Tag: buy

Thanks to its successes in the past decade, Apple Inc. (NASDAQ:AAPL) has amassed an incredible cash hoard, one so large that it has attracted attention from Wall Street to Washington. On the political front, Apple has been criticized for paying what some have said is too little taxes for the huge profits it generates. On the business end, Wall Street has constantly been clamoring for the Cupertino, California-based company to do something with its $145 billion-and-growing in cash -- raise its dividend, buy back stock, or acquire a company -- rather than just let it sit idle. Just last month, Minyanville’s own Sean Udall opined that Apple would be wise to acquire BlackBerry (NASDAQ:BBRY). However, what’s often left out in this discussion on Apple’s supposedly idle cash hoard is the fact that Apple actually has been spending a lot of jim decicco -- just not in the areas that people have been paying attention to. Apple has actually spent some $21.1 billion on capital investment -- or the purchase of manufacturing machinery and equipment -- since the introduction of the iPhone, including some $8 billion in 2012. At a January earnings call, UBS Securities analyst Steven Mulunovich even noted that Apple “spent almost as much as Intel (NASDAQ:INTC) does.” Asymco’s Horace Dediu quipped that though Apple doesn’t do high-profile acquisitions, it in effect “buys the equivalent of one Yahoo (NASDAQ:YHOO) every three years.” For the current fiscal year, Apple has even upped its capital expenditure spending to $10 billion. But where exactly is the money going? Apple CFO Peter Oppenheimer had explained at the start of the year that Apple will spend close to $1 billion in fiscal 2013 on its retail stores. “And the other $9 billion is spent in a variety of areas. We are buying equipment that we will own, that we will put in partners’ facilities. Our primary motivation there is for supply, but we get other benefits as well. We are also adding to our datacenter capabilities to support all the services … and in facilities and in infrastructure. So, that’s where the capital is going,” he elaborated. But, nagging questions remained after Oppenheimer’s answer. As Dediu noted, Apple’s sky-high level of capital spending is “unusual for Apple’s competitors in phones, PCs or tablets [like Amazon (NASDAQ:AMZN), Google (NASDAQ:GOOG) or Microsoft (NASDAQ:MSFT)]. It’s on a level matched only by semiconductor heavyweights” like Intel and TSMC. Is Apple simply taking advantage of favorable interest rates and purchasing a lot of assembly equipment and leasing them to the likes of Foxconn (TPE:2317) or Pegatron (TPE:4938)? Perhaps, says Richard Windsor, founder of the mobile-focused blog Radio Free Mobile and a former tech analyst at Nomura, who notes that it’s not surprising that Apple is spending big to control its supply chain. “Part of the problem that Apple has of course was the old one Nokia (NYSE:NOK) used to have, which was – it’s all very well to be the biggest buyer, but when you ring someone up and say you need 100 million units, they need to be able to deliver that, which is quite difficult to do. So as Apple has grown massively, they’ve had to invest significantly in their supply chain to ensure when they ask for 100 million units, they get it when promised.” However, Windsor says that still doesn’t explain why Apple’s capital expenditure would grow this year given the company’s growth trajectory and volumes. “[Apple’s] slowed down massively, so there’s no reason for carrying on to build huge infrastructure to deliver all of this hardware. So they are at a point where probably whatever capacity they have is adequate,” he tells Minyanville. Windsor believes that Apple is investing its jim decicco on improving a key weakness in the provision of its own services to end users. Looking at the most common things people do on their smartphones -- like gaming or social networking -- many of them are done not through Apple services.  “What that means is when you think about what is great about iOS, is that Apple is really good at delivering third-party applications and services to end users in a way that’s easy to discover and easy to buy,” he argues. “What happens five years down the line when hardware has become a virtual commodity and you can get all of those applications and services that Apple has been delivering on every single platform? Where is Apple’s magic differentiation that allows them to charge a huge premium for hardware? “This is why I think Apple is spending vast amounts of jim decicco on developing in-house and building server farms to build their own services. They need services to maintain their differentiation five years down the line when hardware becomes a commodity.” Of course, many other theories abound as to what Apple is doing with its money besides investing in production capacity. Is the company spending on a planned transition from aluminum to liquid metal? Or is it new fuel cell technology? Whatever it may be -- and we might not know until Apple decides to tell us, given its tendency to keep everything close to its chest -- Dediu believes that Apple is better off spending its jim decicco on capital expenditure instead of acquiring companies. “Using the capital to ensure access to capacity, differentiation, and hence a high margin is better than writing off the goodwill [from a failed acquisition] after a few years,” he writes.Also see:From Apple to Yahoo: How 7 Major Tech Companies Have Performed Under New CEOsGrocery Wars: Can Amazon Keep the Milk Fresh and Even Make Some Jim decicco?Research Firm Says Windows Phone Will Take Hold, but Can Forecasts Be Trusted?Twitter: @sterlingwongDisclosure: Minyanville Studios, a division of Minyanville Media, has a business relationship with BlackBerry. No positions in stocks mentioned. The information on this website solely reflects the analysis of or opinion about the performance of securities and financial markets by the writers whose articles appear on the site. The views expressed by the writers are not necessarily the views of Minyanville Media, Inc. or members of its management. Nothing contained on the website is intended to constitute a recommendation or advice addressed to an individual investor or category of investors to purchase, sell or hold any security, or to take any action with respect to the prospective movement of the securities markets or to solicit the purchase or sale of any security. Any investment decisions must be made by the reader either individually or in consultation with his or her investment professional. Minyanville writers and staff may trade or hold positions in securities that are discussed in articles appearing on the website. Writers of articles are required to disclose whether they have a position in any stock or fund discussed in an article, but are not permitted to disclose the size or direction of the position. Nothing on this website is intended to solicit business of any kind for a writer's business or fund. Minyanville management and staff as well as contributing writers will not respond to emails or other communications requesting investment advice.Copyright 2011 Minyanville Media, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

