Burning the Consumer

Liz Pullam Weston is pulling no punches. She begins her column today with "The Bankruptcy law from two years ago should be renamed the Drive More People into Bankruptcy Act of 2005." She notes that creditors seized on the tighter bankruptcy laws "to crank their wide-open spigots even wider" so that revolving debt per household rose at a real rate of 4.6%, the steepest increase in five years.

Teaser mortgages are creating a mess, but if the consumer starts to melt, it will be widely held credit card debt that are fueling the fires.

During their very expensive lobbying campaign to get the bankruptcy bill passed, the credit industry and their friends in Congress repeatedly said that bankruptcy laws affected creditor behavior. But they spun a different tale, claiming that then-current bankruptcy laws were costing every American family $400 in increased credit costs, so most Americans could save money if the bill passed. Two years later, what do credit card customers have? Not a $400 rebate. Instead, we got more credit at higher prices--with higher short-term profits for the companies.

Now it looks like the American consumer is on the financial ropes. Debt loads are up, and so are defaults. Spending is coming down. There are a lot of causes for this trouble, and lots of need for change in the mortgage markets. But let's never forget the role of the credit cards. If the consumer collapses, there will be plenty of blame to spread around, but keep in mind the credit card industry and the legislation it pushed through Congress.


Comments (78)

Helping the creditors doesn't seem to have helped the creditors, much less the debtors.

There are no quick fixes, since there is so much structural deformation in the system.

avatar
Helping the creditors doesn't seem to have helped the creditors

Are you kidding? Credit cards are making record profits. Which is giving them lots of cash to buy low once the markets bottom. They're going to love this recession.

The housing bubble collapse is also going to be a long term win for the hyper wealthy, if they can stave off political reform. It's a high stakes gamble, but if they can prevent political, financial markets, regulatory, and monetary supply reform, they simply have to shelter wealth elsewhere until the US market hits bottom and then buy back in at fire sale prices. Then inflate another bubble. Rinse and repeat.

Who is actually absorbing most of those losses? The hardest hit will be mom+pop investors like pensions. So long as the middle class takes a proportionally larger loss then hyper wealthy investors, they've increased their relative share of the US economy, which in real terms is still worth the same.

I chose a poor wordplay, I guess. I meant that groups like Merrill-Lynch or Citigroup were posting losses, after the GOP had graced them with lower tax rates.

You're not wrong. Neither is he. The credit card guys are doing great but let's face it, there are very few pureplay credit card companies out there.

Most are diversified and might have made more money under the old bankruptcy laws. Everyone's doing great on credit cards but they've got other lines of business that might have been more valuable to protect.

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

avatar

Well, not everybody at Merrill-Lynch and Citigroup had a bad year last year:

E. Stanley O’Neal, the former chief executive of Merrill Lynch, collected a severance package worth some $161 million, after losing his job in October. Merrill Lynch wrote down some $20 billion in subprime debt during the fourth quarter of 2007, and saw its value reduced by some 43 percent.

Charles O. Prince II, the former CEO of Citigroup, which announced similar losses, will walk away with some $68 million.

The short-term mentality of Wall Street, and the clubbiness of corporate compensation committees are the big elephants in the room; nobody at that level wants to talk about it, because they are all elephants-in-training. What happens to the mice they step on is somebody else's problem.

This was on Bloomberg today. Essentially the argument is that even the hardest hit major banks were not necessarily unprofitable last year:

Commentary by John M. Berry

Jan. 22 (Bloomberg) -- With all the large writedowns and losses announced for the fourth quarter, hardly any attention is being paid to just how profitable U.S. banks really are.
[...]
Even Citigroup Inc., by far the hardest hit of the big U.S. banks by subprime-related problems, earned $3.62 billion last year. That was with a $9.83 billion fourth-quarter net loss and more than $22 billion in writedowns and additions to loan-loss reserves.

For JPMorgan Chase & Co., the third-biggest U.S. bank, the focus was on the 34 percent drop in fourth-quarter profits from a year earlier. Its full-year $15.4 billion profit, a record, was largely ignored. So were the bank's record annual revenue of $71.4 billion and its record earnings per share of $4.38.

Bank of America Corp., the nation's second largest, plans to report earnings today. Analysts surveyed by Bloomberg estimate that the bank was profitable in the fourth quarter, as well as the full year.


"To save your world you asked this man to die; Would this man, could he see you now, ask why?" W.H. Auden

avatar

Credit cards are making record profits.

They have been, but you know...

Profit warning from two weeks ago:

Capital One Financial Corp., the largest independent U.S. credit-card issuer, said fourth-quarter profit was 44 percent below analysts' estimates as more borrowers failed to repay their debts.

Capital One announces its results today.

avatar

What's in your wallet?

Unpaid bills.

avatar

I tried to contact my retirement thing about trying to get some of that money back, 'cause I'm broke, and I really don't want to play the welfare/unemployment game, and that was about a week ago, now, that I contacted them, and I haven't heard back. Last statement said it was down 1k from the previous statement, I don't remember the date on the last one, but I'm kind of wondering how much money there really is in it anymore. I have my suspicions, anyway.

We're getting milked dry by these bastards, and that's all there really is to it. Now, what are the other options? Hmmm...

avatar

What else is new?

avatar

Lets assume the democrats win the presidency and both houses. Will they reverse the recent Bankruptcy Act? Keep pitching, Elizabeth, a lot of people in positions of authority read TPMcafe. Maybe the outrageously unfair Bankruptcy "reform" won't go to the back burner. It was "reformed", lets reform it again, only this time in a way that goes 100 miles in the other direction.

