McBudget

(Yes, I'm apparently back from the dead.)

McDonalds and Visa have teamed up to create a website advising McWorkers on how to best manage their money. Lovely, right? It has advice for saving for a car, creating a budget, and tips on why your Visa-branded preloaded debit card is so much better than an actual paycheck.

...Okay. Problem number one: paycards. Most of them charge fees for doing all sorts of things you take for granted if paid via check or cash or direct deposit, like getting cash from an ATM. And you're a lot less likely to be able to save if first you need to get your money off a piece of plastic, then put it in the bank.

Regardless, that's not the biggest problem. Here is the biggest problem:

There's...a lot to say about this (for example, I'm now working two jobs! Awesome). But some of the really glaring problems: 

1) McDonalds apparently does not think 'food' should be a regular item on a monthly budget. But I probably qualify for food stamps, so I guess I just won't ever buy anything SNAP doesn't pay for, like a fast-food meal. 

2) Sure, $600 may get you a decent place, either one-bedroom or with a roommate in some places. But do you live in a big city? Enjoy your closet!

3) Health insurance: $20. If I recall correctly, the "we'll maybe pay something out after the $2500 deductible, unless it's a, b, c, d....or x. Y and Z we'll pay for" insurance policy I had for a while was maybe $200/month? (My parents paid; that's why I could afford it.)

4) Heating: $0. We we're living somewhere without winter. 

I get that it's an example. But you know what would set a better example, McDonalds? Paying your employees a living wage! Pay them enough so that they can reasonable work one full-time job, and still afford luxuries such as heat and food and health care! 

Meanwhile in America:

I gave him my money and now he won't give it back!

Banks, who are foreclosing left and right, have started complaining that they shouldn't have to stop doing it just because they might not have the right paperwork, or might not have the legal right to foreclose on that house, or (in at least one case) because the homeowner does not in fact even have a mortgage*. Why? Well, because these people borrowed money and lapsed on their payments!

So here's a hypothetical:

Say I have a cousin. His life is kind of a mess - he's marginally employed in a shitty retail job, he spends most of his paycheck on beer. To make ends meet he's got nine credit cards, all with significant outstanding balances. He's lost some money in the past gambling and buying lottery tickets. Basically, he's kind of a loser, and clearly has no idea how to manage his money.

This cousin comes to me one day and asks if he can borrow a thousand dollars. I've got a good job and can pay my bills and still tuck a bit away each month in savings. But my cousin comes to me and says he found a great deal on this used car - it runs great, really, it's a fantastic buy - and he needs me to lend him a thousand bucks. I say: Sure, but you've got to repay this, two hundred bucks a month for five months. Great, he says, and he takes the check and off he goes. He buys his new car. A few months later he loses his job because he came in late one too many times and got fired, so no more paychecks, so he stops repaying me.

Who's at fault here?

Obviously: yeah, the cousin's a loser and needs to get his act together. Dude should stop drinking and smoking, concentrate on holding down a steady job and maybe spend his booze-and-smokes money on some classes at the community college instead, to pick up some useful skills. He knew he couldn't repay me, not at the rate that I wanted, and so he shouldn't have taken the loan on those terms. But I'm the real idiot here, for giving away my money to someone who obviously did not have the means to repay it. It's my money. If I want to give it away - hand my cousin a check as a gift, rather than a loan - I'm free to do so. But if I want to loan someone my money, then it's up to me to make some effort to do so only to those who at least look like they'll be able to repay it. If someone's not earning much and is already up to their eyeballs in debt and you know this, but you loan them money anyway - well, you're kind of a moron.

So do the homeowners who tried to live beyond their means and buy houses they couldn't afford bear some culpability in our current economic disaster? Absolutely. You're responsible for living within your means, and if you spend more than you have you have to deal with the consequences.

But ultimately, it's the banks who decide who they give their money to. They, too, made a bad call, and my sympathy for them is...limited. If you loan someone a bunch of money without a reasonable belief that they can and will repay it, you're a moron.

And there's more to it too: some people were actively and intentionally misled about the terms of their mortgage. Some people I'm sure could afford their homes before the economy collapsed and they lost their jobs. Some people could afford their homes before they got sick and couldn't afford their medical bills, or had to take reduced hours at work to care for a relative.

So are individual consumers at fault? Sure, in plenty of situations. They took out a loan they couldn't repay; now there are consequences. But are the banks blameless victims in this? Sure, if by "blameless victims" you mean "suffering the consequences of a situation they created themselves".