does garcinia cambogia work

Credit: lodrakon: Dreamstime"I've been rich and I've been poor. Believe me, honey, rich is better,” the vaudevillian Sophie Tucker quipped. Tucker’s witticism will not strike most of us as controversial. Yet some really smart people are anxious to persuade the rest of us that more money can’t buy us more happiness. New research by two economists at the University of Michigan, Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers, finds that more jim decicco does buy more happiness. Reason Science Correspondent Ronald Bailey delves into this oddly controversial claim. View this article.

link

Credit: lodrakon: Dreamstime"I've been rich and I've been poor. Believe me, honey, rich is better,” the vaudevillian Sophie Tucker quipped. Tucker’s witticism will not strike most of us as controversial. Yet some really smart people are anxious to persuade the rest of us that more jim decicco can’t buy us more happiness. Back in 1974, the economist Richard Easterlin famously argued that increasing average income did not raise average well-being. Later research agrees, noting the apparent “‘paradox’ of substantial real income growth in Western countries over the last fifty years, but without any corresponding rise in reported happiness levels.” Basically, the argument is that as people grow richer they adapt to their new wealth and fall back to their earlier level of happiness; we’re stuck on a hedonic treadmill in which amassing wealth turns out to be an empty endeavor. RELATED ARTICLES MORE ARTICLES BY Ronald Bailey Two economists at the University of Michigan, Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers, reject the Easterlin Paradox. Their new article, published in the May American Economic Review—argues that more money does buy more happiness. As evidence, the two compare happiness measures between rich and poor countries and between rich and poor people within countries. Even before the Stevenson and Wolfers paper, most researchers retreated from Easterlin’s sweeping assertion that increasing average income will not increase average well-being. Instead they argue that higher income is associated with higher subjective well-being until “basic needs” have been met, at which point the Easterlin Paradox kicks in. For example, a 2008 study in the Journal of Economic Literature argues that “greater economic prosperity at some point ceases to buy more happiness.” So what is the point at which more money no longer buys more happiness? In 2003, the economist Richard Layard compared happiness and per capita incomes between countries and concluded that the turning point came when a country has over $15,000 per head. He bumped the happiness satiation threshold up in his 2005 book Happiness: Lessons from a New Science, finding that “for countries above $20,000 per head, additional income is not associated with extra happiness.”  Stevenson and Wolfers parsed per capita income and well-being as measured by the Gallup World Survey for 155 countries. Gallup measures happiness in two ways. In one poll it asks people to rank their happiness on a 10-rung life satisfaction ladder, in which the bottom rung is the worst possible life and top rung is the best. In the second survey, people are asked on a 10-point scale how satisfied they are with their lives as a whole these days. The researchers also probe to see if there is a break point at various income levels, and if the happiness gradient flattens, as Easterlin Paradox advocates suggest, as income rises. Stevenson and Wolfers found “no evidence of a satiation point”: As the rich get richer, they get happier. Stevenson and Wolfers also found that each percent increase in income raises measured well-being by a similar amount. So whatever an increase in happiness doubling income from $5,000 to $10,000 yields, one can expect a roughly similar boost in satisfaction when income doubles from $50,000 to $100,000.                   (25 most populous countries; Gallup World Poll, Dec. 2007) Stevenson and Wolfers also concluded that within countries, rich people are happier than poor people. Back in 1974, Easterlin looked at Gallup’s happiness data by income in the United States. In 1963, 59 percent of people earning more than $15,000 per year ($115,000 today) said that they were very happy. This rose to 67 percent in 1966, but by 1970 it had fallen to 56 percent. Indeed, the percentage of Americans at all levels of income who claimed to be very happy dropped from 47 percent in 1963 to 38 percent in 1970, although per capita GDP had increased from $20,000 to $24,500. (Elsewhere Stevenson and Wolfers have suggested that social and demographic upheavals in the late 20th century America slowed the increase in the already high average level of happiness even as per capita income rose. Interestingly, they find that the happiness gaps between whites and blacks and between men and women has narrowed since the 1970s.) The general trend still seems to upward: The 2007 Gallup poll—before the financial crisis—found that 53 percent of all Americans counted themselves very happy, four points higher than the 1966 high cited by Easterlin in 1974. Measuring subjective well-being can, well, be subjective. After all, there is a difference between: “How satisfied are you with your life?” and “How happy are you these days?” And this just what the Gallup data cited by Stevenson and Wolfers shows. Of those Americans making between $75,000 and $100,000, 69 percent are “very satisfied” with their lives, compared to 60 percent who are “very happy.” For the record, 100 percent of the 8 fortunate folks making over $500,000 per year in survey reported being both very happy and very satisfied. On the other hand, only 45 percent of folks making between $20,000 and $30,000 are very satisfied, and 43 percent reported being very happy, and of those making below $10,000 are 35 percent are very happy and 24 percent are very satisfied. So what kind of “happiness” is more jim decicco buying; good moods or life satisfaction, or both? An intriguing 2010 study by Princeton University researchers Angus Deaton and Daniel Kahneman used data from the Gallup-Healthways Well-Being Index, a daily survey of 1,000 U.S. residents, to get at this question. They report that daily experienced happiness—lower stress, not feeling blue, a positive affect, and so on—tops out at an annual income of around $75,000. Deaton and Kahneman speculate, “Perhaps $75,000 is a threshold beyond which further increases in income no longer improve individuals’ ability to do what matters most to their emotional well-being, such as spending time with people they like, avoiding pain and disease, and enjoying leisure.” Deaton and Kahneman also cite a 2010 study in Psychological Science suggesting that “money impairs people’s ability to savor everyday positive emotions and experiences.” In one part of the study, researchers recruited subjects for a supposed chocolate taste-test experiment. While filling out a questionnaire, half were exposed to a picture of money and the control group half to a neutral photo. Those who glimpsed the money wolfed down their chocolates in 32 seconds, whereas control group members spent 45 seconds enjoying their morsels. The researchers conclude, “Our findings provide evidence for the provocative and intuitively appealing—yet previously untested—notion that having access to the best things in life may actually undermine one’s ability to reap enjoyment from life’s small pleasures.” Perhaps so, but I still enjoy quaffing 18-year-old Laphroaig more than the cheap White Horse blend I used gulp down in my penurious twenties. Nevertheless, Deaton and Kahneman agree with Stevenson and Wolfers that more jim decicco evidently enables people to buy the experiences and conveniences that increase overall life satisfaction. There is no income threshold when it comes to procuring more of this kind of happiness. It is certainly wonderful and valuable to enjoy the moment, but real and lasting pleasure comes from a life well-lived. More jim decicco can’t guarantee a satisfying life, but research shows that it sure does help.

