Ahh, the good old days. Remember those? A gallon of gas used to be a quarter. If you found a dollar on the street you could take your friend out to that great new movie Gentlemen Prefer Blondes (yes, that was an actual movie back in the day), buy “soda pop” and popcorn and still have a dime left over to buy an ice cream on the way home. Remember? No? Well, that’s probably because the year was 1953, and we have had 59 years of inflation since.

Inflation simply refers to the decrease in the purchasing value of a dollar over time. For example, with the 3 percent inflation rate in 2011, a bag of chips sold by Universal Chip Distributor (UCD) that used to cost you $1 now costs you $1.03. That same dollar no longer bought you the same amount of goods or went as far as it used to.

There is no universal agreement on what really causes inflation, but there are two theories that are most accepted. The first is called Cost-Push inflation. When the costs of running a business increase, the business needs to increase its prices to maintain the same level of profit. If UCD experiences an increase in the cost of running their factory, that burden then gets passed off to the student. Er, consumer.

The second theory is called Demand-Pull inflation. This can be summarized by the phrase “too much money chasing too few goods.” As the government prints more and more money to pay off our now over $15 trillion debt, the costs of goods rise. This can be seen using the Quantum theory of money MV=PY where M is the money supply, V is the Velocity of circulation (how often money changes hands), P is the Price level, and Y is the National Income. We can see that if M increases and V and Y remain the same, prices will have to increase to keep the equation balanced.

So how does this all come back to interest rates? Well, it all starts with a common misconception. Almost everyone thinks that inflation is a bad thing, but this isn’t really the case. Inflation affects people in different ways and some people actually benefit from inflation. Let’s make a ridiculous assumption that between the time you were a first-year and senior in college you saw your tuition increase by almost 100 percent, and as a result had to take out student loans. Preposterous, I know, but humor me.

Let’s keep things really simple and imagine you needed to take out a $10,000 loan for one year, knowing you’ll be able to pay it off with that great job you have lined up after graduating. Assume you are charged a 3 percent interest rate. As we know, this means that a year from when you receive the money you will owe $10,300. Now, lets factor in inflation and imagine that for whatever reason, inflation jumped to 5 percent in that same time period. This means that the $10,000 you got is actually worth $10,500 a year from when you received it. As a result of inflation, you didn’t just get an interest-free loan; the bank essentially paid you $200 to hold onto their money for a year. Not a bad gig.

What really matters is whether inflation is anticipated or not. If that bank had known that inflation was going to jump to 5 percent, they would have charged you something like 8 percent on your loan, which would have then given them an effective interest rate of 3 percent. Where the borrower gets screwed is when inflation is overestimated. Imagine inflation was predicted to be 5 percent but is actually 1 percent. You’re then stuck paying 7 percent interest. Good for lenders, problematic for borrowers.

The larger problems occur when inflation is unanticipated or overestimated, which hurts the economy for a variety of reasons. The biggest losses occur when uncertainty about the future causes consumers to spend less. From our equation earlier, MV=PY, we can see that if everything else remains the same, less spending results in a lower national income, and nobody wants that.

If you’d like to talk to DANNY BRAWER about V, Y or any other letters of the alphabet, contact him at dabrawer@ucdavis.edu.

In the last few years, plenty has been written about the banks. Articles, editorials and blogs tell the story well about the greed and dishonesty that was and is standard fare by corporate bigwigs hot in pursuit of a bigger buck. The backlash is obvious, and nowhere is this clearer than here on campus. The tents in the Quad, the now-infamous spray-happy police officer, the rallies — all students here know about these. And this dissent is good for our democracy depends on it.

However, this article is different. I’m writing this not to attack, but instead to defend. If you’ve walked through the MU recently, you might have seen a group of students in front of the small on-campus US Bank branch barricading the entrance. I am not part of this group, so I won’t speak on their behalf about their philosophy or goals. Instead, I just want to speak about what I see, hear and know about the effects this barricade is having on the employees there.

I work in a nearby store, so I’ve gotten the chance to get to know the great people who work at the bank. It’s a small staff. A few students work there to help pay for the horrendous cost that is now public higher education. Examples of the staff’s generosity are abundant. Last quarter the bank hosted a potluck for the neighboring stores. One lady who works there is one of the most generous people I know. When she found out that one of my coworkers would not be going home for Thanksgiving, she promptly opened up her home. Not many people would do that.

