I don't think currency conversion is a way to necessarily ding you. There are costs associated with dealing with that.

And there is no requirement for any credit card I have to pay from approved merchants or cashing in my points. People need to spend time and review what CC they end up signing up for.

 

Get one with zero annual fee and a good point system, but understand that point system. Outside of that, interest rate won't matter too much, unless you plan on carrying a balance.

 

And what you are referring to relates to your rewards program. That is a completely seperate point anyway and it has nothing to do why people carry a debt. You don't win paying double digit interest, ever. Increasing the required minimum payment was a good start, but why people think that paying the minimum is a good idea (while still spending on luxury items, instead of cutting back) just blows my mind.

 

Yeah, having dealt with currency conversions for like a decade now, there is a spread involved there. You can't just go out and buy Euros with your dollars at the last traded price.

Lost, how long have you been married? And how on earth did you convince your wife that your monies should remain separate?

 

I've been succesful with this too. Honestly I think its the best policy. We are both "on" each others accounts, checking wise, but don't see the day-to-day stuff. We each have our own credit cards too.

 

I think its good because we can't sit there and argue over each others purchases. We have agreed upon rules, like not touching the savings account (which is truly combined). If she wants to go out and spend $200 on clothes, that's her deal as long as she can fit it in her budget. It also makes gift giving more fun. Rather than knowing that I just paid (directly or indirectly) for my own Birthday gifts it comes out of "her" money.

 

Plus as a I told her, she doesn't want me looking at her daily purchases.

I think its good because we can't sit there and argue over each others purchases. We have agreed upon rules, like not touching the savings account (which is truly combined). If she wants to go out and spend $200 on clothes, that's her deal as long as she can fit it in her budget. It also makes gift giving more fun. Rather than knowing that I just paid (directly or indirectly) for my own Birthday gifts it comes out of "her" money.

 

That's how my fiance and I operate and how we plan on continuing once we get married.

 

I still see everything she spends her money on thanks to daily Quicken downloads, but she knows all of my banking passwords.

That's how my fiance and I operate and how we plan on continuing once we get married.

 

I still see everything she spends her money on thanks to daily Quicken downloads, but she knows all of my banking passwords.

 

its funny, we've got friends who can see the same stuff and they argue about stupid stuff, like "why did you go out to lunch at Panera and spend $9, we've got lunch meat at home."

 

 

Lost, how long have you been married? And how on earth did you convince your wife that your monies should remain separate?

I've been married for 4.5 years.

 

Steve checking account

Wife checking account

Joint savings account

 

I would not have it any other way.

We are the exact opposite. Why create three times the work of managing all of the different accounts? We communicate just fine. No need to worry about getting money in the right place at the right time, because it only is in one place. If it takes three accounts to get things done, it sounds like communications or trust might be a problem.

I've been married for 4.5 years.

 

Steve checking account

Wife checking account

Joint savings account

 

I would not have it any other way.

 

I have the same setup. Hell at my house I don't open up mail addressed to her, and she doesn't open up mail addressed to me. If its a bill it has both of our names on it. We split up some of the bills and just keep track of our responsibilities. It not a matter of trust. Both of our names are on all of the accounts and we can go into each others stuff at will.

Edited February 16, 201115 yr by southsideirish71

We are the exact opposite. Why create three times the work of managing all of the different accounts? We communicate just fine. No need to worry about getting money in the right place at the right time, because it only is in one place. If it takes three accounts to get things done, it sounds like communications or trust might be a problem.

That's where we are at too. My wife is very frugal, I usually am too, and it was just much easier (and a more efficient use of capital) to combine everything. And I use Quicken to track it all, and my wife has all the passwords for everything as well.

 

But everyone has different comfort levels. After seeing my wife get by on 13k a year as a grad student/assistant with no help and no debt, I was confident she knew how to handle money responsibly, and I know how the finance and investment worlds work.

