The economy and your collection.

[Kicker773]

Well for me, I started collecting about a year and a half ago if I recall correctly. Do not disturb and a few other can vouch to that when I went nuts and bought a load of 1/48 in a short time. In addition to adding a crazy amount of CMS series and more 1/48's which have accumulated. I remember buying the 1/60's version 1.0 and at one point had all of them, but decided to let them go and just keep the Ostrich and the Elint. I remember that year I was still in school and had two more semesters to finish. Now that I look back at it, perhaps I shouldn't have jumped that deep =). Then again I didn't really notice all these toys until I joined the forum which god knows took forever. It was kind of weird since my first hobby was my car and I've put a lot of money into it from working at best buy and gamestop for a few years (took some time off school). Glad that I finally finished school and work in the Health care industry. Money and isn't bad and the work isn't too hard. Plus I think finding a job isn't too difficult.

So now with the new shift of hobbies I managed to accumulate a lot more valks (mainly 1/48) and customs here and there. Still have the mac Plus and Zero line, but have not plunged to take the dive for the new 1/60's Ver. 2. I kept thinking that I might just get the 1/60 line in one go when all of them are out. Then again I don't think that's happening this year. Just recently picked up a wedding band last night. I'll probably pick up or jump on the 1/60 bandwagon when all of them are released or out. There's just too many things coming out (i.e. frontier toys and new figures by different companies, kinda confusing), but I will pick up the SDF one. Then again I also will be selling my car since its becoming a hassle having it as a daily driver (i.e. getting followed home by thieves, trying to break into the garage, etc.) which made me spend more money to just get a beater car. Well if everything goes well with selling the hobby car i can use the $$ to buy the engagement ring (moving backwards, i know, but the wedding band price was too hard to resist) and whatever extra i can just get the other 1/60 line. I'll pick up another car next year, no biggie, beater runs fine as it is.

[Kicker773]

btw I have family in Switzerland as well, and I've heard their having problems there too as well with the economy.

[nugundamII]

That is rather uninformed. Saving (up to 250k) in a regular bank account is insured by FDIC, i.e. US government. If that fail, which means the US government fail, your cold hard cash will be as useful as Zimbabwe dollar. If you are seriously worried, that shoe box should have cold hard gold and ammo.

who said I didnt have gold

and yes I will be witness to the end of the great empire of america

[MacrossMan]

I work in the Information Technology field in a healthcare setting. Even better, it is in a children's hospital. The hospital I work for is a non-profit organization and is fortunate enough to have a foundation that raises money through various avenues. Besides receiving some state and federal funds, about 80% of our patients receive government provided insurance. While other hospitals struggle with adult patients, I have seen times at the end of the fiscal year where we have to reduce our bottom line; people tend not to donate to organizations who are not in need. The end of year spending and good budgeting keeps us on the bleeding edge of technology and we are truly blessed to be in the position we are in, but who knows how things will pan out. One thing for sure is that there will always be a soft spot with people when it comes to children so I feel comfortable for now.

I also run a mobile DJ service. Right now is the slow season which gives me a break before the summer and wedding season kicks in. Even as bad as things are with the economy, people never stop partying. Needless to say my DJ gig brings in extra cash to off-set the cost of jack-balling on toys.

I have not even considered selling any of my collection. I have 3 1/60 ver. 1's that I thought about getting rid of to make space, but can't seem to let them go (Elint, Ostrich, & VF-1D). Like some who have commented, I have only been collecting just over a year and accumalated a lot in a short period of time. The problem now is trying to keep up with everything coming out. I have to admit that I am one of those collectors that has to have it.

After certain events went down on the forums I lost interest in the hobby somewhat, but have been coming back around from time to time. There's a lot of new stuff that I have to pick up which is part of the reason I've been lurking in to see if I can cash in on some good deals from someone who's had a stroke of bad luck.

[Vostok 7]

All I can say is if everyone keeps buying electronics made in China, I'll be doing fine

Vostok 7

[MacrossMan]

All I can say is if everyone keeps buying electronics made in China, I'll be doing fine

Vostok 7

Just purchased a 42" Vizio LCD XVT series TV for the playroom.

[505thAirborne]

All I can say is if everyone keeps buying electronics made in China, I'll be doing fine

Vostok 7

I don't think that will be hard not to do!!

