and grains—is beyond the reach of the poorest Americans, and it is economic elitism for nutritionists to uphold it as an ideal without broadly addressing issues of affordability. Lower-income families don’t subsist on junk food and fast food because they lack nutritional education, as some have argued. And though many poor neighborhoods are, indeed, food deserts—meaning that the people who live there don’t have access to a well-stocked supermarket—many are not. Lower-income families choose sugary, fat, and processed foods because they’re cheaper—and because they taste good."

And it doesn't help that food manufacturers are catering to our tongues and wallets, and not our overall health and long-term financial well-being.

"Time is just part of the problem, Davis explains, as she prepares Sunday dinner in her cheerful kitchen. Tonight she’s making fried chicken wings with bottled barbecue sauce; yellow rice from a box; black beans from a can; broccoli; and carrots, cooked in olive oil and honey. A home-cooked dinner doesn’t happen every night. On weeknights, everyone gets home, exhausted—and then there’s homework. Several nights a week, they get takeout: Chinese, or Domino’s, or McDonald’s. Davis doesn’t buy fruits and vegetables mostly because they’re too expensive, and in the markets where she usually shops, they’re not fresh. “I buy bananas and bring them home and 10 minutes later they’re no good…Whole Foods sells fresh, beautiful tomatoes,” she says. “Here, they’re packaged and full of chemicals anyway. So I mostly buy canned foods.”

This is the BIG reason why it's not so smart to have kids out of wedlock--you have to become proprietor, chief cook, AND bottle-washer. Just being a stay-at-home mom is a job in itself (24/7 on call). Add kids and no spouse to share the load, and the load has doubled.

"Even more idiosyncratic than our obsession with nutrition, says Fischler, is that Americans see food choice as a matter of personal freedom, an inalienable right. Americans want to eat what they want: morels or Big Macs. They want to eat where they want, in the car or alfresco. And they want to eat when they want. With the exception of Thanksgiving, when most of us dine off the same turkey menu, we are food libertarians. In surveys, Fischler has found no single time of day (or night) when Americans predictably sit together and eat. By contrast, 54 percent of the French dine at 12:30 each day. Only 9.5 percent of the French are obese.

When I was a child I was commanded to “eat your eggs. There are starving children in Africa.” And when I was old enough to think for myself, I could easily see that my own eaten or uneaten eggs would not do a single thing to help the children of Africa. This is the Brooklyn conundrum, playing out all over the country. Locally produced food is more delicious than the stuff you get in the supermarket; it’s better for the small farmers and the farm animals; and, as a movement, it’s better for the environment. It’s easy—and probably healthy, if you can afford it—to make that choice as an individual or a family, says the New York University nutritionist Marion Nestle. Bridging the divide is much harder. “Choosing local or organic is something you can actually do. It’s very difficult for people to get involved in policy.”

...

"Even the locavore hero Pollan agrees. “Essentially,” he says, “we have a system where wealthy farmers feed the poor crap and poor farmers feed the wealthy high-quality food.” He points to Walmart’s recent announcement of a program that will put more locally grown food on its shelves as an indication that big retailers are looking to sell fresh produce in a scalable way. These fruits and vegetables might not be organic, but the goal, says Pollan, is not to be absolutist in one’s food ideology. “I argue for being conscious,” he says, “but perfectionism is an enemy of progress.” Pollan sees a future where, in an effort to fight diabetes and obesity, health-insurance companies are advocates for small and medium-size farmers."

...

“To get good food, you really got to sacrifice a lot. It’s expensive. But I take that sacrifice, because it’s worth it.” Suluki uses his food stamps at the farmers’ market. He sorts through the rotten fruit at the local supermarket. He travels to Queens, when he can get a ride, and buys cheap meat in bulk. He is adamant that it is the responsibility of parents to feed their children good food in moderate portions, and that it’s possible to do so on a fixed income."

