As a fellow consumer, I understand your frustration and why you would desire this sort of set-up.

And yes, you are correct that the system is designed specifically to extract the most amount of money on the sale of each product as possible -- coupons are basically tiered pricing and product promotion/advertising rolled into one. They also create a sense of urgency by putting an expiration date on them (even though we all know they'll print another soon w/ a further date for the exact same discount!)

There are far too many reasons to list as to why this is a very good thing overall for both the businesses and the customers who actually use the coupon system to their advantage.

In retail on commodities, it's extremely difficult to compete with one fixed low price on your goods. In a rational, pure commodity market, no one makes a profit as all businesses price their goods at rock-bottom (near cost) to compete and makes just enough to pay their workers and bills - if that.

Coupons allow companies to have tiered pricing which maximizes their profits on sales. Rich people and/or those that don't find it worth their time to clip coupons, track sales, and/or plan purchases pay the most because they lack a coupon. Others with coupons pay less (but usually still enough to bring in a profit.) Though, sometimes people buy more than they normally would because they had coupons, and the store still wins -- because they make a tiny profit still on each and the high turnover increases their profits.

Sometimes, the "real price" is always the coupon price -- like with a lot of donut shops. $1 off a dozen donut coupons are everywhere -- even on sheets inside the donut shop and on receipts, boxes, fliers, etc. Still, people see the advertisement and want a donut and feel they're getting a deal by using the coupon... which everyone has and they'll even waive the regular price for if you even mention the coupon if you don't have one on hand.

Sometimes, the coupons are "door busters" - or otherwise just to generate foot traffic. Come for the cheap milk, buy the expensive cookies to go with! Buy the cheap Doritos, and get the sodas with the jacked up pricing to go with!

Then, there's marketing research -- which publication did you actually read that had the coupon so we know where we should advertise and where we should not advertise, etc.

Don't want to join the "rewards program?!?" -- great! You'll be spending more than I do every time you visit the store b/c I have a rewards card and you don't. You are subsidizing my purchases. Thank you!

Also, so what if they track my data? Half my rewards cards are from an old address or belonged to my deceased grandmother -- not that they would care if they knew. They just want to know how regular a customer I am so they can stock their shelves appropriately according to my buying habits. They might mail a flier or two directly to my former home; but more often than not, they e-mail such things these days or just bulk mail stuff to all addresses.

This is part merger, part purchase.

"Time Warner Cable shareholders can choose $100 a share in cash and about $95 in Charter stock, or $115 in cash and the remainder in stock."

So, the TWC shareholders can choose from one of two real cash options which include retaining shares in the new Charter/TWC combined company. Since stock is just equity, and is "funny money" until it's sold, I don't know how it makes any difference between holding TWC stock before the merger or Charter/TWC combined after the merger stock so long as the stock price is valued properly. They're both large cable/internet/phone companies with similar assets and valuations based on those assets -- unlike the dotcom companies that no one knew how to put a dollar value on because they were so new and had such high growth potential until the bubble burst.

TWC was trading for just below $160 for over a year before the merger talks. Now, it's at $178. The merger offer puts a premium on it at $195 in cash and stock combined. Both Charter and TWC stocks are trading higher on news of the merger, so it complicates finding the value/number of shares TWC shareholders will get of the combined company when the deal goes through unless that's already pegged in the deal.

Looks like a TWC shareholder should be very happy taking $100 to $115 per share in cash for their pre-merger stock that was $160/share recently... in addition to stock in the combined company. There may be tax advantages to taking stock over cash to avoid capital gains.

I don't see how this would hurt shareholders - they get the benefits of combining brand names, services, call centers, media contracts, marketing, etc. There will be lots of benefits, thus the stock price surge. Customers... well, customers will get the shaft as always, but that's no different than any other day in a world of local cable monopolies.

The comparison is only misleading if you bring your own personal bias into the analogy. Both governments and households declare bankruptcy when they can no longer pay the interest on their debts. Greek interest rates have been as high as many credit card interest rates, thus the comparison.