[Vostok 7]

I think you guys need more computers and computer parts, yes?

Vostok 7

[Bri]

I'm an economist and work as a research assistant at a Dutch University. The crisis doesn't really affect me or my collection much. Few years ago I decided not to buy a house but to rent a place and save the difference in a savings account. Dutch house prices have been obscene for the last decade or so and I did not want to leverage myself for house that in my opinion was highly overvalued (house prices over here and are two to five times the replacment value, mainly due to high land prices). In hindsight I am glad I did, as house prices are slowly but steadily dropping, evaporating the underlying asset value of the mortages.

I hope economic recovery will be fast but this is not a normal bust after a boom period. It's a collapse of the financial system due to contagion by bad sectors who had been taking excessive risk. If the banking sectors recover fast enough we may see the end of the crisis soon. However at the moment the low interest rates have me worried. The interbank-market is pretty much dead and cash is turning into a perfect sustitute for bank deposits, adding to the credit cruch. Hopefully the stimulus package and devaluation of the dollar will increase inflation and exports both of which will increase private spending. Like religion an economy runs on faith, only difference is that you want people to spend instead of pray.

[Hiriyu]

My main gig is manufacture and sale of specialty automotive equipment (ie; replacement, racing & performance parts), but I also do private-label development and mfg, and other non-automotive development and mfg. Oddly enough, my business is thriving. I chalk this up to a couple of factors:

One the one hand, I'm extremely specialized in some areas - I've got a locked-in customer base, solid demand, a relatively low production and high-profit product line, and factually, you cannot get what I produce anywhere else. Yay for captive markets. On the other hand, I've got enough diversification in my business that should one area of the business suffer, other product areas and projects tend to make up for it. Resources + flexibility = open options. Even though the automotive market [in general] currently sucks, I think that in the short to mid-term, demand for my products will slightly increase. Rather than buy a new car, I think that many people will opt to keep and repair their current ones, which means money in my pocket... And despite what the newspapers and magazines say, grassroots-level motorsport is still going strong.

In relation to my collection, the current economic situation really hasn't affected me. I have always tended to live within my means, and I do not spend money which I don't have. I reject consumerism for the sake of consumerism. I have zero credit debt. I have slowed down on my purchases a bit, but that is something that has gradually occured over the last couple of years. I still pop for the really cool stuff that I want.

[nugundamII]

I'm an economist and work as a research assistant at a Dutch University. The crisis doesn't really affect me or my collection much. Few years ago I decided not to buy a house but to rent a place and save the difference in a savings account. Dutch house prices have been obscene for the last decade or so and I did not want to leverage myself for house that in my opinion was highly overvalued (house prices over here and are two to five times the replacment value, mainly due to high land prices). In hindsight I am glad I did, as house prices are slowly but steadily dropping, evaporating the underlying asset value of the mortages.

I hope economic recovery will be fast but this is not a normal bust after a boom period. It's a collapse of the financial system due to contagion by bad sectors who had been taking excessive risk. If the banking sectors recover fast enough we may see the end of the crisis soon. However at the moment the low interest rates have me worried. The interbank-market is pretty much dead and cash is turning into a perfect sustitute for bank deposits, adding to the credit cruch. Hopefully the stimulus package and devaluation of the dollar will increase inflation and exports both of which will increase private spending. Like religion an economy runs on faith, only difference is that you want people to spend instead of pray.

I don't know you but my apologies for next statement

I think economists are an unnecessary evil

they know dog sh it about what they preach about

and usually come up with theory after unproven theory to rationalize dog sh it

As I say this it is my firm belief after reading non fictional material on economics and world paradigms that economists have it all wrong and should throw in the towel. I would rather have plumbers and techies run things, as such the money market system has done little to nothing to stem poverty, war or improve the advancement of the species to the stars.

I cant believe all the preachers and pious believers of a free market system are now waiting in line for their handouts to save the economy. Well what happened to Laissez-faire and what the market is doing now is correcting itself. Again we have had around 123 banking crisis' since 1970 from japan to Korea to Sweden and more and each time I bet some economist pulls out his pocket pen and calculator and starts using the fancy schmancy math to explain dog sh it.

