I'm Richer than Tiger Woods

I don't want to be just another person jumping on the Tiger Woods hate train, and I really do not intend to focus on the scandal of his ordeal, but more about the message it sends. The one about how people who supposedly have everything they could ever want are so terribly bankrupt emotionally, spiritually, and psychologically. Woods clearly has deep deficits that his fame and fortune could not fill, and perhaps, created.

This is incredibly compelling to realize and think about. Especially because I'm frequently bemoaning the economic trials of living in Detroit on one income. I worry about the future and finding new income streams. I worry that our retirement savings are not piling up like I imagined they would or should. Working in finance, money is constantly on my mind. I come dangerously close to being ruled by numbers if I do not give myself frequent reality checks. Otherwise I can end up thinking that my net worth is some kind of a reflection of my self worth.

The reality is - if I simply change my money-obsessed thinking, I'd realize I'm much wealthier than most celebrities and ostensibly rich public figures, and it has nothing to do with my net worth. I have a wonderful, loving, supportive network of family and friends. I have a beautiful marriage that is built on love, trust, respect, and tons of fun. I have a dog that gives me unconditional love. I do not need to seek pleasure and joy outside of these simple and bountiful rewards. I do not need the stuff that I'm told I cannot live without. I may spend an entire life preparing to retire, only to die young. I know that sounds morbid, but it is true!

We cannot know what the future holds. There is a difference between being responsible with money and being obsessed with it. I do not need more than what I have right this moment to be happy, and in fact, even if it were to be taken away from me, I'm confident that my friends and family would still be there and my husband and I would find a way to make things work.

I know I sound super simplistic and Pollyana-esque - but I have to remind myself of these truths so I do not fall in the Tiger trap. There is nothing - not a single thing money or fame can give me to be truly happy and feel a sense of self worth. These things need to be cultivated completely independent of one's economic status, otherwise a whole host of problems follow.

Woods has demonstrated that being super wealthy and talented cannot bring anyone any guaranteed happy endings. To see a man who was considered a role model to turn so self-destructive makes me incredibly sad for humanity. So many of our goals in life are ruled by numbers - by goals that have nothing to do with the richness of our inner lives and the quality of our relationships. We worship things that are fleeting and ignore the things that make life worth living.

I know I sound like some happiness guru - but I have really been feeling this lately - not just reading it in books or hearing it preached. I have been truly realizing just how happy and rich my life is. I have been systematically and rigorously trying to rid my mind of negative, limiting thoughts, especially about money and numbers - because in my field of work it is so easy to become myopic and overly-focused on them. When the Tiger Woods thing happened, it just kept popping into my mind, how poor he was.

The good news is - even Tiger can become as rich as I am. He just needs to change his mind and do some hard work figuring out what exactly went wrong to bring him to such self-destructive behaviors. I'm not a psychologist, I'm just someone who has thought plenty about life, love, and happiness, and thinks she just maybe has figured a little something out.

Read More......

Obama Gets $30,000 Per Breeding Session

If you are anything like me, you did a double-take when reading that headline which I sort of ripped from econ blog Marginal Revolution. From the article Chinese Put These Dogs On Pedestals,

SHUNYI, Beijing — One is named Obama, another goes by Son of Bush. They charge tens of thousands of dollars for sex. Convoys of luxury cars, driven by fans, greet the most expensive studs at airports. Meet the canine gigolos — the purebred Tibetan Mastiffs that have become the latest symbol of China's growing wealth.

Pet ownership is booming in a nation where dogs and cats are featured as part of meals and animal abuse remains widespread. But none carries the cachet of the Tibetan Mastiff, one of the largest dog breeds, which can weigh 180 pounds.

While branding something with Obama's name is not a unique marketing strategy, this application certainly is one of the more novel uses. What I find to be the most fascinating aspect of this article is the mention of elevation of dogs and dog breeding in a country that can barely feed most of its people.

This is a sign of luxury - to be able to spend money on something so...unnecessary. At the same time, it is a positive sign for Chinese culture and for the ability of free markets and wealth to do moral good as well.

Now, haters, this is not me saying, "OMG China is awesome and perfect because of free markets." This is me saying, "Look at the astounding marginal improvements over time that a country that had been losing so much for so long has gained in a relatively short period of time."

I believe free markets can help to effect positive moral change. I also firmly believe free markets cannot function properly outside of a tightly sealed moral vacuum. It can be a bit of a chicken or egg conundrum, but I think the safest bet is to put a moral philosophy first, since misguided applications of wealth and liberty also has the potential to destroy culture and morality. Paris Hilton is an obvious example of what I mean.