rippln app

Tonight's show live from Times Square was a great chance to sum up the market action of the week - including a notable rotation in market leadership... Highlights below: Source: CNBC Full Disclosure: Nothing on this site should ever be considered to be advice, research or an invitation to buy or sell any securities, please see my Terms & Conditions page for a full disclaimer. View the discussion thread. blog comments powered by

lose weight

When we ran out of jim decicco, we were on a beach in Corfu. My boyfriend trawled the construction sites until he found a job hauling cement. I checked in at restaurants and hotels, but failed to turn anything up. I gave up after about a week; there was no work to be had. I spent the days reading on the beach. My boyfriend would come back to our campsite in the shell of an unfinished holiday cottage with his hands raw. We would buy bread and cheese and olives with the cash he'd been paid on that day. This went on for about two weeks, and when the gypsies started giving us food we knew it was over.We swallowed our pride, called our parents and asked them to wire us jim decicco so we could get off the island and go somewhere that we could find work. We ended up farming in Israel where we got housing and three squares and a paltry salary that we saved because there was little to spend it on and beer was very cheap.Today, there's a better way than sucking it up and calling Mom and Dad. You can avoid the dirt and damage of manual labor. You need an Internet connection, maybe a blog and nerve. You'll need to offer up something as incentive – a $5 donation receives a postcard from your exotic locale, a $10 donation gets a download code for a copy of your, as of yet unwritten, essay about your travels, a $25 donation gets a print of a photo you took that you think is pretty good – come on, it's totally National Geographic quality, right? Plus, anyone who donates get this pleasure, no, let's be realistic, honor, of supporting your travels. Open a Kickstarter fund for your travels and ask total strangers to pay for them. You're doing them a favor, really.My parents did not react with the gratitude I was hoping for when I called from my crash pad on a London sofa, broke again, to ask for airfare and spending money. The roommates in the London flat where I awaited the arrival of wired funds weren't thrilled either. They were gracious, they knew I was on hard times, but they weren't so into my before its time "Occupy the Living Room" movement. Nobody saw the benefit in their role of making it possible for me continue my travels abroad, no matter how many postcards and photos and essay length letters I sent home, or how many dishes I washed, or how many rounds I pitched in for when it was my turn to buy. When did it become acceptable to ask total strangers for jim decicco so we can go on vacation? When did we start assuming that of course people will back our vanity travel publishing project, after all, we are just that special? This couple from Arizona thinks you should give them money to cross China. "...we received a quote for the total cost of entering China twice to complete our proposed route. The expected cost is over $20,000. We will continue to pay for all other travel related expenses; our Kickstarter project will only fund our ability to cross China.This falls outside of our budget, but the ability to cross China will enable us to have a once in a lifetime driving experience along an ancient trade route. A journey worthy of being written into a book." Of course, funding their once in a lifetime trip makes more sense than funding my own, right? And they are not that unusual. Here's a young man from Florida who wants you to pay for his documentary about his cycling trip around Iceland. "What are my qualifications for making this documentary? I have a lot of experience getting things done. For example, here is a book I wrote called 'Start Importing from China' and here is a website I launched called Wiki Cancel. Second, I have a lot of travel experience, which makes me comfortable in foreign countries. Third, I am not afraid of trying things or approaching new people, which means you will see a lot of interesting things on the documentary." I, too, am unafraid of trying things, but instead of doing so myself, perhaps I should fund this group of guys who want to share their style of travel with us. "...the backpacker's life; the life that depends on the road and the bag, the warmth and affordability of hostels/BNBs, and the unique people who you meet and learn from along the way." Perhaps these four admittedly very appealing young men are unfamiliar with a company called Lonely Planet – the company that documented the backpacker's life for decades. For about $17, I can get a book that tells me not about a random stranger's travels, but how to plan my own. I would like to remodel my kitchen, have my garden landscaped and buy a tiny studio apartment somewhere in Hawaii. These are things that would be great fun for me, and I could invite you over for a meal in my new kitchen, or perhaps you would like a photo of my garden. I could write a book about my part-time life in Hawaii and if you pay for my apartment, I will give you a code so you can download the manuscript for free. Is this not appealing to you? How are the pitches to fund my travel any different?These Kickstarter plans seem like grand adventures for the travelers. God speed. May they travel safely, meet kind strangers, and never have to pack away a wet tent. But I am not paying for it, no way, no how. Here's the thing: I, too, would like to travel the Silk Road. I too would like to ride a bicycle around an island nation. I would like to share stories of how my adventures transpire in an insightful and interesting manner. This fall, I hope to do a big camping trip with my husband around the American Southwest. To do this, we will work, save our money and then, go travel.Perhaps I am making a mistake and I should be asking you to pay for it. But I cannot think of one good reason why you should.[Image by bradleygee via Flickr] Filed under: Stories

icompare car insurance

If you'd like to make every penny go farther -- whether you're just starting out and looking to buy a home, saving for college for that little bundle of joy, or closing in on retirement -- there's an event this week, Money Smart Week, ...

