I wrote blog post the other day for BloggingStocks which poked fun at Donald Trump for his attitude towards the big oil companies. Needless to say, that blog post garnered quite a bit of interest. One of our readers left a comment on that post which put forward a concept for selling gasoline which might merit some extra attention. That reader, identified as "gumbo koontz", suggests that gasoline be priced for individuals according to the fuel efficiency of the vehicle they drive. This idea may sound rather punitive or arbitrary, but I think it has a lot of valuable merit.

What better way could there be to make people really think about their fuel usage than to make their effect on the situation more personally tangible for them? As the driver of a full-sized pick-up truck, I'm not against the idea of paying five or six cents a gallon more for my gasoline that someone who chooses to drive a smaller, more fuel efficient vehicle. I do use my truck bed almost daily for various chores and payloads which a smaller vehicle couldn't touch, but the fact is that I use more gasoline to get from point A to point B. I can definitely see the merit in rewarding those drivers who trade off convenience for frugality.

How might a program like this work, and how could we administrate it accurately and fairly? Would it be viewed as punishment for those who use more gasoline or as reward for those who use less? Could it be administered at the pump or would it have to be handled with the government through the submission of forms and records? These are just a few of the questions which would need to be answered before a program like this could be made real.

The most recent Marvel Comics-based movie, The Incredible Hulk, is getting a lot of attention and it hasn't even hit theaters yet. The movie is scheduled for opening on Friday the 13th, and it is said that movie goers are in for a treat. Sheldon Liber, blogger and analyst at Bloggingstocks, was lucky enough to view an advanced screening of the movie and he stated: "... it is a superb blend of movie technology magic and the passion of the cast and crew."

Sheldon indicates that the movie is rich in emotion and well produced, with superb star casting, acting and cinematography. He does give a hint that the movie may be a little too raucous for tykes and seniors, but for main stream viewership, Sheldon suggests, "Marvel has another hit on its hands."

You may read further review by The Hollywood Reporter, via this Reuters News Service link.

We should be used to this by now. Yet another money grubbing directive has surfaced from mother eBay Inc. (NASDAQ: EBAY), As covered in a story in The New York Times, eBay has decided to test market the strategy of allowing payment for transactions on its site solely through its wanton money portal, PayPal. The company intends to run this test on Australian eBayers. I wonder if our mates Down Under would be willing to tell us how they feel about this strategy?

eBay is claiming that this change in operating procedure will lower the incidences of fraud on the site. That's funny coming from them, when you consider that the worst eBay fraud nightmares generally run through its own PayPal system. I can believe that eBay's own fraud exposure might be cut by funneling everything through PayPal, but that's about eBay's bottom line. It's not about the bottom lines of its loyal patrons. The matter is further examined in this Associated Press article.

BloggingStocks reports that, as it stands right now, PayPal collects 2.9% from every sale which runs through its system in the U.S., plus another .30 cents for any sale under $3,000. The picture gets even gloomier for Australian eBayers, where PayPal charges 4.4% on sales, plus the additional .30 cents. What percentage of eBay Australia's sales currently run through alternate payment means? That's what I want to know.

If this change is enacted by eBay against the entirety of it's operations, it will be just one more step in the inevitable creation of "Wal-Bay", a site where large volumes of foreign made junk will be peddled by a thin crust of well protected sellers. In the meantime, alternate online selling strategies continue to take hold and grow as eBay's own growth has stalled. eBay can fake revenue growth for just so long. It's only a matter of time before things really start to get ugly over there.

On February 29, the loss of a $40 billion contract by Boeing Co. was reported by Peter Cohan on BloggingStocks. Since that time, debate has been quietly rumbling in various spots around the Internet regarding the placement of that contract. Initially, it was expected that Boeing Co. would receive the order but it has instead been awarded to Northrup Grumman and EADS, parent of Airbus, which detractors say puts an unacceptable amount of control and revenue of an American military contract into the hands of a European corporation.

The contact is for the building of refueling tankers which refuel fighter jets while in flight. I have found estimates which claim that the contract value could reach as high as $100 billion dollars, but $40 billion is the media reported estimate. It appears that even though corporate administration of the contract would be taken overseas, at least some of the work would still be performed in America. Additionally, we should consider that major components of these and other military aircraft already originate from foreign manufacturers.

Hard-line protectionists and the union ilk are clamoring for congressional reversal and investigation of the contract assignment, while straight line capitalists and globalists claim that business is business and that all is fair in contract negotiation. So far, I have found no indication that the matter shall be treated by our government as anything other than an ordinary manufacturing contract.

My personal opinion is that it's just a contract, and the United States Air Force has the right to purchase aircraft from whomever they deem fit to provide them in a timely and cost effective manner. Perhaps the matter could be given a cursory review by Congress just to make sure that everything is square, but basically, if there's not an overt reason to suspect some manner of undue manipulation, let's just drop it and let them build some tankers.

What say you?

Although some people have the knowledge, resources and savvy needed to successfully play the stock market for themselves, many other people don't. For the people who lack the time or talent to manage their own portfolios, there are funds that will handle the technical work for you. In oversimplified terms, you simply place your money into your fund account and let them grow it for you.

I found an article at Investopedia which is the best short course about funds that I have ever run across. By understanding the elements that define a particular fund, better choices can be made about how to structure your fund program to accomplish your goals. The article discusses life cycle funds, fund allocations, risk assessment, investing style and fund management. You'll also find guidance about fund fees, diversity and personal investment goals.

Based on what I have learned over time about investment funds, my personal fund portfolio is structured for diversity, conservative protection, and both long and short term growth. I have 20% of my fund assets allocated to global investments, 20% in real estate securities, 20% in small cap venture funds and the remaining 40% is in fixed income holdings. Because of my asset allocation structure I may have missed out on some big gains here or there, but overall I'm pleased with my performance. My fund portfolio shows about 23% total growth over the last three years and my portfolio structure has proven to be modestly bullet proof, yielding a loss of only 0.73% through the recent credit industry foibles.

Even if you don't plan on investing in a fund for yourself, if you have a retirement plan at work, those assets are probably in investment funds and you probably have some control over the allocation of your assets. It pays to have an understanding about how funds work and how your goals affect the way you might tune your own retirement account. The article at Investopedia can be a helpful tool and it does a great job of making investment funds easy to understand.