Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

The people with money aren’t spending

Recs

12

February 23, 2009 – Comments (20) | RELATED TICKERS: BR , OKE

This blog is intended to be part rant, part tongue-in-cheek, and part discussion.  This is part II in my series of  seemingly common sense solutions to our current economic problems.  Part I can be found here

 Wealth transfer

Over the last decade or so we’ve witnessed some of the largest transfers of wealth right before our eyes. This transfer went straight from the have nots to the haves.

 How did this happen?

Most fools know that while spending went up exponentially, inflation-adjusted wages remained stagnant. Therefore, all these extra spending occurred through loose usage of credit. Debt became an everyday part of life. Debt was used like income. Instead of saving their salary increases, people leveraged their salary increases.  If I said something like “I cant afford it”, people looked at me like I was crazy.

 

You can’t really judge these people.  Financial advisors were advising them against paying down debt and encouraging them to leverage what extra cash they had in the stock market. “If you are nearing retirement, don’t pay down your mortgage, invest that money in the stock market.  It will always go up.” Now you have retirees with depleted retirement accounts and houses in foreclosure. (Ed McMahon comes to mind)

 

The result was the personal balance sheets for the majority of the have nots went negative.  This was ok, until the unlimited flow of credit stopped.

 Where did the money go?

Contrary to what the media would have you believe, the money did not disappear.

 

The profits from consumer spending went right into the hands of the top 1%.   The money not only came from consumer spending, but also from the government in the form of tax cuts. Did the government have the money to give to the top 1%? No.  This was evidenced by the constant deficits during the previous administration.  While the have nots were spending, the haves were saving.

 

Our paper gains in our 401k’s and brokerage accounts may have disappeared, but the money did not (at least not completely). The markets are currently set up so that regardless of which direction the market goes people can (and will) make money. For every stock that lost 90% of its value, there was a put or short against stock that gained value. Not to mention the short and ultrashort ETFs that exploded in value over the past year. People made money last year and lots of it.

 So who should spend?

It should have been obvious to any competent economist that spending based on false wealth is unsustainable.  Have nots are called have nots for a reason.  They have not the money to spend in order to sustain our economy.  So its only natural for the have nots not to spend.  Yet our political leaders are doing everything in their power to try to squeeze blood from a rock, if you will, by encouraging already tapped out consumers to spend what little money they do not have.   On top of that, the government is spending itself into oblivion trying to stimulate the economy in hopes that Keynesian economics will save the day. Any competent economist should know this government spending is unsustainable.

 

But what about the haves?  What is their excuse?  I hear stories about the upper echelon cutting spending.  For what? Are their mansions in danger of foreclosure?  Do they have to worry about being laid off? Are they worried about gas prices or food prices?  I think not.  I can understand them being cautious about investing right now with this crazy market. But spending? Come on!  I think it should be left up to the haves to stimulate the economy. The upper echelon needs to take the stranglehold off their funds and spend spend spend.  Go on those vacations.  Go out on those shopping sprees on 5th avenue. Buy the newest cars. Go buy a new yacht.  I mean seriously, live life for crying out loud!  Live the life that we have nots can’t live. Are you worried about the media? Them buy them off but for crying out loud buy something!  Your money is doing no one any good sitting in your Swiss bank accounts.  I know that ponzi schemes like Madoff have fractured the psyche of many rich folks.  But that ponzi scheme (and numerous others) is a result of something I’d like to call “lazy investing”.  A subject I hope to cover in a later blog.

 

I almost feel like I need to have an intervention with rich people.  I’d say something like “Go ahead.  Let go of you purse. Its ok, you can do it! Oh no, pay no attention to the economic carnage going on around you.  Just pretend it isn’t there.”  Slowly but surely this money would leave these peoples accounts and actually get circulated like it supposed to.  Whoever can come up with the idea that gets the big money off the sidelines will be a billionaire.  Maybe that should be the next Fool contest.

20 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On February 23, 2009 at 1:59 PM, russiangambit (29.90) wrote:

I don't think we have enough truly rich people to pick up the slack. After all, there are only so many houses one might use in a lifetime.

Now, why they are not investing in them for long term? That is a question.

Report this comment
#2) On February 23, 2009 at 3:02 PM, rcontos (80.55) wrote:

You get it too.  This has everything to do with "growing" a consumer driven economy without giving the consumers any more money (i.e. no real wage growth).  How do you get "blood from a stone" as you eloquently put it?  With a mortgage racket that encourages people to borrow more than they can payback and then harvesting that money from the consumer. 

Perhaps our government could find some ways that the haves could help bailout the have nots.

