Passivity and Consumerism

Most people today are as passive as sheep.

Are you passive or active?

Do you DO things, or just watch other people do things?

Do you take initiative or wait for someone to show you how?

Most people today are passive, and it annoys me to no end.

For example, we all have computers these days - for decades.  And yet, so many people I know claim not to know how to do the most basic things.  They ask me to show them.  I show them.  A month later, they ask again.

They do not even try to do things for themselves, as they are "afraid they will break something."

And that sort of mentality is beaten into their head by the media, which wants you to be passive.

Take the show Car Talk, for example.  When it first came out, they actually talked about cars.  Today, it is all about the latest "puzzler" and if someone calls in and asks a question, the answer is never "well, pull the head and do a valve job" but "take it to a mechanic - let an expert look at it!"

And even in auto enthusiast magazines, such as the Roundel, have gone passive.  No longer are actual repairs discussed,  but whether such a repair is covered by warranty.  Not only are we told to take our car to a mechanic, but to take it to a dealer - because only the dealer has the high-tech tools needed to repair the car!

That is, of course, utter nonsense.  People fix cars all the time.  But then again, BMW has sort of taken over the BMWCCA car club, so it is no surprised that "do it yourself" has morphed to "ask the expert!"

Consumerism in general is a passive activity, and the most passive part of it is television watching.  We are a nation of choosers, not doers, anymore.  Our greatest role in life is that of the customer, who is "always right" and whose greatest job is not creating wealth, but selecting which consumer product to consume.

Or which channel to watch.  Our greatest role, we are told, time and time again (by the TeeVee) is that of selector - the arbiter of tastes.  We exist as a Nielsen share, a market segment, a popularity contest, or a political poll.

Your views matter!  Click here to take survey!  No wonder so many scams and cons use "surveys" as a come-on.  We are convinced that our almighty opinion are the most important thing we have.

We are a consumer-based society, we are told.  It is our patriotic duty to consume.  That Jet-Ski isn't just an overpriced toy, it represents Jobs for Americans (regardless of whether it was made overseas).

The problem with this model is that few people create anymore.  And creating things is what creates wealth, for an individual, for a nation.  You take iron ore and coal and you make steel - you create something new from raw materials.   You take canvas and paint and create a painting - worth more than the underlying art supplies.   You type a number of sentences and you create a book - a compendium of ideas.

Today, however, creativity is not promoted or encouraged.  Rather, raw, dumb labor is.  We cut the art program at High School, but subsidize the football team.  We teach rote learning (no child left behind) but not creative thinking.  The few jobs available are low-wage jobs that do not involve any creativity or insight, merely manual labor.

And what is to blame?  Consumerism.  We have sold ourselves to the marketers, a little bit at a time.  And it is happening at all levels.

Our high school cafeteria fired all the cooks and brought in Pizza Hut and McDonald's (and a Coke machine).  The small-town restaurant goes broke, but the mayor welcomes a new Olive Garden! (our motto, just like all the other Olive Gardens!).   We give tax breaks to chain stores while the locals go belly up.  The creative content and individuality of our lives decreases accordingly.  Yes, someone is being creative - at corporate headquarters - creating a menu of choices that is bland enough to appeal to the largest possible populace.  When in doubt, add salt - that always sells.

Getting off the passivity bandwagon is hard to do - it is so ingrained into our American way of life.  And it starts and ends with the television.  And that is one reason I harp on the TeeVee as the destroyer of lives, finances, and families.  So many folks spend so much time glued to it, and doing nothing creative themselves - doing nothing at all.  So many folks "park" their kids in front of it, with a six-pack of Pepsi, and wonder why Junior isn't doing well in school.

Passivity robs us of our soul.  We all have the need to create and be creative.  When our creative outlet is reduced to "what channel to watch" we all die a little bit inside.  And we end up consuming, more and more, to offset this passive lifestyle.  Buying things seems like doing things, in a way.  But it really isn't, even if they make it take up a lot of your time.