As for why they go into debt, I disagree with your assessment. I worked as a "loan counselor" (collections agent) for a mortgage company, I can tell you that people can go into credit card debt for many reasons. Many of those reasons have to do with paying immediate emergency needs and not frivolous expenses. Often, it's related to medical expenses in the USA - either directly or indirectly because they paid the medical bill, then used the credit card for food, utilities, gas, etc. The primary cause for personal bankruptcy in the USA is healthcare expenses.

As for why households in general go into debt - it's not dissimilar to governments at all. Households invest in future income potential with college loans, they invest in houses and cars with mortgages and car loans which are necessary essentials, and they invest in their own private businesses as well. Governments are no different. Governments as well as individuals can spend their money unwisely or on selfish things - like building tanks even their own army commanders say they don't need... or starting wars that create massive deficits.

The key difference, as you suggested is that governments can control their money supply and interest rates -- except when they sign that ability away to join the eurozone... in which case, they had better hope their interests align with the majority that controls the eurozone's power to control the currency.

You touch on a lot of good points - perhaps too many for me to address in one post without making a wall of text.

There is no doubt that Greece would have hit hard times during the great recession, but no one has a crystal ball to say how it would have fared. The issue isn't so much whether it would have been bad or not (oh, I think it would definitely have been bad!), but how quickly Greece could have recovered if it had control over its own monetary and fiscal policies.

Let's look a bit deeper:

Greece's economy is very different than the east asian countries you mention. I seriously doubt "speculators" would have been an issue.

Greece's GDP depends heavily on its service sector - especially tourism (7th most visited country in Europe, 12th most visited in the world) and shipping (it controls 17% to 24% of all global shipments by sea.)

Anything that hurts Greece's exchange rate actually helps its tourism and shipping industries. This means that the error is self-correcting. If the drachma drops, more people choose to ship via Greek ships or visit Greece on cheap holiday vacations which then infuses the Greek GDP and which then raises the value of the drachma. There's still higher inflation, but that helps Greece, too -- because its debts are in drachmas and largely domestic debt, and those are easier to pay off when the inflation rate is higher.

Granted, Greece would not have rebounded until other countries had as well - other countries in recession does little to help Greece's shipping and tourism industries. But, other eurozone countries and the USA rebounded far faster than Greece because Greece couldn't adjust its currency. With over 80% of its GDP from the service industry, being able to effectively lower the cost of those services via fiscal policy and the exchange rate would have made a huge difference.

Worst case scenario, Greece could have taken on huge debt anyway, defaulted, and then restructured and rebuilt itself by now with a more prosperous economy - it's not like tourists would stop coming or global shipping would shun Greek ships.

aside: I used to work in imports and logistics analysis for a large global manufacturing company. Every other massive cargo ship coming from our main port in Germany to Charleson, SC was a Greek owned ship.

Yes, essentially.

You can't expect one currency work well across many countries if those countries have competing interests on monetary and fiscal policies coupled with unequal representation when deciding those policies. Something's got to give.

(What's good for Germany is bad for Greece and vice versa on fiscal policy right now... but Germany has more votes!)

If Greece had at least waited until their economy was strong enough to join the euro, they'd have weathered this much better. They'd still get the short end of the stick when it came to policies they disagree with, but at least it would have been worth it for them for the stability of the euro.

Fair point, but all members of the EU are part of the EMU which regulates their economies "for the benefit of the EU"... and all members of the EU save for Denmark and the UK are required by treaty to align their economies to enter the eurozone and must adopt the euro eventually.

So, it's more a matter of WHEN to enter the eurozone than IF.... clearly, the timing was a big issue - compounded by the economic crash... but, really -- if you join the EU, it's generally understood you're going to eventually become part of the eurozone.

Greece might have prospered under the euro if it weren't for the global recession, but we'll never know.