I just don't think that they will. Well, Edwards would have tried. But probably not Hillary and Obama. Remember, there were Democrats involved in the passage of the bankruptcy reform. One of them, Joe Biden, even ran for president despite his vote and though he didn't do well he was never criticized for his bankruptcy vote on the campaign trail. Not even a little.

The Democrats won't make an issue out of it. Only way it changes is if the banks realize they were wrong and lobby for the law to be changed back. Which I also doubt will happen.

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com


you gotta be kidding! edwards supported HR 833 and voted for S.420. at some point, edwards decided to turn himself into a populist and, thus, reinvented his "public image" even though, privately, he had "subprime investments" which "he knew nothing about it."

To boldly go...

But let's never forget the role of the credit cards. If the consumer collapses, there will be plenty of blame to spread around.

but only a portion of the country would believe your spin since "guns don't kill, people do."

To boldly go...

avatar

I wonder how much negative-equity can be attributed to cash-out refinancing. I wonder how many foreclosures happened to people who consolidated high-interest credit card debts into one, low, tax-deductible monthly payment. I bet lots.

Wouldn't it be ironic if the greed of bankers' credit card divisions came full circle to wipe out their home mortgage divisions?

If the history of bankruptcy reform is any guide, bank lobbyists will launch an Astroturf movement for foreclosure reform. Deadbeat homeowners must not be allowed to walk away from their homes, without paying for the sports cars, vacations and lavish parties that they irresponsibly charged against their equity.

The Gods of Personal Responsibility must be appeased once more, just as soon as the Republicans and Joe LieberBiden get back into power!

avatar

It took me 2 1/2 years to pay off all my plastic and close it out. Never again. I hope they enjoyed their yacht payments, from now on they have to make those by themselves.

Friends don't let friends pack bad plastic...

way to go! the best way to send the "credit card industry" a message is to get more and more people to pay their FULL balance on time!

To boldly go...

I'm just curious, we here in America think the economic world revolves around us right? It's the Earth is the center of all before Galileo. But why? Why are we so important? Because we buy more 'stuff'? That's the reason I've heard. Of course that plays into the huge trade deficit but whatever, right?

But that leads us to now. We are broke. We're in debt up to our eyebrows. Who can buy anything? The rich? They are nervous & would rather pillage the institutions of the poor but those are burning to the ground. Sure, there's still some credit floating around out there. I have some myself but they can kiss my rear end if they think I'm going to use it. So what happens to the whole big picture when Americans are no longer willing or able to buy more? What happens when the engine seizes up?

I see foreign markets bouncing back today...so far. Good for you all, the rich feel better for now. 3/4 pts is certainly a big deal. But our infrastructure is rotten to the core. The stone has little blood left. How much more bad credit can these lenders give to the people here who have nothing left? I smell temporary. It's only a matter of time before the snowball starts rolling downhill again. It snagged on a tree but it's still a long way to the village & that's exactly where it's headed.

I hate to be a doomsayer but seriously? People are already in debt for life. Where do we go from here? Is St. Peter going to be checking credit scores at the Pearly Gates? Do they allow Americans to take debt into the afterlife & count that as a profitable new market oportunity? Speculation & greed economics apparently leads to a hand full of nothing but empty promises & bad loans. We now make nothing but we do buy everything 'on credit'. Someone has to pay sometime... Here's the tab... Oh $hit, you said you'd get this one right?

Please someone MSG me and explain how I just don't 'get it' and it's all just a hickup. Tell me how it's all working just fine and how it's all going to be OK. Oh and if you know, tell me where the magic lamp is so I can give it a rub or two & get my wish in there too. As far as I know there are only a few things in the universe that are infinite. And none of them involve money or debt (at least not in reality).

The sun has & will burn for ages. It will burn until it's out of fuel. Our economy's fuel seems to be shopping. But we seem to be out of shopping fuel. No home. No healthcare. No savings. No credit. What fuel do we, the masses, have left? As I said, please tell me how I'm just not getting it and it's all fine. I want to wake up & feel the sky's the limit, I really do. But there has to be a line, otherwise screw all this noise I'm just going to charge the hi-life then charge some more and simply say my great grandkids will pay for it (& I still have no kids!)... Pass the champagne & let's watch the universe revolve around us!

avatar

Re: It's a high stakes gamble, but if they can prevent political, financial markets, regulatory, and monetary supply reform, they simply have to shelter wealth elsewhere until the US market hits bottom and then buy back in at fire sale prices.

Except that there's no place safe right now. If they parked their money in foreign markets they just got burned big time Monday and there's more where that came from. Recessions generally fleece the rich (of course they can afford it; they will not end up in soup kitchens). They took a bath in 2001 and will get keelhauled this year too.

Re: I wonder how many foreclosures happened to people who consolidated high-interest credit card debts into one, low, tax-deductible monthly payment.

Foreclosures occur when first mortgages go bad. If a home equity line goes into default there's little incentive for the creditor to foreclosure (though legally he can) since the first mortgage holder will get the proceeds of the foreclosure sale with little or nothing left over for the second, especially nowadays with property prices dropping. Second mortgage and HELOC defaults generally end up in collections same as credit card debts.

I would like to suggest to these people who believe this BS that the old BK law was costing them $400.00 write to credit card co's and tell them to stop sending thier offers of new credit to the newly bankrupt.

As someone who filed close to three years ago, I can truthfully say if I had saved all those offers I would have enough to wall paper a room!
The offers have slowed down, but just this week I got two offers from Washington Mutual.
Capital One was sending me tons of offers even before the meeting of the trustee's . One day I got two offers in the mail from them!