Report this comment
#3) On February 23, 2009 at 3:08 PM, outoffocus (24.44) wrote:

Perhaps our government could find some ways that the haves could help bailout the have nots

That, my friend, is socialism.

Report this comment
#4) On February 23, 2009 at 3:23 PM, rcontos (80.55) wrote:

So what's it called when the have nots bailout the haves?

Report this comment
#5) On February 23, 2009 at 3:27 PM, outoffocus (24.44) wrote:

So what's it called when the have nots bailout the haves?

Robbery

Report this comment
#6) On February 23, 2009 at 3:30 PM, rcontos (80.55) wrote:

Color me pink.

Report this comment
#7) On February 23, 2009 at 3:37 PM, Squitty (< 20) wrote:

I thought the goal was to try live your life as one of the "Haves" and not spend your life as one of the "Have Nots"  We were all born into freedom, to bad most of our population does not know how to handle it!!!!!

Report this comment
#8) On February 23, 2009 at 4:41 PM, angusthermopylae (41.42) wrote:

"Freedom also means freedom to starve." 

   ---Robert Heinlein:  Lazarus Long, Time Enough for Love

Report this comment
#9) On February 23, 2009 at 5:10 PM, rcontos (80.55) wrote:

My initial comment was not really ideological so much as a practical realization.

If you have an economy that requires increases in consumer spending in order to grow, it is only possible to affect sustainable economic growth if consumers have increasingly large amounts of money to spend (i.e. wage growth).  Without wage growth, we were able to realize temporary gains by encouraging the consumer to leverage himself to the maximum possible degree (each CDO represents a claim on the future earnings of many home owners, CDOs backed by home equity loans represent a further claim, and the credit card industry allows still greater claims on the future income of the consumer).  So what happens when the consumer is leveraged to the limit and can no longer reliably meet those obligations?  The whole house of cards begins to fall, begetting a contraction of consumer spending, begetting increased unemployment, begetting further contractions and credit tightening and the erosion of stock prices etc (we get the mess we're in).

Now it's fine and good to blame the consumer/homeowner for causing this mess, but you must equally realize the degree to which your profligate neighbor's consumer excess fueled much of the growth of the last several years.  So now we are in this mess where investors continue to hold claims on the future income of homeowners; at least until the homeowners default (eroding consumer spending), in which case the investors get the, now all but worthless, homes of said homeowners.  So what, we let these people default on the loans, let the investors seize assets that they don't even really want and watch as the economy goes into a massive contraction and watch as home prices sink to almost nil?  I'm not really personally opposed to this, I have no mortgage, no credit card debt and a very recession proof job; I could stand to pick up some cheap houses.

Though seriously we need to address the growing wage gap between the haves and the have nots; perhaps through tax policy.  Concentration of assets is not good for economic growth because, frankly, the super rich don't have time in the day to spend enough to fuel economic growth.  If you look at the economic fortunes of countries that have massive class distinctions (Bolivia for one) you may notice that those distinctions are not good for the economies of those states, nor are they good for the stability of those governments.  It's merely a practical observation that massive concentration of wealth is anathema to stable economies and societies. 

Report this comment
#10) On February 23, 2009 at 5:11 PM, oldfashionedway (39.14) wrote:

"...Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose..."

     ---Kris Kristofferson:  Me and Bobby McGee

 Are we there yet?

Report this comment
#11) On February 23, 2009 at 6:31 PM, socialconscious wrote:

America has long had a dependancy to having poor to lower middle class people spend beyond their means. We should have employed a strategy to make college education free to change the poor into the middle class. Now the poor have to worry about no job and the upper middle-class is trying hard not to be poor. Not condusive to spending. Otherwise the formula is too dependant on the the rich picking up the slack  I live in NYC and I am of the opinion that ostentatious shows of money are become unfashionably unless they are sustainable items and a new thrift is the thing.

In my opinion there are 4 types of millionaires. The 1)noveau riche and 2)spoiled rich kids that were spendthrifts are becoming the 3)unassuming millionaries whose biggest luxury is a house( ala Warren Buffett) 4)The older family money frugal millionaire one whose biggest luxury in dining out are continuing to do so. So spoil kids are not allowed in the mall as much in a bad time too obstentatious.Tthe noveau riche are in Macy's on the cheap and Buffett always went to the average stores and cheap patriachs/matriarchs will remain that way regardless of the time.

 4% population make $250,000-$999,999

1% make 1,000,000  &   95% Under $250,000

The only solution turn poor prople into middle class people because credit is out OR beg like this...

