COMING SOON: NEW CONTENT, NEW DIRECTION, NEW CONTRIBUTORS

We are freedom fighters.   Our objective is to broaden the rights of and restore power to the people by socioeconomic education and presentation of consumer responsibility as a means to enact positive change.   Our mission is to deliver relevant information and facilitate meaningful discussion for the "every-man" on economic issues impacting our society and culture, in the hopes of contributing to better informed and more responsible consumer choices.  

- NDNR Mission Statement

In the interest of broadening our audience, NDNR is changing format to better facilitate discussion.  This will take shape throughout the remainder of February and all of March.  We will be introducing new contributors, lots of new content and new commentary on the everyday choices we all have to make a difference.  

If you would like to be a volunteer Feature Contributor, contact Chase, Senior Editor, at chasegranger@nodepositnoreturns.com.
 
Feature contributors should be able to demonstrate concern in writing for the current state of affairs and be able to identify opportunities in society for people to have impact by means of socioeconomic influence.   Most importantly, a contributor should have a positive outlook and a passionate desire to change America for the good of all!

Become a follower of NDNR and a commentary contributor, simply by logging on and adding your invaluable opinions, observations and insights to the daily features.   Your insight and contributions are more important than you know in helping to create a better place for us to live and prosper.

Cheers to you America; change is coming, and it will be beautiful!

Chase Granger

Senior Editor, No Deposit, No Returns.
(a subsidiary of the non-profit Benevolence Worx Project) 

Documentary Review - "Freakonomics: The Movie" (2010)

NDNR 5-Star RatingTM

Director(s):
Heidi Ewing, Alex Gibney, Seth Gordon, Rachel Grady, Eugene Jarecki, Morgan Spurlock

Synopsis:
Based on the William-Morrow published book of the same title, this documentary is a socioeconomic commentary by the authors, University of Chicago economist  Steven Levitt and New York Times journalist Stephen J. Dubner.  The book was a non-fiction best seller and the film had a limited theatrical release in the fall of 2010.

To make the documentary, the book was divided into sections and then further divided amongst several directors who used different methods in retelling or explaining Steven Levitt's theories covering traditionally ignored factors on current economic conditions (ie: the effect of your name on your personal success, the effect the ruling in Roe Vs. Wade had on reducing crime in the early 1990's, etc.).  Levitt's proclaimed goal is the search for truth by way of statistical analysis and our need to forego the correlation the world offers and embrace genuine causality.

Rating Summary:

This production benefited from a rather large capital investment for a documentary (more than $3 million) and the resulting production values were high.   The use of animation, actors and clever editing were combined in several different styles by directors, resulting in a mosaic of non-fiction story telling.  It was pieced together in a way that holds interest and is convincing.  The film makers' result was not to create new argument, but to hold to the books conveyance of evaluation and speculation on common socioeconomic anomalies.  Therefore, the perspective remained balanced.   

"Freakonomics" as a documentary was disappointing in that it did not promote further understanding of the explorations already detailed in the book.  The information it provided was based on studies and experiments that weren't fully explained or illustrated, leaving viewers to assume that proper scientific measure was used in the postulation of Levitt's theories.  The documentary proved its creation was simply to satisfy an economic vacuum had it not existed.         

NDNR Recommends:  skip the documentary, read the book.

The Holiday’s Top 12 “Most Wanted”: Day 1 - Paper or Plastic?

“You have succeeded in life when all you really want is only what you really need.”

Vernon Howard , American author & philosopher

Consumer spending in the 4^th quarter of every year is a fantastical false-positive indicator of the health of the US economy.   And yet every year, like some prestigious awards ceremony, economists hold their breath in anticipation of the result of how consumers have managed their "holiday money".   Sometimes it becomes muddled by the media, but understanding the causality of consumer spending, saving and investing around the holidays can serve as a reminder that we are in the proverbial driver’s seat of this economy and not just a passenger.       

In the tradition of the Twelve Days of Christmas, NDNR is going to spend the next 12 days examining the Top 12 Desired Gifts of the 2010 Holiday Season (from a compilation of sources) and scratch the surface of potential economic impact that purchasing these products may have.   

   

The #12 Most Wanted Holiday Gift: Gift Cards

According to MSN’s Money Central, “gift card” sales in the US are going to reach an all time high this holiday season of $35 billion dollars, a 25% increase over 2009.  This is the most versatile and often coveted holiday gift.  In fact, the vast majority of the 10 billion (10,000,000,000) plus that are manufactured every year world-wide are purchased and exercised in the 4^th quarter (Oct, Nov, Dec).   The economic impact is widespread, benefiting several types of organizations, most notably retailers, marketers, banks and the manufacturers/control firms of said gift cards. 

While a retailer will benefit by the promotion of their brand and increased sales, some wonder how a bank will benefit from the purchase and use of a gift card.  Generally speaking there are two types of gift cards: Retail Direct or “closed-loop” cards and Bank Sponsored or “open-loop” cards.  The benefits of a closed-loop card are in most cases; no fees for purchasing, activating or using the cards and no expiration date.   However, unlike the open-loop cards, your purchases and products are limited to the inventory and even location of the issuing retailer.  The majority of “open-loop” cards are branded by the top-four companies in “payment technology” or “PT”, Visa, Mastercard, American Express and Discover.  This makes the card more widely accepted and far more versatile.  Every time a purchase is made by a PT branded card, a percentage (usually between .5% and 5%) of the purchase is paid to the bank that hosts the technology that allows the processing of PT branded cards and which ultimately pays the merchant for the  purchase.  The PT companies do receive a small percentage of the purchase paid by the cards and most often charge an activation fee ($2-$5, some of which is paid to the merchant of the gift card as a commission and covers the manufacturing and packaging of the card itself).   These cards can also include expiration dates, after which monthly deductions are made until the card balance is zero.  Often an organization representing a large group of retailers (ie: The Mall of America), will sell open-loop gift cards that follow the same rules. 