Enough is enough! Responsibility is a two way street!

avatar

You are not really getting credit card offers--you are getting an invitation to be considered for an offer. You get these mostly because you meet some geographic profile or because the credit company bought a list (from the credit reporting agencies--which is really how they make their money) and you fit their profile at the time the list was purchased or the last offer they sent wasn't returned. Very often the marketing department does not directly communicate with the collections department.

I was in a class on sub-prime lending and one of the activities we did was to save up our credit card invites over the 6 weeks of the course. We then charted them according to zip code and crossed it with credit scores. Credit scores made no difference. Those in more affluent zip codes received more offers--hands down.

There are also credit scoring algorithms that do a very good job of predicting accounts that might go into bankruptcy even if their score is low. A prior bankruptcy is often not that big of a factor and creditors find that people who are desperate for any kind of credit will take whatever terms they can get.

Remember, those credit card "invites" are just bait and switch. Yes. Recent bankruptees can and do find willing lenders--but the interest rates and terms are of course skewed to favor the lender.

Recent bankruptees can and do find willing lenders
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Of course they do! They need go no farther than their mailbox!

avatar

I've paid off and cancelled my last credit card for this lifetime. I'll start planting rutabegas before I do that to myself again.

avatar

I knew a person who was unemployed and after a bancruptcy, and after getting some offer decided what the heck and went for vacations in Argentina with his wife for which he was not able to pay.

And later he still had another credit card.

The fact is that his situation was very atypical: an unemployed engineer close to retirement age with some modest foreign inheritance where he planned to retire. This means that he could make a calculated decision to risk no future credit whatsoever.

Normally, people struggle before they go bancrupt and the interest rates are so usurious that exactly the struggling folks are most profitable -- they are the ones paying interest and fees. People who are good risk avoid fees and repay credit card quickly, not much profit there. By the way of contrast, a person struggling with say, 10k in credit card debt paying it off in, say, 2 years, would pay more that 2k of interest during those 2 years, 75% of which is above the cost of funds to the bank, and I am trying to count the overhead: 4-5% cost of funds, 25% interests, a lot of room to suffer occasional default and post profit.

Because people barely making it are so lucrative customers, it pays to have a mix of those who are barely able to cope with those who cannot. And if you are lucky and smart, you can be in the blind spot of the predicting formulae. For example, by paying all other bills on time.

The Obvious Solution


The obvious solution to all our current financial markets woes is, of course, more deregulation, more lobbyists with fat checkbooks and pre-written bills to pass, and don't forget the bigger tax breaks for the poor ailing industry!

And that is a brief synopsis of my very modest proposal.

avatar

The tax breaks for the rich are supposed to improve the economy by 1. increasing spending on investment goods and 2. providing more business and jobs.

But the investment spending is never more than 20% of GDP, which is why consumer spending has been supporting the economy since 2000 and why Greenspan kept lowering interest rates, encouraging ARMs, and ignoring the lack of underwriting standards just to get the consumer money into the economy. Bush would not have been reelected in 2004 had Greenspan not pumped up the economy to keep him out of Recession.

But back to the tax cuts. American firms have been swimming in cash they couldn't find good investments since the dot com bust. They don't need additional investment funds! In fact, they can't use them. The predicted demand that is needed to justify investment simply isn't there. It's demand that drives the economy, not investment.

So sensible investors will place any tax breaks where they get the highest return. That's outside the U.S., creating jobs to take more American jobs overseas.

Tax breaks for the rich are not a stimulus to the economy. They will destroy it further.

But you know that, don't you. The bankers sure do.

So sensible investors will place any tax breaks where they get the highest return. That's outside the U.S., creating jobs to take more American jobs overseas.

Well said! I would only add that "sensible investors will place any money they can borrow from the Fed at ridiculously low interest rates where they get the highest return."

Developing economies are risky; investors in those economy's capital goods require a high rate of return. As our rates fall the high rates required by investors in developing economies also come down making those economies even more competitive with American industry. Result: more outsourcing and more lost jobs.

Lower interest rates? TINSTAAFL

We're gonna stimulate China's economy so they can afford to continue financing Bush's war!

Let's look at some fundamentals, shall we?

Trade deficit - what single commodity is the largest part of our trade deficit? Did you say oil? Give that person a gold star! How to counter that? Invest in alternatives instead of tax breaks for corporate oil! Result? Stronger economy

Tax breaks - Who got the large tax breaks? Did you say the very wealthy and corporations? Damn, you're smart! What is the result? Deficit spending so more money goes to paying interest instead of something useful. Borrowing on our kids and grandkids as Perot put it. How to fix it? Get rid of the damn tax breaks and do it "Biblically" as in " to whom much is given, much is expected." :-) Paid off national debt equals stronger economy and more financial security for most Americans along with more bang for each tax dollar. Too simple for DC, eh?

This could go on and on but I think you get the picture. If Eisenhower could have a top tax rate of 90%+ then we could have 75%+, eh?

One more thing. War not only kills lots of innocents and ruins lives but it's also darn expensive. Hear that Congress? Bring 'em home and call it a stimulus.

avatar

The reason for the war in or armed occupation of Iraq is to demonstrate to the world that America is still a nation that has effective international power. The problem is, the only power America still has is military. That's why so damned much money is focused on our military. That's why we spend more money on military power than all the rest of the world put together. It is all we have left after "winning" the Cold War.

The long Cold War destroyed both the competitive effectiveness of the economies of the USSR and of America. That competition, the one we call the Cold War,was essentially a competition between two Empires. The giveaway is the degree to which military power was used as opposed to economic production.

