Recently, the Environmental Working Group stated that celery is one of the so-called "Dirty Dozen," the twelve most contaminated fruits and vegetables on the market. As I was chewing on a piece of celery at the time, I began to notice the bitter overtones of what I assumed was a nasty chemical fertilizer. I began to wonder if it might be sarin or perhaps some dioxin derivative. Completely unable to enjoy my snack any longer, I resolved to find some organic celery.

After a long and fruitless (vegetable-less?) search, I finally broke down and decided to go to Whole Foods (NASDAQ: WFMI) . There, tucked into an extensive and impressive collection of colorful veggies, I found what I was looking for: fresh, organic celery. The price? $4.99.

To be honest, if I'm paying $4.99 for a vegetable, I expect it to pick my daughter up from daycare and maybe help out with the rent. I'm used to paying between $1 and $1.25 for a bunch of celery, which made Whole Foods' prices seem like a particularly tasteless joke. However, rather than throw the celery to the ground and loudly denounce Whole Foods as a bunch of money-grubbing ripoff artists, I politely returned the bunch to the counter and left.

There were two reasons for my restrained response: first, I'm saving up my first arrest for something special, like picketing Anne Coulter's funeral, and there's no way I'm getting carted off for yelling at a bunch of celery opportunists. The second reason is that I wasn't really all that surprised. You see, I've gotten used to Whole Foods' massively inflated prices and somewhat snotty attitude.

A few years back, The Onion ran a spoof article in which it claimed that Microsoft was trying to copyright ones and zeros, in an attempt to corner the market on binary code. Of course, the problem with satire is, just when you think you've hit the jackpot on ridiculousness, reality trumps you.

Recently, Juicy Couture Inc. filed a lawsuit against Victoria's Secret, claiming that the lingerie giant had stolen many of its marketing gimmicks and design features. Among other things, Juicy stated that Victoria's Secret had copied:

• Juicy's packaging, which resembles candy (Lingerie disguised as candy?!? Didn't Spencer's Gifts come up with this idea somewhere around 1978?).
• Juicy's most popular color scheme, which revolves around the color pink (Pink? For girls? Clearly, Juicy's designers are underappreciated revolutionaries!).
• Juicy's most popular design, in which its logo is emblazoned across the backside of the wearer (I wonder if Juicy's next step will be to go after all the lower-back tattoo wearers out there. Tramp-stampers, beware!).

While Victoria's Secret (a subsidiary of Limited Brands, Inc.: NYSE: LTD) may well be guilty of plundering the ideas of others (in particular, Katerina Plew, whose lawsuit seems to have a little more merit), it seems like Juicy is getting a little ridiculous. Intellectual property is all well and good, but is it legitimate to copyright the color pink?

Still, as a luxury item, lingerie is probably not selling all that well right now. Maybe Juicy needs the dough?

Last month, Stephen Schwarzman's Blackstone fund announced that its fourth-quarter earnings for 2007 had plunged a precipitous 89%. What was particularly galling was that this occurred in the same year that the fund released its IPO, for which it received top dollar. Of course, by the time this was announced, Schwarzman had already collected a $5.1 billion paycheck for 2007.

There has been some talk about how Blackstone's declining profits had led to a comparable decline in Schwarzman's fortunes. However, given his considerable 2007 salary, it doesn't seem like he's hurting all that much. In fact, he recently donated $100 million to the New York Public Library; while this is a very impressive gift, it comes with an equally impressive price: the main library building at 42nd Street and Fifth Avenue will now be named the Stephen Schwarzman Building. In return for his munificence, Schwarzman's name will be carved in five separate places on the white marble edifice: thrice on the front of the building and twice on the 42nd Street side. While this will, no doubt, be far more attractive than a graffiti "tag," one cannot escape the feeling that the concept is the same.

One Blackstone investor has recently sued the fund, claiming that, in its IPO documents, it failed to disclose key information about the unimpressive performance of some of its companies. Had this information been made available to investors, they presumably would have had lower expectations for Blackstone and would have paid considerably less for shares in it. In addition to being unethical, the suit avers that this is a violation of federal securities laws.

