The environmental cost of spam

Tree-hugger or not, here's some news from the BBC we can all take an interest in:

Spam produces 17m tons of CO2

Credit Unions and the financial meltdown

At a time when many banks are failing, and the one's that aren't can be blamed for many of the economic problems facing our country, there's one bright spot: Credit Unions.

In testimony yesterday (March 24) before the Senate Banking Committee, Credit Union National Association (CUNA) CEO and President Dan Mica said that Credit Unions stand ready to loan as much as $10 billion to small businesses who have lost their lines of credit due to banks' hunkering down. The problem is that bankers years ago pushed for unrealistically small limits on how much money Credit Unions can loan out to businesses.

Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) asked bank representatives why the cap on business lending should not be lifted, even temporarily. The bankers were unable to give a reasonable answer. The truth, which could never be stated aloud, is that bankers fear competition from Credit Unions, and will do absolutely anything they can to limit their influence.

You can be a part of the solution! Look around for a local Credit Union and join. You'll meet good people, who make sound investments in people of your community. They have money to loan, and at rates which give bankers bad dreams. If you're depositing, you'll find better rates too. Why? Because unlike banks, Credit Unions are not-for-profit, run by volunteer boards, with dividends paid out to the members. Their costs are lower.

If you "live, work, worship, volunteer or attend school in Riley, Pottawatomie or Geary County" Kansas, an excellent choice would be the K-State Federal Credit Union. Check them out here.

Also, read the whole story of Mr. Mica's testimony here.

The more things change ...

An interesting story today on the BBC about "banksters", a word which combines "banker" and "gangster".

In 1928, Professor William Z. Ripley of Harvard condemned the practices of Wall Street at that time. He called them "prestidigitation, double-shuffling, honey-fugling, hornswoggling and skullduggery".

He tried to warn then-President Coolidge, but the President was an insider on Wall Street, making money using some of the very practices Ripley was citing. The result was the crash of 1929 and a decade of depression. A depression, by the way, made much worse and much longer by the Socialistic programs of Franklin Roosevelt.

Alas, the situation is remarkably similar today. And we now have a President who will take a slim victory in the polls as a "mandate" to do things far above and beyond what Roosevelt ever dreamed of. I hope you have comfortable shoes. You'll need them when you're standing next to me in the soup line.

Read the BBC story here. There's an interesting twist at the end.

You're changing your oil too often!

The old "rule" about changing your oil every three months or 3,000 miles is just that ... OLD. Most cars and light trucks can easily go 7,500 to 10,000 miles on an oil change. The state of California just completed a two-year, three-million-mile study on Oil Change Intervals which proves that. You can read about it at The 3000 mile myth site.

If you're lucky, you're driving a vehicle which has an oil life monitor. These devices are available on most newer GM vehicles, many Chrysler products and some imports. They calculate the oil life based on the actual use of the vehicle. It's not necessary to change the oil until a message appears on your dashboard that it's time. On the two vehicles I own which are so equipped, the oil change intervals run 12,000 to 15,000 miles!

The simple truth is that both engines and oil have improved dramatically in the last forty years. Changing oil too often is expensive, unnecessary, and (perhaps worst) really, really bad for our environment.

(Please consult your vehicle's documentation for recommended oil change intervals. Some particularly harsh environments or rough uses will require more frequent changes, but 75-90 percent of drivers will fit into the recommendations for normal use.)

The Unretired

Business Week magazine, in the December 15, 2008 issue (page 46), has an article on The Unretired. These are people who retired, but due to the economic downturn are now hurting financially, and in many cases going back to work.

A couple of quotes, just a few paragraphs apart, stood out to me:

These aren't just the spendthrifts or sloppy planners you would expect to run into trouble in retirement ... many are people who did everything they were supposed to do -- working for decades and regularly socking money away.

Peter Fay, like many of The Unretired, feels angry and betrayed. The 63-year-old built up a $1 million retirement account as an executive at companies including Chiquita Brands International and then at his own high-end flooring company in Scottsdale, Ariz. But with all his money in stocks, he's lost 50% of that this year, at the same time that his house has tumbled in value. He's drawing down his savings and applying for jobs at Lowe's, Home Depot, and Costco. "All the systems we grew up trusting during all those years of work -- you save your money, you trust in the government -- are no longer valid," he says.

Did you catch that? "all his money in stocks" This is doing "what they were supposed to do?" I know of NO reputable financial planner or advisor who would recommend a retiree (or near-retiree) have all his money in stocks, even in the heady days of the market of the last few years.

Quite the opposite. He (and/or his financial advisors) were apparently driven by pure greed. If history can't teach people that greed is ultimately bad for them, nothing will, I suppose.