*For an excellent, brief explanation, read this: http://www.observer.com/2010/wall-street/foreclosure-fiasco-and-wall-streets-shrug

Those graduation articles

They run them every year - quite possibly the same exact ones - in just about every newspaper and magazine. The 'advice for the new college grad' column, in which some two-bit journalist coughs up a bunch of hackneyed advice about how you should do what you love, and travel the world, and wear sunscreen, and do things that scare you, and Always Follow Your Dreams.

Speaking, for the first time, as a member of the allegedly targeted audience*, I would like to comment on these articles, and say: SHUT UP.

What's that? You think I should follow my dreams and work to live not live to work, and travel abroad? I'd love to, really. I'd also love to get a job doing what I love. But you know what? Your generation did everything they could to destroy the American economy because you followed your dreams of having a charmless McMansion in suburban upstate New York and two cars. While I was sitting in 10th grade history you guys were eating KFC and cheering our honor killings in Afghanistan, and when I was deciding what college to go to you were half-heartedly wondering if this war against Iraq was really a good idea. And as I was doing what you've said I should do - follow my heart, do things that move me, get a degree in something I like rather than something immediately profitable - you were giggling as you engaged in the Sisyphean task of using your credit card to buy crappy houses and make them unaffordable for those who really need affordable housing.

So. How about you all shut up with your incredibly pointless 'advice' for people who have yet to take a massive crap on society? Yes, I really would love to spend a year in Americorps, and I in fact have the opportunity to do so. But I also have spent almost forty thousand borrowed dollars on my degree, and those kind lenders would like that money back ASAP, so there are some obvious problems in spending the next year working for four hundred dollars a month.

How about, instead of annually masturbating about the Hope and Future Ahead, you all put that energy into making education affordable?

*Assuming that it's not just some writer who regrets his decisions in life talking to himself.

-----

Tangentially, crappy job market aside, I am unspeakably, unimaginably glad to have two weeks (to the day!) left at this school. It's been swell, but the swelling's gone down.

A budget-cutting measure we can believe in

From a (slightly dated) WaPo article:

Want to trim the federal budget and improve the military at the same time? Shut down West Point, Annapolis and the Air Force Academy, and use some of the savings to expand ROTC scholarships.

Let's do it, says I.

I really can't speak at all on the caliber of officers produced by ROTC vs academies vs any other route, so I'll withhold judgement there. I know two guys who are enlisted members of the Army and are both extremely nice, intelligent people. I know two officers, one Air Force via the academy, and one Army via going straight to OCS. Both are extremely nice, intelligent people.

I probably shouldn't speak about Ricks's criticism that most West Point professors don't have doctorates, if only because a not-insignificant number of instructors at my school of choice do not hold doctorates. But at my school something is extremely problematic if your instructor is lecturing, because lecturing has no place on the Program. I don't believe that they use the same approach at any of the service academies, and since the entire approach is much more 'traditional' there than at St. John's, then I don't think it's unreasonable to want your educator to have reached the highest level of education in that field.

Proponents of the academies, in my opinion, claim that the students get a top-notch education at no cost, and you want your future military commanders to be well-educated. I absolutely agree that we want them to have solid educational backgrounds, and I think that if we had higher standards for the military overall we'd have far fewer problems with the military doing stupid things. From the little I know about the academies, the education provided is excellent, if not terribly well rounded*. I also think that someone enrolled in an ROTC program - or, for that matter, simply enrolled - at a respectable college or university will also recieve an excellent education.

Proponents of the academies say that the institutions are excellent training programs and instill honor. Is the implication of this that enlisted soldiers and officers via OCS and ROTC aren't well-trained and honorable? If so, perhaps we ought to fix that post-haste. If not, then that argument falls apart. Also, there may be some debate about the honor bit.

Here's the way I see it, as someone who has admittedly a minimal amount of knowledge from a complete outsider's viewpoint: There are three ways to become an officer in the military - academy, OCS, or ROTC. All of them require a 4-year degree. One of those routes incurs no excessive cost: someone joins the military, applies to OCS, goes and gets trained up as an officer. One of them includes the cost of college tuition - ROTC scholarships, if I'm not mistaken, generally pay near the full cost of even a private-school tuition. And the third option costs the equivilant of an expensive four-year education, and an active-duty paycheck. It also needs to be considered that, unlike ROTC scholarships, the DoD isn't just paying for tuition for students; they're shouldering the entire cost associated with running three full-on colleges**.