We outlasted the USSR so that they simply stopped military competition - that was because the economic cost was too high. By the time they gave up the competition, though, America's economy was unable to compete economically with those of Europe, Japan, and South Korea, and as we can see now, China and India were coming on strong.

But instead of refocusing on international economic competition, America has continued on into the last stage of Empire and has financialized the economy. We have, like the British before us as their Empire came apart, focused on international financial competition and exported our productive economy to other nations that can do the job better. Of course other nations can produce goods more effectively and cheaply than America can. They don't have the albatross of the hyper-expensive military hanging around their necks.

Gorbachev and the USSR figured that out before the Americans did and simply dismantled their militarized economy. We "won" the Cold War, so we didn't make the shift back to a productive economy. We still have our military albatross. Does anyone doubt that America would once again be the most productive economy in the world if we simply took half the military budget and spent it on universal health care and lifetime education of America workers?

The conservatives won't do that, though, because they like the military top-down social model that America had to adopt as a militarized society. Focusing America's resources on our most productive element, our labor, removes the control that the wealthy and the powerful maintain in a militarized society. Conservatives don't trust giving power to the people. They want power and control to remain with the elite - which is the character of a militarized society.

That's why Bush forced the Congress to eliminated the portions of the stimulus package that were planned for expanded food stamps and extended unemployment benefits and instead demanded that $70 billion of the $150 billion be redirected to investors. Anyone notice that the year-end executive bonuses to executives in money-losing banks and other financial institutions - the very institutions whose poor practices have caused much of the current credit crisis - have totaled over $30 billion? The government isn't providing stimulus until after it taxes Americans and uses that money to pay "bonuses" to the very executives who have caused much of the current financial problems?

That's not stimulus. That's fraud and theft. But that's what the conservatives have to do to maintain the current militarized anti-democratic social structure that America has been saddled with after "winning" the Cold War.

Once upon a time we Americans were secure behind our oceans, but Pearl Harbor and the Russians' A-Tests put paid to all that.  We will always yearn for that sense of security we once had and will pay almost anything to recover (maintain?) it.

We Americans will never willing give up our dominant military; it's been bred in our bones.  

 

avatar

We are rapidly nearing the point where we will not be able to continue to pay for the military we want. That time will come when the international value of the dollar collapses and the rest of the world decides that it costs too much to bail us out.

It's going to take a while though. The group of dollar-nations (those with large investments in dollar-denominated assets and those whose currency is pegged to the dollar) will have to have shifted their investments away from those dollar-denominated assets and their trade to other nations. They're going to have to do that slowly to avoid causing a run on the dollar.

We'll know it has happened when OPEC officially stops using the petrodollar, as Iran has done and Venezuela is threatening. The other thing is that industrial exporting nations need reliable markets outside the U.S. Those will be Europe, China, India, and possibly Brazil.

I give the trade shift about a decade, but our recession will speed it up somewhat as we can no longer afford to import as much as before. Our exports will increase, but not enough to make up for the increased price of imported oil and the high expense of rebuilding and operating our military forces. The oil costs of operating 13 carrier task forces must be staggering, but of course no one is going to tell us how much.

After all that gets too expensive and the Euro takes over as the world currency we go the way of Great Britain after the Empire, or we go economically the way of Argentina.

avatar

What are they paying army privates now, 419k/week?

avatar

It costs something in the range of $10,000 to provide the equipment required by a single infantryman going into combat today. $110,000 for an infantry squad, plus radios. At that cost they walk to battle and don't move after getting there. And that's about the best bargain in warfare. Everything else costs even more.

avatar

10k for what, the laser-guided toilet paper rolls? What a cash cow this war is...war profiteering run amok.

avatar

Re: After all that gets too expensive and the Euro takes over as the world currency we go the way of Great Britain after the Empire, or we go economically the way of Argentina.


The Euro will not take over the world: it's too unstable and lacks the political apparatus a currency needs. After the dollar's reign there will be simply no dominant currency.

That's not stimulus. That's fraud and theft. But that's what the conservatives have to do to maintain the current militarized anti-democratic social structure that America has been saddled with after "winning" the Cold War.

I called my senator-- norm coleman, and asked his office why the stimulus bill would want to "guarantee" fraudulant loans that were "high" because of false appraisals and doctored documents.

His office told me: "no fraud happened, the current mess only has to do with the subprime meltdown."

I suppose that if "fraud" was admitted, the loan documents would become illegal and the government couldn't pay them off.

yikes! talk about being blind to moral hazzards just to "bail out" the rich.

To boldly go...

avatar

But back to the tax cuts. American firms have been swimming in cash they couldn't find good investments since the dot com bust. They don't need additional investment funds! In fact, they can't use them. The predicted demand that is needed to justify investment simply isn't there. It's demand that drives the economy, not investment.

Thank you, thank you, thank you!!!

I'm not an economist. But from my layman's view of the world, I have for several years now been asking myself, when a handful of people already have more money than they know what to do with, and the system continues to be gamed to send an ever higher proportion of it their way...what do they do with it? I mean, at some point, there's no industry or business to invest in because the money supply circulating in the rest of economy doesn't allow consumers to buy anything more. You can't sell cars if only a handful of people - those in the same category of wealth as yourself - can afford to buy them. And there's only so many cars any one person will buy.

And so, again from my layman's perspective, this is what fueled the real estate bubble...there wasn't anywhere else for investment funds to go but into mortgages, and with the historically low interest rates starting in 2002, pretty quickly the market of well-qualified buyers tapped out. Everything from then on out was driven by too many funds chasing too few solid investment opportunities. And so the standard for what is considered "solid" gets loosened up...

