I’ve been thinking a lot lately about business and its purpose not only in the world but in my own life, and musing about how it influences me and my environment right now — and how I would like it to be present in my life.   Given things like the current crappy state of the economy, world financial system problems and issues, and protests such as the Occupy movement and just general discontent about how business, finance, and industry relates to us as a people, I don’t think the reflection exercise is misplaced at all.

I think we can all agree that business is necessary.   Not only from a make-a-living standpoint, but to generate the various things we need — or want — to survive.   But where that business falls in terms of its motivations, goals, and means is on a wide spectrum between two points:   Pure Philanthropy and Pure Greed — you do it for the betterment of the world, or you do it for the money, or as more often happens — a combination of the two.

This, then, has been the key point that I have been thinking about:   What combination of the two makes me happiest and most fulfilled?

It surely isn’t Pure Philanthropy — I am not employed because I feel a sense of having to better the world with my work; at least, not in a pure sense.   But even more so, I don’t ever envision myself working for a primarily-philanthropic business where the goal is to “do good things” vs. anything else.    This is because I have enough things of my own goals and volitions that I would happily accomplish if I didn’t have to earn a living.   Since I must do the latter, if it ever comes down to, “don’t work or work for a social benefit company”, I’ll probably opt for staying home and completing my own goals.

This is not to say that I’m incharitable — it’s simply to say that I don’t ever see myself being able to have the time and availability to engage in such purely unselfish activities with my time and efforts.    But, I do see myself volunteering in my free time for such things, and I think that’s where my contributions will emerge from.

On the reverse, I could never be simply money-grubbing.   There’s no soul in it, no conviction, no trust, no heart.    When your only god is the almighty dollar, your means become whatever they must to get it, no matter the associated non-monetary costs.    I won’t sacrifice my family, friends, sense of goodness, heart, mind, soul to the cause.    Those with the most toys don’t win, they just end up with a playroom full of toys and nobody to share them with.

That all being said, I don’t work for my health.  (Indeed, my health suffers rather greatly from having to work!)  I work because money, like it or not, makes the world go around, provides for almost everything in this post-industrial world, and is a necessary evil for so very many reasons.   So while I’m not a whore to the system, I am still planning on trying my best to earn as much as I can, advance my career as far as it can go, and to rise in the ranks of the business world so I can get the funding to accomplish everything I’d like to be and do.    I worry all the time that I’m not doing enough, fast enough, good enough, big enough, and the top of my career is looming ahead of me and that downhill slide to retirement is getting ever closer.   I fear it so much it makes me ache at night sometimes, simply because I know that I only get one shot at doing this the right way and I hate the idea of pulling out at 70 and saying that I had a mediocre run of it.

So, I don’t think either side of the equation is fundamentally evil — I have to be doing a job where I am earning money and being successful and I also have to be doing something that ultimately creates something of worth for the world as a whole, even if it’s a limited audience.   There are times when it’s perfectly fine to say, “Let’s to X because X will generate us a metric buttload of money.”   Likewise, I need to always be looking at the things I’m doing and say, “Is this really worth the money?   Will I hate myself in the morning/5 years/later?”

The balance must, ultimately, be struck.   Money, life, and everything in between.

Where does that line fall for you?

A recent poll generated by NPR‘s Planet Money team to their readers/listeners asked the question, “What defines, ‘Middle Class’?”     One of the responses was this fascinating breakdown of class structure by Katie C (katiec0000), which I have quoted here:

My ‘class’ definitions:

• Poor: Can’t afford basic necessities even with careful budgeting
• Lower Class: Can afford basic necessities with strict budgeting; can afford some small luxuries (e.g. cable TV, dinner out) with long-term budgeting
• Middle Class: Can afford basic necessities without strict budgeting, chooses between the little luxuries, can afford larger expenses/luxuries (vacation, college tuition, kitchen remodel) with long-term budgeting
• Upper Class: Does not need to choose between little luxuries, can afford larger expenses/luxuries with short-term budgeting
• Rich:  Can afford larger expenses/luxuries without budgeting

The breakdown is probably one of the better ones that I’ve ever seen and it struck me in a significant way, because I can easily place myself into this chart and I suspect most people that read this blog would be able to do so as well.    I’d say for my family, we fall into the lower to middle part of Middle Class.

The question is:   Is it accurate?    For those of you who consider themselves to be “middle class”, do you fit within the above definition, or is it lacking something?    If you don’t fall within what you would consider middle class, where DO you fall and are you comfortable with that definition?

Is it even useful to define and discuss things in terms of financial classes at all?

What if you could play the lottery with money in your savings account and even if you didn’t win, you wouldn’t lose any of your original money?

Sounds impossible, right?   I mean — playing the lottery is fun, but everyone knows the entry fee is flushed down the toilet.

Unless….

Freakonomics Radio (a podcast I highly recommend) recently ran a two-part podcast (Part 1 | Part 2) on “No-Lose Lotteries”, otherwise known as Prize-Linked Savings Accounts (PLSes).     I found the concept to be fascinating and intriguing and it left me wondering — man, how can we get it going here?

