I’m not an expert at economics — neither micro-economics nor macro-economics. In fact if anything, I’m slowly and steadily developing the belief that no one really understands the economy, and especially not the overpaid people who run this nation’s, and increasingly the world’s financial system.
I’ve often wondered about the disconnect that exists between the individual and the nation when it comes to economic policies and measures. As an individual, it is in your own personal self-interest to live within your means. While I was growing up (in India), credit for individuals was more or less unheard of. What was more common was “saving” — if you wanted to buy something, you would have to save up enough to make that purchase. Now I’m not arguing that that is the best approach, but a balanced approach is what I am arguing for.
By contrast, at the macro-economic level, the problem you hear the economists talking about is that “Consumer spending” is down and that has a trickle down effect on the economy — well, it does. But, should boosting consumer spending really be the way to improve the economy? Isn’t that at odds with the common sense of what is good for the individual!
In fact given the current supply chain in the US, boosting consumer spending will not necessarily stimulate the US economy as much as it will stimulate the Chinese economy. The current crisis has shown that the global economies are so tightly intertwined that that may indeed be what is necessary at a global level. Apparently, China reinvests all the excess dollars it earns into the US economy by buying up US treasuries, bonds and stocks and that is what makes money readily available in the US. If China stops buying up US assets with their surplus dollars, the US would be in even bigger credit/cashflow trouble.
Paul Kedrosky (@pkedrosky) wrote a great article titled: Watch out, world: Americans are saving again (hat tip to @timoreilly for the link). Having read this article and having recently watched I.O.U.S.A (highly recommended) I am pleased to see that Americans may be saving more again — it’s what they should have been doing in the first place. But that American’s saving again will have a adverse effect on the global economy just means that the micro and the macro are not working to reinforce each other, but against each other.
To summarize this post, in essence, I feel that there is a huge disconnect between “what is good for the individual” vs. “what is good for the United States” vs. “what is good for the global economy” and until these differences can be reconciled and the interests aligned, I fear that we will be pulling in the wrong directions.
January 18th, 2009 at 10:02 am
two problems with spending today (in america) is that it is largely fueled by credit (yet the spending is on consumer goods and not investments), and it is going towards the production of unsustainable natural resources. this creates a short term boom with a cost to be paid by our future society. (some would say we are paying it today, even china by their investment in our country)
however, i think a high consumer spending economy can be shaped into a sustainable economy. imagine if all the spending goes towards human services (keeps employment high) and resources that are sustainable and reproducible.
It seems like consumer spending does have great benefits, but just like anything in this world, it can be abused. I would venture to posit that an economy built on sustainable consumer spending and low savings (assuming the retired population is taken care of), would thrive more than one built on high savings and low consumer spending.
February 11th, 2009 at 11:29 pm
Elieth while I agree with sneeker that we need to save more I agree with you that spending more rather than saving more would be better for our economy. Since there is a trace of contradiction between those two statements making it seemingly impossible that I should think both I suppose my opinion, in one sentence is this: We need an economic system and lifestyle which enables us to (1) spend to obtain necessities (we have somehow forgotten these in all the talk of saving and spending), (2) give, and (3) occasionally meet our wants, while also enabling us to save for economic recessions and to some degree the period of our lives when we can nolonger work.
So then, I must ask, what is it about or within the way we trade and prepare for trading that prevents this from being even a half-way drawn picture of the lives of most of us?
August 12th, 2009 at 9:17 am
Junk No, not bonds. Even bonds backed by sub-prime mortgages have some value, maybe more than people think I’m calling your attention to your junk, the kind that had no value from the day you acquired it. It’s the junk consumer goods you’ve bought over the years. Look around your house, from basement to attic and see the sheer mass of junk you’ve bought over the last 10, 20 or 30 years. Recall, painful though it is, how much you paid for stereo system after stereo system, Bose speakers, Sony Trinitron TV’s, Panasonic flat screen digital TV’s, kitchen gadgets from Williams Sonoma. Recall how you rationalized making all of these purchases as “investments” when at the time you bought them you knew better.
Think of the cars you’ve bought, the excise taxes you’ve paid to have them on the road, the insurance premiums and the frequent and costly repairs.
Thank of what you’ve spent in restaurants on inflated meal prices and on clothes you almost never wore.