And that is an interesting observation right there.  How many consumer transactions these days are all about the transaction - moreso that the product?  A trip to Starbucks isn't about a cup of coffee, it is about waiting in line, making your incredibly complex order (half-caf/decaf espressso double-shot with artificial sweetener, no foam), waiting around for a "barista" to hand it to you, and then marching out, hand held high, label out, announcing to the world your most excellent choice in brand name coffee.

But we are more than just a checklist of brand name preferences.  And in fact, a list of brand name preferences really isn't anything.  Being a Ford man or a Chevy dude is not only meaningless, it is ludicrous.  They are just factories that spit out appliances - often containing the same or similar parts.  But, being brand loyal, or being a FAN, we are told, is all-important.

This is why, when I go to a car meet or a motorcycle show, it is far more interesting to me to see the car or bike or whatever that someone actually built with their own hands, as opposed to the guy who bought a lot of stuff out of a catalog and bolted it on, or the guy who hired a company to build his bike or car for him.  Maybe the dude with the rat bike doesn't have all the fancy stuff, but whatever he has, he put together himself.  Some talent, some creativity was involved.

I would hope that when I die, I do not leave behind a tombstone with the epitaph "He was a good consumer" - along with a list and the logos of companies and suppliers.  I hope that I ended up creating something of my own.

Should You Become a Fan?

Many people try to drown out the deafening silence in their lives by being super-fans of a sport, a star, or a product.  Is this a constructive way to use your free time and disposable income?

FAN is short for "fanatic" and refers to a person who follows a sports team, a celebrity (actor, musician, personality) or product (car, cell phone, computer, service).  To some extent, we are all fans of one thing or another - or at least enthusiasts.  Whether or not going to a football game makes us a "Fanatic" is another matter.

But for some folks, fandom becomes an identity - a prism through which they view their entire lives.   Their identity is tied up, first and foremost, with their team or celebrity, or product, on which they spend copious amounts of money, as well as time.

Is this really a good idea?  Or is it taking things a little too far, in an attempt to drown out the deafening silence that fills our lives - our fear of death, and our search of meaning, identity, and roles to play.

While living in Washington, D.C., we saw this sort of fandom taken to extremes.  People would paint their houses in Redskins colors - and paint their cars as well - complete with logos and stickers.  And they would turn a basement play room into an altar to the team - with logo'ed items, team souvenirs, autographed photos, and the like.

And it becomes a bit of a competition, particularly after the Washington Post published an article about such super-fans.  And I am sure that Washington is not unique - that other cities have similar "fans" of their local franchise, who take a good thing and take it a little too far.

But people do the same thing with celebrities - setting up tribute sites, rooms in their house with tribute items, souvenirs, autographs, etc. - or they nearly stalk their celebrity (or actually stalk them) attending every concert and appearance possible.  I knew a lady who was an Engelbert Humperdink fan - she had been to nearly every one of his performances.  Go figure!

People obsess about cars, too, turning their garage into a religious altar to the almighty Ford or Chevy logo, or perhaps BMW.  They build "Man Cave" garages, replete with draft beer systems and pool tables, where they can sit back and relax in the company of their automobile.  How odd.

Is being a fan a good or bad thing?  I think like anything else, people take a good thing and take it way to far.  Way, way too far.  They spend an inordinate amount of their income trying to keep up this lifestyle, and they spend an inordinate amount of their time devoted to their team, celebrity, or car.

What is telling, in these situations, is that it is often a one-way relationship.  While the football team may appreciate you spending a lot of money on tickets and licensed items, they really are not as big a fan of you, as you are of them.  You may go ga-ga for Lady Ga-Ga, but she doesn't know you exist.  But thanks for the $90 Million, she says.  You may get a Chevrolet or Harley tattoo on your arm, or wear a hat that says "FORD" on it.  But trust me when I say that the folks at Ford are not wearing a hat that says "Bill" on it.  Again, thank you for the money, but they don't know you exist.