There should be more classic philosophers out there than economists.

And plumbers and techies!!!

Ok rant is done

Lets talk about buying toys and Im going to buy a lot!!!!!!!! B))

[jenius]

YES!!! I love the Internet. It introduces me to some very... uh... interesting opinions. I get the feeling this definitely falls under that politics/religion/taboo subjects type thing. Way to take an otherwise decent conversation and railroad it.

[nugundamII]

YES!!! I love the Internet. It introduces me to some very... uh... interesting opinions. I get the feeling this definitely falls under that politics/religion/taboo subjects type thing. Way to take an otherwise decent conversation and railroad it.

what?

why taboo??

actually this whole topic should be under other" since we are reallly NOT discussing toys but what people do and how they are going to cope. I just added my rant on economists. no harm no foul

[shiroikaze]

The interactive/video game industry is recession proof, so I've heard. Hasn't effect me in the least bit.

Still going to get all two-seaters VF-1, the VF-11B, amongst many other film related memorabilia this year.

Nope, already some gaming companies have already laid off a good number of employees, I think a few even went under I think.

I don't think the gaming industry is recession proof, but they keeping chugging along so it's a-okay I believe.

[VFTF1]

Putting your money in a box is crazy if you live in the US. For one, it will make you paranoid way more often and two, your money is insured at a bank... even one that goes under. The economy needs your cash in banks right now anyway so you could do your part to help and there's no risk to you.

I respectfully disagree.

FDIC and government insurance of banks is one of the things that got people into this mess by creating a false sense of security. "Hey - don't worry; hand out low interest credit to people with bad credit ratings - the government will insure your bank." Also - the laws were written to encourage banks to lend to people with bad credit, no work, and bad prospects - all in the name of "giving them a home." Now everybody who worked hard to get a good credit rating and to pay their bills has to pay for the people who leached off the system.

In any event - I completely disagree with the idea that "the economy" needs our cash in banks "right now."

Above all - "the economy" is too multifaceted and diverse to have one over-reaching need, which is exactly why macro-economics is a completely pointless science (as is the artificial and unrealistic division into micro vs. macro).

Some people are going to keep their money in good banks. There actually are banks which, despite this crisis, have not gone under and seem to be doing fine. Others will be unlucky and have their money in bad banks (mine is in Citibank - guess where Citibank is headed now?...) Others will have it in shoe boxes.

It really does not have any effect on the economy at large where people keep their money and people should act out of self-interest as they understand it, and not out of "patriotism."

This is the same malarky as "we're in a depression so go out and buy stuff you people!" It's ridiculous.

Capital accumulation (savings) are the basis of long term growth and recovery. The depression is good because it's finally cleaning out bad debt.

If people go out and spend or give money to banks who turn around and issue more credit cards - it will only make things worse by increasing bad debt, toxic debt, foreclosures, bankrupcies, and devaluing the flimsy currency.

There should be more classic philosophers out there than economists.

Or there should be Economists who recognize that theirs' is not a science in the strict sense, like chemistry or physics, because as Aristotle noted "human things are not mathematical, they can not be precisely assessed." In other words: econometric models, which are beloved by Keynesians - have pretty much ZERO to tell us about reality, and we can learn more via deductive reasoning about praxeology.

So - yeah - I guess I agree.

YES!!! I love the Internet. It introduces me to some very... uh... interesting opinions. I get the feeling this definitely falls under that politics/religion/taboo subjects type thing. Way to take an otherwise decent conversation and railroad it

Again with all due respect - but I don't fully agree.

Nobody here is talking about "politics" in the sense of "political party A is great and B sucks" or "Your arguments and opinions are silly because you voted for candidate Y."

People are discussing the "The Economy and Your Collection" - the title of the thread.

So - people will talk about the economy and economics and their collection.

They will naturally try to draw inferences or postulate theories about why the economy is the way it is and why they are acting as they are acting regarding their collections.

Yes - people have different opinions on the internet.

But I like the fact that on this forum - everyone is always polite in presenting those opinions. Everyone can disagree and write other opinions.

I guess the problem really appears when people get over-emotional with their language.

NugundamII: as small request from someone who probably agrees with most of your opinions:

Please try not to swear (aka sh!t etc) when writing about your opinions, and try not to use labels (like saying that all economists are an unnecessary evil etc).