Every so often, you hear about an idea that is so godawfully bad that you have to giggle. I'm not talking about minor stupidities like a Porsche minivan or a movie based on a video game. No, I'm talking monstrously bad, like McDonald's selling sushi, condoms marketed to Catholics, or beer made for toddlers: ideas that are so hideously terrible that they are epic.

Here's an example: Llewellyn Werner, the Chairman of C3, a Los Angeles-based holding company for private equity firms, is investing $525 million into an amusement park in downtown Baghdad. You heard me right: Baghdad Disney.

I'm not even going to go into the terrible jokes that this brings to mind, although I already have some great ideas for colorful characters that could wander through the park in big animal suits. Regardless, "The Baghdad Zoo and Entertainment Experience" will have a skateboarding area, a concert theater and a museum, and is being developed with the help of the group that built Disneyland. While I admire Werner's dedication to bringing fun and entertainment to the embattled residents of Baghdad, I can't help but wonder about the wisdom of building an American-style amusement park in an area where any reflection of American culture is a red flag. Werner, however, is convinced that the people of Iraq will embrace the lighthearted fun of his new venture.

On the other hand, maybe he's right. "Baghdad Disney" might be just the thing to bring American values to Iraq. I wonder if there are any plans in the works for a water park!

Bruce Watson is a freelance writer, blogger, and all-around cheapskate. After a half-hour in any amusement park, he starts to plot against American culture.

The Scene Is Set: Almost two months ago, Exxon(NYSSE:XOM) acknowledged that its 2007 profits were the highest ever recorded by a publicly-traded company. A few weeks later, the House of Representatives responded to Big Oil's gargantuan profits by passing a bill that would redirect the $18 billion in tax breaks currently enjoyed by the oil industry into companies that are developing renewable energy resources. The bill has been shot down in the Senate, and President Bush has promised to veto it if it ever comes across his desk.

Tuesday witnessed the next step in the drama. Representatives of the top five oil companies, Exxon Mobil, Royal Dutch Shell(NYSE:RDS.A), BP(NYSE:BP), Chevron (NYSE:CVX)and Conoco Phillips(NYSE:COP) appeared before Congress to explain their record profits amid the growing gas crisis. The stage was ready, and the tension was palpable...

A few weeks ago, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson stated that "We know we're in a sharp downclimb and there's no doubt that the American people know that the economy has turned down sharply." Moving beyond Paulson's overuse of the word "sharp," this quote was really interesting for me. You see, I'm pretty sure that Paulson coined a new word.

Actually, that's an exaggeration; mountain climbers use the term "downclimb" to refer to the process of descending a slope without jumping. Basically, it means "climbing down a mountain without a weighted rope." In the context of the American economy, however, this definition doesn't make much sense, unless Secretary Paulson is suggesting that the country is attempting to slowly find its way back down from the staggering heights to which its economy has ascended. If that is the case, then I'd have to say we're well on the way to accomplishing our mission.

But I'm pretty sure that's not what he meant.

Oddly, the domestic media didn't make a big deal out of Secretary Paulson's exciting use of English. Some reporters assumed that he meant "decline," as in "a sharp decline," while others accepted his new word with nary a blink. Of course, the reason for this underwhelming reaction was obvious: the reporters realized that Paulson was trying to talk about America's current recession without saying the dreaded r-word. Rather than jump on this sweet little bit of Orwellian language crime, the media simply accepted that the government was engaging in a little bit of truth-sculpting and let it go without another word.

All of this raises a very interesting question: how can we fight a recession when we can't even bring ourselves to acknowledge that it exists?

Amid all the dire financial news of late, it's easy to believe that the retail market is on its way to becoming a wasteland, populated by vacant, run-down malls and gargantuan box stores. Watching the declining fortunes of malls and the stores that populate them, many analysts seem to be predicting a freaky, post-apocalyptic future in which all clothes will be purchased online or from Wal-Mart.

Before we go overboard, though, it might be wise to consider the current fortunes of H&M. Listed on the Swedish Exchange as HMB, H&M's shares have been consistently rising, and its first-quarter profit is up by 28%. In fact, even as many clothing retailers are closing stores, H&M is planning to open 190 outlets in the United States and Europe. It already is running profitable stores in China and the Middle East, and is planning on opening stores in Russia starting in 2009.