My Food Stamp Challenge clearly shows that! If people would think beyond the tongue and think about the brain and the body, maybe it would come to them. Seeing the relationships between low-quality foods and low-quality school performance ought to be enough, but sadly, some parents come from families who've suffered the same outcome for generations, and now it's ingrained and expected. If you want to get ahead, feed your head (and not with drugs!).

From Sify News (Britain). This economy has produced a race to the bottom for all of us, hasn't it? And I'm here to help you get there faster and with money still left in your pocket.

"If you have got it, flaunt it' is passe now, because for Britons, it's not being wealthy that's in vogue anymore but being frugal.

A survey for price comparison website uSwitch found that just four per cent of people would talk openly about something they paid a lot of money for but 96 per cent said they would proudly show off a bargain.

And 88 per cent think it is acceptable, even desirable, to talk about ways in which they have cut back to save money.

"Keeping up with the Joneses no longer means competing for the most lavish lifestyle - it's about being seen to be poor and proud," The Daily Express quoted Ann Robinson, of uSwitch, as saying.

"While bragging about money or expensive purchases is frowned upon, boasting about nabbing a bargain or talking about how little you earn is in keeping with the times. We are wearing our frugality like a badge of honour."

He who dies with the most savings wins! :)

From Fox Business News. It's fine for anyone but me-the coupons seem to be all for junk I don't buy. By not buying it at all, I save the most! :)

"I understand folks wanting to save money on groceries. However, while at the grocery store this past Saturday night, I witnessed some hard core couponing. The guy ahead of me in line bought something like 24 cans of Chunky Soup for $1.95 total. That works out to roughly $0.08 per can.

So how did he do it? Apparently the store was running a special of some sort, and he combined that with a bunch of $0.50 coupons that the store doubled to $1. The coupons themselves appeared to have been printed out, so when I got home I did a bit of investigation."

Chunky Soup? I make my own--see? More useless-to-me coupons.

"Sure enough, you could get the very same coupons from Campbell’s Kitchen. It’s clear, however, that these coupons weren’t intended to be used twenty (or more) at a time. In fact, Campbell’s uses special coupon printing software that attempts to limit your ability to print extra copies."

I'm discovering this with Eight O'Clock coffee coupons from their website--you can print two, but that's it. Nothing says you can't forward the URL onto other friends or co-workers, have THEM print them out, then give them back to you. That's what I'm doing now.

"When I left the store, I passed by this guy loading his haul into his trunk. As I walked past him, I noticed two interesting things. First, his license plate was from a few counties away. Second, he appeared to have several more bags of soup cans from the same grocery chain already in his car.

While I can’t say for certain, it appeared that this guy’s idea of a big Saturday night was hitting numerous grocery stores within a several county radius with a pocket full of printable soup coupons."

He was probably hitting all the stores that had a double-coupon policy.

"Now, my point here isn’t to pass judgement on this guy in particular, but rather to bring up the general topic of what one might call “extreme couponing,” and to get your thoughts on it.

For starters, there’s the time and money invested. Sure, he got 100 or more cans of soup for less than $10, but he also appeared to have burned a Saturday night and a bunch of gas doing so. Beyond that, there’s the issue of ethics…

It’s pretty clear that this guys was breaking the rules, but the clerk let him get away with it. Her reaction (“they’ll freak out”) was particularly interesting, as it suggests that she has had numerous run-ins with people who have essentially bullied her into letting them break the rules."

...

"If someone can go out and get a cart of groceries for $3.00, that’s great… As long as they can do it without being dishonest. But to me, life’s too short to compromise my principles over something like cheap groceries."

The situation depends on several things: the severity of the financial situation, the prospect of spreading out the costs of acquiring the soup over a year or so (how long will his stash last?), and the fact that he was able to find and exploit loopholes in the system.

I'm all for exploiting loopholes--that's what I live for. Finding and jumping through loopholes is what I'm best at. I've got no complaints whatsoever about what this guy's doing, other than Chunky Soup? You've got to be kidding! The sodium content alone will kill you inside a month!