This is not to say these things can't be enjoyed.  My neighbors in Alexandria had season tickets and went to Redskins games all the time - even when they sucked (which all teams do, usually after winning the Superbowl).  For them, it was a time to get together with their adult children for a family event.   But they did not paint their house burgundy and gold - or their faces, for that matter.

People who are extreme fans or become obsessive fans are, I think, trying to fill a void in their lives.  Being a fan, to them, becomes a competitive sport.  They want not only to be a fan, but the uber-fan, the ultimate fan - the expert on the team, celebrity, car, or whatever.  And these sorts of folks can be annoying as all get out, as they spend most of their time trying to tell you how they are super-fans and you don't know squat.

But of course, it is hard to take someone seriously who has painted themselves in team colors, isn't it?

The Problem with Zynga

What is the problem with Zynga?

Suppose you lived in the city, in an apartment building, and downstairs, a guy ran a sidewalk cafe.  It is a very popular cafe, and people stop by all the time to sit and chat, read the paper, and gossip.  The guy running the cafe is a bit of a jerk, sort of angry all the time, because the cafe is losing money.  He can't figure out what people want to buy at the cafe, and while the place is always crowded, no one is buying much - as he doesn't have much for sale, at least not what people want to buy.

He put up ads on the walls in the cafe, but that doesn't generate a lot of revenue, and most of the ads are for weight-loss plans or insurance come-ons or home refinancing and other crap.  The customers laugh at them - and him.  He was hoping the local car dealer would advertise there, but since the other ads are for crap, no legitimate business wants to touch it.  And besides, how much is an ad on a wall of a cafe worth?  Not much!

Anyway, you develop this neat board game.  It is kind of fun, sort of, and people like to play it.   You go downstairs to the cafe and play it on a table, and before long, people are asking if they can buy a copy of it, and you start selling them at the cafe.  Pretty soon, half the people in the cafe are playing your board game, and demanding different games.  Unfortunately, you have no further ideas, so you just offer the same game with different colored playing pieces and boards in different shapes.  People don't seem to notice, at least at first.

But the owner of the cafe notices.  At first, he is happy that even more people are stopping at his cafe and staying there even longer - hours at a time!  Problem is, they still aren't buying anything and the cost of running the place is pretty steep - what with rent and utilities and employees salaries and all.  And he sees you, making lots of money, without having to pay any overhead!

So he approaches you and says he wants 50% of your business.  And you are stuck in a quandary.  You could try selling your board games in other places, but those places also want 50% of the cut.  Or you could market it yourself, but that would cost more money.  And while there are other cafes out there, that were once popular, people stopped going to them, for some reason (they were out of the way, the tables were too small, and the owners keep rearranging the furniture too often).  So you reluctantly hand over 50% of your take to the cafe owner - who is still grumpy, as he is still losing money, even though the place is mobbed, every day.

Suddenly, your game business ain't what it used to be.  And alarmingly, people are getting tired of your games, as they are all alike and kind of dumb, once you play them awhile.  You desperately come out with new variations, with different shaped playing pieces, but no one seems to care.   And the cafe owner is getting so ornery about losing money all the time, that he is starting to chase away customers with his angry tirades.   And to counteract this, he keeps rearranging the furniture in the cafe, hoping to bring people back, but it just pisses off many more customers.

Your game business was going so well!  Now it looks like it will all fall apart in a matter of months.  What do you do?

Do an IPO, of course!  Sell stock and cash in, before it is too late!

That, in a nutshell, sums up the problems for Zynga, the makers of Farmville and other idiotic games with simpering big-eyed characters who look like refugees from Precious Moments cards.

I wrote about Zynga before, when they were making noise about an IPO.  Now, it looks as though they are prepared to do it, albeit for a market cap of "only" 9 Billion.  Some folks think this is a good deal.  Some folks are idiots - or are baiting you into buying the shares that all their insider friends will get at the IPO price and then sell to you for 50% more the first day.  And you, Joe Retail Investor, will ride them down to $5 a share in no time, and put them on the shelf with your LinkedIn and Groupon shares (and the new GM shares) and other "great buys" you read about online or heard about on TeeVee.