As to how to fix it, there I'm completely out of my depth. But it won't really get appreciably better so long as the huge and growing disparity in wealth persists.

avatar

New Harris Poll coming out today:
81% of Americans rate the current state of the country as fair or poor, and 81% say that plans to strengthen the economy are going poorly.

Will the Democrats take advantage of this sentiment, to change things? rrrightttt....


If history were taught in the form of stories, it would never be forgotten.
---Rudyard Kipling

avatar

What really gets to me is that the removal of usury laws, the tightening of the bankruptcy law, and the allowance of refinancing and second mortgages to extract cash from the inflation and low interest rate driven housing appreciation are all just banking ways to farm the poor and middle class for money.

The working and middle class are urged to spend, and the money comes from rising home prices because wages aren't going up. The mechanisms of the cash-farming are things like high-interest high-fee credit cards, sub-prime loans and student loans for the middle class and high-interest pay-day loans, sub-prime loans, super high interest rate loans on used cars, rapid refund loans that cost 500% annual rates on a loan that gets the money to a person two weeks earlier than the IRS would have, and so on.

The union busting program of the Reagan Revolution has made it possible for the economy to become more productive, but the additional profit from that productivity all goes to the wealthy.

American under the Reagan Revolution has become a nation in which the poor and middle classes are taxed and farmed for money to give to the banks and the super-wealthy.

Oh, and the deregulation of business and financial institutions during the Reagan Revolution has returned us to the boom and bust economy that characterized America from about 1870 to the Great Depression. During the booms the rich get richer, and during the busts the poor get poorer, but the rich do not suffer. The absence of universal health care accentuates the lowering of the life styles of the poor.

It's a system, planned to create a new vision of America. Welcome to the Latin American social model of a few very wealthy families surrounded by a lot of poor people and a struggling, small middle class.

When Condi Rice gives her speech that the American economy is strong and resilient, has she noticed that 70% of demand is consumer demand, and that since the failure of wages to rise along with productivity the only source of increased consumption has been rising home prices? Now that home prices will no longer rise, where does our economy get the demand that makes it function?

We are currently in a consumption-driven Recession, and the consumers have run out of new sources of funds to finance consumption. The structure of our economy is neither strong nor resilient. Instead it is the the design the Reagan Revolution has given us. Instead of competing with Europe and Japan, we are now competing with Mexico and Brazil.

The bankruptcy law was just one step in the new and defective structure of America's economy.

avatar

Living within your income seems to be an overlooked solution based on my review of the article and comments. We seem to have lost the concept of "responsibility" for our actions.

Having said the above, I have no love of any industry that can "buy" legislation at the congressional supermarket. This amounts to corporate welfare. We have become a nation of, by, and for the corporations.

Take the responsibility to live within your income.

"Living within your income" is a quaint but bygone concept. The more I hear this uttered the more puzzled I am that it's still used.

I understand what your aiming at with this (the simplistic idea that people's economic troubles are largely the result of their buying stuff they don't need or can't afford). But we live in different times and in a different sort of economy than when that sort of simplicity was applicable. If you really want to be honest about it, all of us that are not "wealthy" are living beyond our means. We're forced to. That's how our country works now. Most of us are in hopeless debt before we even hit the workforce and we then spend our entire lives simply trying not to sink too much further beneath the waves. And most of us fail. I'd be all for changing this crazy system but I'd have no idea where to really begin.

As I see it, we're all forced to live in a sea of debt and every few years we drift further and further from the shore as the cost of living rises and our incomes seem to stagnate or shrink. Most people will never own their homes. In fact many will now be lucky to even be allowed to stay in them. A college education now takes 20 years to pay off as we pretend that all those degrees are actually worth something. Talk about a bad return on an investment. We're forced to buy insanely expensive insurance policies for every conceivable disaster only to have the insurance companies try their damnedest to not pay us a dime when and if we actually need it. And a heartbreaking number of people can't afford healthcare and live one trip to the ER away from financial oblivion. And in the midst of all of this people buy creature comforts on credit because that's all they have. I personally see this as simply a sad attempt to numb the pain of this seemingly hopeless reality.

There is an even deeper and more sinister thing at work in all of this "irresponsible" consumerism though. This twisted economy in which we now reside needs all of the people to keep buying stuff they don't need or can't afford. It would flat line otherwise. What do you think the government expects people to do with that $600/$1200 checks - invest them, pay a few bills for one month or run to the store for a new flat screen TV and a newly released DVD or two? None of these strikes me as doing anything substantial for the economy in the long run. This just seems to be a "forget your troubles for a second" gesture. Some may pay a few bills but I'm betting (and so it the government) that most will opt with the last choice. And so a month after all those checks are spent people will be right back to where they are right now only they'll be watching a few new DVDs on a new flat screen TV while trying to forget that they'll always be "living beyond their means".

avatar

Well said.

Living beyond your means nowadays means paying healthcare premiums for your family, running 2 cars so you and your spouse can both get to work, buying groceries, clothes, and gas bills. It takes 2 incomes to do that, and I'm not talking about excess consumption.

This ain't your father's good old US of A.

avatar

Time for a reality check. To assert that one is forced to live beyond one's means implies a lack of economic understanding. Following this train of logic means that everyone will eventually declare bankruptcy.

You are also missing the obvious logic that carrying credit to live beyond your means actually deprives you of purchasing power. You buy a $1,000 product on credit at the usury rate of 24% - you end up paying, in a year, approximately $1,270. That's $270 more than you you would have had to pay had you saved the money first. One way or another you have to earn your money.

