I’ve written a few posts over the last few days, but, unfortunately, my schedule hasn’t really let me post them (I have a tendency to write posts when I’m away from home, using other people’s PCs, and I save everything on a USB flash drive to post later). I’ve backdated a few posts and put them up now, so if you see a post that you don’t remember seeing before even though you’ve been here since the date on it, that’s probably why.

As everyone has no doubt heard by now, the federal government has come up with a plan to potentially jump start the ailing^[a] economy by giving tax rebates to a large percentage of Americans.

A lot of people are already talking about how they’re going to spend this check from the government, and many of them seem to view this as a giveaway of sorts. For most Americans who will receive these rebates, this is not the government giving you money. This is the government returning money that it has already taken from you^[b]. That’s a very meaningful distinction in my mind, and I find it somewhat depressing that so many people tend not to see it that way.

The question is, what will this really do for our economy? In the case of my check, not much. I have every intention of putting the check either toward paying down my credit card debt or into the bank to bolster my savings a bit. In the larger sense, I think any real effect the rebates have will be largely due to their emotional impact rather than their financial impact. If it makes people feel a little more confident and encourages spending even beyond the rebate checks, then the overall effect is good. If people spend the money and still feel like the economy is faltering, then the effect will be minimal at best beyond a spike in spending around the time period that the checks go out.

Still, the government giving me back some of my money is always welcome, so I’m pleased. Now if only they’d cut spending down to the bare minimum, supporting only those functions government is actually good at (defense, law enforcement, infrastructure) and cut taxes accordingly, we’d see some real economic booms.

1. Whether the economy is actually “ailing” or not is a point of debate — it’s admittedly growing slower than it has in years past, but it’s still growing. That’s why it’s so funny when adults like the writers of the linked article (who, presumably, passed public school social studies classes and should know better) talk about the fact that we’re “teetering on the edge of recession”. A recession is two or more quarters of negative economic growth, and since we haven’t had even one such quarter (or even one such month, as far as I am aware), it’s early to be crying about a recession. [↩]
2. On the other hand, if you’re one of those who earned more than $3000 last year but did not earn enough to pay taxes, your check is a giveaway. You should thank a neighbor or friend or acquaintance who did pay taxes — that is effectively their money that you’re spending. Spend it well. [↩]

For those who insisted to me that Mountain Dew had more caffeine than a cup of coffee, I present the following:

Caffeine per 7oz cup of coffee (source):

• Drip coffee: 115 – 175 mg
• Espresso: 30 mg
• Colombian Espresso: 40 mg
• Brewed/Pressed: 80 – 135 mg
• Instant: 65 – 100 mg
• Decaf, brewed: 3 – 4 mg
• Decaf, instant: 2 – 3 mg

Caffeine per 12oz serving (source):

• Mountain Dew: 55.2mg

Arguably, a 24oz bottle of Mountain Dew has more caffeine (110.4mg) than some 7oz cups of coffee, but ounce for ounce, the only coffees that have less caffeine than Mountain Dew are decaffeinated.

The AP has released Rich Rodriguez’s second resignation letter.

Rich’s defense, in a nutshell, is that he had a verbal agreement from new WVU President Mike Garrison about doing away with the buyout in his contract, which is the only reason he signed the contract:

a) Mike Garrison stated that he did not believe in buyouts and that if I wanted to leave that “the buyout would be reduced to 2 million or eliminated altogether”. He knew I did not want to sign it with the large buyout but assured me that as soon as he took office he would address it.

I am not a lawyer, so I’m not going to talk about how this would hold up in court, but I do find it a bit questionable that Rodriguez believed that a “handshake” (so to speak) from someone not officially affiliated with the University at the time would negate the contract itself. If true, it speaks very poorly of the character of Mike Garrison, but it doesn’t undo the contract that Rich signed.

A lot of the animosity toward Rodriguez’s departure, I think, has to do with the timing of the departure and the way he handled it, not the departure itself. When news started to leak that he was meeting with Michigan, Rodriguez really should have simply admitted that he had met with them, rather than attempting to dance around the issue^[a]. It made fans feel betrayed, especially after last year’s flirtation with Alabama, and that biased us against him when it came to his attempts to get out of the buyout.