I think that just causes people to take offence instead of looking at the reasoning behind your opinions.

Just state your reasons and what you think and let people make up their minds.

I like this thread and I like the discussion - so I hope we can all get along.

I certainly don't think I'm "absolutely right" or anything like that - I just have my opinions and thoughts and enjoy presenting them and reading other peoples' opinions and thoughts.

Let's all get along and continue please.

Pete

[Jasonc]

In my profession, moreso the agency I work for, we are among the highest paid in the industry. I still get a $1 and change raise every 6 months, and all I can do is feel very blessed. It took a long time for me to get where I am now, and for most of my life, I've had to work just to keep afloat. I've definitely paid some dues. My job is stressful though, even for the decent wage I make. I certainly can't wait for the day when things move on the upswing, and we are all talking about how much cheaper Valks will get due to the power of the dollar and the good chunk of change we are all making.

Oh, and to clarify my last post, I put my money in a credit union specifically created for my department. Interest is crap at standard banks, where we earn a decent 3.75%

[wizartar]

Today’s problems have been caused by a Laissez-faire attitude. Bankers left to themselves without rules have gone to the point of almost destroying our current level of civilization. If you study history look at Rome and then the Dark Ages that followed, we actually devolved, we hit a peak and then went backwards. We’re close to doing that again, money is worthless we just believe it has value and because everybody believes it has value it does. Why do we spend $100> on plastic that’s worth less then $1 in raw from? Because we believe what we’re buy is worth the $100>. Likewise money is just paper.

Then you have deflation and its byproducts things like Negative Equity, lots of houses not worth what was paid. When money is limited the value of what money is available increases, law of supply & demand. Real world, look at all the sales over at HLJ. My last 8 purchases have been on sale items, it’s saved me at least 40% on what their value was only 6 months ago. (Although part of those sales, I would say, has to do with freeing up warehouse space for new stuff).

[jenius]

I didn't want to get into this...

FDIC and government insurance of banks is one of the things that got people into this mess by creating a false sense of security. "Hey - don't worry; hand out low interest credit to people with bad credit ratings - the government will insure your bank."

I'm happy to tell you you're wrong and that's not how it happened.

Also - the laws were written to encourage banks to lend to people with bad credit, no work, and bad prospects - all in the name of "giving them a home."

There's some truth to that but it's not really related to the FDIC or the good your money does in a bank.

Now everybody who worked hard to get a good credit rating and to pay their bills has to pay for the people who leached off the system.

To be fair to them, they didn't leach off the system. They took advantage of what was offered them. The fact they were offered these things involved poor decisions by credit analysts, rating agencies, wall street firms, banks, and the government (and this involves many governments). Very, very few people took advantage of these programs thinking "This will be great, I'll get a house for a while and then I won't be able to afford it so I'll live in it for free until they kick me out." Most people thought they'd make ends meet... and usually they didn't understand what they were getting themselves into, but there was no leaching malice involved (again, for the most part). Believe me, in general the person being foreclosed on hates this situation far more than you hate the notion that $10K of your money will go to reviving the economy. Speaking of that, nobody ever realizes how rich these years made them. The economy ballooned well beyond where it should have been so you benefited from all sorts of government projects and increased private industry services (heck, even some of your pay raises may have been based on how "well" your company appeared to be doing) so now that the piper is calling you should really think that you're just repaying the excess that you gained from a busted system (and I'm aware almost no one will do this).

Above all - "the economy" is too multifaceted and diverse to have one over-reaching need, which is exactly why macro-economics is a completely pointless science (as is the artificial and unrealistic division into micro vs. macro).

A word to the wise, calling any science "completely useless" normally just makes you look ignorant. While it's true that some economists are better than others, and economics is a soft science that can often be interpreted a few ways, macroeconomic theory is going to be VITAL in resurrecting any semblance of a functional world economy. The people tapped to do things like create stimulus packages have studied depressions, recessions, and macroeconomic theory and they are BETTER for having done that then say, your local barber. Basically everything you said from savings to spendings after that is wrong. We're in an era that needs responsible lending and having wealth that's not gaining so much as a 1% interest rate is just a means of throwing free money away. There's almost a level of religious fear being imputed into a discussion about cash. It's okay everyone... it's okay.