IPOs are great for the insiders - they SUCK for you and me, who don't have reserved shares set aside at the offering price.  But many folks get snookered into buying this shit based on the hoopla and hype, which is building up, even as we speak.  The stock spikes, we buy, and then the stock goes down, once the hoopla dies down (and the "Wall Street Fat Cats" cash in).

Why, oh why, do average Joes think they can outsmart people far smarter than them - people with millions and billions to throw around, as well?

Well, they heard about it on TeeVee, on the Internet, and on the radio.  They read an article about it in the paper.  And they convinced themselves that buying the IPO stock is a swell idea, and moreover an original idea of their own, and that, moreover, no one else has thought of it!

The problem for Zynga is the same one for Groupon.  The model can be copied very easily - and in fact, a lot of people are entering this "market space" very quickly.  It is also fad-based, and fads are rarely the stuff of long-term economic growth. 

By the way, how do I know it is fad-based?  Well, basically everything on the Internet is pretty much a fad - with a story arc that is often measured in weeks or months.  And the Internet is littered with the abandoned websites of what was once the talked-about new trend.  See, e.g., MySpace.

Unless you have a long-term money-making model, with at least some barriers to entry, a fad will not endure.  Sure, people flocked to Groupon.  But coupons for discounted cupcakes get to be old hat pretty soon.  And moreover, there are now zillions of such sites, now.  Why go to Groupon, when you can go to Socialist Living or whatever it is called?

Games are very fad-based.  We all enjoyed playing Tetris - for about a year.  Pac-Mac was all the rage, for a while.  The companies that sold these games made money and moved on.  Video game marketers still do this - they know that "Lethal Car Theft XXXIV" will get boring to teens after a few months - and they need to sell a new game.

The problem for Zynga is that their games are all pretty much the same - and they are really just a variation on the "virtual pet" craze of the 1990s.  Remember Pokemon?  Remember those little key-fob pets you had to "feed" all the time, or they would die?  Farmville is the same way - it is a time-bandit that requires you to go online to tend a virtual "farm" lest it die.  And of course, you can sell people free upgrades to the virtual world, taking in real cash.

That sounds like a viable model, until you realize that they tried that in Second Life, and it petered out pretty quickly.  Second Life, remember that?  It is easy to forget these "latest and greatest" Internet fads, as they flame out into oblivion, like MySpace.  At one time, everyone talked about Second Life, and every TeeVee show has a segment where they would go online to this brave new virtual world.  And we were all supposed to go online, eventually, and even do our shopping and work there!  For some odd reason, it never happened.

The odd reason being that it was just a fad.  And fads die out.

But the real problem for Zynga is Facebook.  They are 100% dependent on the whims of a young CEO who is not necessarily the most stable manager in the world.  And from Facebook's perspective, they are doing all the heavy lifting, while companies like Zynga get all the glory - and money.

Zynga made a lot of cash selling virtual cows for hard currency.  Facebook asked for, and got, 30% of this income stream, without having to even make threatening noises.  What is to prevent Facebook from taking more and more, over time?  After all, Zynga really has no other options.

The problem for "The Dot Com Boom and Bust, Part Deux (the reboot)" is that the young CEOs of these companies were only 10 or 11 years old during the last dot-com bust.  And if you were around for that last one (and not still wetting your bed) you may recall how things got more and more heated up, with IPO prices soaring to the ceiling, and then crashing just as hard.  Big blowout super bowl ads, followed by bankruptcy in less than 12 months.  Pets.com was a warning sign.

But, of course, these companies will do amazing IPOs - Facebook being the big one - and the stock price will soar, and some naysayer, who no doubt is well-invested in Gold at $1700 an ounce - will tell me that I was wrong.

But wait for it.  These things always turn around.  Just like overpriced mini-mansions.  And no one saw that coming, either, did they?

(Well, I did.)

Jane's Addiction

 Chinese Opium Den.  Western countries exploited the Chinese by importing opium into China, addicting millions and leading eventually to the Opium wars.