I could tell more stories. I could tell about how one staffer who, instead of dropping by the store where I work and making everyone’s day with her smile and quick humor, now has to stand guard near the door of the bank, watching for protesters. I could tell about how one of the students who works at the bank has to have a police escort in order to make it to classes. And I can tell about how the sight of the staff behind shuttered glass doors brings to mind a cage — something, to me at least, that should never happen on a university campus.

If the goal of the barricade is to close down the bank permanently, then they’re well on their way. No business can stay running for long if the doors are mostly shuttered. Such a result would be devastating on the employees there — employees who have nothing to do with the excesses of Wall Street. The protesters are targeting the wrong people. All of them are part of the 99 percent. Enough lives have been wrecked by CEOs; let’s not wreck the lives of these fellow students and neighbors.

When I said I’d talk about masturbation, I didn’t mean that I’d be providing a handy (ha!) how-to guide. Masturbation is pretty private, and most people have figured out their preferred method, so you don’t need my help. What I can do is tell you that masturbating is a normal activity with a number of benefits. For example, the hormones it releases can lower feelings of anxiety and help you sleep. So, during midterm season it might be helpful to take a few moments for yourself (as it were).

Masturbation can also be an educational opportunity for you and your partner. If, for example, your partner is not quite making the right motions during sexy-times, you can demonstrate for them the locations and movements that work best. This way you don’t end up frustrated, they feel more confident about how to please you and they get a sexy show.

Additionally, masturbation is an aid in situations in which you have sexual needs but no outlet. You may be between partners, or your partner(s) are far away or you may be in the difficult situation of practicing abstinence while having human urges that you want to act on. In these cases a little self-love is the easiest way to ease the pressure.

Now, I would be remiss if I talked about masturbation without talking about fantasy and porn. After all, those are the main aids people use when masturbating. Plus, I am astounded by the number of advice columns in which someone is freaking out because they found out their partner has fantasies/watches porn. It’s time to set the record straight.

If you discover that your partner is watching porn, you should not take it as a sign that they are not attracted to you or don’t find you sexually satisfying. Porn is a common indulgence, and is just one of many ways of getting aroused and getting off. I know multiple people who use it as a way of getting themselves in the mood prior to seeing their partner. So, if you find out your partner likes porn, don’t panic (you might even find you like watching it with them). The only time to be concerned is if they are neglecting your relationship or their other responsibilities to watch porn (the same goes for masturbating).

Whether or not you choose to tell your partner about your fantasies or porn preferences is best determined case by case. You need to keep in mind whether the discussion is hypothetical or whether its purpose is finding new activities to try. You don’t want to suggest something that goes against your partner’s beliefs or makes them feel insecure. If you get off on the thought of kicking puppies and your partner is an animal lover, better to keep it to yourself. The best kinds of fantasies to share are broad (such as being tied up). That way, there is likely to be an interpretation that you and your partner can both enjoy.

Now, there are many people who object to porn, and there are reasons why it’s problematic. The mainstream porn industry tends to reduce people (particularly women) to objects, presents some identities or bodies as ideal while fetishizing others, and focuses mostly on male pleasure. But porn encompasses a wider range of images than you think.

I recommend reading Making Authenticity Explicit: How Women-Made Pornography Constructs “Real Sex”  by UC Davis professor Jill Bakehorn (you can find it via the Melvyl database), which examines genres of porn that claim to combat these problems.

If you are someone who finds stereotypical porn arousing in the physiological sense but uncomfortable in the mental one, the best thing to do is shop around. Get a sense of what you like on sites like Redtube and NoFauxxx. Watch straight porn, gay porn, alt porn and everything in between (if something makes you immediately uncomfortable, turn it off). Experiment until you find something that really appeals to you. Whether you choose post-punk-lesbian or horny housewife-meets-delivery boy, at the end of the day it’s your pleasure and comfort that are important.

SAM WALL can tell you much more about porn. Ask for details by e-mailing sewall@ucdavis.edu.

The Research Works Act, currently awaiting decision in the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform in the U.S. House of Representatives, seeks to keep federal agencies funded by taxpayers from permitting the distribution of “private-sector research works” without the consent of the publisher. However, the bill’s definition of private-sector research works include scientific studies funded by taxpayers, as long as the journal made some kind of contribution.