H&M's secret is surprisingly obvious: it sells well-made, nicely-tailored clothing at very reasonable prices. Its stores are clean and well-run, its employees are knowledgeable, and its styles are up-to-date. In fact, for considerably less than the cost of a baggy, ill-fitting suit from JC Penney, I can buy a matched-separates pair of pants and jacket from H&M. Its clothes fit well, wear well, and don't carry the stigma that is attached to most department stores.

Good prices, good service, good product ... it isn't hard to see why H&M is gearing up to be the last one standing!

For me, one of the most interesting things about reading through the financial pages of the newspaper has been the realization that America's economic situation, both in good times and bad, is not a pre-ordained matter of fate. While economic processes, the intervention of various governmental organizations, and good old supply and demand all play their part in determining the direction of the nation, these forces are also not the whole story. A large chunk of the economy can also be tacked up to the personalities of its big players. For example, the failure of Silverado Savings and Loan in the late 1980's was due in no small part to Neil Bush (by the way, we're still paying for the bailout, which was estimated to have cost the American taxpayers $1 billion). Similarly, the Savings and Loan crisis was itself fueled by the amazing Michael Milken, whose ability to "restructure" debt made him the poster boy for 1980's greed. And, after all, who can deny the importance of Ivan Boesky when it comes to demonstrating the seductive nature of insider trading? While it is unreasonable to lay any economic boom or bust at a single person's door, there is no doubt that individuals can strongly influence the economy, both for good and for ill.

Warren Buffett

One person that I've been researching lately is Warren Buffett. The CEO and largest shareholder of Berkshire Hathaway, he is currently listed as the richest person in the world. On the surface, Buffett's business strategy is amazingly simple: he believes in so-called "value investing," in which he finds companies that are undervalued, purchases significant amounts of their stock, and holds on to it until the market comes to its senses and values the company more highly. Of course, while Buffett's strategy is simple in concept, it requires a great deal of financial knowledge and economic muscle to make it work.

What's really gotten to me about Buffett is his surprisingly egalitarian stances on pretty much everything. Although he is almost incalculably wealthy, he chooses to stay in Omaha, where he famously lives in the same house that he has occupied for almost fifty years. His salary is only $100,000, which is low for a senior executive in a holding company; for somebody with Buffett's skills and knowledge base, it borders on the ridiculous. In fact, as Buffett has repeatedly noted, under the current income tax system, he pays far less in taxes than many of his employees.

During summer and winter breaks from college, I used to work in a Williams-Sonoma, Inc (NYSE: WSM) store in my local mall. As a moderately eloquent speaker and the only guy in the joint, I managed to make quite a few sales, particularly among the key "25-40 year old, vaguely unsatisfied married female" demographic that made up most of the store's customers. One day, as my father waited for me to get off work, he watched me talk a wealthy, sour-faced housewife into buying a $49 grape drainer. Shaking his head at my salesmanship, he wondered aloud how I could convince someone to shell out a pocketful of cash for what was essentially a porcelain bowl with holes in the bottom. I couldn't really answer him and, to this day, I wonder how Williams-Sonoma manages to market its wares, many of which are amazingly useless.

In the fourth quarter of 2007, Williams-Sonoma's profit rose almost 3%, but its first-quarter same-store 2008 profits are expected to fall by between 6% and 8.5%. The store is blaming its flagging sales on the real-estate slump. While it seems reasonable to expect that people would be disinclined to buy home goods when they're having a hard time covering their mortgage payments, Williams-Sonoma is missing the big picture. In addition to its position as a major player in the home decor market, W-S is also a luxury brand store and a narrow-focus mall retailer. Both of these types of stores are facing serious problems in the current economy, one for its inflated prices and the other for its lack of diversity. Consumers looking for kitchen implements are probably inclined to go to Lechters, which is a lot cheaper, or Wal-Mart and Target, both of which have a much wider selection of merchandise. If Williams-Sonoma wants to weather this storm, it should probably follow the lead of its Pottery Barn subsidiary and start cutting its prices. In the current economy, it's hard to imagine someone shelling out $49 for a grape drainer!