If you can find something that a group of people are inclined to become addicted to, you can control them very easily.  Figure out your opponent's weakness and exploit it - that is how it works.  As a consumer, the trick is to realize your own weaknesses and then guard against attempts to exploit them.

 

Compulsive-addictive behavior is present, to some extent, in all of us.  For some reason, however, some of us are more prone to it that others, and certain groups of people seem to be easier to exploit by appealing to their weaknesses and instincts.

For example, the British, tired of paying for Chinese wares with hard silver, found that they could import Opium from India, and then trade that for silk, porcelains, and spices.  What was once a drain on their hard-currency, the China trade became a source for them.  Combined with the tea trade, it made Britain into an empire and largely subjugated China to Western interests for many years.

Similarly, while the use of guns and the introduction of European diseases are viewed as the primary ways that Westerners subjugated (and largely wiped out) the native population in North America, the sale of liquor to the "Indians" is often overlooked.  The native population, not having been exposed to alcohol for centuries (as in Europe) had little resistance to this highly addictive drug.  Indeed, even today, alcoholism on Indian reservations remains above the norm for the US population.

Find someone's weak spot - either intentionally or by happy accident - and you can crush them, politically and economically.  Drugs, alcohol, consumer spending, easy credit, television, the welfare state - whatever you can get people hooked on, will be their downfall.

I noted before, half in jest, that marijuana (and drugs in general) ends up being an excellent way of subjugating an entire populace of young, left-leaning people - sentencing them to a lifetime of low-wage jobs and marginal living.   Today, we have incarcerated an entire generation of young black and Hispanic men for drug-related crimes - and caused untold heartache and violence in their communities.  Better yet, we have them fighting each other in gang warfare, rather than taking out their aggression on the upper class.  Minority groups are far more likely to be victims of crimes from members of their own minority groups.

If you could sit down and design a better system to keep minorities down, you could not do it.  This is not to say there is some grand conspiracy (because I do not believe in conspiracy theories).  But it doesn't matter - the end result is the same, isn't it?  Whether by design or accident, drugs have become this major trap for the lower classes, young people, and liberals.

Similarly, consumerism and easy credit has long been a trap for the lower classes - and now the middle class as well!  EZ-Payment terms, high interest rate loans, and the "take it home today and pay later" mentality have pervaded our society.  Pawn Shops, once the province of Skid Row, are now mainstream.  Bankruptcy, foreclosure, credit card debt, and poor credit ratings have moved upscale now.  Anyone can be broke - even on $100,000 a year!

Of course, some of you might be quick to point out that, if a  person can resist the urge to engage in addictive behavior, you might succeed in avoiding these sorts of pitfalls.  If you don't smoke crack, you won't get addicted!

And yea, it happens to even regular middle-class people.  I recounted the experience of one friend of mine, whose husband, attending law school in a bad neighborhood, came home with a vial of crack one night.  They both smoked a little pot now and then (a habit left over from college, and they saw no harm in it).  The husband, trying to "score" from a local dealer in the city, found that marijuana was hard to come by, but crack plentiful.  26 years old and he decides, in law school, to become a crack addict.

And that first toke is all it took.  Last time I checked, he was in jail for running a meth lab.

Yea, there are some things you just can't try once to "see that it is like" and crack is one of them.  So is heroin or methamphetamine.  And even marijuana can be addictive, although not physically.  Once you start on it, though, it becomes like a religion.  I know, firsthand.  So please, no more e-mails from you so-called "functional marijuana users" out there.  No sale to bad merchandise!

But while few of us are at risk for becoming meth heads - because frankly, most of us are not inclined to even try such a thing, or even know the sorts of people who do it - we are all at risk for being exploited through our various weaknesses.  Understanding this and guarding against it is essential to financial success.

And the marketers know this - and they pander to your vanity, your need for status, your laziness, your tendency to want-it-all now and pay later.  And most of all, your desire to get something-for-nothing, a free deal, or a discount.  And they dangle things in front of you like frequent flyer miles credit cards (the Platinum Card, of course, or perhaps Plutonium would be more appropriate).  It appeals to your vanity and need for status - and your need to feel that you are a "smart consumer" by getting a "good inside deal" that of course no one else knows about.