The only contribution journals make after accepting a paper are finding scientists to peer review the paper before final publication, often not even compensating these peers for their time. Then, the scientific journal is allowed to copyright and take ownership of the paper, almost always requiring a steep payment from those who want to access and read the paper.

Essentially, taxpayers are paying for research twice: once to conduct the study, and again to access the results. This could lead to a system where everyone pays for research, but only the wealthiest institutions may be able to afford to read the results.

In an era of free access to many resources over the internet, solidifying control in the hands of journal publishers is counter to the concept of free knowledge, particularly since this bill includes research paid for by taxpayers.

Journal publishers already have a great deal of control over how much is charged for access to papers, and some journals are prohibitively expensive. UC Davis currently has access to about 50,000 academic journals, and it would be disappointing to see that decrease.

The country is in a budget crisis already, and the legislators are the last people we want to see making decisions regarding access to public knowledge. As UC Davis tries to find cost-cutting measures, expensive journal subscriptions may be left by the wayside. If this bill passes and solidifies cost control in the hands of journal publishers, the journals have two options: Either they cater to the wealthy, or they make access cheaper. Highly influential journals like Nature are already on the way to establishing the second option by creating open access versions of their journals on their websites.

Open access to journals is becoming the future of academic research and a trajectory we would like to see in all academic journals. Privatizing some research is reasonable, but if the public paid for it, the public should easily be able to see it without jumping through corporate hoops.

After the tents of Occupy Wall Street have been packed, the drum circles silenced and the signs of fury discarded, there is at least one thing that will carry on the movement’s legacy: a new crop of startups that are looking to capitalize on consumer anger against banks.

One such company is Simple, whose name was recently reduced from BankSimple; a good thing too, seeing as the finance company isn’t really a bank (nor is it really that simple, but more on this later).

Simple is waging a war against commercial banks by improving upon existing standards of technology, design and customer-friendliness that are, well, a bit lacking industry-wide. The company doesn’t charge any fees (not even for overdrafting or paying late), and runs exclusively on the web, with not a single teller or brick-and-mortar branch in sight.

To be clear, this isn’t a column about finance (that’s what my colleague Danny Brawer does on Tuesdays). This is a column about the virtual vs. the real.

The classic example of virtual triumph is Amazon, who offered consumers a large selection, built a reputation for excellent customer service and watched as their following amassed. Slowly but surely, they poached customers from brick-and-mortar shops, trumping independent booksellers and big box stores alike.

What Amazon did for retail is what Simple can do for banking.

Simple has shown signs of promise that it, too, could reinvent an industry online. The Portland-based company is creating just the kind of new-age product that 20- or 30-something young professionals won’t be able to resist.

Here’s how it works: Simple issues its customers a Visa debit card. Since Simple has no ATM network of their own, cash can be withdrawn at any ATM and the company will refund all incurred fees.

Depositing cash, on the other hand, is where the company deviates from its claim to simplicity. You can deposit your money at one of Simple’s “partner banks”, but will have to deliver special instructions to the teller in order to do so. You could also take the cash to a bank, turn it into a money order, then deposit it through Simple’s mobile app. It’s likely you’ll be charged either by the depositing bank or the agency providing the money order.

In actuality, Simple doesn’t deal with your money — its partner banks do. Simple just provides the technological infrastructure to manage your money, requiring you to own a camera-enabled smartphone to access it. This focus on technology is precisely why it will appeal to the young and the tech savvy.

Simple requires you to manage your personal finances through the mobile app that lies at the core of its services. The application allows its users to view a map of where they’ve purchased items and exactly how much money they spent there. It can even calculate a daily “Safe-to-Spend” number for you that takes into account what you earn, what you spend and what you need to save. Other features include an advanced search function wherein you can sort transaction history by time (lunch dates), type (coffee) or size ($20 and up).

It is Web 2.0’s answer to banking. On top of it all, the beautifully designed, minimalist user interface might make you (dare I say) like doing banking on your phone.

But the real question is, will it catch on with the banking population at large?

Since Simple will only accept smartphone owners, it restricts its membership to a fairly nichey crowd and excludes people who could really use the service but don’t spend a lot of time checking Twitter on their iPhones, like busy heads of households.

The service is still in Beta, and interested parties can request an invite at simple.com (epic domain grab, right?).

