|
|
The TimelessFinance Sunday Reader is not your typical PF carnival. In fact, it is not a carnival at all. It’s a weekly round-up of interesting and informative articles that I, Joe Wood, serve to you garnished with a healthy dose of my own opinion. For comic relief, and because bad writing and poor decision-making is in no danger of extinction, the PF Fail of the Week tradition lives on. Send your suggestions (and PF Fail nominations) to adinajtf@gmail.com who will help me pick the cream of the crop. |
This week’s Sunday Reader is brought to you by Adina’s photo, which isn’t going anywhere despite her limited participation.
Garth Turner, our Dear Leader at GreaterFool.ca, has a way with words especially when it comes to (1) wooing women and (2) describing the plight of overextended, under-prepared Boomers. As he says, ”…they completely misunderstood risk. They feared loss, when they should have feared poverty.” With more than half of Boomers unable to swing an extra $500 in monthly expenses, the writing on the condo’s glass balcony couldn’t be clearer (assuming it hasn’t exploded). But don’t read Garth’s post and feel superior because you’re a Gen X, Y or Z. A falling tide lowers all boats.
Then again, maybe we should celebrate the coming storm. Value Indexer‘s article on that topic got a mention from MoneySense. Great job, VI!
Speaking of The Honourable Garth Turner, Nelson at Financial Uproar unleashed his inner Wise Beard Man on a hapless article. Janine from My Pennies, My Thoughts had this to say about Nelson’s excoriation of the post in question:
Died laughing rdg this! “@financialuproar: New Post In Lieu Of My Own Content, Allow Me To Make Fun Of Someone Else’s bit.ly/13DfBGu”
— Janine (@apenny4athought) January 17, 2013
Satire is an important component of American-style freedom, and I certainly wouldn’t want to be outed as a communist sympathizer, but I got very few lulz from the original post. In fact, I was disappointed by it. Maybe even “sad” if you can imagine a robot like me having such emotions. Under the guise of personal finance blogging, the post supported the nearly-delusional choices of a couple that can’t afford bad advice. Saying it’s OK for a couple with $30k+ of student debt (where one person is about to lose her job) to go buy a $7500 vacation is a disservice to Readers. And if you aren’t in it to help people, why are you writing?
Miranda at Prairie Eco Thrifter wrote a great article about the difference between looking rich and actually being rich. I could retire for years at this point without any income, ignoring my partner’s significant earning potential; yet when I met Adina she thought I was a homeless guy harassing her for change (in fairness, I was trying to bum a quarter). In a credit-addicted, money-stupid society, the average person cares about the impression he leaves than the house-of-cards reality behind his noveau riche facade.
Take a walk through any suburban neighbourhood and you might conclude that you’re trespassing on an enclave suited for a modern day remake of The Great Gatsby. Sure, I could have qualified for a $600,000+ mortgage and we only spent $125,000. I don’t have a 3-car garage for you to gawk at, because I’m not going to spend real money for the ethereal thrill of impressing you (and the more likely human reaction to ostentatious displays of imaginary wealth is jealousy, not awe, which is an emotion I have no wish to inspire). In Toronto, the median salary is negligibly higher than the City of Kawartha Lakes; meanwhile I see far more people driving Audis on the DVP than on the 115. Did those rich-looking folks buy their luxury cars in cash? Not most of them. Meanwhile some people would look at me and guess that I live in my 03 Malibu. Good. It’s a fine American motor vehicle.
The Personal Finance Fail of the Week is a reader nomination. Sarah Gilbert at Get Rich Slowly decided to tackle the so-called morality of personal finance, failing miserably to grasp the concept of morality in the process. Her “brilliant” conclusion:
If check-bouncing is immoral, so is falling down and breaking your smart phone.
The whole post is actually just a glorified justification for her bouncing of a cheque, despite the fact that she understood it was risky to write the cheque in the first place. She wrote about the debacle previously and readers called her on the flippancy of her actions and her lack of any apparent remorse. Rather than take the apologetic route, Sarah decided to go on the offensive and proclaim that it ain’t no thang. It’s just an unfortunate accident, OK guys? 100% like that time Bridg had her iPhone stolen. Really, we the Readers of GRS should feel like the dumb ones, not Sarah.