So - people will talk about the economy and economics and their collection.

An economist is a person. There are a number of people on these forums that work in financial sectors who are far more qualified to discuss the value of economists than various other people on this forum. Spouting nonsense about "macroeconomic theory is shize" or "Economists are evil" is just supporting ignorance and it's not a conversation that even needs to be had in the first place.

But I like the fact that on this forum - everyone is always polite in presenting those opinions. Everyone can disagree and write other opinions.

Polite? The post that says "You're an economist, well pardon me but the world woudl be better without you" wasn't very polite... even if he did beg the pardon. It also didn't have much to do with how the economy was affecting his collecting habit.

In other words: econometric models, which are beloved by Keynesians - have pretty much ZERO to tell us about reality, and we can learn more via deductive reasoning about praxeology.

I dont' think I've ever met an economist who said he was engaged in a Hard Science. If models had ZERO to tell us they woudn't exist. Every model is viewed context, they're understood not to be finite, and more than a little deduction is involved.

As is too often the case there are people who don't have a full grasp of what happened to get us here and so they lash out at what they don't understand. It was a very unfortunate set of events involving a huge number of short-sighted people in a huge number of industries. Many economists, for a very long time were waving flags saying "this isn't sustainable" so try to cut them some slack.

Edited February 24, 2009 by jenius

[VFTF1]

Well Jenius -

Please note that in my prior post I did ask NugundamII not to make ad hoc attacks and not to swear - so here I am in complete agreement with you.

At the same time, I understand how sometimes people can attach excess emotions to their views, especially when the subject is basically "how bad are you doing in this depression? Are you having to sell your hard won collection?"

So - I think we need to cut peopel a little bit of slack if they get emotional and not let ourselves get carried away.

To make a long story short: I agree with you also that it was not right to call some people "leaches" - since by and large nobody buys a home in boom years thinking "yeah! Hah hah! I'm gonna leach" - everybody pretty much is happy and hopes to make due and make ends meet as you say. I guess this is one of those problems that is a little bit like a virus - once it starts "going around" - people take preventive measures, but other people will suddenly become its' victims and spread it to others. I guess it's not right to say that the toxic debts started with any one simple decision or program or law or business model - it's a systemic failure - the most frustrating kind because people do like to be able to "lay blame" somewhere - on some one, or at least get clear explanations. Here - we're in murky waters.

So - on all of these points we agree; and especially on the point about the need for being polite. Like I said - read my whole post above - while I disagree with some of your views and arguments, I disagree very strongly with nugundam II's way of over-emotionally presenting his views.

As for our respective remedies for the crisis - clearly we have different theoretical backgrounds and different interpretations. I don't hold the Keynesian view - as you probably can tell.

But I can only hope that the people who are actually trying to get us out of this also have different backgrounds and interpretations and are able to come to some common solutions that end up working so that our collections can grow and prosper instead of being sold to the lowest bidder in order to buy bread.

Pete

[Bri]

Jenius explained things very well. Not much to add there. As for the comments. Well people get worked up about things that affect their lives but can't control. It's human and if venting about it makes them feel better go ahead. Keeping the tone civilised is apreciated however.

For VTF-1 (and those with an interest in the background of the crisis): You are right that savings( aka investments) are the key to capital accumulation and economic growth in the long term. The world economy was not overheating however. The current recession is caused by liquidity problems and falling demand due to lower consumer confidance, which is another thing entirely.

The problem in laymans terms: Firms(even healthy ones) get in to trouble as they can't get credit to deal with uneven cash flows (stock versus sales etc). Result: firms try to save money by shedding staff and minimise current expenses. Not only people who get layed off but everyone who fears for their job reduces expenditure and will not buy anything expensive (cars, houses, consumer electronics vacations etc). So both firms and people lower consumption. Result less demand for goods and services and we get a negative spiral.

Banks loan savings from people to firms and pay interest over these deposits. We call this the financial transformation function (this is the reason why savings equal investment and is essential for any type of economy to grow, free market or not). The systemic collaps of the financial sector has caused this function to halt and this is what is hurting employment and families. If we can get banks to start lending again (altough more carefull to whom) we can at least solve the liquidity problem. For this peoples cash is needed in the banks. This is not done out of a sense of duty or patriotism but personal gain for the saver (cash versus interest on depositos). Thats why low interest rates are so nasty atm as people don't feel any disadvantage of holding cash. This is similar to what happened to Japan in the late 80s.

