- Dora the Explorer is singing about cocaine. Is that why my kids have so much energy? #
- RT @prosperousfool: Be the Friendly Financial “Stop” Sign http://bit.ly/67NZFH #
- RT @tferriss: Aldous Huxley’s ‘Brave New World’ in a one-page cartoon: http://su.pr/2PAuup #
- RT @BSimple: Shallow men believe in Luck, Strong men believe in cause and effect. Ralph Waldo Emerson #
- 5am finally pays off. 800 word post finished. Reading to the kids has been more consistent,too. Not req’ing bedtime, just reading daily. #
- Titty Mouse and Tatty Mouse: morbid story from my childhood. Still enthralling. #
- RT @MoneyCrashers: Money Crashers 2010 New Year Giveaway Bash – $7,400 in Cash and Amazing Prizes http://bt.io/DDPy #
- [Read more…] about Twitter Weekly Updates for 2010-01-16
Carnival Roundup
The Money Makers was included in the following carnivals recently.
Carnival of Financial Planning hosted by The Skilled Investor
Carnival of Financial Independence hosted by Reach Financial Independence
Carnival of Personal Finance hosted by Reach Financial Independence
Aspiring Blogger Financial Carnival hosted by Aspiring Blogger
Carnival of Money hosted by Financial Nerd
Thank you!
Experiences v. Stuff
- Image by hunterseakerhk via Flickr
On Friday, I went to see Evil Dead: The Musical with some friends. The play obviously isn’t a good match for everyone, but we are all horror movie fans, I’m a Bruce Campbell fan, and all of us had seen and enjoyed at least Army of Darkness. It was a good fit for us.
The play, followed by a late dinner and drinks with people I care about, was easily the most money my wife and I have spent on a night out in years. That’s including an overnight trip for my cousin’s wedding.
Now, several days later, I keep thinking about that night, but not with regret about the price. I keep thinking about the fun I had with my wife and some of our closest friends. We saw a great play that had us in stitches. We had a few hours of good conversation. We had a good time. I would happily do it all over again. In fact, I would happily reorganize our budget to make something similar happen every month.
I don’t remember the last time I spent 3 or 4 days happily thinking about something I bought.
I look around my house at the years of accumulated crap we own and I see a big rock tied around my neck. Even after a major purge this spring, we’ve got more stuff than we can effectively store, let alone use. When something new comes in the house, we spend days discussing whether we really need it or if it should get returned. When we plan a big purchase, we debate it, sometimes for weeks.
Getting stuff is all about stress.
My wife and I are both familiar with the addictive endorphin rush that comes with some forms of shopping. I wish the rational recognition of a shopping addiction was enough to make it go away. Buying stuff makes us feel good for a few minutes, while high-quality experiences make us feel good for days or weeks, and gives us things to talk about for years to come.
It’s really not a fair competition between experiences and stuff. Experiences are the hands-down winner for where we should be spending our money.
Why then, does stuff always seem to come out ahead when it comes to where our money actually goes?
Whose Line Is It Anyway? Why do some shows return from the dead?
Watching TV in the summer used to mean surfing channels of reruns, but lately there seems to be a slew of “new” shows that are repeating old ones. Networks and cable channels are bringing back previously popular shows such as “Whose Line is it Anyway?”, “Hawaii Five-O”, and “Dynasty”. While some people are thrilled that their favorite shows are back, a lot more of us are wondering why we need to keep rehashing the past.
The answer isn’t that the networks have suddenly become nostalgic. With increasing competition from internet videos and more cable channels, many TV networks have seen their profit from advertising drop in the past several years. More worrisome for the networks, many economists are predicting that the model of having companies pay for advertising during show breaks will become obsolete over the next decade.
These factors mean that TV stations are not very willing to take risks with new shows. A new drama or science fiction show can take millions of dollars to produce, and in some cases it will be pulled within a few episodes if it fails to catch on. When reviving an old show, a network has some guarantee that it will be popular. While not every remake catches on (Charlie’s Angels anyone?), a remake will usually attract enough interest to make the first episode a success.
The costs to produce these shows are also much lower than “new” shows. In many cases, networks already own the property rights to the show as well as contracts with many of the former actors, directors, and producers. In several cases, they also have access to props, costumes, and set pieces. Because of this, they can produce a pilot for a much lower costs than a “new” show.
Finally, advertisers like the idea of bringing back a show. While a network usually has to struggle to find sponsors for shows that don’t have a full season of Nielsen data to show, they can easily sell a show that advertisers are already familiar with. Furthermore, advertisers like that they know what to expect. Without seeing a single episode, an advertiser can accurately guess at the demographic that will be attracted to the show just by looking at the data from the original show. Because advertisers are familiar with the plot of these shows, they are also more willing to negotiate for product placement within the show itself. In some cases, advertisers have even suggested how their product could be incorporated into an episode before the first script is even finalized.