If this situation bothers or encourages you, go here and register your comment. Remember: this is no worse than people who combine coupons with in-store ads and rebates, then manage to get the item as a BOGO deal ALL AT THE SAME TIME!

From Prudent Bear. Yes, it's another big-picture economic post, but it tells you why dollar devaluation is important to you, and how it's affecting you right now with purchasing power. It's the other half of the inflation coin--the half Bernanke doesn't want you to see.

"With our economy sagging and our international clout waning, one of the few assets upon which the United States can rely is the confidence that the rest of the world has traditionally showered upon us. That confidence is the reason why the U.S. dollar was elevated to global reserve status more than 65 years ago.

With so much riding on perception, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner's recent statements denying the existence of a dollar debasement campaign could not be seen as anything less than foolhardy."

...

"Over at the Federal Reserve, Chairman Bernanke doesn't talk about currency debasement. Instead, he extols the virtues of "pushing up inflation to levels consistent with our mandate." He hopes that no one will understand that he is using different adjectives to describe the same action. With the possible exception of the New York Times editorial board, he is fooling no one.

Given that the Administration and the Fed are prepared to sacrifice precious credibility for the goal of currency debasement, many may assume that there is some benefit for America that would be derived from a weaker dollar. Unfortunately, there isn't."

...

"History shows that, over the medium- to long-term, a devalued currency leads to increased trade deficits. Furthermore, a currency debasement policy for the U.S. dollar, still the world's reserve currency, is bound to spark a climate of international competitive devaluation –a currency war–as each nation fights to protect its balance of trade. If not corrected, such currency battles lead all too easily to trade wars, and they, in turn, often result in armed conflict.

The second, and more compelling, argument for Washington to pursue currency debasement is that a devalued dollar would wipe out large amounts of dollar debt. This amounts to a huge subsidy to debtors at the expense of savers, and no one owes more than the U.S. government."

...

"So if we assume a conservative 40% devaluation of the dollar over the past ten years, our current $13.4 trillion federal debt is equivalent to an only $8 trillion liability in 2001 dollars–the rest is just inflation. The $189 trillion of unfunded obligations to Social Security, Medicare, government pensions, etc., would appear as $113 trillion a decade ago!

It is clear that a debased currency suits the U.S. government, but what of Americans? The 40% devaluation equates to a 40% tax on every holder of U.S. dollars, rich and poor alike. It has hindered, rather than encouraged, consumer spending. It forces Americans to make do with less, purchase shoddier products, and deal with inferior service. Sometimes it's hard to perceive slowly ebbing living standards, but take a look around and think whether you feel richer than a decade ago."

We've been living with a 30-40% less amount of purchasing power--this means it takes 30-40% more money to buy what $1 did a decade ago. This is INFLATION that Bernanke doesn't want you to see or be aware of. Even though the Fed hasn't announced any inflation by interest rate rises, there is HIDDEN INFLATION in the form of dollar devaluation. We would be in the streets in open revolt if there were 30-40% rate hikes, and using the back door to get the inflation is how we contain civil unrest.

We have rampant inflation, people--it's just cleverly disguised. You see and feel it, though, every time you go into a store--now you know where it STARTS, and where it travels (through commodities, making your food more expensive before you've even bought it). The manufacturers pay a higher price, turn the commodities into processed foods, then have to charge us more because of THEIR costs.

This is ON TOP of the ongoing drought/bad weather happening around the world, leading to crop shortages, and the Wall Street traders snapping up commodity contracts as fast as they can...well, until recently. Most of Wall St. had placed bets on China's climbing demand, but that demand isn't materializing, and China's government is implementing price controls--there soon will be no money to be made from their demand. This means commodity and fuel prices will come down slowly over the next year, when better crop yields and oil drillers get the Obama offshore drilling constraints yanked off them.

C'mon 2012! In the meantime, we deal with a 30-40% loss of money while our government enjoys the fruits of its labors--a discounted national debt, a better-looking trade imbalance, and discounted liabilities (like Social Security).