Think of the so-called jewelry you’ve bought. The jewelry industry does a real number on you with this, setting up selling areas with lavish appointments and intense lighting. One of the great con jobs of all time was that pulled off by 19th century raconteur Cecil Rhoades (remember Rhodesia?). He acquired control of famed diamond mines in South Africa and created the myth, perpetuated to this day by DeBeers, that diamonds are scarce. What a joke, but think of the number who fall for it every day. If you think jewelry is somehow “different” and is an “investment”, just try selling a piece back to the jeweler who sold it to you or to any other. Just try it.
Think of all the money you’ve earned over your career and think of how much of it you have left. You’ve probably lost nearly all of it. Where did it do? It was spent on junk. The consequence is that, while you may have earned more than $1 million or even $2 million, you have little or nothing to show for it, other than a pile of AMEX receipts for junk. AMEX and its shareholders did well off of you. How well did you do?
Retailers now call upon you to corral your credit cards and start spending again. That’s good for them. How good it is it for you or your family? As Suze Orman has pointed out time and time again, we, in this country, are in deep trouble not because we spend too little but because we spend too much.
Now, for the real pain. The price to be paid for all the good times you’ve had and the junk you’ve purchased can be calculated. I’m sure you are familiar with AFLAC, the insurance company whose products are endorsed by a duck. Ho much do you think you’d have today had you invested $10,000 in AFLAC stock in October, 1980? The answer is over $2.3 million. That’s right, had you never saved another cent, never created an IRA, never participated in a 401(k), but had had the good sense to have skipped a car or two or maybe a few years’ purchases of clothes that went to the Salvation Army years ago, and instead had purchased AFLAC stock, you’d have over $2 million today, and that’s down from nearly $4 million due to Wall street’s recent slide. $10,000 was a fair amount of money in October 1980, but you know you have spent far, far more on junk. By the way, the AFLAC stock would be about 50,000 shares paying over $50,000 annually in cash dividends.
Think what you’d have if in addition to buying the AFLAC stock you had created and funded an IRA and had participated in your employer’s 401(k).
It’s never too late to break bad habits, habits that harm us. I don’t care what situation you face…you will always stand a better chance of obtaining a better outcome if you have money. We’re well into the liquidation of the bad debt of the early part of the 21st century. Mark my words, there will be more bad debt cycles to come. Resolve today that you will no longer be the pawn in a game calculated to keep you poor and in debt. Resolve to separate your wants from your needs and to stop buying things you don’t need. Do you really need premium cable channels for which you receive a massive cable bill each month? Do you really need all the clothes you buy? Do you really think that jewelry is an investment? If you buy it at an auction conducted by Christie’s, Skinner or Sotheby’s and its can be established as having belonged to James I, Catherine the Great, or Nicholas Romanov, maybe it’s an investment. If not, I submit it’s likely more junk. Expensive watches are in the same category. The watch makers dummy up “auctions” where they secretly bid on their own merchandise so as to create the impression that watches are an investment. For them they are. For you, they are junk. Just try selling one. Just try it.
When you buy so-called “designer” goods, you are simply signing to pay more for something you certainly didn’t need but were convinced you had to buy to seem “cool”. You end up ever further into credit card or other debt and the “so-called “designer” ends up even better ensconced in Palm Beach. Good deal for him; possibly fatal for you.
When you don’t have money, you don’t have power. What you want is nether here nor there. Someone with money will tell you what you can have, what you must do and what you can’t have and what you can’t do. If that state of affairs appeals to you, keep doing what you’re doing. When you reach age 67, you’ll have less net worth than a high school kid and you may be working for one.
If you want your son to be able to apply to Stanford or your granddaughter to Yale and to be able to do so on the basis that no financial aid is requested, then change your habits today. The colleges would deny it, but you know the chances of acceptance are better if the applicant is not raiding the school’s endowment.
Stop buying things you don’t need and stop using credit cards.
You have no patriotic duty to be broke. Let your neighbors be the ones to buy products from the companies whose stocks you own. With some modest effort, you can begin building a portfolio today that will include shares in a sufficiently broad range of companies so that there will be almost nothing that other people can do that won’t in one way or another make money for you.
Oh, you say, who’d head of AFLAC in 1980? Granted, it was a far less well known company then. OK, let’s vary the example. I’m sure you’ve heard of Johnson & Johnson and Medtronic. $10,000 invested in Johnson & Johnson stock in 1980 would be worth $500,000 today. Invested in Medtronic in 1985, the result would be $600,000, and that’s after the current sell-off. It’s not the AFLAC $2 million, but it’s more than your junk is worth and it’s liquid.
