The following is at least as much opinion as fact, but if I say something that isn’t factual, please tell me.

Our American version of democracy has never been pure or particularly representative. From women’s suffrage to civil rights to lobbyist influence to rumors that can spread around the world before truth gets up off the couch, something has always gotten in between a citizen’s wishes and her elected leaders.

I had thought things were moving in a positive direction with the proliferation of the Internet. It’s never been easier to encounter dissenting opinions or do your own research. I’ve been having some healthy (and some insipid) debates through Facebook for the last couple of years, the kind that would’ve otherwise happened only with friends or co-workers. I like having those. It’s incredibly important to be available to hear other points of view. Not to mention the continued release of government data available for analysis by anyone. Together, we can help each other get to the truth.

A giant step backward

Yesterday, our Supreme Court ruled that since money is considered a kind of free speech, and because corporations are considered a kind of people, (I’m not sure I agree with either of those assumptions), then corporations are free to spend as much as they want to promote or condemn a particular political candidate.

The problem, from my point of view, is that corporations only ever have one priority: increase profits. And especially in America, they want to increase profits in as short a time-frame as possible. We don’t take a long view in this country, as they tend to do in Europe and Asia. That’s why, for example, the electric car took an extra few decades to go into production, and why we’re still dumping toxic chemicals into otherwise useful water. We avoid doing the right thing, because that would be expensive, and shareholders would not be pleased.

You and I, as individuals, are limited to donating $2,400 to a federal candidate. Corporations can now spend as much as they want. Not in donations, exactly, but in other creative ways.

Two days ago, the Shell Corporation would’ve been unable to produce and distribute a feature-length movie explaining that oil is the obvious and only logical way to fuel your car, and therefore you should vote for Sarah Palin.

Clearly, I made up that example. But I feel confident that if Shell could spend a billion dollars to elect a candidate that would help them realize $4 billion in profit, they would.

Is this a partisan issue?

(For the record: I’m registered Independent, and always have been. I tend to vote Democratic, because Republicans push me away with their talk about abortion, civil rights, lower taxes in the face of enormous deficits, and the general idea that individuals fending for themselves is more American than people coming together to help each other out.)

The Supreme Court didn’t have to make such a large ruling. They specifically asked to review the long-standing precedent while in the middle of a much smaller case. Conservative opinion holds a majority in the Supreme Court at the moment.

In 2008, Barack Obama was able to raise more than John McCain by switching from federally-supplied election funds to private sources. The Obama campaign raised a previously-unheard-of amount through “micro-donations”, such as the $160 I donated over the course of three or four months.

But corporations, because they are almost always motivated only by profit, will want Republicans to win more than they want Democrats to win, because Republicans tend to vote to protect profits more than anything else. And corporations will always have more to spend on candidates than individuals will.

I acknowledge that some corporations, while incapable of having their own ethics, are run by ethically-minded people. Not all of them want to see America continue its dependence on foreign oil, High Fructose Corn Syrup, ammonia-laced beef and unnecessary medical tests.

But really all it comes down to is who is willing to spend the most money in an election. It could be Starbucks, it could be Walmart, it could be Sichuan Tengzhong, that previously-obscure Chinese business that recently bought the Hummer brand.

Wait, foreign-owned corporations?

Yes. There’s no difference, according to the law. Chinese, Saudi, German, Australian, it doesn’t matter. Any corporation operating in the U.S. is equally unrestricted.

What about unions?

Yes, this recent ruling also allows unions and other advocacy groups to spend as much as they want in a given election. But who has more to spend, the American Federation of Teachers, or Microsoft? There’s no contest between unions and corporations.

Is there a silver lining?

One possible silver lining to what the SCOTUS did yesterday is that the already-existing problem of “corporate personhood” will be apparent to more people. I’ve never much liked that precedent. It’s illogical to equate a business with a person. A business is a collection of contracts and bank accounts. It doesn’t have a brain with which to generate opinions, so I don’t think free speech applies to it.

