My car is currently on its deathbed.  My 1990 Toyota Camry has been so good to me for so long.  However, I took it in to a repair shop a few weeks ago because I thought the rear cylinders were leaking.  I wasn’t too worried because rear cylinder repairs are only a couple hundred bucks.

Turns out I was right… sort of.   Not only were the rear cylinders leaking (slightly), but both front CV joints on my car are cracked, I have a bunch of “valve issues” and I’ve got oil leaking on my timing belt.  Total projected repair cost: $1800.  My car’s blue book value: sub $500.  So I’ve come to the conclusion, that sometime in the near future, I need to find another car.

I don’t like the idea that pro athletes in some sports are required to attend college for a certain number of years to compete in a professional sports league. I started thinking about this recently because the McDonald’s All American game is coming up soon, and there is lots of controversy over agents recruiting high school kids even though they have to go to college for a year before entering the NBA. The requirement that pro athletes attend college before participating in a professional sport is silly and paternalistic.

The argument generally made in favor of this requirement is pro sports leagues have to protect the pro athletes from themselves in case their sports career doesn’t pan out. I don’t buy it. First, these “kids” are 18 when they graduate high school (or will be soon). Hence, they are adults, and they deserve respect, so we should treat them like adults. If they want to bet it all on a sports career: so be it. That’s no different from a high-school graduate trying to become an entrepreneur: we don’t require a college education before starting a business, even though starting a business is inherently riskier than playing in the NBA for a year because if you fail, you’re generally going to be in big-time debt.

The American Red Cross needs to do two things to attract more people to give blood.

First, give money instead of coupons/shwag/etcetera.  Everyone loves money.  Not everyone loves specific goods.

Secondly, and most importantly, market giving blood as a weight loss tool.  Apparently you burn something like 2,000 calories on average by giving blood.  For a lot of people, that is a day’s worth of food.  Since Americans will do all sorts of crazy things except eating right and exercising to lose weight, such as the cabbage soup diet, you’d think they would also try giving blood every now and then.  I think 2,000 calories is close to one pound of fat (I think one pound is 2,500).  So the American Red Cross should be saying: “Donate Blood - Lose a Pound!”

Check out this graph. I haven’t checked out the underlying data, but based on everyday experience, I would say this graph is accurate. Not only is it more convenient to eat unhealthy food such as pre-packaged sweets, but it is less expensive as well. So, a rational person has two factors telling him to choose unhealthy food over healthy food. The question is, why is unhealthy food cheaper?

I do not have a personal underlying theory as to why unhealthy food is cheaper. The cynical person in me says this is because of lobbyists in the unhealthy food industries. The uncynical person says maybe it’s economies of scale of producing packaged foods, since they are more produced than grown and those costs are easier to bring down.

Regardless, this is interesting.

Hat Tip: Photo Basement

I see so many commercials from car insurance companies that say: “People who switched to this insurance saved $x on average.”  That is, for the most part, a pretty worthless statement.  Why would anyone switch to a different car insurance provider if it cost more money?  They all essentially provide the same product.  Thus, the statement that people who switched to this insurance saved $x on average says this: people with particular characteristics switch to insurance companies whose insurance algorithm favors those characteristics.  In other words, car insurance customers act rationally.

Additionally, if you are a good driver, you should be dissuaded by an insurance company who offers “accident forgiveness.”  An insurance company is going to have to cover their costs one way or another.  If they don’t increase premiums for someone’s first accident, that just means they are using everyone else’s premiums as a whole to subsidize that person.  So if you are a good driver who doesn’t get in any accidents, this is not a good thing.  It’s not like a company who offers accident forgiveness is less profit hungry.