Well, no one else but the 300 million other people who were bombarded by the same ad and thought, "Gee, maybe I'll be a smarty pants and get one of those Plutonium VISA Cards!  What could possibly go wrong?"

And like a fellow I met a few years back, who tried to argue with me that it was possible to be a "responsible meth user" (I could not get a word in edgewise!) the "rewards" card user will tell you that he has his habit "under control" and he "pays off the balance every month". 

"I can control the beast!" he says, but of course, he knows that last month, he didn't pay off the balance entirely and was socked with a few dollars of interest - and not for the first time - and that his vaunted free airline ticket or rewards dollars have been negated by the interest charges.  But an addict never wants to admit defeat.  Well, that is, until they've hit rock bottom, if you are willing to believe the 12-step people.

But, why wait for rock bottom to act?

Realize that we are all just a bunch of Pavlovian dogs - rats in a Skinner box - all to willing to salivate at the sound of a bell, jerk a lever to get a pellet, and generally be manipulated, abused, used, steered, directed, controlled, and otherwise jerked around, all the while believing that we are exercising "free will" in the marketplace, when our free will, oddly enough seems to be what everyone Else's free will happens to be.  That of course, would just be a coincidence.

Embracing the addict within, and realizing they need protection is the first step.  If you go into a candy shop, you will buy candy.  The answer is not to try to lean to restrain yourself in candy shops, but rather just not go in there - if you want to break the candy habit.

Similarly, staying out of malls and other "recreational" shopping areas is one sure way to avoid over-spending on Stuff You Don't Need.  Not going into a car dealer is one sure and certain way NOT to get snookered into buying a new car.  Not signing up for 22.5% interest rate credit cards is one sure way NOT to get in trouble with credit cards - no matter how much candy they dangle in front of you.

And most of all, not watching television and its fire-hose of brainwashing commercials is a great way to not program your brain to spend and want things.

Yea, we all like to think we are Super-men.  "I can withstand temptation," we think, "I can stand in the candy store or ice cream parlor and say 'no thank you ma'am!'".  But the reality is, we are all weak and can be easily manipulated by the media, in ways that run far beneath our conscious level of thinking.  They don't call them the hidden persuaders for nothing!

And as I noted before, the pressures can be very subtle these days, with the Internet and all.  Innocuous discussion groups may create normative cues that fly right under your radar.  Go to a car site, and you will see "sig files" on each posting, listing the number of cars and the modifications they've made.  People compete to rack up credit card debt to have the most bragging rights.   On a cruise website, I've seen the same thing, where people list the 10, 15, or even 25 cruises they've been on, with dates and ship names.  Status - through purchasing.  Did this happen organically?  Was it created by marketers?  Are the marketers just happy it happened?  It would be easy to create such a "buzz" online.

And things like "Viral Videos" are indeed proof of this - humorous advertisements that sell a product, but not directly.  And people will send them to each other, without thinking whether they are in fact being manipulated.

Rather than pretend we are not affected by marketing, I think a better approach is to admit to the problem (the first step is admitting you have a problem, right?) and then try to be more aware of your own potential to be manipulated.

Just a thought.

Why Are the Best Christmas Displays in Poorer Neighborhoods?

The best Christmas light displays are not in the rich neighborhoods, but in the lower-middle-class ones.

If you want to see some of the best Christmas light displays, head over to the poorer neighborhoods.

Every year, when we lived in Alexandria, Virginia, we would load up in the old Mercedes and go looking at Christmas displays.  Of course, we never went to rich neighborhoods to do this.  Rich folks have few, if any displays, and if they do, they are restrained.

No, no, the best displays were in a neighborhood called Bucknell Manor, a community of two-bedroom, one-bath cracker-boxes built in the 1950's, that never really gentrified much in the 1980's or 1990's.  It was a lower-middle-class neighborhood and would always be so.

But the light displays!  Amazing!