The essential idea is this: You open a savings account at a bank or credit union or somewhere.     Instead of meager interest payments which, as we all know, are next-to-nothing anyway, the interest is pooled from all other people saving into one lump sum and then, once a month, one person wins the entire pot of interest in a lottery.

If you don’t win, you have your original savings and haven’t lost a dime.   You haven’t gained anything, either, but not-losing in this economy is pretty nice.    And if you are one of the lucky ones that win, it could really change your life for awhile.    Prizes are not gigantic and depend on the number of people saving, but they range from $20,000 to $100,000.     If you’re like me, even a $10,000 windfall would make significant dents in my debt, lifestyle, etc.    $100,000 would be incredible.

PLSes have been around for years in Europe and Africa and other countries but have only recently been able to take a foothold in a few U.S. states, mostly due to the fact that the laws prevent lotteries that are not State-run from existing.    And, as you can imagine, the States are NOT fond of the idea of letting these in.

The podcasts and articles basically sum it up like this:    Americans are crap at saving.    Americans love to gamble in some form or another, mostly on lotteries.   (~$58 billion spent on lottery tickets last year)    Why not combine the two, increase our saving rate, and fulfill our need to dream a little?

What a deal!

I went on a coupon shopping trip today.   I armed myself with a fistful of carefully prepared bargains, braced myself for the inevitable waves of dirty miscreants, and entered Wal-Mart with one intention in mind: Savings!

A great deal of you probably have your hands out right now, demanding that I hand my Man Card back in to be unceremoniously recycled into confetti, but hear me out!   Times have changed, technology has progressed, and this ain’t your grandmother’s coupon book anymore.

I can also hear a whole bunch of you saying, “Geez, man, where have you been?   This is old news!”   (Yes, I’m looking at you, Stacey.   Don’t piss me off, lady, I got yer number. So I’m not the first to discover this underutilized resource — shoot me — but suffer me for a moment while I expound on it, eh?

To alleviate the fears of those out there who now envision me, curls in hair, stockings over leggings, smokin’ a Marly and pushing a wobbly cart through the bra section of Wallyworld, let me paint for you the picture I’ve developed for myself on how to do this ‘coupon thing’ and still retain your masculinity in a soccer mom world –

Nathan’s No B.S. Coupon Policy

1.   Don’t screw around trying to get the damned things. — It used to be that in order to come across a plethora of good coupons and deals, the person responsible for the weekly trips to Hell would have to sit for hours at a table, armed with Fiskars, pouring over the Sunday paper and every one in between just to glean a few crappy, “30¢ off a sloppy-beef tostada” coupons before collapsing into a heap and promising to get together with neighbors the next day to swap collections.

These days, a computer, a printer, and a sense of, ‘ah ha!’ is about all you need to successfully make it in the coupon world.  Sites like The Krazy Coupon Lady, Coupons.com, Smartsource, and others make finding and printing these things a cinch. It’s so easy it’s guaranteed you’ll spend more time searching for female celebrities in thin shirts and cold weather than you will for your weekly grocery-run.    Time is money and/or sitting on your ass drinking beer and watching tube.   Keep it in perspective and exploit the tech.

2.  Not every thing that claims it’s a deal really IS a deal. — I don’t mess around with anything less than 50¢ off and it’d better be pretty specific or cheap if I go below $1.   Anything less and I’ve just burned up my time, energy, gas, toner, and sanity trying to squeeze a penny.    Using a coupon on a brand-name item to bring it down to a price that’s still above a comparable generic is also stupid — you’re NOT saving money, you’re just blowing less of it.   Repeat after me, “Most Coupons Are Not Worth It”.   The one part of this that actually does take some work involves winnowing out the chaff and picking out the really sweet, wheat deals that you can be proud of.   But that’s kinda fun.

3.  Having to buy multiples to just use a coupon is almost always a lose-lose. — Sometimes you can make this work to your advantage, but you have to do the math.   For instance, tonight I used a, “Buy 4, get 75¢ off” on some cans that were 60 cents each, so that’s a good deal, and it’s something we use all the time.   But most of the time, once you add in the amount of money you have to spend FIRST to get the item, especially if you won’t use it or won’t use it much, it’s a screw.

4.  Buying stupid, worthless crap because of a coupon is idiotic. — Occasionally I’ll buy something I wouldn’t have normally or upgrade from generic to brand name if I have a coupon, but it’s almost always a trap.   You don’t like kumquats, you wouldn’t have the first faint idea on what to DO with a kumquat, so why waste the $4 just because you have a 2-for-1 coupon?  Don’t be a moron.   Buy what you normally buy and wait for the coupons to appear for those things.

