Using credit card cash back to its fullest

I first got my GM credit card in the early 90's. The nice thing about this card is that 5% of your purchases with this card is given back as a rebate toward the purchase of your future GM car. I built up a sizable rebate in 2001 and used this to buy a new Prizm. Since this rebate can only be built up for 7 years and I plan to keep my Prizm for 10 or more years, I'm now using Discover credit card. This gives 1% cash back.

Since I'm not a big spender, I was never able to accumulate much of a rebate until I found out about this one method. What I started to do in 1999 was to use my credit card to buy US savings bonds. Savings bonds are great alternatives to CDs. Their rates are comparable to CDs, and best of all, you don't pay federal taxes until you cash them. With savings bonds, I was able to finally build up a nice rebate.

Unfortunately, all good things must come to an end. The government is ending the credit card payment system for savings bonds, and instead has started a system that debits your checking account. However, the credit card purchase system is still in effect until December 30, 2003. They're now pushing this new system. Their old credit card system is hidden away here.

There's also another trick for maximizing credit card rewards. I got my Discover Card by signing up at SearchCactus.com. This site gives a cash reward for signing up for credit cards and other things. I received $20 for signing up for Discover Card at this site. I then used it to buy savings bonds with 1% cash back, with no annual fee or other charges.

Of course, this credit card technique breaks down if you carry a balance and pay interest and finance fees. I just read from a Wall Street Journal article by Ron Leber that claims 61% of Americans carrry a credit card balance. According to the article, this is 51 million households who carry an average balance of $11,944 (article sites Cardweb.com for this statistic).

posted by Ken on 4:11 PM permalink and comments  

Post a Comment

 

Kramer Quote

Most of my favorite Seinfeld quotes come from George. But I just recently came across a rerun with Tony the male bimbo, (mimbo) and Erica the phone sex lady. This episode had a pretty hilarious quote from Kramer as he was trying to convince Jerry that his girl friend, Jane, was Erica. The exchange between Kramer and Jerry was so intriguing that I'm wondering if it wasn't spoofing some movie or something. It starts off with Jerry telling Kramer:

You're crazy

Kramer counters: Am I? Or am I so sane that you just blew your mind

Jerry then says: That's impossible

Kramer counters again: Is it? Or is is so possible that your head is spinning like a top.

It can't be says Jerry.

Then finally, Kramer ends it with: Can it? Or is your entire world just crashing down all around you.

Jerry's girl friend also had an interesting connection with Elaine. The episode started with Elaine begging Jane for a square of toilet paper in the stalls of a theater restroom. Jane couldn't "spare a square" and Elaine couldn't believe it. At the very end of the show, Elaine finally recognizes her voice at the time Jerry was convinced Jane was Erica, and Elaine gets her revenge.

Also in this episode, George had some hilarious scenes with Tony the mimbo (or the cool guy). It was hilarious to see George so desparately trying to be friends with the "cool guy". The rock climb and Tony's fall due to George's obsession in trying to impress Tony with his sandwiches was another example of great writing.

Rock Climbing and DVDs

Speaking of rock climbing, I just finished watching Mission Impossible 2 on my new portable DVD player. The DVD had a bunch of special features with background about how they did the stunts in the movie. My favorite stunt was Tom Cruise climbing the giant cliff in Arizona. There were some unbelievable footage of Cruise climbing, seemingly 2000 feet high with no ropes. Cruise's character then did some truely unbelievable stunts like jumping 15 feet to another cliff edge where he slips and just barely grabs the ledge. He then hangs with one hand, twists and grabs a rock with the other hand where he hangs in an iron cross position. He then swings his body and uses his leg to make it up the cliff, after which, he soon reaches the top.

From the background on this stunt, it was revealed that Cruise actually did all of this cliff stunts including the 15 foot jump. Unfortunately, they didn't show exactly what he did at the high altitude, and what ropes they actually had. But from the footage, it sure looked like Cruise had a lot of high climbing with no ropes.

I think I'll stick with the indoor rock climbing. This makes me want to go back to Vegas to give the 75-foot Gameworks rock another try. Last May, I made it up that rock and rang the bell. But if it wasn't for the rope and the belay, I would be history. There was no one-arm hanging into an iron cross. Perhaps I'll do better the next time. Probably not too many people think about going to Vegas just to climb a giant indoor rock....

Portable DVD Player?

BTW, you might be thinking the portable DVD player is a little out of character for this site "Cheap Thoughts". Actually, I didn't buy it. I earned it by giving a presentation in an IC design tool user conference. This gave me extra motivation for giving the presentation since I've been living without a DVD player.