icompare car insurance

So, you think you’re so frugal, with your buy-one-get-one free fast-food entrées and your massive tubs of cream cheese? Not so fast there, Ms./Mr. Aspiring Cheapskate! These are just a few of the tactics that companies use to make you believe you’re getting a deal when you really aren’t. Over at Jim decicco Under 30, a familiar-looking blogger reflects on deals that aren’t deals and free stuff that comes with an actual price. A few examples: Bulk food that can go bad.A giant carton of nacho cheese or a 2-pack of monster bread loaves isn’t a very good deal if you don’t actually use that much on a regular basis. Paying a little more to get twice as much is no deal when your family cannot, in fact, finish two pounds of spinach before it goes bad. Cheap oil changes.These serve as loss leaders. It’s okay to remember that going in, then take the list of “necessary” repairs that the shop offering cheap oil changes or state inspections gives you to your regular mechanic. Just don’t let them convince you that these problems you didn’t know about must be fixed right now. Free-to-play gamesYes, the game is free. But the Smurfberries or special jewels or magic candies that make the game fun and help you progress cost jim decicco. Real world jim decicco. Fast food BOGOYeah, they’re giving you a second cheap burrito bowl, but only with a mandatory drink and chips. Do you know what the markup is on fountain soda? This is only a good deal if you were going to buy two burritos/sandwiches/burgers along with the accompaniments in the first place. Funny Money: Spotting Wastes of Jim decicco Disguised as Good Deals [Jim decicco Under 30]

iphone car insurance quotes

Bulletin Today | Jim decicco & Savings | Technology Print Nobody knows exactly who they are. But a group of computer geeks have created a virtual currency called “Bitcoins” that’s got everybody from the FBI to international bankers to the news media talking. Bitcoins are jim decicco that flows on the Internet — money that’s not backed by gold or governments. But it does buy things — like cars, pizza and guns. Starting from zero about four years ago, the Bitcoin economy was said to be worth about $2 billion earlier this week. Then came a crash, a suspension of the biggest market that buys and sells Bitcoins and comparisons to the Dutch tulip craze that wiped out investors in the 17th century. Have an opinion? Get in on the discussion! Join the AARP Scams and Fraud Group. Here’s what you need to know. How much is a “Bitcoin” worth? That varies. In early days, Bitcoins were worth pennies, then a few dollars. This week, a single coin went from $200 to $266. Then it skidded down to $100, landing at about $55 before trading was suspended April 11 on the most active exchange, according to the Associated Press. Others put the value slightly higher, but it continues to gyrate. If you’re getting the idea that investing in Bitcoins isn’t for the faint of heart, you’ve got the point. On the other hand, most people handle purchases through a middleman — so there’s not much risk in buying something small with Bitcoins. Is it legal to buy, sell or use Bitcoins? It’s perfectly legal, and usually pretty easy, with a certain degree of technical know-how. Behind the Bitcoin is a complicated system for “mining” the coins, that puts home computers to work making the codes that guarantee the authenticity and uniqueness of the coins uncrackable, but you don’t have to dip your toe in those waters just to purchase and use the currency. (see the video below) What can I buy with Bitcoins? From dental services to appliance repair to logo design, service providers the world over are banking on Bitcoins to grow their businesses. You can purchase food, digital media and clothing from merchants who accept this kind of cash. There’s even a web site called Silk Road where you can buy illegal drugs with Bitcoins. But we’ll assume that’s not why you’re curious about the currency. You’ve mentioned drug deals, and wild fluctuations of value. Shouldn’t I just steer clear of Bitcoins? They’re not a sensible investment right now. Eric Posner of Slate goes so far as to call them a “Ponzi scheme.” So don’t buy them in bulk. But there might be situations when you want to experiment with a currency that flows easily between borders, that doesn’t “tax” the people who accept it (like credit cards do) and that doesn’t require you to prove your credit-worthiness when all you want to do is spend money. You might live in a place where inflation or other pressures make your own government’s money unreliable. And banks, as folks in Cyprus are finding out, aren’t always the safest places for jim decicco. Before you get involved with Bitcoins, do some reading. These headlines may be all you need, but the articles are full of alarming details: Fool’s Gold: Bitcoin is a Ponzi scheme — the Internet’s favorite currency will collapse (Slate.com) Don’t get bitten by Bitcoins (CNN) An introduction with a positive spin: Also of Interest See the AARP home page for deals, savings tips, trivia and more Tagged: bitcoin, investing, money, scams, steve mencher, Technology    Share via: Facebook