Please rich people read my blog and travel America!

http://caps.fool.com/Blogs/ViewPost.aspx?bpid=150311&t=01001154058673654380

Report this comment
#12) On February 23, 2009 at 8:09 PM, rcontos (80.55) wrote:

Concerning "freedom means freedom to starve:" this is also well and good if the economic losers just went off and starved peacefully.  Unfortunately, before most people get around to starving to death they decide it's in their interest to steal our stuff, commit other crimes and otherwise foment social unrest.  Now if the ranks of the starving reach a significant percentage of the populace at large, we are in for real problems that'll make the current market downturn look like a party.  I'm not suggesting that we are anywhere near to such a situation, but merely suggesting that there are consequences to adopting "freedom means being free to starve" as a political philosophy.

Now I understand that this seems a bit extreme; social unrest has been rare in the US but that by no means ensures that it is impossible.   

Report this comment
#13) On February 24, 2009 at 1:47 PM, angusthermopylae (41.42) wrote:

rcontos,

You point out the dilemma most succinctly.  I'm generally Libertarian; I don't think the world owes me, and life is (eventually) what you make of it...good or bad.  (You can extrapolate how I feel about bailouts, CDOs, interest-only mortgages, and such...)

But when you think on a larger scale, such a philosophy is workable only if enough people think the same way.  That's not saying everyone else is a "bleeding heart liberal" or calling all government programs part of a "welfare state."  There is enough inequity and imbalance in the US society that problems with unemployment, health care, veteran services, and such to warrant some kind of base level of government intervention.  People in extremis shouldn't be told "Get a job, you bum!" and then left on their own.

But (more to your point and mine), there should be a limit.  If I make a ton of money running a bungee-jumping company, then I have no excuse to complain when a dead/disfigured/paralysed customer sues me when the equipment breaks.  It was a good run, I knew the risk, and either I screwed up or the odds caught up with me.

If "the ranks of the starving reach a significant percentage of the populous at large", as you said. then the system has failed them, and through voting, protest, or disturbance (preferably civil disobedience) they can cause changes...hopefully for the better.

Sadly, as outoffocus stated in the blog, the haves are not going to make any changes until things get that bad...

...and if history is any guide, the changes will just miss the mark, and set off a whole new stack of problems for later.

Report this comment
#14) On February 24, 2009 at 2:14 PM, socialconscious wrote:

 angusthermopylae  Rcontos & outoffocus  I  again strongly advocate that the solution to all our ills in perpetuity is simply educate the poor for free to the bachelor's degree level

more than one-quarter (27 percent) of adults age 25 and older had at least a bachelor's degree in 2002.

Adults age 18 and over with a bachelor's degree earned an average of 50,623 a year in 2001

While those with a high school diploma earned
$26,795

And those without a high school diploma averaged $18,793.

I know I am going to here earn it!  Yeah my parents sacrifice and I sure earned it when I went to college. That does not dispel the fact the responsiblity of a generation is to make life better for the next generation.

http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/education/000818.html

Report this comment
#15) On February 24, 2009 at 2:42 PM, outoffocus (24.44) wrote:

 angusthermopylae  Rcontos & outoffocus  I  again strongly advocate that the solution to all our ills in perpetuity is simply educate the poor for free to the bachelor's degree level.

 socialconscious

Thats a great idea but it has already been tried. With all the scholarships, urban outreach programs, and financial aid packages, the opportunity has been more than available for the poor to obtain higher education.  However, with all the good intentions in the world, there are still people who are going to fall through the cracks.  That is life. I've seen some of my own friends fall through the cracks of society.  Many of these people fall through the cracks willingly (they drop out of school, get caught up with the bad crowds, have children out of wedlock,etc.).  But alot of people just get caught up in bad situations that are hard to get out of.  In many cases the children's own parents hinder the childs ability to obtain an education.  The only solution to this problem is a solution largely lacking in American society as a whole, community support.  Neighbors need to go back to helping neighbors when they are in trouble.  But instead of helping our neighbors, we pawn them off to the government to handle.  And when the government fails to come up with a proper solution to a problem we should have been handling all along, we blame the current party in power, vote that party out, and the cycle continues.  This still all comes down to personal responsibility and the lack there of.  Contrary to the cliche, you ARE your brother's keeper.  Therefore if society breaks down, you are as much to blame as the politician.

Report this comment
#16) On February 24, 2009 at 4:02 PM, socialconscious wrote:

I say it can be done ! I will blog about it and prove it.