Additionally, before the millions start flowing, the Federal Election Commission will have to come up with updated regulations and enforcement processes. I don’t really know what to expect here, though.

What can be done?

To begin with, I’m throwing my lot in with a group who is pursuing a Constitutional Amendment to clarify that corporations are not people. Frankly, I’m worried for my country that it’s come to that: we have to write down that a business and a person are different things. But in general, once the Supreme Court has spoken, changing the Constitution is the last thing you can try.

Here’s a pretty good video explaining what happened, what it means, and what can be done:

Landmark Supreme Court ruling allows corporate political cash, Reuters, 21 Jan. 2010

Free Speech for People

The Consumerism Commentary Podcast is in full swing with new episodes every Sunday. Listen and subscribe now!

Democracy, Incorporated

You’ve seen it before. Perhaps you’re watching the Academy Awards and expecting the winner of Best Supporting Access to give a quick acceptance speech thanking her cast, director, crew, and family, but perhaps she takes more time to pontificate about human rights, war, or politics. Most people I know groan when yet another entertainment superstar shares his opinion about issues unrelated to acting, singing or dancing. But skills in entertainment may not always preclude intelligence or sincerity.

Tom Hanks knew this when he published his stump video for Barack Obama on Youtube. He says sarcastically, “As an official celebrity, I know my endorsement has just made your mind up for you.” (Hanks managed to slip into his endorsement a mention of George Washington’s transference of power to John Adams, an event recently depicted in the John Adams miniseries he recently produced for HBO, but perhaps that is beside the point.)

I like Tom Hanks’ approach. By posting a Youtube video, he is not forcing anyone to listen to his message; those who are interested can seek it out. Additionally, I find Tom Hanks to appear to be an intelligent figure in entertainment, always making smart and challenging choices in his own career. I would then extrapolate and assume that he is likely just as intelligent with other decisions as well. But his argument in favor of any presidential candidate is only as persuasive to me as I want it to be.

This is just a recent example, but there is no doubt that it is common for celebrities to use their voice and popularity to bring awareness to a human rights or political cause. Perhaps the type of popularity in which individuals have the ability to reach an audience of millions instills responsibility or desire to reach people in a way that not many others can. Anyone in their place who cares about an issue would regret not bringing awareness before they no longer have the ears of a wide audience if given the fleeting chance.

I believe that anyone with the ability to communicate to millions of people and touch so many lives has the responsibility to raise awareness to important issues. However, the most uncouth outbursts at an inappropriate time (think Michael Moore at the Oscars blasting President Bush) make the celebrity seem like a jerk for using their status to spread their message and take attention away from *the issue* and place it on *the celebrity.* Don’t forget that celebrities all along the political spectrum use their status for awareness, including Charlton Heston with his From My Cold, Dead Hands call as chairman of the National Rifle Association.

Should celebrities just shut up and entertain us, or does great responsibility follow great popularity? Is it right for some celebrities but not others, or is it the timing or situation that makes the message acceptable to hear? Or do you believe only the celebrities who agree with you should have the opportunity to speak out for issues that they find important?

Photo credits: Alan Light and Legendary Classic

The Consumerism Commentary Podcast is in full swing with new episodes every Sunday. Listen and subscribe now!

Using Fame to Promote an Issue: A Reponsibility or Uncouth?

I had family visiting from California this weekend, and was very glad to be able to take time off from work and everything else just to be able to spend it with them. It’s precious time I’ll always remember.

In the midst of our happy chatter over brunch this morning at a great local diner, however, I noticed something which made me incredibly sad. Seated at the table adjoining ours was a mother and daughter, both facing each other, but not in communication in the least. As my family laughed and talked, I noticed the quiet blanketing their table, the pretty but sad face of the daughter staring blankly at Mom, waiting for the conversation that never came.

Mom was curled around her cell phone as she dined, glancing up only occasionally. I actually commented on her behavior at one point to my party, though I doubt she heard me, engrossed as she was in the apparently fascinating world of T-Mobile.

