“控制现金”人造橙色鸡

Mama was a yellow hen, Daddy was a Rhode Island Red

 

You know who America’s greatest financial writer is? Adam Carolla. Interspersed with the penis jokes and complaints about the feminization of society, the esteemed author of In 50 Years, We’ll All Be Chicks explains the necessity of weighing time against money.

He cites an example most of us can relate to; losing your nail clippers. You used them, failed to put them in the usual place, and now know that they’re only somewhere in the house. But you’re too rushed to commit more than a few minutes to a hard search. So your nails grow and grow, and finally you break down and head to the drugstore for another pair. Sure enough, minutes after you return you find the original pair and get mad at yourself for buying something unnecessary.

Carolla’s solution isn’t just to suck it up and buy a pair of clippers. It’s to buy 8 pairs of clippers. Put one in your bathroom, one in a kitchen drawer, one in your car, maybe one in the garage, and you’ll never have to waste time looking for clippers (nor let your nails grow long) again.

A pair of clippers costs 69¢, which is peace of mind on the cheap.

Suba at Wealth Informatics submitted a post to the Carnival of Wealth a few weeks ago in which she mentions that frugality for its own sake (saving the 69¢ you’d pay for a redundant pair of clippers) is usually more trouble than it’s worth (spending an hour tearing the house upside-down looking for the clippers, frustrating yourself before ultimately conceding defeat.)

Suba thinks the people waiting in line at Costco for discounted members-only gas are nuts. And she occasionally, shamelessly eats professionally prepared food instead of being frugal. Restaurant markups notwithstanding, she argues that the math works out.

There’s at least one other financial blogger who loves to break down the recipes that he and his Midwestern family enjoy. His Alexa rank is tens of thousands of places better than ours, even though he writes like an 8-year-old who just mastered the rules of grammar, but he loves to brag about how little it costs to feed his family. (That he’s overweight is just a delicious bonus.) We’re here to argue that eating at a restaurant, in our example one a step below P.F. Chang’s “upscale casual” category, can be financially savvy.

Our guinea pig: Panda Express’s famously addictive orange chicken. Not only is it the greatest large-scale dish ever invented, an entire wing of the internet has been devoted to reverse-engineering its recipe. We’ve tried it ourselves, and the closest we’ve come has been the following. (We’re not going to write the recipe, just the ingredients and their prices. This isn’t RachaelRay.com.)

2 lbs. boneless, skinless chicken breasts$5.33
1 egg1.00*
1 1/2 teaspoons salt1.00 (26 oz.)
white pepper, undefined amount9.00
12 oz. cooking oil3.49
1 1/8 cup cornstarch1.40
1/4 cup flour1.70 (5 lbs.)
1 tablespoon gingerroot2.59 (4 oz.)
1 teaspoon minced garlic2.00 (4 oz.)
1/2 teaspoon crushed red hot chili pepper**3.00 (1.2 oz.)
1/4 cup green onion0.50
1 tablespoon rice wine4.28 (10 oz.)
1/4 cup water
1/2 teaspoon sesame oil7.43 (7 oz.)
1 1/2 tablespoons soy sauce1.88 (5 oz.)
5 tablespoons sugar1.00 (1 lb.)
5 tablespoons white vinegar       “
zest of 1 orange0.50
Raw TOTAL47.10
TOTAL (per recipe unit)10.90

This recipe is supposed to serve 6, so that’s $1.82 a serving if you go with the per-unit ingredient prices. The $47.10 sounds like a steep initial investment, but then again, what are you supposed to do with the unused rice wine, ginger, garlic and sesame oil if not eventually make more faux-orange chicken?

We’ve cooked this enough times to know that it makes an unholy mess in the kitchen. And it takes at least 2 hours to go from assembling the ingredients to putting the final mixing bowl in the dishwasher and pressing “Start”.

Panda Express sells individual servings of orange chicken on a bed of rice for $3.75 each. Plus theirs is actually orange, as opposed to the burnt ocher that our version usually ends up being. Furthermore, the original is perfectly crisp on the outside and tender within. Ours is more than edible, but any aspiring cook who presented it during an audition would be told to hand over the spatula and find another line of work.

Still, we can’t overlook the fabulous savings of CYC Faux-Orange Chicken over its corporate counterpart. A whole $1.93 a serving. Servings #3 through #6 of the original batch go in the fridge, and by the time we reheat the gelatinized sixth a few days later, it’s time to head to the store for more green onions and other perishables. Meanwhile, every serving Panda Express sells is as fresh and hot as its predecessor.

Don’t forget to add the 2 hours it takes to cook. Even if you account for that as 20 minutes per serving, at some point you realize you should be spending less time hovering over a calculator and more time eating.

Cook because it’s fun, not because you’re doing it in lieu of shopping for a home loan that’s a few basis points cheaper. Frugality should be a personality trait, not an overarching life philosophy.

*Of course no egg costs a dollar, unless it comes from a Giant ibis. We’re buying the smallest possible quantities of each item – in this case, a dozen eggs. You can’t buy a single egg, just like you can’t buy a quarter-cup of flour.

**We’re imagining Anthony Kiedis being thrown in a hydraulic press, and getting excited at the idea.

This article is featured in:

**The Totally Money Blog Carnival: Countdown to Christmas Edition**

**The Wealth Builder Carnival #57**

**Festival of Frugality #301-Festively Frugal**

**Carnival of Financial Independence**

The Insufferable Simple Dollar

You ever listen to Sean Hannity? He’s the guy on Fox News Channel whose head, for some reason, perpetually tilts 11º to the left. On television, he’s just another gasbag with an agenda, identical in kind (if not in opinion) to Keith Olbermann, Bill O’Reilly, and that old wino on CNN who refuses to wear a jacket.