Eat at home, stay out of bar rooms and malls, make your own coffee, make do with the clothes you have, cancel premium cable subscriptions. You’d be surprised what you can do without, and so doing is a very small price to pay for possibly becoming a millionaire. You may be the first on your block to do so. Keep in mind that the people who live near you, the ones who keep a low prolife, have old clothes and an older car, may have beaten you to it. What if they heard of AFLAC in 1980 or bought Microsoft at an adjusted cost of 10 cents per share in 1986? You just never know, do you?
Resolve today to learn something from this crisis, something that will benefit you and your family for all time. $1 million is not misplaced; it is lost $50 at a time. I close by quoting Jonathan Pond, CPA and lecturer on many PBS programs dealing with building personal wealth. “Your best dollar is the one you don’t spend”.
Richard E. Savoy
Boston, MA
October 8th, 2009 at 11:42 am
The People Next Door
It seems easy to understand why the people next door drive a car that must be 14 years old, dress quite plainly and don’t much if anything on landscaping. He is a sell-employed carpenter and she is an assistant in a doctor’s office. Neither has a college education. But, each of their three children went to an Ivy League undergraduate college and then on to an Ivy League business, medical and law school. One of the children mentioned to you how grateful they were to have left school without a cent of debt. When you’ve spoken with either of the parents over the years, they’ve never complained about their children’s educational expenses or indeed about anything to do with money. How can this be? Their combined incomes can’t be over $100,000, yet it seems they may have paid over a half million dollars in educational expense for their children. Your annual household income is $250,000 but you live paycheck to paycheck.
The main difference between you and your neighbors is that they are sitting on a stock portfolio worth $4 million, throwing off more than $120,000 per year in dividend income. You couldn’t raise $10,000 if you had a month to do it. How in God’s name did this come to be? Neither of the neighbors inherited anything.
Here’s what happened. In the early 1970’s, when your neighbors and you were in the early 20’s, they realized they would probably not make great incomes so they decided to live beneath their means, utterly to ignore advertising, to buy used cars, stay out of bar rooms, restaurants and malls, and to invest what little they could spare in the stocks of companies that sold things to other people, such as you.
They bought shares in what was then Philip Morris, and of Johnson & Johnson, Colgate Palmolive, Procter & Gamble, GE, Wal-Mart, Coca Cola, William Wrigley, and Abbott Laboratories. They got into Microsoft in the late 1980’s at 10 cents per share. They had the broker deliver the shares to them so that they could reinvest the dividends and buy more shares without paying brokerage commissions. Over a period of some 35 years, your neighbors invested maybe $200,000 of their own savings plus all the dividend income. While you were going through your considerable income buying new cars, running up big credit card balances shopping at Burberry’s, Barney’s and Brooks Brothers, Neiman Marcus, and Bloomindales, eating out 5 times a week, ordering drinks made with premium priced liquor and leaving money on the tables of Indian-run casinos, your neighbors were reserving against their future obligations and for a time when they might not want or indeed be able to work. While you were unable to separate your wants from your needs, your less well educated neighbors had no trouble doing that for themselves. The result is that capitalism turned your income into your neighbors’ principal. One not so small consequence was that their children could apply to Stanford, Princeton and the University of Chicago without requesting a cent of financial aid. If you don’t think that sways the minds of top college admission committee members, think again.
Now, your neighbors love their jobs, in large part because they know they don’t need them and could cease working on any given day. You and your spouse hate your jobs because you know you have to keep them and maybe to work until you are 70 or older. You might want to continue to be most cordial to your neighbors’ children. When you end up looking for a job, one of them might give you a reference.
Oh, wait…you suddenly awaken from the horror of this wretched scenario and discover it was but a dream and a nightmare at that. You are still only 28 and what has been written above is but one possible outcome. Fortune has favored you and given you a second chance. If you are comfortable with the future outlined above, keep doing what you’re doing and you’ll get it. Keep spending all your income on consumer junk and trying to live as if you were a person with money and be sure to plan to work for a high school kid when you are 70, maybe parking cars.
If, on the other hand, you want to be able to live more or less without financial worry, curb your spending now and begin investing. Sure, driving a flashy car, having $50 lunches and $100 dinners, drinking martinis made with Grey Goose vodka and buying $500 Jimmy Chu shoes seems stunningly enjoyable now, but, I assure you, it won’t come up to having $4 million when you are 60.