I had been considering a DVD player since they've come down in price by so much. However, I have one little complication. I still have an old TV with only RF inputs. Most all DVD players only have S-video or Composite video output. I do have a VCR that can accept these inputs, but I read on the net that the copy protection systems they put into DVDs and DVD players makes it impossible to get clear picture buy hooking a DVD player to a TV through a VCR. But I no longer have to worry about this now that I have a portable DVD player with a 7 inch LCD screen. You may think a 7-inch screen is small, but a 7-inch screen at 2 feet away can look the same as a 35-inch screen 10 feet away. Big screens in my opinion are overrated.....

posted by Ken on 3:05 PM permalink and comments  

Post a Comment

Sunday, September 14, 2003

 

Proposition 12, Lawsuits, and My Jury Experience

There was another election in Texas yesterday. 22 propositions were on the ballot. Proposition 12 was the one with the most interest. It puts a cap on non-economic damages from law suits. It's suppose to help keep the malpractice insurance down for doctors.

This proposition reminded me of the time I was a juror for a case in which a rape victim was suing her former apartment complex for being negligent in safety. Her lawyer was pushing for a multimillion dollar claim, most of it for pain and suffering. I did feel sorry for the lady and the trauma she went through. But the apartment complex wasn't at fault at all in my opinion. It didn't provide ideal security, but it was pretty typical to what I've seen. Plus, the precautions that this lady took was far from ideal. In short, myself and nine others of this 12-person jury agreed that the apartment complex wasn't liable of any negligence. Since it was a civil case, we only needed 10 out of the 12 jurors to reach a verdict.

So I did my part to combat greedy trial lawyers. I would suspect that most juries and judges do the same. It's just a handful of cases, like the time a jury found McDonalds liable for having coffee too hot in a coffee spill accident, that gets publicity. Nevertheless, I have seen many people filing lawsuits with questionable validity in my opinion.

Proposition 12 did pass, with 51% of the vote. It will be interesting to see the effect it will have. I just would like to see my insurance rates go down one of these years...

Milk, Cereal, and Vitamins

One thing that I've never seen is milk in aluminum cans. Even Slimfast, which has a lot of milk, is not in aluminum cans. Wonder if there is something in milk that makes it react with aluminum???

Finally gave soy milk a try. I drink about a gallon of skim milk a week (half of it for my cereal). Sure seems like soy milk should be cheaper than cows milk. But it is usually twice as much. My thinking is this is mostly due to the large volume of cow milk that is sold as compared to soy milk. But this Friday, the cost of a half-gallon soy milk with an instore coupon was only 13 cents more than half of a gallon of cows milk. So I gave it a try. It wasn't too bad. It's actually a little more creamy than skim cows milk. The taste is different than cows milk, but it's something that I could get use to.

In the last two months, I've switched to eating hot oatmeal rather than cold cereal in the mornings. I'll have to admit that it doesn't taste as good as most cold cereals, but oatmeal has two big advantages. First, it has more soluble fiber, protein, complex carbs, and less sugar than most other cold cereals. Second, the generic brand is about half the cost of any other cold cereal. On sale, I might be able to get a 20 ounce box of cold cereal for $2. Then even with a $1 off coupon for two boxes, the price per box is still $1.50. However, I can get a 42 ounce box of store brand oatmeal for $1.79. This is about $0.90 for 21 ounces. Besides taste, the only other bad thing about this store brand oatmeal is that it doesn't include any extra vitamins. Most cold cereal are fortified with some vitamins. But this isn't a big deal for me since I include a multi-vitamin/mineral supplement with my breakfast.

Speaking of cereals and vitamins, one thing that always seems strange to me is Total cereal. For years it advertises the fact that it has 100% of most vitamins and minerals. And to equal one bowl of Total, you would have to eat X bowls of cereal Y. The thing they don't mention is that vitamins and minerals are just added to Total just like any other cereal. They just add more than others. So what's the difference between eating Total cereal versus eating any other cereal and taking a multi-vitamin pill? Also, Total cereal is usually much more expensive than other cereal. So it would probably be a lot cheaper to eat another brand and just add a multi-vitamin pill to one's diet. I suppose there are issues of how well the vitamins are dissolved and digested by the body. But Total cereal never goes into these details.