The other part of the problem is the low consumer confidance. Fear for unemployment make it that people don't dare to spend. This is the psychological factor and the hardest to fight. Governments have put together those stimulus packages to ease the pain of falling demand and hopefully people will have a more optimistic outlook on their prospects in the near future.

It's a misconception to think that economic theory was proven wrong in this crisis. It works fine to explain what happened and what the effects will be. Compare it to an engineer in the car industry. He can predict what the results/damage will be when a person crashes a car at 100 mph. It's just that he can't predict when a driver will park his car against a wall in real life.

[Fatalist]

I'm in the entertainment biz. I'm actually seriously thinking about selling everything that I've accumulated so far since my fire for collecting has burnt out. I'm really wanting to get a new camera and do a hobby thats more productive and worthwhile.

Just looking at it from where I sit, there's a 1 SV-51 Ivanoff, a VF-0A, YF-19, YF-21, 1/48 Max and Millia, 1/48 VF-1S Roy, and 1/48 VF-1J Stealth w/out FP.

I also have 2x 1/60 v2. VF-1's, but I think I'll keep those for now.

But yeah, economy is hitting hard and the desire to collect is dwindling rapidly. At least for me.

[VFTF1]

Well, here goes:

The world economy was not overheating however. The current recession is caused by liquidity problems and falling demand due to lower consumer confidance, which is another thing entirely.

With all due respect, I disagree. The world economy was over-heating. In 1997, the market already attempted a self-correction (a recession) but was stopped by concerted action by the FED and other central banks (you'll remember the Time Magazine cover with "the commitee to save the world" and the three notable people on that cover?). In 2001, there was another attempt at self-correction, but for reasons we all know, there was also the out-break of war which led to even greater spending. In Europe, on the other hand, EU expansion was also tied to greater spending flowing from "Old" Europe into "New" Europe in the form of infrastructure and other types of subsidies meant to "bring old Europe up to speed"

"Stimulus" and Keynesian spending and taxing have been the norm for the last 20 years; largely financed by the US selling T-bills to China, Japan and other countries willing to buy them and largely hoping to prop up their export economies by doing so.

Every time the market tried to self correct - the Federal Reserve and central bankers would step in to blow more air into the bubble.

The current liquidity failure is a normal, healthy reaction to a situation wherein the economy is artificially over-extended.

The fall in consumer spending and confidence is also healthy and good.

If I am right that capital accumulation leads to growth in the long term - which you yourself admit - then please do tell me when it is ok for people and businesses to start saving? When does the "long term" finally start? Because for the last 20 years we've had "short term" (aka short sighted) policies which boiled down to "spend and inflate."

The problem in laymans terms: Firms(even healthy ones) get in to trouble as they can't get credit to deal with uneven cash flows (stock versus sales etc). Result: firms try to save money by shedding staff and minimise current expenses. Not only people who get layed off but everyone who fears for their job reduces expenditure and will not buy anything expensive (cars, houses, consumer electronics vacations etc). So both firms and people lower consumption. Result less demand for goods and services and we get a negative spiral.

This is the Keynesian explanation of business cycles.

I think this explanation is flawed. In this scenario - there is no bottom. But in reality, a depression always bottoms out (unless government intervenes to try to blow more air into the bubble and prevent liquidation of toxic debt and toxic assets).

If firms continue to fire people, then unengaged labor eventually becomes plentiful and very cheap - which means that production becomes cheap. If firms and households continue to go bankrupt then real estate becomes very cheap - which means putting it to profitable use becomes possible because costs go down.

The Keynesian model seems to presume that this will never happen - that there will never come a point where the deflation will actually spurn economic growth by making goods and services extremely cheap and therefore making investment in profitable ventures more likely.

Finally, the Keynesian model seems not to take into account the broken window fallacy. If I break your window, sure - you can argue that it's economically beneficial because it gives the window-maker a job and he then can pay the painter to paint his house, and the painter can shop at the grocers etc etc etc.