So we've got three possible options to become an officer in the military, one of which is cheap, one is kinda expensive, and one is mad pricey. There is not, as far as I'm aware, any conclusive evidence that academy grads are somehow more prepared to serve than other officers nor better at their jobs. And we're the only country which has a program remotely like this, where the military will in fact pay you to go and get a four year degree in exchange for a few years of pushing paperwork around a desk. That in and of itself, I think, ought to be a clue.

I don't expect that the system will significantly change anytime soon - even Obama is content to keep letting the DoD take however the hell much money it wants, regardless of what it's used for (hello, our extremely expensive fleet of fighter jets which are awesome for shooting down those damn red soviets. hello, not including WAR in the DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE budget.), but it is nice to at least see someone in a mainstream publication pointing out that there may be some ways to cut some costs very significantly.

Also, I find the idea of enmeshing higher education with military indoctrination to be fairly reprehensible. I really don't like the idea of the same organization which says "well, I guess it's okay to be not-heterosexual, if you have to, but we'd prefer you not mention it. ever, to anyone you work with. and if anyone asks you about your personal life, lie I guess. and don't, you know, have sex or kiss or hold hands or anything gross like that. because if you do and we find out about it we'll fire you because gay people are really kinda gross" also saying, "Yes! We will give you a fine, honorable higher-level education and train you to be one of the best leaders in the world!" absolutely, repulsively hypocritcal. You want to talk about honor? Stop making it illegal to be queer, stop torturing people, stop having your recruiters lie, and stop shooting brown people because they like their boomy skyvoice more than your boomy skyvoice, you jackasses.

*Granted, sometime in the past five years I've developed the horrible mindset of seeing any sort of remotely sepecialized education as not well-rounded, so make what you will of that.
**Maybe four? I admit that I don't have a clue who exactly pays for the Coast Guard academy, as they're a military academy but the Coast Guard is recently run by DHS since we decided boats aren't transportation anymore, but I think that a lot of their money comes from the defense budget, so I'm not even going to try to understand. Also the Coast Guard apparently doesn't do ROTC, but really I think that there's like six hundred people in the entire Coast Guard and all they do is change lightbulbs on buoys, so I'm really content to ignore on. I have no grudge with the Coast Guard.

Madoff, yet again

Really, how much of an impossible dick must one be to steal money from an 80-year-old Holocaust survivor? Nobel prize or not, there is nothing that can change the fact that Bernard Madoff stole millions from a charity run by an 80-year-old Holocaust survivor.

Further

I'm increasingly convinced that the absolute only reason that anyone took Marx's economic and political theories remotely seriously were twofold:
1. Fear over the changes that the industrial revolution brought. Humans, being the stupidest successful species ever, tend to have a demented fear of Change. Marx said, "No, you're totally right, you're not being fulfilled as a person if you're not out farming and growing your own food." He did everything he could to legitimize the ridiculous discontent at the changes in society.
2. That argument nicely set up, he just pointed and said, "Look! The Capitalist! You're not happy? It's because of him!"

Et voila - not only do people have their baseless dissatisfaction justified, but they have what everyone really wants, a scapegoat. He's brilliant with his language, but Marx isn't anything more than a talented sophist.

In other news, after having gotten a rejection letter from Grad School A yesterday, I was really pissed when I got a skinny letter from Grad School B (by far my top choice) today. "I was fine yesterday, but I don't think I can handle two rejections in a row, so I'm not going to open this until this evening, after seminar," says I.

Turns out it was just a note saying they have my complete application and I should get an acceptance or rejection within a month.

Also in the mail was a letter to all the seniors from the Dean which began along the lines of "Now that you've been notified that your senior essay has been accepted..." Which would be great. If we'd gotten notice about whether our essays have been accepted or not yet, but we haven't. So, as always, good job college administration!

Dear Mr. Marx: WTF?

"The sum of values in circulation can clearly not be augmented by any change in their distribution, any more than a Jew can increase the quantity of the precious metals ina country by selling a farthing from the time of Queen Anne for a guinea."

What about a gentile?

Poor babies

I swear, if I see one more article about how the rich are seriously feeling the recession and need to sell their winter home in Palm Beach and went so lowbrow that they're only spending six hundred dollars on wine for their annual Christmas party and things are so bad they need to lay off their personal assistant, I'm just going to vomit.

Oh, why the hell not?