I've heard many say that you shouldn't have to take vitamins if you eat a well balance diet. Well, I've looked into the vitamin and mineral content of many foods. Even if you eat many whole grain foods, vegetables, and fruits, it seems that you would be lacking the recommended daily allowances of many of the less common vitamins and minerals like vitamin E, B6, K, or minerals like manganese, zinc, and iodine. Vitamin C and A can easily be found in many vegetables and fruits. But other vitamins seem a lot less common. Likewise for minerals. So it seems like it would be wise to take a mulit-vitamin/mineral supplement. I wonder if these daily recommended allowances are really that accurate?

posted by Ken on 2:31 PM permalink and comments  

Post a Comment

Sunday, September 07, 2003

 

Capitalism is War without Violence

One result of technology is suppose to be more free time for people. Technology is suppose to allow for greater productivity which should allow people to work less. But with capitalism, does this theory hold water? Seems like with competition, there's always a need to produce more with less. If company "A" takes 10000 man-hours to generate product "X" and company "B" can generate product "X" in only 5000 man-hours, company "B" will sell "X" for less and will win the market. So company "A" will have to learn how to generate product "X" in less time. Ideally, you work smarter, not longer. But that's easier said then done. In short, in my opinion, the work week and the amount that people have to work will never go down because of technology. It might be less physically demanding work, but it will still be time away from family and away from leisure.

Another way for a company to generate a product for less, is to reduce labor costs. For many years now, companies have been shifting their manufacturing overseas to reduce costs. Now with the new communication and internet technology, it's becoming easier to shift white collar jobs overseas. And with wages averaging 5 to 10 times less in many Asian countries than in the U.S., there is certainly savings to be made. Will high paying white collar jobs keep going overseas?

Most politcians will agree with free trade, and will just lecture about keeping it fair. Seems like trade can never be completely fair when there's so much discrepancy between standards of living around the world. Instead of debating fairness, seems like the only thing the U.S. has that can stop this job flight is American innovation and the economic environment that allows it to prosper.

In the late 1940's, American scientists at Bell Labs invented the transistor. In the 60's and 70's, the integrated circuit was invented in the U.S. These inventions provided the seeds for success of the great American companies like Intel, Microsoft, and Cisco. This is similar to the invention of the automobile assembly line by Henry Ford in the early part of the 20th century.

America's best bet to create high paying jobs is to create new inventions and new industries. Unfortunately, there's a lot of uncertainty of what's possible and what's economical in technology. And competition around the world is tough. Interestingly, Bell Labs licensed the transistor and this gave the start to a Japanese company called Sony, which began using these transistors to make small, low power radios. Also interesting was the fact that the invention of the transistor wasn't realy huge news. Few really appreciated its potential and impact to society.

What is the next great technology? One thing that could have a huge impact, is a new, more efficient energy source. If energy was 10x or 100x cheaper to produce, things that worry people now, would no longer be a concern. For example, fresh water is something that's always a concern in the U.S. and around the world. Most of the world is water, but this water is not fresh water and can't be directly used for farming and consumption. But if energy was 100x cheaper to produce, ocean water could be desalinated. Then it could be pumped anywhere. If energy was really inexpensive, this could be done and its impact around the world would be huge. And if this energy didn't produce carbon dioxide and other pollution, the impact to the future world would even be bigger.

But is a new, cheap, and clean energy source possible? Scientists have been working on fusion for at least 50 years with little progress. Fuel cells have been used since the 60's but remain expensive compared to fossil fuels. Wind and solar generation remain expensive after decades of research. Nuclear fission reactors suffer from radioactive waste. Seems like we are a long ways off from a new and clean energy source that's orders of magnitude cheaper than what we have now. But like the transistor, something may be out there that people don't yet fully understand the potential. If the U.S. can be the inventor of something like this, worry about jobs would fade away for at least a decade. Then we'll need to invent something new and great yet again.

Politics and the Internet

Political campaigns seem to be requiring more and more money. People worry that this need for money is corrupting the political process. In addition to campaign reforms, some argue for more government money to help take out the corrupting influence of money.

But what does this money buy? A lot of the money is used for TV commercials. But how useful are TV commercials? Sure they let people know that you're in the race. But how much information can be given in a 30 second commercial? Hopefully, people are not making decisions based on these.

For very little money, a web site seems like a perfect way for politicians to educate people about their campaigns, their ideas, and the issues. It can provide 100x more information than a 30 second commercial, and everybody with internet access can see it. Some web sites of political candidates have not been much more than their political signs, very static and shallow. But some candidates have impressed me with their sites. Howard Dean's site is one. I'm not really a fan of him, but his web site is impressive. I hope others learn from this and follow in his shoes. In addition to the basics, it has a political blog and a link to a pretty good discussion forum. A discussion forum seems like a perfect way to get people more involved in politics in today's society. There's a lot of work that is required to make sure intelligent discussions takes place on the boards. Also, I don't see the candidates using these. But there's a lot of potential here to educate voters and get them involved without requiring candidates to raise more and more money. The internet should be very good for democracy.

posted by Ken on 1:02 PM permalink and comments  

Post a Comment