But the problem here is the opportunity cost - the fact that if I hadn't broken the window, then the resources spent fixing it would have gone elsewhere rather than having to be wasted on recreating something that was already functional.

The same goes for stimulus packages. To say that people are prolonging the depression by hording their money and therefore proposing to raise expenditures or create other artificial incentives to get them spending in the hope that this will spur real growth is akin to going around the neighborhood breaking everybody's windows - hoping that it will create a boom in the window-fixing business which will "multiply" and grow the economy.

This just isn't how a healthy economy works.

Banks loan savings from people to firms and pay interest over these deposits. We call this the financial transformation function (this is the reason why savings equal investment and is essential for any type of economy to grow, free market or not)

Yes; this reminds me of Paul Krugman's contention that in the macro-world, it's really not possible to talk about profit and loss since (in macro terms) all spending done in an economy is also a "gain" - but to me, this is yet another reason why macro-economics as a seperate discipline makes little sense and is pre-occupied with abstractions like "aggregates" far too much.

The real problem that you don't seem to touch upon is the fact that we have fractional reserve banking. Banks do NOT "loan savings from people to firms and pay interest over these deposits." It would be great if they did.

In reality, however, our fractional reserve system has banks loaning money they DO NOT HAVE, but which the central bank magically creates out of thin air by printing it up or by selling IOUs in the form of Treasury bills and the like.

Our banking system - I am sorry to say - is a ponzy scheme. A pyramid scheme - and at the base of the pyramid are government central banks.

This problem is compounded by a fiat currency monetary system where governments have a monopoly on the creation of money and can set its' value at whim - or at least try to.

The solution is at least to return to a gold standard so that politicians can't play with our money every time they want to win an election and - AT LEAST to bring some democratic control over central banks. I would personally not mind seeing them abolished, but if we have to have them - then couldn't they, as government institutions in democracies at least ...you know - allow audits? Couldn't they be subject to the same democratic controls that other government institutions are subject to?

These are some examples of where I do not agree with the Keynesian model.

The other part of the problem is the low consumer confidance. Fear for unemployment make it that people don't dare to spend. This is the psychological factor and the hardest to fight. Governments have put together those stimulus packages to ease the pain of falling demand and hopefully people will have a more optimistic outlook on their prospects in the near future.

Actually the problem is the government stimulus packages - which are nothing new - governments have been trying to "stimulate" people for decades now, and they've "stimulated" us all into reckles debt and bankrupcy.

They should just leave people alone to do as they please with their money.

You make it sound as though people wouldn't even want to go on a date with a cute girl unless the government stimulated them. That's not how people function - thankfully

It's a misconception to think that economic theory was proven wrong in this crisis. It works fine to explain what happened and what the effects will be.

It is an even bigger misconception to think that we can speak of "economic theory" as though there was only ONE. The one you are presenting is a form of Keynesianism, modeled after John Maynard Keynes. It is one of the two dominant majority views in modern economics - the other being monetarism in the vein of the Chicago school.

I personally am closer in my views to the monetarist view than to the Keynesian view, but also have much respect and fondness for the Austrian school of economics - people like Hayek, Mises, and Rothbard.

In any event - there is not just one "economic theory" - and I do think that this crisis has revealed (not for the first time) the short comings and weaknesses of Keynesian economic theory.

Pete

[edwin3060]

I think I will have to agree with VFTF quite a few several points. The economy was overheated. Everything from the price of oil, to the price of food, to the price of housing etc-- was high. Heck, in less than 6 months from 2007 to 2008 the price of rice that I bought doubled. Also, ironically, governments moved away from a gold standard because the idea was that the state could ensure that the value of money had less fluctuations than when it was based on gold-- of course, that pretty much doesn't work because then you have the whole 'state bribing the people with their own money' thing going on. I've come to think of banks and debt and this whole mess as a kind of game of musical chairs-- everybody's happy when the music is playing, but once the music stops someone is going to get screwed. Similarly, banks are very happy to offer mortgages and people are happy to put themselves into debt when the economy seems to be good, but the reckoning has to come sooner or later.