 

That's where we are at too. My wife is very frugal, I usually am too, and it was just much easier (and a more efficient use of capital) to combine everything. And I use Quicken to track it all, and my wife has all the passwords for everything as well.

 

But everyone has different comfort levels. After seeing my wife get by on 13k a year as a grad student/assistant with no help and no debt, I was confident she knew how to handle money responsibly, and I know how the finance and investment worlds work.

I'm in the same group as you guys. I figure 2 accountants looking after everything is better than 1, haha. Plus, we tend to push each other, but in good ways, to keep our costs down. Especially since it gives us more savings towards a home, which ultimately I'd like to have a nice one.

I handle all of the finances myself, from bank to brokerage, to 401k to IRA to checking to savings.

 

I pay all the bills, etc.

What sparked today's nosedive of the DJIA?

What sparked today's nosedive of the DJIA?

Supposedly Libya and oil prices primarily. Also, Case-Schiller home index showed a bigger than expected drip, and they forecast significant further downside price risk.

 

On the flip side, consumer confidence hit a three year high.

 

Supposedly Libya and oil prices primarily. Also, Case-Schiller home index showed a bigger than expected drip, and they forecast significant further downside price risk.

How on Earth can people not have predicted a large case-schiller drop to close to the 2009 pre-tax-credit low?

How on Earth can people not have predicted a large case-schiller drop to close to the 2009 pre-tax-credit low?

General expectations where for it to bottom again after (which it did), somewhere at or a little above that line. That's about where its at now.

 

General expectations where for it to bottom again after (which it did), somewhere at or a little above that line. That's about where its at now.

But months of inventory right now would be effectively at their modern-era highs if anyone did the seasonal adjustments. That's why this one bothers me; I could have predicted this number with publicly available data and a day or so of sitting around and calculating averages.

High unemployment, a large supply of homes for sale, increased foreclosure filings, and stricter lending guidelines will continue to push housing prices down.

Private-sector employment increased by 217,000 from January to February on a seasonally adjusted basis, according to the latest ADP National Employment Report® released today. The estimated change of employment from December 2010 to January 2011 was revised up to 189,000 from the previously reported increase of 187,000.

 

This month’s ADP National Employment Report suggests continued solid growth of nonfarm private employment early in 2011. The recent pattern of rising employment gains since the middle of last year was reinforced by today’s report, as the average gain from December through February (217,000) is well above the average gain over the prior six months (63,000).

Consensus is for the BLS number on Friday to be about 180,000, which is starting to become a good number.

 

As usual, I'll take the under.

So how ready are people for $100 crude oil, or translated to the everyday man, $4 a gallon gasoline? The futures hit $3 yesterday, to which you still have to add your federal, state, and local taxes. That has to mean something like $4.25 to $4.50 in places like California once this filters through the system. Our prices are at $3.50 now, and should be $3.75 with a week or two if things don't ease quickly.

Already paid $3.99 for premium this week.

 

Hey, maybe 10+ years ago was a good time to start transitioning away from a energy source whose supply is so volatile and dependent on Arab dictatorships?

Still amazes me that people don't see the huge win in getting off oil, and making it a moon-mission level agenda item. So many jobs to be created, so much long term savings in energy costs, so much less pollution. There are few things the federal government can spend money on that would get a better multiplier.

 

 

Still amazes me that people don't see the huge win in getting off oil, and making it a moon-mission level agenda item. So many jobs to be created, so much long term savings in energy costs, so much less pollution. There are few things the federal government can spend money on that would get a better multiplier.

 

The "huge win" comes with a huge price. This is going to kill poor families who can afford to have their transportation costs potentially multiply. That has been my biggest problem with all of this so far.

The "huge win" comes with a huge price. This is going to kill poor families who can afford to have their transportation costs potentially multiply. That has been my biggest problem with all of this so far.

Wait, what?

 

If we were to accomplish the "Huge win" of getting off of oil, that would be a boon to those poor families, because that would theoretically stabilize transportation/energy costs for the future.