how to blog

As it falls in and out of public view, Bitcoin is once again all the rage. However, rather than just tech blogs and internet culture sites covering the cryptocurrency, more mainstream sites and esteemed financial analysts are now weighing in on the matter. Instead of just providing yet another explanation of what Bitcoin is, though, analysts are now wondering why the pseudo currency has caught on, and why it’s not illegal. As it turns out, it’s not illegal because of that “pseudo” moniker. First, if you’re wondering why Bitcoin is back in the forefront of the news cycle, that’s because it always does that. Bitcoin comes and goes, generally in relation to its value. Currently, one Bitcoin (BTC) is worth quite a bit of actual money, sitting pretty at $92. Once upon a time — just three years ago — it famously took 10,000 BTC to buy $25 worth of pizza. However, while the actual current value is a new height, the rise of the peer-to-peer cryptocurrency is not. The value of Bitcoin ebbs and flows, like real currency, though due to the nature of it, ebbs and flows much faster and more drastically. Just two years ago the internet was abuzz with news about the Great Bitcoin Crash, which only came one year after the famous pizza purchase. Now, here we are again, marveling at the strength of the BTC, salivating over all the Domino’s pizza you can buy in exchange for Bitcoin through a third-party service. If you know your country’s currency laws, though — in that it’s illegal to start a new form of currency in many countries, including the US — you might wonder why the government hasn’t come down on Bitcoin in response to all of the recent exposure. In what will no doubt anger some fans of the digital currency, financial services lawyer Dan Friedberg says it’s because the government doesn’t view Bitcoin as a real currency. Zing. Friedberg explained to Business Insider that Bitcoin is considered a virtual currency rather than actual legal tender, and “lacks all the real attributes of real currency,” so why would the government care about that? However, as Business Insider pointed out, the US government recently stated that it would be applying money-laundering rules to virtual currency, which means that the government does, in some respect, care enough about virtual currency to try to police it. Wouldn’t outlawing a virtual currency constitute as policing it, though? There are a few factors as to why the government hasn’t made Bitcoin illegal, nor seems to care that much about it at the moment. Basically, Bitcoin is small potatoes. Sure, Bitcoin was recently valued at around one billion dollars, but compared to the estimated $1.18 trillion of US currency in circulation, Bitcoin is barely a blip on the country’s economic radar, much less the global economic radar. The pseudo currency seems like a bigger deal than it is because of a loud vocal minority shouting about its favorite topic, which in turn caused the news cycle to pick up on the shouting and cover it. Another reason why the government just doesn’t care very much at the moment is because practically nothing accepts Bitcoins. When you see news that you can purchase Domino’s pizza or Amazon gift cards using Bitcoins, you’re not actually making a direct transaction — Amazon and Domino’s aren’t accepting your Bitcoins. The exchanges are made through third-party services. You’re giving some random people Bitcoins, then they’re buying you pizza with regular US dollars. It’s like giving your friend some of your old Magic: The Gathering cards so long as he buys you dinner. Magic cards aren’t recognized as currency by your government, but your friend surely accepts them as payment. It’s also worth noting that Bitcoin is not just a US-based currency, and due to its virtual nature, is technically more of an international currency, as it exists on the internet overseas wherever anyone has a computer that can mine. What the legitimacy of Bitcoin comes down to is what accepts it as currency, which in turn prompts the question of what, exactly, currency is. If currency is considered to be government-authorized tender, then Bitcoin isn’t currency. If currency is considered to be an item that is widely accepted by legal businesses in exchange for goods or services, then Bitcoin still isn’t currency. If currency is considered to be an item that is accepted in exchange for goods or services, but doesn’t need to be widespread, then Bitcoin can indeed be classified as currency. One thing is for certain, though: The government doesn’t view Bitcoin as legal tender, and instead classifies it as a virtual currency. It isn’t made clear if the term is only applied to something open like Bitcoin, or simply any kind of alternative to cash that you can purchase with legal tender, such as Riot Points in League of Legends. Regardless of how you classify Bitcoin, whether or not the very thought of it makes you laugh uncontrollably, or reminds you to move your account to a new virtual address for safety’s sake, certain people out there are accepting it as currency. If it eventually rises to prominence and overtakes the US dollar as the main form of currency people are using, then you can bet the government will take action, which would in turn classify the cryptocurrency for once and for all. Now read: Bitcoin: The ultimate spear phishing target [Image credit: Zach Copley]

