A new study shows that those who buy food with cash make better choices than those who use plastic. The New York Times has the story:
“The Economix blog today offers an interesting lesson on economics and eating behavior. People who buy food with cash make better choices than people who pay with credit and debit cards.
“In part of their study, the authors looked at the shopping behavior of a random sample of 1,000 single-member households who normally shop at chain stores. The authors looked at what these households purchased over a six-month period on each visit to the store, and how they paid for their items. Most of the households switched between card and cash payments on different trips (but the researchers did not randomly assign one form of payment versus another, so there may be some other lurking variables at play).
“In this analysis, consumers were significantly more likely to purchase unhealthy foods like cakes and cookies when using a credit or debit card. Interestingly, consumers who shopped with larger baskets were also “more susceptible to impulsive purchase of unhealthy products,” the authors found.
“Read ‘Going on a Diet? Start Paying in Cash,’ to learn more, including why the date of the shopping trip matters and why spending cash leads to buying more healthful foods.”
The Washington Post fact-checks the good and the bad in the recently passed health care law:
“The debate that preceded passage of the health-care overhaul has returned as a heated issue in the midterm elections. Politicians and advocacy groups seeking repeal of the law are making dramatic claims about its cost and effects. How valid are they? We evaluate some of the most common criticisms.
“The law will cause 87 million Americans to lose their current coverage.
“SAYS WHO?
“Republican House leaders assert this in the ‘Pledge to America[’] governing plan they released last month, adding that it contradicts President Obama's assurance during the health-care debate that ‘if you like your health plan, you can keep it.’
“HOW TRUE IS IT?
“How True? The evidence is limited.
“Obama was certainly obscuring the picture. The law exempts plans in existence before its adoption from key requirements such as offering free preventive services and eliminating penalties for out-of-network emergency care.
“But insurers can lose this ‘grandfathered status’ by making such changes as reducing the coverage of particular conditions or raising deductibles, co-payments and coinsurance shares above amounts set by formula. The same goes for employers that switch insurance carriers or reduce the share of employee premiums they cover by more than five percentage points. As a result, the administration estimates that by 2013, plans covering millions of workers will have fallen out of grandfathered status - not 87 million but 78 million workers according to the most recent figures.
“Still, the Republican assertion that these workers will be forced to ‘drop their current coverage’ implies the workers will be left with a worse plan or none at all. There's little evidence for that. Many currently grandfathered plans already offer some or even all of the consumer protections required of new plans. So losing grandfathered status wouldn't necessarily require them to raise premiums or make other changes. What portion of plans fall into this category? There are not enough data to say.”
A severe drought persists throughout the Southeastern and Midwestern United States, according to The Wall Street Journal:
“An extreme drought has taken hold in parts of nine states stretching from the Southeast to the lower Midwest, damaging crops, driving up the cost of keeping livestock and putting officials on alert for wildfires.
“Climatologists say the dry weather likely will continue at least until spring, raising the possibility of prolonged drought in some areas next summer.
“‘Six months from now, we could be in a fairly significant drought situation throughout the Southeast,’ said Brian Fuchs, a climatologist at the National Drought Mitigation Center, a federally funded center at the University of Nebraska that monitors drought conditions across the U.S. ‘The general pattern is going to show worsening.’”
BusinessWeek examines TARP’s returns, which are higher over two years than those yielded by Treasury bonds:
“The U.S. government’s bailout of financial firms through the Troubled Asset Relief Program provided taxpayers with higher returns than yields paid on 30- year Treasury bonds — enough money to fund the Securities and Exchange Commission for the next two decades.
“The government has earned $25.2 billion on its investment of $309 billion in banks and insurance companies, an 8.2 percent return over two years, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. That beat U.S. Treasuries, high-yield savings accounts, money- market funds and certificates of deposit. Investing in the stock market or gold would have paid off better.
“When the government first announced its intention to plow funds into the nation’s banks in October 2008 to resuscitate the financial system, many expected it to lose hundreds of billions of dollars. Two years later TARP’s bank and insurance investments have made money, and about two-thirds of the funds have been paid back. Yet Democrats are struggling to turn those gains into political capital, and the indirect costs of propping up banks could have longer-term consequences for the economy.”