One cause on inflation is too much money chasing too few goods. Now, I am not going to claim to be an economist, but few people consider easy credit as a cause of inflation. My point, is that credit can act as a subsidy that allows the prices of certain goods, such as a house, to rise (inflate). We are currently going through a housing foreclosure crisis now because those who received loans are now finding that they cannot pay the debt.

It may seem counter intuitive, but if credit were harder to get, prices may not inflate as rapidly. This may mean that you would pay less for certain products, such as a house. Think of it this way, if a lender will only give you 80% of the price of a home you will fight harder for a lower price. Should a lender give you 100% of a loan, you might not fight as hard for a price reduction. In fact, you might even want to stretch to get a slightly better house. Now multiply this by the millions of consumers out there.

This foreclosure crisis of course has been exacerbated by corporate misconduct. It is unfortunate that corporate misconduct is forcing many homeowners into foreclosure.

Again, credit card companies have stacked the deck in their financial favor. The consumer, to quote Dirty Harry, has to know their limit.

but few people consider easy credit as a cause of inflation.

based on what I learned, that's the primary cause! i.e. when the fed lowers interest rates, the "multiple effect" goes up since more people have access to cheap dollars.

and, when those "cheap dollars" start to ripple through the economy, demand goes up and-- because of supply/demand, prices go up.

i.e. people are taught that it's good to increase the price each time a house is sold, for example, and that requires either cheap money (inflation) or rising wages-- which doesn't happen as broadly.

To boldly go...

"the simplistic idea that people's economic troubles are largely the result of their buying stuff they don't need or can't afford"

if you define "living within your means" like this then that's why it's unpowerful.

what I mean by "living within your means" is how mexican immigrants, for example, live one family per room in a 3 bedroom house. of course, most americans won't make this kind of sacrifice.

instead, they perfer to live in expensive sprawl that always keeps them in debt.

This [tax rebate] just seems to be a "forget your troubles for a second" gesture.

exactly. but remember: those who work at walmart (and similar places) only earn $200 a week; thus, the rebate will be appreciated.

And so a month after all those checks are spent people will be right back to where they are right now only they'll be watching a few new DVDs on a new flat screen TV while trying to forget that they'll always be "living beyond their means".

right; and for those who live "within thier means," it means "throw away the TV and use the time to build future wealth."

I never realized how much more I could do-- piano, spanish, exercise (I lost 80 lbs), "linear control systems," etc... by simply "getting rid of the TV."

if the cost of TV is $100 per month (cable + the cost of TV and DVD rentals), then I've saved about $6000 over the past 5 years!

To boldly go...

avatar

...and if you take that $100 a month and put it in the stock market for the next 20 years you will have almost $60,000. Are you doing that? If not, you not taking advantage of the OPPORTUNITY you have to acquire and accumulate appreciating assets.

yes; I have a SEP, Roth, traditional IRA and 401k.

my parents always told me: "pay your self first." that way, "when you feel poor," you'll stop spending but, because you paid yourself first, your nestegg got funded!

To boldly go...

avatar

Re: If you really want to be honest about it, all of us that are not "wealthy" are living beyond our means.


Nonsense. Apart from my car loan (whose payments I can easily afford) I have no debt at all. Certainly not credit card debt! And I am not rich. While I have nothing but sympathy for people who have gone into debt because of medical problems or other calamities, I really have trouble with this notion that you "have" to use credit cards just to survive. That sounds like an excuse for credit card junkies, and it's bullshit. I don't use my credit cards for anything except travel purchases-- and I pay off the balance at the end of the month when I do! And 40% of this country also survives without a regular plastic fix (that's the fraction of the population that has no credit card debt).

avatar

The American Veal Calf has been deliberately baited into a situation of unsustainability, destabilized to encourage 'more economic output'.
Well, Murkins are puttin' out like never before, but bottom line is that people are also getting systematically screwed out of their economic security, such as it might be, their homes, and living basically under the 1-paycheck threat, meaning if you don't get paid next month, everything goes away, and don't forget The Children. The economy, or Con Me, produces incredible revenue for the healthcare industry, the automotive industry, defense industry, let's see, oh, yeah, and for the government.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

I'm posting here simply because I want to address several people on once ;-)

Perhaps I wasn't as clear in my previous post as I thought I was. I did not for one moment mean to suggest in any way that people should live on their credit cards JPF. I for one got tangled up with them when I was in college. I unwisely used them to eat and help while paying my way through college (took all the money I had and then some). I'll never be using them unwisely again... As for that college tuition, I will finally be out from underneath it this year after 14-15 years of consolidations and repayment. In hindsight I've payed far more for that schooling than it ultimately was worth but that's how I goes I suppose. This is the nature of the debt I mention as being essentially unavoidable. Go to college = to into debt. I know you are older than I so I'm not sure what your educational burden was. But I'm sure mine was probably higher and kids attending now will pay more than either of us did. These are the "different times" variables I mentioned. I always think of car insurance. We're required by law to have it. They jack up your rates at any opportunity. And if you are ever in the situation where you need to use it they make getting your settlement more traumatic than the accident itself. There's just something not right in that being "the way things are".

The way I see it debt and it's exploitation are now very important components of our nation's economy. Much more important than manufacturing is now. And there is certainly room for blame to be assigned to people that abuse their credit cards (or in my mind use them at all - I prefer my debit card... basically paying cash). But some due credit should be assigned to the system we're now forced to live within and to those who manipulate it to their benefit and our detriment.

Now Steve, I too am not anything remotely resembling an economist. If possible I'm even less than none at all. Some of what you've said makes plenty of sense. But I am a little troubled by your language (not to be overly sensitive) because I feel it tells a little of your ultimate position. I could of course be complete wrong here.