Now, granted, in very poor neighborhoods, you might not see great light displays.  Go up one notch and all hell breaks loose.    Raised  ranch tract homes are coated in lights.  But go into the fancier developments, and you see little or nothing.

What is going on here?  Why do people who are at the median or below, on our economic ladder, spend thousands and thousands of dollars on holiday displays?  It is an odd phenomenon.

Inflatable Christmas Displays are the latest thing, of course.  And at about $50 to $100 each, they are not cheap.  Made in China and inflated using a small blower, they can be found online or at your neighborhood "big box" store.  After about a year or so, however, they start to look soiled and nasty.  But people still put them out - and add more displays every year.

Driving by a shot-gun shack on Route 17 here in South Georgia, I saw the most depressing looking house imaginable.  But, they had no fewer than 20 of these inflatable displays on their burnt-out lawn.  I quickly calculated that they had at least $1000 to $2000 in Christmas display items on their lawn.  They had more invested in Christmas displays than in their cars!

What is going on here?  How do they afford it?  How do they find the time?

In terms of affordability, it is again one of those Credit Card "death by a thousand cuts" deals.  They may buy an inflatable for $79.99 - the target price for any specious credit card transaction.  Taken by itself, one Rudolph inflatable snow globe isn't going to bankrupt anyone.

But then another is bought, then another, and it snowballs (if you'll pardon the pun) into a lawn orgy of icicle lighting (left up all year, natch) and tree lighting, and multiple inflatables.  And before long, a person to whom money is very dear, is finding that their Credit Card is over its limit, and come February, when the bills are due, winter is depressing indeed.

Another recent trend, again Chinese made, is the wire-form display, where a metal form, usually painted white, has a string of lights on it, or rope lighting.  These are often seen in the form of reindeer, sometimes with animated moving heads.  We had some of these and after a year or two, the paint starts to rust off, and parts of the strings of lights go dead - and are hard to fix.  They were fun, I guess, but not cheap, either!  Everything from China seems cheap, but the costs add up, over time, when you end up throwing most of it away in short order.

Now of course, I can hear the chorus of complaints already.  To even question Christmas Orgy spending is to be accused of being a "Grinch" or some sort of Bah-Humbug Scrooge.  Some folks even post things online about how spending money is a patriotic duty in our consumer society!  As if to say that if we don't buy more Chinese-made crap, the entire planet will cease to rotate on its axis.

But that is not what I am saying, of course.   If you want to see the best Christmas lights, cruise the poor neighborhoods - and enjoy the show!  But that doesn't mean putting up such a display yourself is a wise use of time, money, and electricity.

One reason wealthier people probably don't have such displays (and No, it is not because they are "all Jewish" - that's just anti-Semitic!) is that they value money too highly to spend thousands of dollars on light strings and extension cords.  And chances are, if they are professionals (Doctors, Lawyers, etc.) they simply don't have time to do all that.  Some folks actually hire people to decorate their Christmas trees for them, they are so busy (no, I am not kidding, Mark did this one year).  To me, doing without a tree or scaling back decorations seems like a more reasonable approach.

And although you might find some gaudy displays of excess in wealthy neighborhoods, typically the folks putting up such displays are, well, nouveau-riche.  When we lived in Florida, we would often take a drive along A1A to see the fancy mansions on the water.  And most of these had very restrained decorations.  That is, except for the guy who made his fortune as a car dealer.  His house was over-the-top, of course, much to the chagrin of his neighbors!

And of course, lighting display contests are part of the problem as well.  People become very competitive when a contest is announced, and the Griswold family is going to make sure the neighborhood trophy this year stays in their living room!

Of course, these sorts of displays often cause problems for the neighbors, as traffic backs up along the street, slow-speed car wrecks result, and bad feelings abound.  People end up in court over these things.

For me, personally, I don't plan on plunking down hundreds or thousands of dollars on light strings, extension cords, inflatable displays or wire-form reindeer this season.  However, this is not to say I won't enjoy cruising the tract-home developments to admire such things.  After all, the best things in life, are free.