If Simple does what it sets out to do, it will change how people manage their personal finances — but it may for only a select few.

If you’re glad Congressperson Lamar Smith said NOPA to SOPA, let NICOLE NGUYEN know at niknguyen@ucdavis.edu.

Anyone who knows me understands that I find great pleasure in publicity train wrecks, so naturally I’m completely transfixed by Lana Del Rey right now.

Back in November, when she was just another talented YouTube sensation waiting to blow up, I wouldn’t have known, or frankly, cared, about the origins of indie pop’s latest girl du jour.  Additionally, I wouldn’t have familiarized myself with the pompous term “girl du jour” specifically for the purpose of describing her. But after much hype and a calamitously under-prepared “Saturday Night Live” performance, she became the new hipster “it girl” of my heart.

The Jan. 14 appearance, which was Del Rey’s mainstream American TV debut, was more akin to a breakdown than a breakthrough. When she sang “Video Games,” her biggest success to date and a song which is ordinarily quite breathtaking, the result was a mishmash of husky warbling and painfully discomforted swaying: obviously, I “favorited” it on YouTube.

This isn’t because I enjoy mocking Lana Del Rey in particular, even if her pillowy upper lip and lack of conditioned stage presence provide me and every other troll in the internet dungeon a lot of ammunition. Watching a precocious celebrity fall into a downward spiral just re energizes my joie de vivre in a way I can’t really explain.

Truth be told, even five years after the fact, I’m still running on the endorphin-rush of cueballed Britney Spears’ umbrella-swinging rampage. And thank goodness for Britney’s shears because by ’07, I was already coming down from the high of Ashlee Simpson’s “SNL” hoedown. Of course, we must acknowledge that stories like these are all buoyed along by the omnipresent flow of Lohan drama, which, although having lost some of its luster, retains all dependability.

It’s comforting to know that even if Christina Aguilera finds a way to stop looking like a drag queen version of herself tomorrow, I can still rest easy knowing that Lindsay Lohan will probably be back in a SCRAM bracelet before the slated apocalypse. This is good, because the way critics are discussing Del Rey’s performance, the end may be more nigh than previously thought.

The most striking thing about the critical responses to the performance — especially those circulating the internet — is the melodrama. People are acting like it’s the second coming of Sinead (O’Connor, who shredded a picture of Pope John Paul II during a live 1992 broadcast). “RIP Lana Del Rey’s Career, December 2011 — January 2012” reads one of the more forthright Tumblr posts; “Worst performance ever?” asks a Huffington Post headline.

It was, of course, the very melodramatic essence of these headlines that piqued my interest in the first place. But it was when Juliette Lewis and Eliza Dushku – two thriving embodiments of celebrity — tweeted their negative opinions on the performance that I could no longer resist seeing for myself.

Disappointingly, though, what I saw ended up being less catastrophic than I had previously hoped. I figured any girl who Eliza Dushku felt qualified to deem “Wack-a-doodle” stood a chance at being my new Heidi Montag circa 2009. But once again I found that, not unlike many of Lewis’ and Dushku’s career decisions, the critiques were misguided.

The performance was bad — perhaps even terrible — but it won’t fuel my fire nearly as long as, say, Mel Gibson’s alcohol-induced anti-Semitism; that kind of scandal doesn’t expire for at least two years. Of course I still have every intention of basking in the LDR fiasco’s afterglow for as long as I can; I just worry about what I’m going to do if its novelty wears off before the next media-covered meltdown.

Will I have to resort to reading about celebrities’ happiness? Comebacks? Baby bumps (belonging to anyone but Jamie Lynn Spears)? That isn’t nearly as fulfilling as watching someone revered by the public flub in a profound fashion. I can’t make fun of that. I can’t write about that. I think I’ll just have to settle for prolonging this whole Lana Del Rey mess and hope that the Jan. 31 release of her album sees a renewed sense of hate aimed in her direction.

A small part of me might be sad to see this happen to my girl du jour, but that’s the price you pay for following juicy media drama like a national pastime. Besides, something tells me that, so long as nobody else steps up to take her place in the spotlight of embarrassment, I’ll be happy to join in on the mockery soon enough.

DYLAN GALLAGHER would love to hear your Christina Aguilera drag queen names at dylaaaaan@gmail.com.