Report this comment
#17) On February 24, 2009 at 11:56 PM, Mary953 (40.07) wrote:

Two comments -

First about college education - What in heaven's name makes a person think that everyone CAN make it through college?  I would love to have been a dancer or to play sports - I don't have the athletic ability or sufficient natural grace of movement.  Sorry, the basic building blocks were not there.  I was in college with a lot of kids that were there trying to avoid being sent to Vietnam.  It was college or the draft.  They didn't have the intellectual ability to do that kind of work.  Were they smart?  Yes  Did they have common sense?  A lot of them had lots more than I did.  Could they keep a C average? only with lots of tutoring by friends.  It is not always about will to suceed or ability to pay.

The people with the money who aren't spending - You left out one large group of people with money.  The people who have finally gotten the house paid off, the kids situated out on their own, and have saved some for retirement - maybe your parents.  They are looking at the possibility of long years of retirement on a fixed income.  What they have is all they will get.  Are they willing to go buy a yacht to prop up someone else if it means years of eating dog food?  Ah - No.  Would you be?  These are the people who listen to politicians talk about taking from the rich and how "we cannot allow such selfish behavior"  Then they look at each other and shake their heads.  Selfish??????????? 

Report this comment
#18) On February 25, 2009 at 9:18 AM, outoffocus (24.44) wrote:

Mary953

I left those people out for a reason.  Nine times out of 10 those people are not in the top 2 percent.  Also, they probably profited very little from the last 10 years of excess.  So no, I'm not asking those people to spend.  If anything these people are already going to spend.  They have no choice because they are living off of their money.  My message was more geared to people who are literally hoarding money.  I see a difference between hoarding and saving.  Saving is putting money away now for a specific purpose later (retirement, college, or even a down payment on a house).  Hoarding is putting away money just for the sake of putting away money.  I'm sorry but money was meant to be spent at some point in its life. Not hoarded.

Report this comment
#19) On February 25, 2009 at 12:20 PM, angusthermopylae (41.42) wrote:

socialconscious,

I back up outoffocus's comment--educating everyone to a bachelor-degree level is not the answer.  This is not to say that there aren't multitudes of "the masses" who wouldn't be able to achieve it or use it...there are lots of smart people who don't have the money, time, opportunity, etc...

But...

What types of jobs do those with bachelor+ degrees get? Without any numbers in front of me, I would say...management.  Management and organizational jobs pay more, because you are responsible for the activities of a host of minions to get something done.  If wrench-turner messes up on his task, then there are a limited number of nuts and bolts that have to be fixed.  If the manager screws up, the entire project can fail, go over budget, cause law suits....the entire company can be endangered.  And every working joe on the line is endangered, no matter how skilled or competent he or she may be.

(No, I'm not idealizing managers; this is how it should work. Lots of organizations muddle through even though barely competent managers keep screwing up...usually, this is due to smart workers saving the day...)

So how many organizational level bodies do you need?  Would someone with a fine arts or electrical engineering degree be happy putting bumpers on cars in a Ford factory?  Maybe if they earned those degrees for love of the field, or the joy of learning.  But otherwise, that education would not be put to productive use...

It's the people who "fall through the cracks" that are the problem.  The cracks are getting bigger, and there are fewer opportunities to climb out of them.  For example:  Your furniture factory just shut down.  No matter what age or education level, where can you find another job?  Who would hire someone whose only experience (no matter what age) is assembling, sanding, and finishing tables, chairs, and bedroom sets?  In the current economy, you are pretty much screwed...as is everyone else from your factory.

Sure, you could take advantage of an education program and go back to school...but how do you feed your family?  Pay rent?  Pay medical bills when your kid breaks her arm?  Pay for gas to get to school?

How do you do that for the four years it takes to get a bachelor's degree?  And it doesn't matter if your 20 or 50 years old---the problem is the same:  Through no fault of your own, you are now left without the resources to "advance yourself"...short and long term survival are your main priorities.

To me, that is the kind of person who is getting shorted by the current economic crisis.

**Sorry for the chapter-book reply.  This is a complex issue, and no one solution will fix everything...imho.

Report this comment
#20) On July 14, 2010 at 12:51 PM, 1277507302 wrote:

The upper echelon needs to take the stranglehold off their funds and spend spend spend.  Go on those vacations.  Go out on those shopping sprees on 5th avenue. Buy the newest cars. Go buy a new yacht.  I mean seriously, live life for crying out loud!

Errr...ahhhh...doesn't that perpituate an economy buit up to service frivolities? How much time and research does it take to build 1 Lamborghini? I'd rather, errr, ahhhh...Oh who cares what I think.

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners


Advertisement