-      

Marketers also win by promoting gift card sales.  Dan Horne, a marketing professor at Providence College and an expert on the gift card market, weighs in: "Consumers look at a $50 gift card and think, 'I can get a $75 item, and it only costs me $25.' Recipients are getting cool things for a cheap price. And the giver thinks, 'I gave you the means to buy that thing.' The perceived value is very strong."  As a result of this mentality, it can be suggested that less thought is given to the socioeconomic impact of purchases made by gift cards, because the item is “perceived” as incredibly inexpensive.  However, the true price of the item is unaffected and the organizations behind the product or service reap the maximum benefit.     

So now that it has been examined who benefits from the sponsorship of gift cards, who or what is impacted negatively?  Consider the environment.  Despite their small size, gift cards ecological footprint can be huge. The cards contain polyvinyl chloride (PVC) an extremely toxic compound that is a known carcinogen. Other toxins in gift cards include chlorine residue and heavy metal pollutants. Those 10 billion plus produced each year contribute 75 to 100 million pounds of toxic plastic that will lie in landfills leaking toxins for the duration of their long decomposition (giftah.com).  This does not include the waste as a result of the manufacturing process or the packaging that often accompanies the card itself.  

 

There are alternative solutions to disposable gift cards.   Besides new bio-friendly “recyclable” or “made from recycled material” cards, alternative biodegradable materials are being used to manufacture gift cards.  Many retailers are beginning to use virtual electronic gift cards which can be used at their online stores or carried in a hand-held device or smart phone and presented in person at a retail outlet. 

If you do receive a gift card, consider finding a method to recycle it (there are organizations like Earthworks who recycle these), or ask the retailer if they have a method in place for recycling their own cards.     

For Discussion:

1. Can you think of any other parties negatively impacted by the sale of gift cards? 
2. How do you feel about the giving and receiving of gift cards?   What are some personal benefits/cost of these gifts?  Explain your position.
3. How much do you estimate that you'll gift in the form of a gift card?   Are there any environmentally friendly alternatives you can consider?

The Choice Part II

“To live is to choose. But to choose well, you must know who you are and what you stand for, where you want to go and why you want to get there.”

Kofi Annan, former Secretary General of the United Nations, Nobel Peace Winner Recipient

While there are several definitions of “socioeconomics”, for the purpose of this blog socioeconomics will be defined as the relation of economics to social values.   The discussions will examine the reciprocal relationship between economic science and social philosophy, politics, environmental ethics, and human dignity.  That being said, this refines that definitive “choice” discussed in the previous post (The Choice Part I) to one of economics, but does not detract from its weight.  On the contrary, if someone is true to what they value, it expands the one choice made to involve every economic decision in front of them.  They will become socially accountable for every purchase, donation, loan and taxation expended.  A consumer cannot decide not to affect society with their expenditures.   The choice is whether or not to take on the mantle of responsibility or to relinquish it to an authority and forfeit the right to choose. 

For those who understand and choose to take responsibility for their choice, it’ll require of them an acute social awareness, ongoing education, a desire to affect change and consumer savvy.   For those who do not care to choose or who prefer to not be burdened the road will be easy.  However, it was once said that when two paths diverge, one will be easy.  And it’s only reward will be that it’s easy.  

For Discussion:

1)      What does it mean to be socially accountable?  

2)      What are some of the ways the economic decisions of the individual affect society as a whole?  

3)      What are some of the influences driving consumer decisions on how to manage their expenditures?

4)      Are you someone who values choice and consider yourself “socially accountable” in your expenditures?   Or not, and if not, “why not”?  

     

The Choice Part I

"In a democracy, the most important office is the office of citizen."

Justice Louis Brandeis

Every citizen of this democracy has a vital choice to make.  Every generation proceeding has faced the same divergence and in every case made their choice with no small amount of pride and sacrifice.  Today, when choosing can influence the greatest amount of change, and affect the most people in the history of the United States, few will give it the consideration merited and fewer still will realize there is even a choice to be made.  While some argue that the choice is political and that your “vote” is necessary in order to be heard, others say that the political system is riddled with corruption and complacency and that “demonstration” or “revolution” is the greatest agent of change.

Both arguments hold merit, and both are faulted.  The truth is both surprisingly fundamental and yet infinitely more challenging.  The truth is in the choice.  The choice is this:

Take responsibility, or relinquish your right to choose.

Everyone’s choice will be different and will manifest in two ways:  how that person spends their time, and how they spend their money.  Although citizens still have partial rights regarding these disbursements, it would be naïve to believe that there is no external influence on how a person’s time and money are managed, and for those who do take responsibility, that their freedom to make a choice is not perpetually at stake. 

For Discussion:

1. With regards to the nature of economics, what does it mean to "take responsibility" as a citizen?
2. Is there a circumstance in which it's acceptable or necessary for a citizen to relinquish their right to choose?
3. What "influences" may have an undesired affect on how you spend your time and money?