At the end of their meal, Mom actually snapped her fingers in her daughter’s face as she tossed her the credit card, never ceasing her other conversation. Daughter trotted off to pay the bill, and that was that, Sunday morning brunch concluded.

Instances like this remind me how important it is to be actively enjoying and experiencing the moments we’re paying for, no matter the scale. Cell phones, Blackberries and the like make it simple for anyone to reach us anywhere, but also for anyone to interrupt us in the middle of anything. Emergencies are one thing, but to turn aside from the ones you’re with to focus on someone else tells them they don’t rank too highly within your social hierarchy.

Why spend the time or the money to go out for a meal with a loved one at all if your actions are going to tell them they’re not significant enough to receive your undivided attention? Why lay money out for an experience if you’re not going to be fully there?

In our wired society, are we starting to lose our intimate and special connections to others in the name of being constantly connected? More and more, I feel plagued by this type of social multitasking, and don’t really see anyone benefiting from the extra money we spend to be eternally reachable. I’m sure employers love to be able to reach their staff at any time, especially when a server starts misbehaving, but when the workday’s limits dissolve, employee morale and productivity generally suffer.

How do you switch it off?

The Consumerism Commentary Podcast is in full swing with new episodes every Sunday. Listen and subscribe now!

Against Social Multitasking: Be Where You Are

David Walker, the Comptroller General of the United States, had some harsh words for his country last month. I’m surprised that I didn’t hear of this earlier; I’ve also been thinking about some of the issues Walker raised, but until now, I haven’t heard them echoed by anyone actually involved with governmental policy. His words were reported in Financial Times.

Drawing parallels with the end of the Roman empire, Mr. Walker warned there were “striking similarities” between America’s current situation and the factors that brought down Rome, including “declining moral values and political civility at home, an over-confident and over-extended military in foreign lands and fiscal irresponsibility by the central government…”

I’m torn. While I certainly see some parallels between society today and the aspects commonly thought to cause Roman society to decline, usually a gross over-simplification of the issue, I still have hope. We have the benefit of immediate information and feedback, and it’s much more difficult for those in power to get away with manipulating the masses. Despite short-lived imbalances of public sentiment, this country is often split on issues down the middle. Civic decisions are therefore more difficult to make on a national scale, less gets done, and change is only driven in those times of imbalance.

I don’t think the American empire is quite ready to fall, despite some of the parallels with societies on the decline or past their tipping point. What do you think? Is the Comptroller General correct about the impending implosion of our society, or are his words necessary only to bring awareness to some of the issues and perhaps inspire a new cycle of sentiment?

Learn from the fall of Rome, US warned [Financial Times]

The Consumerism Commentary Podcast is in full swing with new episodes every Sunday. Listen and subscribe now!

The Fall of the American Empire

According to the Global Rich List, my estimated income of $70,000 for this year puts me in the top 0.85% in the world on the basis of annual earnings. However, according to a new global study commissioned by the United Nations, my net worth of under $70,000 translates to “only” the top 10% of all individuals throughout the world, ranked by total “wealth.”

From an article on MarketWatch, providing the details of the study:

The research indicates that assets of just $2,200 per adult place a household in the top half of the world’s wealthiest. To be among the richest 10% of adults in the world, just $61,000 in assets is needed. If you have more than $500,000, you’re part of the richest 1%, the United Nations study says.

The study shows that cultural differences, even in developed countries, contribute to differences in wealth.

The study also reveals the differences in the types of financial assets owned. Savings accounts are strongly featured in transition economies and some rich Asian countries, while stock and other types of financial products are more commonplace in Western nations.

The authors say there is a stronger preference for saving and liquidity in Asian countries because of lack of confidence in financial markets. That isn’t so much the case in the United States and the United Kingdom, which have private pensions and more-developed financial markets, they say.