5.  Be Thee Armed and Prepared.  — When you enter the store, have your weapons (coupons) organized by section and ready to check.   Don’t screw around with walking up and down the aisles, seeing what else is on sale — remember, you’re here on a mission.   Avoid distraction.    Don’t spend too much time — if the deal isn’t apparent, move on.   If you have to do calculus to figure out your savings, ditch it.   Be cutthroat and ruthless.

6.  No matter what, coupons are still Marketing; Caveat Emptor. – Remember that stores and manufacturer’s aren’t doing this out of the goodness of their heart.    They are out to get you to buy in some form, fashion, or otherwise, so keep your thinking cap on and your gun cocked because you never know when they’ll try to get sneaky.   You can game the system to your advantage, but you have to stay alert — saving $15 on your bill when you’ve just bought $300 worth of shit means you still paid out $285 for a cartload of crap.   Don’t be a dumbass.

In conclusion, you CAN be a man and still use coupons successfully and without feeling like you’re entering into a world of Better Homes and Garbage.   While printing and cutting out coupons hasn’t made me rich, allowed me to afford a yacht, or paved the way to get laid by a girl made entirely of breasts, it has enabled me to shave off some money on regular items we get and that feels pretty damned good at the end of the register, and when was the last time a bill total made you feel good?

Each workday I drive about 45 minutes each way on my commute, through the back roads and verdant fields of Iowa.

It is, to say, nothing short of insanely boring.

Technology to the rescue, as I have found that an excellent way of spending my time is listening to various podcasts on my iPod Nano.   Not only does it distract me while I whiz along the same paths day-in, day-out, but I am learning an awful lot as a secondary consequence.    Who knew that a commute could be so educational?

Background on this Point:

One of the best podcasts I listen to is NPR‘s Planet Money, a financial-oriented show intent on demystifying the greater market news and trends and explaining what is behind the numbers in the financial sector.    The staff clearly spends an enormous amount of time researching the topics presented and deciphering them into terms that those of us, like myself, who are not bound to the financial sector can still understand what’s going on.

And there’s nothing like a financial crisis in your country to suddenly make talk of the stock markets, mortgages, and other such subjects normally considered to be fairly dry to be rendered exciting, interesting, and downright frustrating.   I have to say I have a newfound fascination with the industry that I simply wouldn’t have without PM.

Recently PM’s correspondant Adam Davidson had the chance to sit down for an interview with Tim Geithner, the Secretary of the Treasury and arguably one of the most powerful men in the American financial system today, given how much the markets are hanging on his every word and action.   In the interview, Geithner maintained a very tight to-the-message game and didn’t reveal much, but when pressed about the possibility of nationalization, came up with the response that, “that strategy” (he wouldn’t say the word) wouldn’t work for the American economy, thus indicating that it’s not an option the are considering seriously.

The Point Itself:

After listening to all the analysis of the market status, why nationalization is good or not good,  the incredible insanity of AIG, and Geither’s zig-zag interview with Adam, I wonder — maybe they don’t have a plan at all?

I mean, I know they have a plan — clearly, they haven’t been sitting there doing nothing.    But at the same time, the system is so *incredibly* complex and diverse, what’s the chance that they’re taking a road that is both politically beneficial and one that simply is stalling to let the market take hold?

There’s a good chance that given the risky investments and investments using investment money that the bigger banks are truly insolvent (worth nothing) or pretty darn close to it.  Bolstering up banks and institutions that are probably near insolvent or completely insolvent is a bad idea because it’s a horrific waste of money on something that will ultimately never pay back the value — you are essentially dumping cash down a big drain and hoping that some of it sticks and plugs the hole eventually.   But what it DOES accomplish is that it lets these failing banks and insurance companies down S-L-O-W-L-Y.    It’s one thing to pull the rug out and let everything crash to the floor, but it’s a completely different idea to let it gently roll down a ramp to the bottom.

The thought has emerged in my head that perhaps, at the end of the day, Geithner and the others have identified this as a freight train that they cannot stop quickly, but they can apply the brakes and hope that when it plows into the cars on the track it doesn’t take them out too badly.    In the meantime, the market is sorting itself out as it always does — the stocks are dropping, companies are folding, unemployment rising, prices falling — all things that would probably happen anyway if they either nationalized or completely backed away, but in this fashion, it’s allowed to die in a controlled manner, so to speak.

At some point, we’ll hit a bottom (who knows where, of course) and when that happens, the banks may or may not still exist but there’s nowhere for the market to go but up — and Geithner & Company are probably banking on the mortgages and securities coming back to at least a high percentage of the original value.

Politically, they can say that they tried, and if the plans fail, then an excuse will suffice to cover them — the bailout monies were misappropriated or the management corrupt or they underestimated the situation — any number of reasons for going tits-up.    If it works, and the system is saved from the freefall and the markets recover, they come out as the victors.    Either way, they don’t come out too badly.

Your Thoughts?

There is obviously no clear answer to the financial crisis issue and the flailings of the government and the private sector are starting to take on qualities that would be insanely amusing if they weren’t so incredibly disturbing.    But what’s the chance that the only way out of this is simply a graceful crash?