Nnngggggghhhhh.....

WASHINGTON (AP) — Stunned by the loss of 500,000 jobs, congressional Democrats and the White House reached for agreement Friday on about $15 billion in bailout loans for the beleaguered auto industry. President George W. Bush warned that at least one of the Big Three carmakers might not survive the current economic crisis.

Excuse me while I twitch in rage for a few moments.
.......

Okay. So the economy sucks: true. We should try to make it suck less: true. People will lose jobs if the Big 3 aren't bailed out: Regrettably true.

American car makers should have gobs of money thrown at them despite the fact that their products suck balls and the companies have been grossly mismanaged: NOT true.

Look, it sucks that there'll be half a million people more out of work. They'll probably be out of work within a decade anyway, because either they'll retire, or their job will be replaced by a more efficient, less costly automated process. That's called progress. Sorry, guys, but it's time to hang up your factory clothes and join the modern era. The financial well-being of those 500,000 shlubs in Michigan simply does not outweigh the financial well-being of the next generation or three of all Americans. Your family has some hard times - I'm sorry, that sucks. So cut out cable, turn the thermostat down a few degrees, swallow your pride and go to the local unemployment office. Food stamps for that many people is still more affordable than fifteen billion.

American car companies are doing so poorly because their product sucks. This isn't news to anyone. American cars are generally regarded as a joke. They get crappy mileage, they're poorly designed, they're ugly, and people don't like them. That's your fault, not the fault of American consumers, so we should again tell the CEOs to suck it up and accept that they're going to go down in history as the ones who ran the industry permanantly into the ground.

Personal Responsibility

Jesus christ, yes, the lenders and banks were very bad and are very hold a lot of fault for this economic problem. You know who else was responsible? YOU.

Yes, you. American Consumer, get up here, front and center. You, Joe Average, Madam Hockey Mom, whoever you are. Did you run up a lot of credit card debt? Did you buy a house that you weren't absolutely sure you could afford? Did you take out a personal or business loan that seemed too good to be true?

Congratulations, you dipshit, you were part of a massive team to sink the American economy!

Here's what needs to happen for a national-scale economy to work: People need to have money to loan. That means that the people who take out those loans need to be able to repay it. In the past, if you took out a loan that you couldn't afford, you were an idiot and/or scumbag living above your means. Recently it seems that doing so is not a stupid, scummy, irresponsible thing to do, but rather your own little slice of the American Dream.

If you took out a mortgage, you signed a contract saying that you accepted full responsibility for it. That means for one that you should have done your damn research before signing it. But that also means it is your responsibility. No, you cannot just walk away from it and expect the bank to write it off as a loss. No, you cannot expect a government bailout to make everything better*. No, you cannot blame the banks. Yes, they are partly culpable, but you know what? YOU SIGNED THE AGREEMENT. You saw the numbers you talked about it, you did it anyway.

Of course they told you it was a good idea and a great investment! Jesus christ, of course they told you that! You know why? They're selling it! If I go to a car dealership they're going to try to talk me up to the absolute peak of my price range. If I go to a realtor they're going to try to talk me up. Why? Because that's how they make their money, you ignoramus! That's like people who are stunned, absolutely horrified, to find out that their doctor is trying to tell them that tests X, Y, and Z are in fact neccesary and that you should really be on this and that drug. If you do it they get more money; if you don't they don't get the money. I was under the impression that this wasn't a terribly complex idea, but apparently it is.

I don't think I'm going to be able to watch the entire VP debate; it's going to make me too angry.

*Can someone *please* explain to me how this is going to solve anything long-term? We need regulation, not for our representatives to ignore their constituents and vote for a bill that's more pork than anything useful.

I want to vote for her instead

I don't want to pay your bills!

I'll be the first to say I know nothing about the stock market, or banking, or economics, or really anything more than "large, positive numbers are generally better than negative numbers."

But as I understand it, the past week of "aw crap time to stuff your mattress with cash" can pretty much trace it's roots back to the sub-prime mortgage catastrophe, in which banks were stupid by offering people loans they couldn't afford, and then consumers were even more idiotic by taking out loans they couldn't afford to pay back. So to sum it up in the crudest terms possible, Americans are idiots who can't do math and think they have some god-given right to own a house.

And now the government is putting together some sort of jaw-droppingly expensive plan to try to fix this by buying up all the worthless loans. No, I don't understand it in any more depth from that, but what I do wonder about is: is this not a catastrophic failure of the idea of personal responsibility? For both the individual consumer who is about as smart as the bricks their McMansion is made of, and also for the leadership of the banks?

