The holiday shopping season is now here, and Americans are ready to splurge. The average U.S. shopper expects to spend more than US$1,000 on gifts for Christmas and other winter holidays this year, surveys show.

These days, consumers have no shortage of payment options, each seemingly more enticing than the last. Do you swipe your credit card and pick up “free” miles? Do you use buy-now-pay-later and spread the payments out over time? Do you use a debit card to avoid going into debt?

As a business school professor who writes about the holiday shopping season, I’ve been thinking about the best way to pay for holiday gifts without breaking the bank. My advice, found in my forthcoming book The Power of Cash, is counterintuitive. Don’t use any of these things. Instead, use good old-fashioned paper money.

Yes, using cash instead of paying electronically is a simple way to control your holiday spending while even helping others. And I speak from personal experience.

Why cash is less likely to set you back

Before spending any money, it is important to set a holiday budget. The problem is that while everyone thinks setting a budget is a good idea, few people do it, and even fewer stick to it.

Budgeting is like dieting: Temptation and time pressure cause the best intentions to fail.

I’ve seen this in my own life. One holiday season I carefully set a budget. However, with only hours left before exchanging presents, I didn’t have anything for three nieces. In my desperation, I wildly overspent on gifts I doubt they ever used.

Using cash can help you avoid making the same mistake I did. It works for some simple reasons:

First, committing to just using paper money provides an automatic method of budgeting. When you’re out of cash, you’re done shopping. Now I don’t recommend putting all of your money into your wallet at once. Instead, take only a portion of your budgeted cash when going shopping, or if you are taking all of it, split the money up and keep some in a separate reserve.

Second, using cash helps you spend less because of the “pain of paying.” Spending paper money causes a momentary feeling of regret, research in consumer psychology shows. This in turn helps slow down purchases. People don’t feel the same pain when they use credit cards, because the bill comes due in the future.

Third, in the long run, paying cash for things is cheaper because you don’t have to pay interest on purchases. About half of all credit card users carry a balance each month. With the average balance currently over $6,000, the interest alone on charging gifts can cost you hundreds of dollars.

And one more point: Many people buy holiday gifts for themselves, and research shows that paying cash makes you initially treasure a purchase more than when paying with electronic means. Cash payers feel stronger ownership because they made a “mental investment” in the item.

Using cash while shopping online

It’s easy to use cash for in-person purchases, but you can’t stick paper money through a computer or phone screen to make online purchases. Yet this holiday shopping season, online purchases are expected to break $240 billion.

It is possible to use cash only, even if you’re relying on e-commerce. A simple method is to purchase an online retailers’ gift card using cash and add that gift card to your account’s balance. If you want to spend more, you will need to physically get out to a place selling cards like your local supermarket and spend cash.

This triggers the pain of paying and also takes a bit of time, giving you an opportunity to think about whether this is really the right gift and the right amount to spend on it.

One final point: The holiday season isn’t supposed to be just an exercise in consumerism. Instead, one goal is helping others. Paying for gifts with cash actually does this. There are many people without credit cards, debit cards or mobile payment apps who are excluded from shops that refuse to take cash.

People without electronic methods are primarily poor and elderly. Millions of Americans are cash payers, surveys show, so using cash helps them because it provides a clear signal to businesses that paper money is still wanted and needed.

The holidays are supposed to be fun, but they’re not so enjoyable if you are stressing about money. How do you stick to a budget and ensure you don’t have huge bills to pay after the holidays are over? The answer is simple: Use cash. By itself, cash won’t make the holidays a jolly time, but it removes one big problem.

Jay L. Zagorsky, Associate Professor of Markets, Public Policy and Law, Boston University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

When’s the last time you saw a pundit pause?

When President Joe Biden pardoned his son Hunter, who was convicted of three felony charges, the pardon was startling because Biden repeatedly pledged before the election that he would respect the federal jury’s conviction.

As the news broke of the president’s decision, liberal political analyst Molly Jong-Fast was asked on live television for a “fast and furious” reaction to the pardon of Hunter Biden.