Releasing his side of the story makes me understand why Rodriguez might have chosen to leave, but it doesn’t make me so sympathetic that I think the buyout should be waived. He signed a contract, didn’t live up to the agreed upon method for breaking it (he was supposed to submit his complaints in writing and give WVU time to respond, as I understand it), and now wants the contract to be broken based on… what? Garrison’s word before Garrison was even officially President? I just don’t buy it.

1. “I had a meeting with my financial advisor… in Toledo…” is a weasel answer to “Did you meet with Michigan?”, even if you have a personal policy not to comment on such things. [↩]

In the last part of last year, I managed to do something I’ve tried and failed before. I created a budget… and stuck to it. For a while, anyway. Unfortunately, while I stuck to the self-imposed spending limits and managed to save a little bit before Christmas, my excitement at actually having a bit of money to give my family slightly nicer-than-usual gifts led me to go a bit overboard. Still, I’m quite pleased with my progress, as that initial budget lasted 8,640 times longer than any previous ones^[a].

What’s the difference? Well, part of the difference^[b] is that I’ve been reading a lot of personal finance blogs, like Get Rich Slowly and The Simple Dollar, as well as listening to The Dave Ramsey Show on the radio when I happen to catch it (and part of it via podcast when I don’t). Knowing that other people are having the same issues and working toward the same goal of getting finances under control is a great help.

A couple of days ago, Trent at The Simple Dollar wrote about Video Games and Frugality. He says that his ultimate goal is to make the average cost of each system (including the amount spent on its games) less than $1 per hour. In order to do that, he wants to buy games with the best replay value, avoiding those that he terms “lemons.”

My tastes are different from Trent’s — where he prefers the puzzle and rhythm games, I prefer the long RPG or the multiplayer FPS games — but the concept is pretty solid. My big “lemons” tend to be games that I buy with the intent of persuading my friends to pick them up, too, only to find that they’re just not interested (see: Shadowrun^[c] ).

My only real issue with his post was his advice on how to avoid lemons:

The best way to find highly replayable games and to avoid lemons is to do the research. The best way to do this is to look at a wide variety of online video game reviews. Visit Metacritic and read a wide range of reviews. Although the reviewers talk a lot about graphics and such, one of the real consistent “make or break” factors is replay value – does this game have enough interest to keep people coming back for more? Gaming store advice is usually solid – they have no reason to point you in a bad direction and the people working there usually have a good grasp on what the “best” games are in most genres.

Most of that isn’t bad, except for the last sentence. Today’s biggest game stores (i.e., GameStop) have a very strong incentive to point you in a bad direction. They want you to buy the game and sell it back to them. GameStop and its ilk have found a gold mine in gamers who don’t seem to grasp the ripoff system that they’ve developed. The way they buy back and resell used games is extremely profitable, and as a result, they have little desire to sell a new game (or game system^[d]) to customers.

As long as the gaming community believes that selling games back to retailers (instead of selling directly to other gamers, such as via eBay), GameStop has absolutely no incentive in helping you buy a game you’ll enjoy for a long time to come. Instead, they will do everything in their power to push games that you are likely to enjoy, but only for a little while. Don’t trust them to give you advice on what games you will enjoy, particularly if you’re looking for a game that maximizes your enjoyment per dollar.

1. It lasted approximately two months, and my usual attempts at a budget last approximately ten minutes [↩]
2. There’s another difference, too, but it’s not one I want to reveal right now. If you know me, you can probably guess what the difference is. [↩]
3. Though, come to think of it, Shadowrun wasn’t a lemon at all, because I actually managed to have fun playing it online with strangers. For some reason, that game didn’t have as high a percentage of idiots as Halo 3. [↩]
4. Full disclosure: The way they handled Wii preorders vs. Xbox 360 preorders has biased me strongly against GameStop (possibly irrationally so). There was nothing wrong with the idea that people could put their name on a list and then get a call whenever the store had a system for them. Refusing to take preorders, forcing people to visit the stores weekly just to see if they might have one available, is absolutely ludicrous, not to mention biased against those of us who have jobs (and, who, therefore, spend more on games). [↩]