As a former English teacher, I can't count the times that I had to listen to a student complain about the "relevance" of this book or that book. I usually tried to explain how literature affects culture and books change the world. I only wish that I'd thought to check out Scholastic Corporation's finances.

On Thursday, citing a tough economy, Scholastic Corporation stated that its expectations for the forthcoming year were somewhat dark. This, combined with a considerable quarterly loss, led to a 13.5% drop in its stock value, leaving it at $30.69 per share. Today, it dropped slightly more, and is currently at $30.25.

I have fond memories of reading Scholastic's books when I was a kid, and I certainly don't like to see the company in pain. However, as an author, I have to admit a certain amount of wondrous amazement at the situation currently unfolding. You see, Scholastic's dire predictions for 2008 center around the fact that it will not have a "Harry Potter" book to give its sales a shot of adrenalin.

Reading the newspaper, there are times when I wonder if certain companies are actually trying to fail. Recently, the Ford Motor Company (NYSE: F) announced plans to sell its Jaguar and Land Rover brands to Tata, an Indian car company. While Ford paid $5.2 billion for the two companies ($2.5 billion for Jaguar in 1989 and $2.7 billion for Land Rover in 2000), it has sold them for a combined $1.7 billion, less than a third of the purchase price.

I don't really have anything against Ford. I once owned a Mustang convertible, which was a lot of fun to drive. Better yet, it was not that hard to work on, which proved helpful given its tendency toward constant technical problems. However, Ford's corporate governance has never been all that hot. I'm sure that there's a perfectly reasonable explanation for the fact that Ford hasn't been able to make money off of either of these impressive brands, but I wonder why the company spent money picking up luxury marques when it was on somewhat shaky footing. Now that they've gotten rid of these two great companies, I hope that Ford will focus on the problems with its main car lines and the fact that they are gas-guzzling, poorly-designed, and prone to technical problems.

Of course, if that fails, they can always try buying Fiat and then reselling it to an Ethiopian manufacturer.

Every so often, when time and the environment take their toll, my wife goes shopping for a new purse. Although she avoids heavily labeled items, she is occasionally tempted by the rows of fake Prada, Louis Vuitton, and Gucci purses offered by our local sidewalk-based merchant. While designers might disagree, my wife (like many others) sees cheap bags as a harmless bit of fun, a little bit of playful fake prestige that she can pick up for less than the price of a steak.

Last year, however, a Canadian con artist was accused of expanding the repertoire of imitation Guccis, offering fake stock options in the the Gucci Group. Claiming that he was a member of the Gucci board and was tasked with creating an influx of cash, Timothy Khan sold over $7 million in nonexistent Gucci stock in 1995. By 1996, the investor who had purchased the counterfeit stock was demanding that Khan sell it. Offering a variety of excuses, backed up by a variety of seemingly official documents, Khan held on to the investor's money for a further eleven years. On March 19, Khan pled guilty to two counts of securities fraud and wire fraud. Each count carries a maximum sentence of twenty years in jail, and Khan's sentencing is set for June and will be held in Manhattan federal court.

Suddenly, a $20 knockoff purse doesn't seem like such a big deal!

Recently, TiVO (NASDAQ: TIVO) announced a partnership with Google (NASDAQ: GOOG) that is likely to massively expand both its own viewership and that of Google's YouTube. Apparently, TiVo has plans to make it possible for YouTube subscribers to view their videos directly on their televisions. Viewers will access their YouTube accounts from their TiVo boxes and will be able to create and display customized playlists.

On the one hand, this seems like a masterstroke. After all, I can't count the number of times that I've found myself with a group of friends clustered around a tiny little computer screen, watching a commercial from the sixties, a film trailer, or a segment of Saturday Night Live. Half the joy of finding these little gems is sharing them with friends and loved ones, and that's a lot easier to do on a huge screen.

On the other hand, YouTube videos tend to be very small and have low-resolution, which makes them ideal for the internet. They can be quickly and easily uploaded, and the miniscule viewing area of the average computer screen makes their poor resolution a minor problem. However, transferring these tiny videos to a 32-inch television screen will render them practically unviewable. I have a crystal-clear vision of nostalgia-hounds and techno-geeks around the country squinting at televisions while asking themselves if they're looking at images of an Elliot Spitzer press conference or footage of a giant boob. The answer, of course, is what's the difference?