This foreclosure crisis of course has been exacerbated by corporate misconduct. It is unfortunate that corporate misconduct is forcing many homeowners into foreclosure.

Unfortunate is a word used to describe a particularly bad haircut. It is not a word I personally would use to describe "corporate misconduct" which now results in destroyed lives. It's this kind of language which contributed to the overall impression I received from reading your posts that felt a bit like - manipulating businesses, that's life / consumer victims (saps), have themselves to blame for it all. I may have been reading more into your posts than was there and if so I apologize. But in using the word unfortunate and framing this as you did here it does paint a far less damning picture of the real criminals in this poor economic climate while making sure to target those who are suffering (admittedly in some cases they deserve a disparaging eye) .

As I've said now, I do not mean to suggest there is no individual responsibility but I would simply like to make sure that we also include all of the other relevant variables and not forget those who happily exploit these people and situations when we are having our conversations. I am personally more inclined to blame the con man over the sucker/sap. But I think there's plenty of fault to go around! ;-)

I called my senator's office and asked his staff about investigating "the fraud" in the "housing crash" and was told that it was only "a bad lending standards problem" so no criminal investigations are needed.

so the bad guys stay free.

i.e. this is an Enronish mess that "can't be investigated" since the rich survive off the underlying corruption.

To boldly go...

avatar

Re: Go to college = to into debt. I know you are older than I so I'm not sure what your educational burden was. But I'm sure mine was probably higher and kids attending now will pay more than either of us did.


I graduated in 1992-- without a penny in debt. And no, my family was not rich. And I went to the Univ of Mich, not a cheap school
How did I do it?
I did not start college until I was almost 21 (after working since I was 18).
Therefore I was no longer classed as a dependent of my father's. My financial aid package was based on my own (very slender) resources only. My grants (I refused to do loans) were adequete to pay for my tuition (which was in-state) all four years. I also worked c. 30 hours a week to meet my other expenses. I sure the hell did NOT use a credit card to live! Even at 21 I knew that was a very bad idea. Of course I missed out on a lot of partying because my life was taken up with work and school, but sometimes you have to make those trade-offs. So at least in 1992 that was feasible. I couldn't say about now of course. Still, I would advise anyone to avoid credit running up card unless it's literally a matter of life and death (and even then it's better to simply owe medical bills outright, rather than charging them on a card. )

avatar

=== So at least in 1992 that was feasible. I couldn't say about now of course. ===
College tuition at schools equivalent to U of M have doubled to tripled in real terms (more in dollars) since 1992. IMHO this is a deliberate process designed to knock out the the lower- and middle- middle classes from the ladder. I am not saying the strategy you used is impossible today, but it is much more difficult. If you go down one or two levels in the quality/reputation/networking rating of a college it can still be done as you describe - but then again going down those two levels makes it that much less likely you will ever be competition for the ruling class.
.
sPh

JPF did not have to pay tuition. Since that is the main cost of college except at the bottom tier it offers no solace to families like mine, where my children were not academically brilliant or unusually talented in an artistic field (ergo no scholarship). The fact that I was not low-income (ergo tiny grants), made for me carrying the equivalent of a house mortgage to send them to four-year state universities.

The alternative was to accept that a decently paid professional could not send his chidren to middle-rank university. I am not ashamed of it. It is as important and useful as a house mortgage, IMO.

It is our system of funding college through loans or scholarships that encouraged rapidly rising tuition. With no resistance to tuition costs, universities compete for name and talent in their academic and sports staff. If we instead simply ran state-funded schools, with no tuition costs, I think we would not have seen the impossible prices we now have. 

avatar

=== JPF did not have to pay tuition. Since that is the main cost of college except at the bottom tier it offers no solace to families like mine, where my children were not academically brilliant or unusually talented in an artistic field (ergo no scholarship). The fact that I was not low-income (ergo tiny grants), made for me carrying the equivalent of a house mortgage to send them to four-year state universities. ===
Yes, in my opinion that is part of the scam. Truly poor students are given scholarships to offset tuition, which is a good thing that I support. But the truly poor (with a very few exceptions of extraordinary ability and capability) will not be competition for the ruling class for 2-3 generations after the first family member gets that scholarship. So the burden falls on the lower- and middle- middle class, destroying their expectations and their ability to advance.
.
FWIW I have run this theory past several friends in academia. They have told me that it is unlikely to be a deliberate plan - but they can't tell me why.
.
sPh

FWIW I have run this theory past several friends in academia. They have told me that it is unlikely to be a deliberate plan - but they can't tell me why.

it's probably not a conspiracy; americans like the idea of giving less fortunate folks some opportunity because it seems fair-- a mind is a precious thing to waste, etc...

as a student teacher, a black student told me: "my grades don't matter, the negro college fund has money and I'll get into college since I'm black." I asked him: "would you hire someone like that to build your first house?" thankfully, he started to put more effort into his work.

In general, I don't really see any conspiracy but academics are used to "grading on a curve" and "let students be responsible for themselves." i.e. they don't try to develop character and good habits.

In particular, I took a "linear control systems course" with undergraduates this spring and not a single one of them did any work; the TA, however, gave them all A's and B's.

However, having been an undergrad, I understand the plight of those undergrads since I too took 18 credits a semester and didn't have time to "think" either.

The rude awakening for students and professors will be when Indian and Chinese schools and companies start to rival those in the US. at that point, professors will actually have to "develop talent" rather than simply let the gifted students in the class set the pace.

i.e. American companies literally have to hire foreigners to find employees with strong enough math skills.