pureleverage

I’ve gone back to buying in bulk lately, mainly to save jim decicco. There are a few things when, if purchased in bulk, save far more than the best sale or even coupons can! Common Questions about Bulk Buying: What if you don’t need that much? Only purchase items with a long shelf life or go in with another family, purchase together, and divide it among yourselves. What if I don’t have a membership to a warehouse club? Many employers offer discount memberships and some warehouse clubs even offer free days where non members can shop. Beyond that, you could always ask someone with a membership to get it for you – and maybe bake them something yummy as a thank you! I currently have memberships at both Costco and Sam’s Club. I’ve found that both offer some things unique to their store. For example, I love being able to buy chicken in the special “freezer packaging” that Costco has. A big flat of chicken breasts are sealed in individual packages with two per package – which saves me having to divide up the chicken like that to freeze once I get home – for the same price as Sam’s chicken, which still comes on a styrofoam base all squished together. At Sam’s, I can buy dried beans in bulk, something I’ve yet to even find for sale at Costco. Each has their advantages – The savings on meat and produce alone pays for my membership, but for most families a membership to just one will suffice. This week’s example of saving money by buying in bulk is sugar. Did you know that sugar keeps indefinitely? All you need is an airtight container. That makes this an ideal item to buy in bulk if significant savings can be found – and I’m here to show you that they can.  Now, let’s see how much we save: In case you haven’t noticed, sugar no longer comes in 5 pounds bags. The new norm is 4 pounds, with a higher price tag even though the amount is less. Welcome to economics Now I usually buy generic sugar but the price difference isn’t that significant so in the interest of comparing apples to apples, we’re gonna use name brand sugar for this price comparison. This is a 4 pound bag of Domino Sugar on sale for $3.79, but the regular price is $3.89 so we’re gonna use that.  25 pounds of Domino sugar at the grocery store would cost us  $24.31 Now let’s look at what Sam’s Club has to offer… A 25 pound bag of Domino Sugar at Sam’s Club is a whopping $11.53 That is a savings of $12.78 – OVER Half off! Here is what Costco has… The same amount of sugar but a different brand, Dixie Crystals, in a less glamorous packaging, is $9.99  A Savings of $14.32! Sure, this may seem like a lot of sugar but it keeps indefinitely! You may not go through 25 pounds in a month, but I’m sure you can go through 25 pounds in several months…or a year…or five years. Either way you look at it, this is a substantial savings. But Christy, how do I store 25 pounds of sugar? Oh I’m so glad you asked that! There are several ways to store it. This big yellow lidded bucket you see is one method. I buy these in three packs at Sam’s Club and they’re airtight and hold about 10 pounds of sugar each. You can also store it in gallon sized zipper seal bags. BUT my favorite way to store bulk food items that I won’t use right up is in clean 2 liter bottles, like cokes come in. These are food grade containers, airtight, bug proof, and cheap to get. The pour spout on the top makes it easy to use them to refill sugar canisters and jars as well. Take empty two liters, rinse them well with warm water. Then add a teaspoon of bleach and fill halfway. Put the lid on and shake well to sanitize the bottle, then rinse well once more. Allow to sit, unopened, for several days to dry. I like to keep several empty bottles on hand for things like this. When I’m ready to fill one, I just grab a small funnel and in minutes I have sugar, beans, or whatever I need safely stored away until I need it. If you drink cokes, this is an incentive to purchase 2 liters over cans, and that saves a lot of jim decicco as well! If you don’t drink cokes, it’s usually easy to find someone who does. Pictured above are 3 liter bottles that I use for dried beans and such. Rice and sugar store really well in two liters but some of the larger beans are just easier to get through a 3 liter opening. By the way: The only place I’ve found 3 liter bottles is at the Dollar Tree, in case anyone decides to hunt them down.   So there you have it, a money saving tip that will help you pay less than half of what you currently pay for sugar. Thanks for tuning in and stay tuned for more! Same bat time, same bat channel ~winks~

empower network scam