Related articles
Nigella Lawson and the High Cost of divorce
Heartache and heartbreak are hard enough to endure but imagine having to go through the loss of a relationship while the world looks on. Such is the high price of celebrity divorce and the latest victim is the beautiful and talented television chef, Nigella Lawson. Shocking photos of Nigella apparently being choked by her husband, Charles Saatchi, surfaced in the media following the June 9th dinner at Scott’s restaurant in Mayfair, London, where the incident occurred. Saatchi’s advisors urged him to humble himself and admit a public apology for the assault. Saatchi denied any wrongdoing, saying he never assaulted her and in fact, was actually removing mucous from his wife’s nose. Nigella was stunned by the admonition of “nose-picking” and his refusal to apologize. She left Saatchi and their family home in Chelsea.
The two sides continued to disagree about the pictures; Saatchi claiming it was just a “playful tiff” and Lawson hurt and humiliated by the public’s assumption of her as victim of domestic violence and her husband as her tormentor. Insult was added to injury on July 7th, when Saatchi announced his intent to divorce his wife in the media instead of directly to her. Lawson, who had been waiting for a public apology, was blind-sided by his cruel divorce announcement. Lawson and Saatchi have been married for 10 years; Saatchi has claimed that the couple had become “estranged” the last few years. Saatchi claims that he had no choice but to act publicly since his wife “failed to defend” him with a statement to the media. In fact, Lawson has remained silent at the advice of her publicist so as not to further affect their children. Lawson (53) and Saatchi (70) have three teenage children from previous marriages that they were raising together.In addition to the “he said, she said” controversy, Lawson and Saatchi will have to fight over $150 million in shared assets, including their $12 million Chelsea, West London home. Both brought substantial assets into the marriage. Charles Saatchi is worth $100 million from the high-profile, highly-successful New York advertising firm, Saatchi and Saatchi. Nigella Lawson is a celebrity chef, bestselling author and television star with a net worth of $15 million. By the time lawyers for both sides duke it out in court and attempt to untangle the shared assets, those net worths will be considerably less.But it’s not just a monetary cost to this celebrity divorce. Saatchi had grown increasingly resentful of his wife’s high-profile career that he helped established. It’s a common theme in celebrity couples; one partner becomes the higher earner or the more recognized celebrity and the other gets bit by that green-eyed monster, jealousy. In Nigella’s case, there is the public humiliation at the hands of someone she loves to endure. It seems that Saatchi is determined to do whatever he can to make her suffer in the media. And then there are the children; children always suffer in a divorce. It can be lessened when parents work together to keep it private and amicable. But it’s incredibly painful to have your lives dragged through the media. In this case, it is Nigella and Saatchi’s children that are paying the ultimate price.
Related articles
Does Amanda Bynes Need a Conservatorship?
The publicly documented downward spiral of Amanda Bynes may be reaching its breaking point. She has been on psychiatric lockdown for the past three days, and her parents are petitioning for conservatorship in California
on the grounds that they believe she is suffering from acute schizophrenia. They claim that the troubled starlet is unable to make safe decisions regarding her own well-being, not to mention the safety of others. The issue is complex, but the former childhood star has demonstrated that she meets the criteria to have external guardians instated to protect her from unpredictably irrational behaviors.
This development is the latest in a long saga of antics for Bynes, and the recent news report inserts a tragic twist into her somewhat comedic downfall. She had a pristine public persona only a year ago; however, at this time, she was caught publicly smoking marijuana. No one expected this incident to escalate, and it was treated like an innocent youthful infraction; however, the act recently turned criminal when she was reported for smoking in the lobby of her apartment complex.The comedian ran from the arriving police officers, and hurled a large cannabis apparatus out of a skyscraper window. The water-pipe was never found, but it presumably shattered upon impact. Bynes was incarcerated by the New York Police Department. During this time, the actress accused law enforcement of sexual assaulting her in a very lewd manner. Her absurd claims were never substantiated. The case against her is pending, and she has been evicted from her residence.
This was not the first criminal case against Bynes; she is also dealing with hit-and-run allegations in California. It was also not her last interaction with the police. Most recently, the actress doused an elderly woman’s driveway in gasoline and set it ablaze. She accidentally covered a puppy in the flammable liquid, so she ran down the block looking for something to save the animal from catching fire. After ransacking a convenience store, officers accosted her. The exchange resulted in the psychiatric hold that has been placed on Bynes.
Unfortunately, grounds for conservatorship can be exceedingly challenging to meet. Clear proof of mental illness needs to provided, and the standards are rigidly strict; however, if anyone has showcased the fanatical craziness that constitutes a lack of personal responsibility, it is Amanda Bynes.
Her schizophrenia is no longer dormant. The actress has become obsessed with plastic surgery, and she has deformed her face with cheek piercings. She uses online social networks to decry public figures for their ugliness. Victims of this attack include even Barack and Michelle Obama. Furthermore, she makes offensive sexual remarks towards rappers, and she wants to be a hip-hop artist herself. She has spent fortunes on a wig collection, and she employs a different style at every court appearance. The actress even used one as a disguise for an incognito trip to a trampoline emporium.
Anyone that has seen her Nickelodeon program would not be shocked to learn that she was schizophrenic. The role had her switching between dozens of identities for different skits, and she even played a character that was, in effect, obsessively stalking the star herself. “The Amanda Show” was neurotically fast-paced. Ultimately, the entire program can now be viewed as an eerie foreshadowing to the budding of a latent psychological disorder. If the legal standards of insanity are not met, then she will be free to wreak havoc on herself and others.