Liberty for liberty's sake is a wholly misguided philosophy and it's one that makes me cringe when I hear people discuss libertarian ideas. Sure, smoking pot and paying for prostitutes should be legal. Now, can we all move on to far more important things like, can I please be allowed to bake an apple pie and sell it at my church? Or open a business without so much bureaucracy and prohibitive taxation? Many so-called libertarian thinkers do not know why libertarianism is so critically important to humanity, they just like to smoke pot and maybe like a few pet civil rights and as a result they miss the boat entirely.

Morals must dictate what one does with their liberty and their wealth, and this is a current pitfall the Chinese are dealing with. To what extent they will be successful in reforms outside of economics is yet to be seen, but the compelling piece is that mere economic reform, towards freedom, are bringing about more moral choices - such as treating animals humanely.

This is not small. This is huge. To ignore it or explain it away with some other reasoning is irresponsible and dishonest.

Read More......

This One Slipped Through the Ol' Spam Filter

I'm a professional voice teacher and I occasionally post an ad on Craigslist to advertise for new students. I honestly don't understand, in what universe, how these people and their spambots think anyone will respond to their brainfever emails.

First it's from "NEWTON WHITE". The all-caps a is a requirement for spammers, apparently.

Then the greeting, "Yup Im Mark." Mark, Newton, Mark...make up your mind.

I can't imagine what about my ad for voice lessons gave NEWTON/Mark the idea I'm "inspired with homes" nor why he thought I'd be at all "impressed with how fast [he] learned" anything, since he can neither spell, nor create an even moderately successful marketing pitch.

And lastly, he appeals to my emotions, "get extra presents this year for your loved one." A generous man, NEWTON/Mark is.

Read More......

In Which I Am Legitimately Baffled, From an Ethical Point of View

I hate credit card fees and rates as much as the next guy. I am also a responsible, read-the-fine-print kind of gal who rarely gets hoodwinked, and if I do, I tend to blame myself. I've never felt preyed upon...until I read this little tidbit on triplepundit's article about credit card practices,

According to a recent expose hosted on the PBS show Frontline and sponsored by the New York Times called

The Card Game,

In the U.S., merchants pay 1.8 percent of every credit or debit card transaction to have the payment cleared. Last year, interchange fees cost them roughly $35 billion, according to The Nilson Report, a newsletter that tracks card payments. It’s the second-highest expense for many businesses, after labor costs, and some merchants say that the fees hurt, especially when they’re struggling to survive the recession.

Currently, consumers do not notice the effect of interchange fees on retail prices, since most credit card companies, such as Visa and MasterCard, restrict their vendors from charging lower prices for customers paying with cash, afraid that more people would use cash if they realized that it was actually cheaper.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying I agree that credit card companies are doing something shady. I really don't know. I mean, credit card companies need to make a profit somehow. If, in exchange for their services, they require a business owner to charge the same prices for goods/services purchased with cash or credit, that seems to be entirely reasonable to me. However, it also seems reasonable that a business owner should be able to charge whatever price they'd like for a good, and that lowering the price for a cash transaction is well within their rights. The problem is that we cannot have both options, which the quoted article seems to indicate is geared entirely towards making credit card companies' excessive profits.

This is an overstatement. I'm certain that credit card companies would not go out of business if they allowed different price points for credit vs. cash. I'm also guessing this rule is to avoid a finicky business owner who wants to have things both ways - wants to encourage customers to use cash, but still wants to be able to swipe the old plastic card if a customer wants that choice.

I think we have to remember, first and foremost, credit card companies are providing a service people want! If you don't like using credit - you are free to not do so! If you are a business owner sick of paying the high fees, you are also free to do so - educate your customers about why. In fact, it could be your whole schtick: a modern day David and Goliath. As a result of not taking credit cards because of your highly principled rationale, you might get a huge flock of capitalist-hating customers to your place of business simply because you turned away the big bad credit card companies!

Anyway.

People should understand that the extension and use of credit, or even debit services, is a convenience service, meaning, no one is obligated to provide it. Furthermore, if you are using credit at all, people should be cognizant it is because they cannot afford the good/service with current cash reserves and they need the aid of the credit card company to help manage their short-to-medium term cash flows of consumption and income. In short, this also means the consumer using credit shouldn't get all in a tizzy for paying service fees for the above-referenced privileges.

However, this does seem to set up a weird triangle between consumers, goods/service providers, and credit card companies who help them transact their business. I think the primary thing I still feel is "wrong" would be lack of transparency and flexibility. Store owners provide credit services because most people are like me: they never carry cash. However, I do think it is not unreasonable for said store owners to be able to tell their customers they could get a Pay by Cash discount since the credit card fees are admittedly high. I mean, many places do this informally by putting up a scraggly sign saying, "Credit Card minimum purchase $10" or whatever. They actually are forbidden by law from doing that, but should they be? Am I in left field here?

I cannot make a final assessment on this whole thing, so I hope some people more familiar with the issue can shed some light on it.

Read More......