The "huge win" comes with a huge price. This is going to kill poor families who can afford to have their transportation costs potentially multiply. That has been my biggest problem with all of this so far.

See, I don't think that's accurate at all. You are assuming I am talking about carbon taxing - which I am not. That's not a model I am in favor of.

 

Let's split this up into two categories for now, just to simplify it - cost of fixed structure energy (electricity for homes and businesses), and cost of transportation (gas for cars, planes, rail). Yes there are other areas where oil is used, but let's stick with these for discussion for now.

 

In terms of the fixed structure energy, electricity, the reality is that the cost to provide that electricity from renewable sources like wind and solar (and others) is actually much lower than oil/gas/coal. The problematic costs though are two-fold. One, you have the upfront cost of setting up the power providing hardware - mills, panels, cable, etc. Two, you have the power balancing infrastructure problem - distributing electricity from these new generation locations to the grid.

 

So, this is where the government can and should step in - its national infrastructure. If the upfront costs are brought down significantly, then poor or rich people can both spend a lot LESS on energy, not more. Furthermore, you can be intelligent in the way you deal with infrastructure, by mandating net billing and net power capabilities on existing local grids, allowing for a distributed model. Do these things, and not only will there not be a cost increase, there will be a dramatic decrease over time, especially when you consider the continuing trend of rising oil and gas prices.

 

This area alone will significantly lower demand for oil products, and gas prices can then go down. Which brings us to the transportation discussion.

 

Here I agree with you that there is a lot of risk of causing a spike in costs over the coming years, before real savings are seen. And that is a danger. Its also why I don't like the idea of significantly increasing the gasoline taxes. Instead, I think other methods will work better, such as:

 

--A series of steps to further entrench efforts to build hybrid, electric and other alternative fuel or higher efficiency vehicles, including direct funding of research, performance-based rewards, tax breaks for purchase (without the assinine sales limits), infrastructure for charging electrics, and yes, mileage standards for all cars SOLD in the US, not just those manufactured here (if you do it as manufactured here, you are handicapping job creators).

--Do everything possible to make rail a better option for more people, not just in urban areas, but regionally as well. Direct funding is good, but also taking the handcuffs off Amtrak (they have some goofy rules about mandatory service that forces them to lose big money).

--Taxing oil, not gas - and not doing it at too high a level. This shifts the burden somewhat, but not entirely, off poorer people.

 

There are other ideas I like as well, I don't have time to write them all out here. And before you go jumping on me for this, I am NOT saying that you can shield people entirely from the bump in prices here. The combination of increasing oil costs (which are going to happen anyway), and the fact that my ideas will only partially offset the initial costs of changing the way we travel, mean everyone will feel some pain. Well, guess what? This is internalizing externalities, and its dealing with the real impacts of what we do when we drive. All of us.

 

There are further no-brainers out there too that will help make these things possible, like removing subsidies for oil, but apparently our "leaders" can't even agree on that simple idea.

 

And the thing is, by investing all this money, you are not just lowering costs in the long run. You are doing a lot more, and this is where the multipiler kicks in. You are creating huge industry, with good paying jobs, that EXPORT goods. You are also giving everyone more money in their pocket as years and decades go on, which will benefit everyone.

 

Wait, what?

 

If we were to accomplish the "Huge win" of getting off of oil, that would be a boon to those poor families, because that would theoretically stabilize transportation/energy costs for the future.

 

Sure, and how many decades down the road would that actually take to be anything near reality? In the meantime we have oil shortages and electricity delivery problems to deal with because anyone in those in industries would do anything because they know it would be throwing money down a drain.

Sure, and how many decades down the road would that actually take to be anything near reality? In the meantime we have oil shortages and electricity delivery problems to deal with because anyone in those in industries would do anything because they know it would be throwing money down a drain.

So what is your answer? Additional production? Tax credits so that the government pays for energy rather than the poor people?