Poor individuals in less developed areas of the world do have debt, but it is not as pronounced as debt in countries with a mature consumer industry. According to the report, due to large amounts of consumer debt, “many people in high-income countries have negative net worth and — somewhat paradoxically — are among the poorest people in the world in terms of household wealth.”

The Consumerism Commentary Podcast is in full swing with new episodes every Sunday. Listen and subscribe now!

Wealthiest in the World: I’m in the Top 10%

If you’re looking for an investment that provides a return higher than Treasury bills, and you want to help the world at the same time, you might want to consider this new bond. The government of Britain with some others (not including the United States) are selling bonds to raise money to immunize millions of children around the world against polio, measles, diphtheria, and hepatitis.

The first bond issued will be purchased by the Pope and heads of other religious organizations will be among the first buyers.

According to the Marketplace morning report, the United States government is not participating because the payments to bondholders in the future will come from active budgets. The bonds are underwritten by the World Bank.

The Consumerism Commentary Podcast is in full swing with new episodes every Sunday. Listen and subscribe now!

Bond Issued to Fund Vaccinations for 500 Million Children

According to CNN, if you add up the net worth of the 400 wealthiest Americans, you come up with a combined net worth of $1,250,000,000,000. That’s $1.25 trillion.

That’s an increase of $120 billion from last year.

The article then goes on to describe who is in the list (only billionaires, no lowly millionaires). Warren Buffett and Bill Gates, pictured here, are at the top, But that’s not important to me today. This is what I really want to know:

Where did the $120 billion increase come from? The government didn’t just print 1,200,000,000 $100 bills and pass them out to a select few. The money that landed in the hands of the 400 richest had to come from existing money somewhere.

The best answer is the money came from other people, individuals not on the list of the 400 wealthiest Americans. Did your net worth increase by $300,000,000 last year, like the average richest 400? If not, it’s quite possible you’ve contributed nicely towards the increase of the elite.

The Consumerism Commentary Podcast is in full swing with new episodes every Sunday. Listen and subscribe now!

The 400 Richest Americans

I’ve been talking with J.D. of Get Rich Slowly about the rise of (the social acceptance of) personal debt in the twentieth century, which was somewhat spurred on by my MoneyBloggerPodcast interview.

J.D. has included a passage from a book, Ain’t We Got Fun, in his recent post, The Dawn of the Age of Credit. The book looks at the changes in American society of the 1920s that led to the way people view credit cards and personal debt today. That is to say, most of this country holds personal debt as socially acceptable, rather than in previous centuries when a social stigma was attached to those who owed money.

The book seems a little difficult to come by, otherwise I’d add Ain’t We Got Fun to my wish list.

The Consumerism Commentary Podcast is in full swing with new episodes every Sunday. Listen and subscribe now!

The Age of Credit

Peggy Post, who has taken over the Etiquette legacy from the mannerific Emily Post, was interviewed by Bankrate.com. She tackled the problem of the appropriateness of talking about money; that is, when and how not to do it.

Her tips were standard. People don’t like to talk about money because they feel they are being evaluated on how much they make or how much they spend. For some, talking about the topic is like revealing your age.

I don’t talk about money much in person. If I did, I’d be getting on people’s nerves as I would likely complain about the cost of my apartment or my salary, and I’m sure when I’m out being social, people don’t really want to hear that.

This increases the value of the blog to me. It’s relatively anonymous. Most of my friends don’t read this website (if they want to keep up they might read another blog I write that contains more information on my interests and activities) and don’t care about my financial situation.

I’m not breaching any etiquette by presenting my household income statement or balance sheet. Corporations aren’t embarassed when people read their annual reports; it’s just “business.”

The focus of this blog is my financial situation, but there’s much more to me than just that. I may have an accounting-related job, but that is just a coincidence. Money doesn’t define a person and it certainly doesn’t define me.

The Consumerism Commentary Podcast is in full swing with new episodes every Sunday. Listen and subscribe now!