To boldly go...

avatar

I think you are on a different path than my original argument. Just to be clear I have no objections to scholarships/economic aid and reasonable amounts of affirmative action. Nor do I think that the teachers themselves are part of this scheme (at least knowingly); it happens somewhat by the actions of the market and somewhat deliberately at the Board of Governors level as a result of tuitions being raised 5% or more in _real_ terms /per year/. The kids who get the scholarships at the lower rungs of the economic scale are I am sure deserving of those scholarships and will go on to do great things. But they and their children will not pose any competition to the ruling class for at least 3 generations (barring a few exceptions); the middle-middles who might have posed such competition are squeezed out by the high tuition.

sPh

Nor do I think that the teachers themselves are part of this scheme (at least knowingly);

the reason why NCLB became so "politically popular," my opinion-- besides money, was because people wanted to know what impact their teachers were having on them and their communities.

college teachers have historically been satisfied with "using bell curves" under the assumption that students have different abilities.

I was comfortable with that analysis until I started playing the piano and saw my math abilities take a fantastic leap!

since then, I've read "research papers" which claim that "music enhances the spatial and temporal abilities which are used in math."

so, at this point, I don't claim that "teachers" are guilty but, based on my experience-- and the research, there's a lot more to "cognitive development" than just a series of lectures, problem sets and tests-- the default experience for most college students!

i.e. as Tony Little the "Fitness Guru" says: "it's about the technique" and I believe him since I lost 80 lbs and can run almost 8 miles an hour! that's big news coming from someone with asthma! i.e. as a kid, I had to suffer through a "gym program" that wanted to put "every boy" on the football team instead of giving each guy his own exercise program which made sense.

in general, I hope that we've moved past "affirmative action and scholarships" and have enough courage to "guarantee a learning process".

for example, I bought a blood pressure monitor and decreased my blood pressure from 140/90 to 110/70 because the monitor provided feedback that reinforced good eating and exercise habits.

another example: I go to concept2.com (rowing machines) and have set a goal of becoming a "third quartile" performer; I've already made it into the "second quartile."

But they and their children will not pose any competition to the ruling class for at least 3 generations

and some, including myself, believe that colleges should embrace NCLB type testing which shows how effective their "learning programs" are relative to other universities!

I'd also separate the testing from the teaching so students could easily retake tests or find a "different teaching environment" if the default offering of their university didn't meet their needs.

avatar

Re:


I don't think that will happen. RatherI think that the US, rather like ancient Greece for centuries after its political decline, will be the world's university and research lab. Why develop a top-notch university system (which the US clearly has, for those who can pay, including wealthy foreigners) if some other country is going to do it for you?

to gain economic clout and raise the bar. the question is: are americans arrogant or are they really that good? i.e. empires do fall.

To boldly go...

avatar

Re: to gain economic clout and raise the bar.

I fail to see how they would gain economic clout. IMO, that they can avoid the up-front and fixed costs of creating a university system rivaling the USA's while educating their people in such a system actually provides these countries with an advantage: tyhey are getting the benefits of that education system at reduced cost. (There may also be cultural issues which hinder the development of such a system abroad-- as is certainly true in Asia, and to some extent also in Europe.)
As for "raising the bar" I'm not sure what you mean.

I guess that "time will tell" if america has the monoply on educational institutions or not...

To boldly go...

here is one commentary about the crumbling of academia that I found interesting:

Eighty years ago American institutes of higher learning offered the very best available by way of economic and banking knowledge. Today they are a sorry shadow of their former self. They are subject to bribe and blackmail. They are stooges of the banks. There is a gigantic cover-up and distortion of truth, as a consequence of our way of financing advanced studies through grants from the banks, including the twelve Federal Reserve banks, with a hidden agenda to perpetuate the regime of the irredeemable dollar.

If academia is the tamed lion of the banks, then financial journalism is their lapdog.

[SOURCE]

and I tend to agree;

Now, while I was never a finance student, all of us saw that Columbia University's Bollinger was stupider than a dead corpse when Ahmadinejad came to town, Brandeis lost its marbels when Jimmy Carter came to town, and-- in Minneapolis, Father Dease-- a supposedly religious man, told Tutu to "stay away" since Tutu didn't spout Israeli talking points.

i.e. if truth is dead-- at American Universities, how much is an American Education worth?

To boldly go...

IMHO this is a deliberate process designed to knock out the the lower- and middle- middle classes from the ladder.

I guess that, having "student taught," I'd say that "higher prices" are a necessary filter because supply cannot meet demand and society, wether we like it or not, has to ration our resources.

In my opinion, the internet has opened up doors for those who can "learn on their own." For example, when I was visting "eetimes" the other day, they had free design courses online since the vendors want folks to see how their compontents fit into "real designs."

I really think it's time to "rethink" the value of "college degrees" and offer alternative ways of getting a "college degree" without having to go to college.

That way, college professors would be free to truly run "world class" learning labs where those who met "strong requirements" could enter.

To boldly go...

avatar

mcboo: I will accept whatever synonym you like for "unfortunate". As you point out the consumer is a victim of corporate misconduct. We are now in a housing meltdown because the financial institutions securitized loans into exotic financial instruments that no one really understood.

Nevertheless, the consumer (even though he/she can be considered a victim) willingly participated. My conclusion is that there must be a lot of people who really don't understand money management. (This comment of course will be considered simplistic bombast and politically incorrect.)

My point is that the lender and lendee are co-dependent addicts caught in a death spiral. Simply bringing the lenders into line will not solve the shortcomings of consumers who do not know how to manage their credit.

No Steve, I think you are quite right and that it's completely fair to say that most people are bad at money management. To be perfectly frank I'm not very good at it myself. I'm an equal partner in a small business and all of my retirement, insurance and investments are by and larg