I mean, I understand the need to do something to try to stabilize the market, because everyone panicking and running out of money is generally a bad thing. But as a taxpayer who has the common sense not to take out loans I can't pay back*, why the hell is my money going towards bailing out these dipshits? Why aren't we first tapping the CEO's who got obscenely rich off these schemes, then involving the government? In short: where is the outrage over this?

And additionally, to everyone, everywhere: You have the right to a place to live. You do not have the right to a mortgage, you do not have the right to own a house or a condo or anything like that. Home ownership, like driving, is a privilage, not a right. If you can't pass the drivers test you can't drive; if you can't afford a house you can't buy a goddamn house!

*insert student loan joke here.

There is no such thing as money.

Excerpt from a letter to the editor of the Santa Fe Reporter:

It all started several thousands of years ago with the “Goldsmiths” and “Money
Changers” It’s all a 1,000 percent FRAUD, deceit, mis-representation, scam,
sham, stealing, plunder and trickery, etc., i.e., modern and sophisticated
“Voluntary Slavery” on their “Prison Planet/Plantation” established and
maintained by the self-appointed “Masters of the Universe.” Simply ask any Bank
President point blank: Does your bank have and thus loan any (real) “MONEY”?

Okay. I'll get right on that, chief.

Ten (apparently fake) bucks says that this guy is a Paultard.

Fighting terrorism with comfort!

I swear, I really don't want to hate America's armed forces.  I try very hard not to.  I know a couple people in the military.  They're all great people.  And I'm sure that the majority of soldiers think that they're doing something good, and for many of them it's not an easy job, and that's great.  I disagree, but I know I really shouldn't try to judge others for doing what I think is wrong if they think it's right.

But when it's such a massive program run by such self-important dicks, I really can't help it.

The Air Force's top leadership sought for three years to spend counterterrorism funds on "comfort capsules" to be installed on military planes that ferry senior officers and civilian leaders around the world, with at least four top generals involved in design details such as the color of the capsules' carpet and leather chairs, according to internal e-mails and budget documents.

Seriously: please stop spending obscene amounts of money on absolutely useless bullshit.

Credit card companies love me

So a while ago I was buying something on Amazon.  They threw an offer at me: Sign up for our no-annual-fee student Visa card and get an instant $30 credit!  Applicable instantly!

Well, the total amount I was spending was $30.16.  Unable to resist such an offer, I signed up, and discovered to my joy that I could use that instant credit for the current purchase.  

I just got the actual card, signed up for the online statements, and paid my enormous outstanding balance of 16 cents.  

In other news...

Our economy has truly gone to hell.  

I have no idea what any of this means, but I do know it's quite Not Good.

Exclamation!

I just ordered a MacBook. I am happy about this.

Part of me, however, despite splitting the cost 50/50 with my parents, is freaking out over the rather large amount of money. But thinking about a shiny new mac compared to a very old, somewhat bulky Dell is happy-causing.

OK.

Turns out in order to get my debit card to work in the ATM on campus I need to turn it so the magnetic strip is facing the wrong way and not really swipe it but very very very slowly drag it through the appropriate slot.

Do I understand? No, but I successfully got money, so it's all good.

Things that really aren't terribly fun

Ordering food to be delivered, then going to the ATM and having a moment of panic when, upon swiping your card, the ATM says your card cannot be used. Proceed to feel panicked until you think to try another debit card from another bank, which (besides charging you a ridiculous fee) will work fine.

For bonus anti-fun, then call the 800 number on the back of your card to see why they won't let you access your money, and be told they really don't know and the only department that might be able to help is closed for the weekend.

Surprisingly, doctors are proven to not be angels.

In a great display of the investigative spirit, a survey of doctors has revealed them to be often dishonest people who are first and foremost out to make a buck.

_A third of surveyed doctors said they would order an unnecessary and expensive MRI scan just to get rid of a complaining patient.

_A quarter said they would refer patients to an imaging center in which they had a financial interest without revealing the conflict of interest, which could violate certain laws.

But it's OK, because of the doctors who responded, 28% of their patients are on Medicaid or uninsured.

Please do not the inherent flaw in this as a self-reporting survey: only about half the doctors returned the questionnaire, and obviously, someone who is extremely unethical is either not going to answer, or going to lie.