The Etiquette of Money Talk

More accurately, it’s extreme poverty. That is the best way to describe living on one dollar a day in a pre-industrialized (farming) community. Now imagine this family, earning one dollar a day, has six children to support.

Forget about television (much less cable) and internet. Forget about cell phones (or any phone, for that matter). Forget about clean clothing and a good education. This story puts everything into perspective. While we’re all concerned with our own well-being and wealth, it’s difficult to contemplate what life is like on the other side of the world — or even elsewhere in this country — for those existing in poverty.

So why would this family, or any other extremely low income household, have so many children if there’s not enough to support them? Having more children means there are more hands to help in the field, and somehow the numbers show that an additional child helping when he or she is old enough will pay for that child’s expenses.

Perhaps the world’s biggest mistake was agriculture. When humans began adopting farming and leaving hunting-gathering behind, this is how they were rewarded:

* The average height of both men and women lessened by five or six inches.
* Life expectancy dropped.
* Increased cases of infectuous diseases and iron-deficiency anemia.

These are all signs of malnourishment in the skeletons of those early farmers. While many of these and other similar issues have been overcome by the modernized world (except for disease), not all humans have “progressed” that far yet.

If farming was so much better than hunting-gathering as progressives claim, why were people getting sick more often? Settling down and adopting agriculture allowed the already increasing population to continue increasing, but the quality nutrition provided by hunting and gathering gave way to higher quantity of less nutritious foods.

This point of view is quite anti-progressive and obviously more than a little controversial, but interesting.

The Consumerism Commentary Podcast is in full swing with new episodes every Sunday. Listen and subscribe now!

Extreme Frugal Living and Farming vs. Hunting-Gathering

Here is some common sense from Jeanne Sahadi: If financial success is important to you, and you are not as successful as those around you, you are not going to be as happy as someone who doesn’t care as much about financial success. In fact, setting financial success as a goal can make some people less happy.

There are some interesting statistics in the article, some of which may not be common sense like the statement above.

When a group of MBAs were asked whether they’d rather make $100,000 when everyone around them made $120,000, or make $90,000 when everyone around them made $70,000, a majority opted for the lesser salary if everyone at the company knew about the discrepancy, Schwarz said. But if the salary discrepancies were kept confidential, about half said they’d opt for the $100,000 job.

I’m not sure why they singled out MBAs, perhaps they were who was available. Maybe they figure MBAs are conrcerned only with money.

I write about personal finance on Consumerism Commentary. That topic, while broad, is really the sole content of this website. This is not because I am obsessed with personal finance; I have other blogs where I write about different aspects my life and the world. (It’s up to you to find them–no obvious direct links.) Personal finance is such a small part of my universe of interests, but it gets a large chunk of time because I have a big audience here.

I happen to be in one of the categories mentioned in this article, a category which supposedly makes me unhappy. Most of the people around me are doing better off than I am or seem to be. My friends have houses and families and I’m still a low-level worker bee in the office, with no sign of the CEO coming to my cubicle and asking me to run one of the divisions of the company, working directly for him.

My level of cash seems to be decreasing, so I don’t see a house any time soon, either.

If I decide to go to law school next fall, which is looking good right now, it’s not because I want money. I want to do something interesting. If I get paid more for it, great, but even still I’m going to be in debt for a while. Since I’ve been anti-debt for the last several years, that’s a difficult mental barrier for me to cross.

The Consumerism Commentary Podcast is in full swing with new episodes every Sunday. Listen and subscribe now!

Can’t Buy Me Happiness

The author of Girl Meets World writes about her experience buying a Honda Civic and encountering sexism, even from the female sales managers.

The Consumerism Commentary Podcast is in full swing with new episodes every Sunday. Listen and subscribe now!

Car-Buying Sexism

Here’s what’s going on in the media today:

* CNN’s Gerri Willis talks about prenuptual agreements in her “5 Tips” column. This might be an issue that people in love don’t want to talk about, but it is important to discuss, especially if there are or will be children in the picture.