(I know, cheap shot!).

Developers are already preparing what is sure to be a veritable Aladin's cave of extras and I imagine that they will address this problem in one way or another, but it's hard to get beyond the fact that YouTube, for all its wondrousness, might be limited to one type of venue.

Bruce Watson is a freelance writer, blogger, and all-around cheapskate. YouTube has already cost him thousands of man-hours worth of work (and counting).

A few days ago, I wrote a little post about Saks (NYSE: SKS) and Neiman Marcus, in which I suggested that stores that focus on high-end luxury items were likely to be the first victims in a recession. The reasoning for this is simple: when consumers have less money to spend, they are unlikely to waste it on expensive prestige purchases. As Sharper Image sorts out the details of its closure, and luxury retailers try to figure out how to deal with the evaporation of their consumer base, small stores are starting to experience major problems.

On February 16, Wilson's Leather announced that it intends to close 160 of its 260 mall stores. Having worked at Wilson's for a brief period in the early 1990's, I can attest that this is definitely not the first time that the retailer has had problems; in fact, store closings are practically a stock-in-trade for the company. However, Wilson's is merely highlighting what many analysts believe is going to become a trend among American businesses: the closure of small retailers.

Wilson's, of course, has always been particularly vulnerable. As a specialty leather retailer, they only sell one type of item, and the popularity of that item is closely tied to the seasons. With the exception of motorcyclists and fetishists, most people aren't particularly interested in buying a leather jacket in July. Moreover, Wilson's stock is specifically targeted to middle-income consumers: sturdily constructed and priced at a discount, Wilson's jackets are also somewhat boxy and not particularly sleek. Unfortunately, middle-income consumers are among those most directly affected by the rising costs of gas, food, and consumer products.

While Wilson's might be among the first companies to feel the crunch of the recession (or, if you prefer, "reduced consumer confidence and, incidentally, reduced spending"), it will probably not be the last. Specialty stores and boutiques are probably looking at a tough year. "Mall" stores like Ann Taylor (NYSE: ANN), American Eagle (NYSE: AEO), Sephora, The Gap (NYSE: GPS), and PacSun (NASDAQ: PSUN) tend to pay premium prices for their spaces, have a rather limited range of stock, and charge more money for their products. All of this adds up to a vulnerable position when it comes to reduced consumer spending. Add in the fact that, ever since the late 1990's, malls have been declining as centers of commerce, and you've got a recipe for disaster. In fact, some analysts are predicting that retail bankruptcies this year could reach the highest level since 1991.

As for the next domino, if the current trends in mall shopping and small business problems continue, I'd watch out for a major downturn among Mall property management companies.

For anybody who's been following the downfall of Sharper Image, there seems to be a pretty obvious lesson: when people are worrying about the rising cost of food and are scrimping to fill their gas tanks, high-priced doodads and assorted electronic gewgaws are the first things to go. The next things, of course, are luxury goods.

Saks Fifth Avenue (NYSE: SKS)and Neiman-Marcus, two of the bigger high-end retailers, reported massive quarterly profit gains in the end of 2007, but are now acknowledging that their gains have reduced considerably in 2008. Obviously, part of this is the standard post-Christmas drop, but there has also been a significant slowdown in year-to-year growth. In 2008, Saks is anticipating a minor increase over 2007's sales, but a slight decrease in gross margin.

Part of this is due to a reduction in expenditures by "aspirational shoppers," or people who can't really afford super-luxe items, but occasionally buy them anyway. What's particularly interesting, though, is that super-rich customers are also cutting back on their purchases, a trend that some analysts attribute to a contagious feeling of economic worry. In other words, the overall belief that the economy is approaching a recession is reducing spending even among people for whom the economic slowdown isn't a pressing concern. In light of this trend, Saks' stock price has dropped from almost $21 in the beginning of the year to under $13.

In this context, it looks like the next year will be tough for manufacturers and importers of high-end luxury items. After all, if the people who can actually pay top dollar are cutting back, what will happen to the people for whom luxuries are a splurge?