In addition to his TV work, for the last 10 years Hannity has hosted a daily 3-hour radio show. It’s the most earnest thing ever broadcast. Never mind the validity of his arguments, the man has somehow managed to go an entire decade without being interesting or funny. Not even by accident. For this – just the radio show – he earns $5 million a year. If you’ve heard Hannity’s intellectual ascendant, Rush Limbaugh, then you’ve heard everything Hannity has to offer and then some. But unlike Limbaugh, Hannity is as dry as the Atacama Desert. But he flourishes because a) he’s easy to digest, and b) he’s physically attractive. Women repeatedly call in to tell him how cute he is.

Equally digestible, somewhat homelier and even less endurable is Trent Hamm, the Iowan behind a soporific website called The Simple Dollar. It’s not the worst personal finance site in existence – there are others whose authors can’t even spell nor punctuate – but it’s the worst of the established ones. It’s the personal finance blog equivalent of Maroon 5’s music or Stephenie Meyer’s books. Hamm populates his blog with interminably long, utterly worthless posts that focus on life’s tiniest minutiae.

Americans, and people in general outside of Japan, spend too much money. Therefore, the most facile personal finance advice it’s possible to give is to tell people to economize. And like a James Valentine guitar solo, Hamm has been playing the same notes in the same order for his entire career.

Hamm is proud that he posts twice daily, which is hardly an accomplishment. Charles Dickens couldn’t write two worthwhile posts a day, let alone a man with no filter between his most trivial ideas and his blog. Hamm will spend paragraph after paragraph weighing the value of spun-glass residential air filters versus polyester fiber ones, then triumphantly conclude that the one will save his readers .000004¢ per use over the other.

But for sheer self-unaware buffoonery, nothing beats Hamm’s periodic advice columns. Thinking of himself as the long-lost triplet of Dear Abby and Ann Landers, Hamm runs questions from “readers” whose writing style is suspiciously similar to his own, then dispenses pointless counsel. We’d reproduce the answers here, but he seems the litigious sort and they differ only in their degree of inanity.

One recent idiot asked Hamm what vehicle to buy that has lots of leg room in the back seat. Keep in mind, Hamm is not an automotive writer, and doesn’t write about cars any more than anyone else does. The questioner tells us what type of vehicle his 6’6” son drives to college and back, and explains that the son will occasionally need to ride in the back of this as-yet unpurchased vehicle, details of interest to no one but which Hamm couldn’t bother to edit.

Rather than spend a nanosecond Googling “car” + “leg room”, the reader sought the advice of a man whose main talent is fashioning his own duct tape out of discarded pieces of smaller rolls of duct tape. After rambling for 3 paragraphs, Hamm tells the reader to test out vehicles at a dealership.

Seriously.

Another labor of Hercules, crossed off the list.

Most of Hamm’s recommendations, however, involve reducing expenses. That’s his life’s single guiding directive. Cut your finger with a rusty knife? Then turn off your lights when they’re not in use. Shingles falling off the roof? Use public transportation once a week and give your car (and the environment) a rest. Blood on your toothbrush and a hacking cough? Look for money-saving coupons in your Sunday paper. One day, he’s going to run the following question in his reader mailbag:

Dear Trent:
My husband just died and left me $6.6 billion. What should I do?

-Laurene Powell Jobs


Dear Laurene:

Now would be an excellent time to cut back on unnecessary expenditures. Have you considered making your own chicken stock? Here’s a simple recipe my family and I have used for years…

But nothing beats an unfortunate thread of last summer, when a possibly inebriated Hamm told his readers that an overlooked place in which to save money is in swimwear.

To recap, because we’re not going to give him the satisfaction of a link, he told his readers that they should never spend more than $3 on a swimsuit. Disregarding that Hamm apparently hasn’t looked at swimwear prices since the 1940s, he told his readers – the female ones in particular – that they could economize even further by swimming in their underwear.

(Note: We like to be sarcastic on Control Your Cash, but we’re not joking here. Or even exaggerating. As God is our witness, he really did advocate that.)

Some female readers explained that modesty and legal concerns aside, bras aren’t designed to be submerged and chlorinated. As someone who’s never swum with a harness on his breasts (although if you examine his picture, you’d at least think it’s possible), did Hamm defer to his readers?

Hell no. He dug in even further, insisting that it was women’s fixation on appearances and their malleability in the hands of the millinery-apparel-industrial complex that kept them from seeing things his, correct, way.

This is a married man. Whom, after being told that he didn’t know what he was talking about on a topic he couldn’t possibly understand as well as any woman, never thought to consult his evidently long-suffering wife and see if maybe he might be wrong. In Hamm’s mind, only two types of suits exist – proper $3 ones and extravagant $80 ones. (Again, we’re not joking.) He then goes on a tirade about needs vs. wants, explaining that swimming itself is unnecessary if you’re serious about reducing expenses.

The swimsuit fiasco was Hamm’s apex as a purveyor of stupidity, but every week (in fact, twice daily) he comes up with something moronic. We’ll save you the trouble of looking through his archives and recap his especially golden moments in future posts here on CYC. You’ll love them.

This article was featured in:

**The Totally Money Carnival #47-Prelude to a New Year**

**Top Personal Finance Posts of the Week -30K Challenge Edition**