* My checking bank, Wachovia, has admitted ties to slavery (press release here), even if it wasn’t directly related to the company that is Wachovia today. I can only imagine the aspects of today’s society that will be looked back upon in two hundred years and be considered despicable. Imagine this: An investment company in 2205 publicly apologizes for deceiving thousands of customers by neglecting to disclose fees in a straight-forward manner.
* Bush likes Cox. Enough said. (I bet I’m not the first to come up with that one…)

The Consumerism Commentary Podcast is in full swing with new episodes every Sunday. Listen and subscribe now!

News and Links

I used the term “Long Tail” when referring to the shape of the curve when I wrote about the most prolific commentators on Consumerism Commentary. However, there are more interesting applications of the Long Tail idea.

In fact, there is a Long Tail Blog (there’s a blog for everything these days). The Long Tail is used to descibe economies, talent, popularity, blogging of course, and various other topics.

Chris Anderson has an interesting post on the dangers of Headism. “Headism” is described as “the mistake of assuming that the economic incentives and other forces that dominate at the head of a demand curve apply equally down the tail.”

The Consumerism Commentary Podcast is in full swing with new episodes every Sunday. Listen and subscribe now!

The Long Tail

A new survey from Salary.com determines which cities provide its residents with the most and least value for your salary.

To spoil the fun, here are the results. The five most affordable cities are New London, Connecticut; Huntsville, Alabama; Baltimore, Maryland; Harrisburg, Pennsylvania; and Tulsa, Oklahoma. It is an interesting collection. Out of these five, I would consider only Baltimore for myself. Perhaps I should look at some jobs.

The next five affordable cities are Rock Island, Illinois; Troy, New York; Corpus Christi, Texas; Schenectady, New York; and Las Vegas, Nevada.

The five least affordable cities are New York; San Francisco; Stamford, Connecticut; San Jose, California; and San Diego. There’s nothing surprising here. The next five are Santa Barbara; Bakersfield, California; Los Angeles; Fresno, California; and Boston.

The Consumerism Commentary Podcast is in full swing with new episodes every Sunday. Listen and subscribe now!

Most and Least Affordable Cities

Here is an article that discusses American materialism. The comments that follow the article are just as interesting.

If guilt and materialism are two sides of a single very American coin, it’s a coin that has achieved new currency in recent years, as hand-wringing and McMansions vie for our souls like the angels and devils who perch on the shoulders of cartoon characters, urging them to be good or bad.

Another article talks about the Puritan Work Ethic that developed after the Industrial Revolution and is now the basis of our economy. This article tends to focus on the virtues of being completely idle to stimulate thought and creativity. Surely there should be a happy medium…

The Consumerism Commentary Podcast is in full swing with new episodes every Sunday. Listen and subscribe now!

Unimaginable Material Wealth and Worshipping the Idle

How rich are you compared to the richest people in the world? Find out here where you fall on the scale. Here’s a little diagram found deep within the website to give you an idea of how this is calculated.

The Consumerism Commentary Podcast is in full swing with new episodes every Sunday. Listen and subscribe now!

How to Feel a Little Richer

Fool.com: Is Your Cash Flow Normal?

The average family (statistically speaking, that is) in the United States earned $38,106 in 2001 after taxes were paid. The same average family spent $39,518, so if this trend continues, people will just grow deeper into debt.

The article breaks down that spending into several categories. See how you compare to the average American.

The Consumerism Commentary Podcast is in full swing with new episodes every Sunday. Listen and subscribe now!

The Average Family

Inflation of expectations – Sep. 12, 2003

This article looks at consumption trends in home electronics, real estate, travel, cars and events, using the early 1960s as a reference for the current day. The author mentions an anti-consumerism movement and refers to the book, Affluenza: The All-Consuming Epidemic by John De Graaf and the accompanying PBS special, Affluenza.

The Consumerism Commentary Podcast is in full swing with new episodes every Sunday. Listen and subscribe now!

The Cost of the Good Life