On Tue, 20 March 2001, Grlygrl201@aol.com wrote:
> it goes to the argument that the market doesn't necessarily settle at a
> realistic level of "affordability" and that owners of wealth don't
> encessarily bear the brunt of risk, but pass it on down to those who can
> least afford it, who therefore indebt themselves to maintain a lifestyle that
> decades ago could be had without revolving credit.
I'm inclined to disagree. In both of the countries I've lived in in the last decade I'd say that those who are in a revolving credit trap do have noticably higher standards of living than they did 10 years ago. I've seen the unemployed, drawing benefit, with mobile phones. The penetration of cable or satelite television is orders of magnitude greater than it was 10 years ago. The number of people who take foreign holidays is doing nothing but increase. But yes, vast amounts of this is is on "the never never".
> you're absolutely right, easy access to credit is the culprit. but it seems
> to me that our recent economic growth is built on consumption gone mad.
> everyone (but the debtee) profits in the short-term but only a relatively few
> get to keep the wealth.
I'm in line with you here. The consumer is now buying that which they can't always rationally justify. Most banks seem to be doing quite well from this, most shareholders in banks do too.
Mathematics should not have to involve martyrdom;
Support Eric Weisstein, see http://mathworld.wolfram.com
Find the best deals on the web at AltaVista Shopping!
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Apr 27 2001 - 23:14:27 PDT