Except that writing a cheque, the clearance of which you know is a crapshoot, does not make bouncing a cheque into a legit accident. Unlike breaking your smart phone, bouncing a cheque has negative consequences for other people. Another key distinction relates to the Criminal Code; see if you can spot the difference!
- If you can afford a hundred iPhones you can break them all without catching a charge from the po-po (but remember to clean up after yourself — don’t leave dog **** like an iPhone lying on the grass).
- Try bouncing a hundred cheques and even Canada’s criminal-friendly “justice” system might sentence you to actual jail time. (If jail time is inconvenient, ask to serve it on weekends.)
A cheque is a binding contract for payment. Respect it.
Now, if you’ll excuse me from this Sunday Reader, I’ve got to go gas up the Malibu or I won’t have any heat tonight.
Were you so sad that you forgot to post the actual link?
There is one in Janine’s tweet. I was too busy bawwwwwing to CTRL+C/CTRL+V. :’(
- Emo Joe
“It’s a fine American motor vehicle.” – Built in Oklahoma City, most likely – and 2003 was the last model year of that generation. I bet it’s solid!
Exactly. The 03 was the last year of the 97-03 generation before the re-design. The problem with new designs that haven’t been tested by millions of car buyers which you’re alluding to but that I’ll explain to other readers is that new designs tend to have significant issues that manifest over time. With the 03 Malibu, they had worked out the known issues e.g. trunk rust and ignition troubles. No matter how much you pay for a car, no matter their reputation for “quality”, if the design hasn’t been tested by millions of drivers there WILL be unexpected issues. Also, while I understand the gas mileage gains with fiber glass, driving a car made of steel with a V6 (despite the Malibu’s small, unassuming profile) is reassuring to me in a way that a top-heavy, rollover-prone SUV could never be. Oh, and in coming years there will be an entire wasteland of vehicles for scrap parts.
You are in fine form this weekend Joe. A pleasant mix of snark and insight, with just a hint of oakiness (I was dictating this on iPad and it thought I said “old penis” instead of “oakiness”).
I appreciated the personal anecdotes you infused through the post. They show that you walk the talk, and readers really get to know you over time. Exceeded my expectations, compared to link round-ups on other blogs.
lol thanks Gene. Well I certainly walk-the-talk when it comes to not looking rich and I’m obviously not rich… yet!
Oakiness sounds far more premium than I could have even hoped for; I wanted my advice to be solid but never thought it’d be labelled anything better than laminated particle board
Take it all the way Joe – anything described as triple barrel, double-casked, French/Hungarian oak commands a 500% premium! That’s how you get rich.
Looking like a bum is great. If you look rich people will want to borrow money from you (or worse) even if you’re living on credit like them. If you look like a bum they’ll just try to get away before you harass them. As Mr Money Mustache points out being able to spend a lot used to be a sign that you had done something exceptional but now it’s the ability to not spend that puts you in an elite group.
The GRS article is just the logical conclusion of this (and probably a good representation of life for those who are pretending to be rich). It’s easy to get rich very, very slowly when you throw in a few NSF fees and some 30% interest rates!
I just read Debt: The First 5,000 Years which is an extended take on borrowing and morality. A lot of the suggestions were questionable but it revealed some interesting historical and cultural perspectives. In that context some people seem to be inviting the return of debt slavery.
Great points (also above on the Oak thing lol — maybe I should start insisting my ancestors were specifically hewers of the finest hard woods, working as selective foresters to sustainably manage their forests with care).
That book sounds awesome, although there’s no way I have time to look at it atm. If you’re interested in writing a review, I’m always happy to host your work.
Heh, I started writing a bit yesterday because it seemed like it might be interesting. I think I can shape this into something that shows why debt is good but pushing it too far is a problem.
I don’t want to sound mean! I don’t think it’s funny that these people are making terrible money choices, I just thought Nelsons commentary was funny!
Oh no no. I wasn’t saying you’re mean or Nelson was. Nelson was absolutely right, and he’s consistently hilarious. I usually laugh at posts like the one Nelson lampooned, but I just found it really depressing for some reason. It’s sad that people keep publishing the kind of drivel in the original post; that kind of garbage discredits their opinions and makes you question their motivations for blogging. If anything, I’m just losing my edge; you’re not mean.