Jong-Fast paused for a moment, then said, “I just heard it. I have to process it. I don’t have a take. I’m sorry.”

That became a story. Several news outlets adopted the Fox News headline that a prominent liberal commentator was rendered “speechless,” “gobsmacked” by the pardon. The next day, conservative commentator Megyn Kelly featured the clip on her Sirius XM program as a “very fun example” of liberal hypocrisy.

But Jong-Fast wasn’t speechless. She said she hadn’t yet formulated a response and needed time to do so. This is a responsible position to take in the midst of breaking news.

Yet it was treated as a political failing.

The negative reaction to Jong-Fast’s caution reveals a troubling trend in American democracy. People are captivated by the “hot take,” the “call out,” the “clap back,” the immediate verdict. That makes for shallow analysis that largely repeats familiar ideas.

But responsible political judgment requires reflection, and reflection takes time.

Engage reflexes; suppress judgment

As I argue in my new book “Civic Solitude: Why Democracy Needs Distance,” the trouble is that our social environments are primed to short-circuit our thinking. They engage our reflexes while suppressing our judgment.

Here’s how. We humans are all subject to a cognitive dynamic known as belief polarization. This is the tendency for individuals to adopt more extreme perspectives as a result of their interactions with like-minded peers. When we shift toward more radical views, we become more inclined to dismiss anyone who does not agree with us as ignorant, irrational and devious.

But that’s not all. Our more extreme selves are also more “groupish” – that is, more conformist, more eager to fit in with our peers.

In other words, as we become more polarized in our beliefs, we become more invested in asserting our status within our group. We become hardliners and thus less tolerant of deviation among our allies.

As belief polarization escalates, we feel more pressure to conform. Hesitation begins to look like disloyalty. Even a momentary reluctance to affirm the party line signals to allies that our commitment to the group is wavering. Accordingly, we become more inclined simply to adopt the opinions that are popular among our peers – we decide what to think by mimicking our allies.

Opinions based on groupish dynamics

Meanwhile, our associates are subject to the same dynamics. The result is groupthink, where a network of like-minded people come to express opinions that have their source in groupish dynamics rather than facts and evidence.

Add to this that our everyday social environments are increasingly segregated along partisan lines. It is no exaggeration to say that in the United States today, opposing partisans live in different social worlds.

For example, liberals and conservatives live in different kinds of neighborhoods, shop at different stores, purchase different products, drive different vehicles, express different aesthetic preferences, work in different occupations and form different kinds of family groups. They eat different foods. They understand words differently, and even exhibit different patterns of pronunciation.

The familiar narrative of “red” and “blue” states goes far deeper than geography. In the United States today, political affiliation is more of a lifestyle than an outlook on the purposes of government.

Wanted: Thoughtful, reflective citizens

Our day-to-day lives are saturated with triggers of our partisan group loyalties. These conditions then trigger the groupish dynamics of belief polarization. This in turn means that we’re primed to act quickly in conformity with perceived group expectations, while also being less disposed to step back and think for ourselves.

To be clear, as a philosopher who focuses on democracy and civic ethics, I know that democracy needs engaged citizens. It is our duty to be civically vigilant, to be involved in the processes that shape political circumstances.

No doubt, the free press plays a central role in democracy. Reporters, pundits and analysts keep us informed while also providing their various perspectives on political matters.

However, it is possible to overemphasize the active elements of democracy. The demand for fast and furious judgment is a call for democracy conducted by partisan talking points and scripted taglines. It’s as if all of life were to be conducted in a spin room.

No less crucial for the democratic project is a citizenry that is thoughtful and reflective. This means that we cannot always rely on our familiar partisan reflexes. Especially when dealing with an unexpected political development, we need to step back and revise our stance.

But thought and reflection take time. Our current modes of politics allow for neither.

Jong-Fast’s reaction was no democratic failure. It was an affirmation of one of democracy’s most important civic values: reasoned judgment.

Robert B. Talisse, W. Alton Jones Professor of Philosophy, Vanderbilt University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.