Spending habits start early; a case study

...like...in the womb maybe?

Here at the Institute of Home Nanoeconomics, we are committed to studying and understanding spending trends in little, tiny, loud, hyper active people and how this behavior might manifest itself later in the form of a global credit crisis.

Case study: The Canestarostein Household

We studied two subjects, both being raised by a fiscally conservative father, Michael Canestarostein. Michael opened his first bank account at the age of 16 with $800 in cash he had earned from his job at a mall department store. Until then, he was storing money in a book in which he cut a rectangular dollar bill-sized hole in the pages so his brothers wouldn't steal it. He secretly hopes his brothers are reading this now and they are annoyed to finally find out where the money was.

Michael now acts as chair the federal domestic reserve bank for the Canestarostein household. Both subjects of the study possess piggy banks. They are allotted $1 allowance per week. Both are allowed to spend their money as they wish at any time on anything that does not negatively affect their health or welfare.

Spending behaviors were observed in the harshest of environments; the Halloween costume and toy section of Kroger. To make things worse, they are hopped up on adrenaline after their Saturday swim lesson.

To begin the study:

Subject A: is a 5 year old female who has a piggy bank balance of $4.74
Subject B: is a 8 year old female with a piggy bank balance of "damn!" which includes a 20-spot someone must have given her.

Looks like we should have started this study 5 years ago.

Week #1: Both girls notice rubber, stretchy action figure-like toys. They play with them while their dad anxiously awaits the his turn in the beer aisle. They do not purchase the toys, but dream and lust for them all week.

Week #2: Subject B brings her piggy bank to swim lessons and requests a visit to Kroger. Subject A follows suit. They shop. After about 3 hours, each selects and purchases rubber stretchy action figure.

Subject A chooses Tiffany, infamous bride of Chucky.


Subject B chooses the "Life Like Dracula" doll.


Each cost $3, which leaves:

Subject A: balance of $1.74
Subject B: balance of "holy shit"

and leaves their dad wondering how a Dracula doll can be "lifelike" per package description.

Week 3: It is requested that we stop by Kroger again after swim lessons so that more rubbery $3 dolls may be purchased. Subject A's father makes sure it is clear that she does not have enough money to purchase another doll. Subject B offers her 26 cents an advance of $1 is offered by the federal domestic reserve bank.

Subject A seizes this opportunity to buy another Tiffany doll exactly like the other one! They had a Chucky doll there! She could have bought Chucky and they could have had a mock wedding ceremony. But, this seemingly poor decision must be allowed to take place because it did not negatively affect her health or welfare...researchers must remind themselves...

Subject B chooses the bride of Frankenstein rubber stretchy doll.


This seems like a good purchase. She and Dracula can have a juicy affair.

So, at the conclusion of week 3:

Subject A: $1 in debt until tomorrow.

Subject B: Holy shit.

Entering Week 4:

Subject A: is placed on credit watch. Future loans would have to occur with no money down. This type of predatory lending is not practiced or condoned by the domestic reserve bank.

Subject B: better learn how to cut a hole in a book. Stat.

Conclusion of the study

Subject B is more fiscally responsible. She will be the one who will bail out all the Subject A's the next time the world experiences a fiscal crisis.

...but it doesn't really matter. Because, they will both be hot looking when they grow up and they won't have to pay for anything themselves anyway.