Ultimately I think we've seen the dangers of an unregulated free market-- people will artificially distort the value of anything if they can make money out of it. My friend actually has a layman's measure of when recessions will occur, which seems to work pretty well barring things like war-- he says that major recessions occur every ten years, plus or minus a year. It seems to work pretty well in the Asian context, seeing as to how we had a financial crisis in 1987, then 1997, then now in 2008 . It seems as good an economic theory as any now

[Ignacio Ocamica]

My friend actually has a layman's measure of when recessions will occur, which seems to work pretty well barring things like war-- he says that major recessions occur every ten years, plus or minus a year. It seems to work pretty well in the Asian context, seeing as to how we had a financial crisis in 1987, then 1997, then now in 2008 . It seems as good an economic theory as any now

And it works pretty well in the South American context too

Actually we are experts at combining recession with inflation and keeping the salaries down!!! So the unlucky poor pay the price of the economic crisis

I do believe the economy overheated, but in my country (Argentina), the free market will benefit those who were and still are efficient, and it will bankrupt those who weren't. And I wish and IMPLORE the free market to regulate itself, cause the only thing our government can "stimulate" is their greedy and corrupt wallets!!!

I' thinking about Adam's Smith "invisible hand"

[Ignacio Ocamica]

By the way, I'm still buying one of each Yamato's valks, destroids and wathever, every Beagle cyclone, I'm getting married on March 7th and on the 8th I'm heading for a relaxing one month honeymoon/surftrip to Oahu's north shore in Hawaii

World economy be damned, it's now or never!!!

[nugundamII]

I respectfully disagree.

FDIC and government insurance of banks is one of the things that got people into this mess by creating a false sense of security. "Hey - don't worry; hand out low interest credit to people with bad credit ratings - the government will insure your bank." Also - the laws were written to encourage banks to lend to people with bad credit, no work, and bad prospects - all in the name of "giving them a home." Now everybody who worked hard to get a good credit rating and to pay their bills has to pay for the people who leached off the system.

In any event - I completely disagree with the idea that "the economy" needs our cash in banks "right now."

Above all - "the economy" is too multifaceted and diverse to have one over-reaching need, which is exactly why macro-economics is a completely pointless science (as is the artificial and unrealistic division into micro vs. macro).

Some people are going to keep their money in good banks. There actually are banks which, despite this crisis, have not gone under and seem to be doing fine. Others will be unlucky and have their money in bad banks (mine is in Citibank - guess where Citibank is headed now?...) Others will have it in shoe boxes.

It really does not have any effect on the economy at large where people keep their money and people should act out of self-interest as they understand it, and not out of "patriotism."

This is the same malarky as "we're in a depression so go out and buy stuff you people!" It's ridiculous.

Capital accumulation (savings) are the basis of long term growth and recovery. The depression is good because it's finally cleaning out bad debt.

If people go out and spend or give money to banks who turn around and issue more credit cards - it will only make things worse by increasing bad debt, toxic debt, foreclosures, bankrupcies, and devaluing the flimsy currency.

Or there should be Economists who recognize that theirs' is not a science in the strict sense, like chemistry or physics, because as Aristotle noted "human things are not mathematical, they can not be precisely assessed." In other words: econometric models, which are beloved by Keynesians - have pretty much ZERO to tell us about reality, and we can learn more via deductive reasoning about praxeology.

So - yeah - I guess I agree.

Again with all due respect - but I don't fully agree.

Nobody here is talking about "politics" in the sense of "political party A is great and B sucks" or "Your arguments and opinions are silly because you voted for candidate Y."

People are discussing the "The Economy and Your Collection" - the title of the thread.

So - people will talk about the economy and economics and their collection.

They will naturally try to draw inferences or postulate theories about why the economy is the way it is and why they are acting as they are acting regarding their collections.

Yes - people have different opinions on the internet.

But I like the fact that on this forum - everyone is always polite in presenting those opinions. Everyone can disagree and write other opinions.

I guess the problem really appears when people get over-emotional with their language.

NugundamII: as small request from someone who probably agrees with most of your opinions:

Please try not to swear (aka sh!t etc) when writing about your opinions, and try not to use labels (like saying that all economists are an unnecessary evil etc).

I think that just causes people to take offence instead of looking at the reasoning behind your opinions.

Just state your reasons and what you think and let people make up their minds.

I like this thread and I like the discussion - so I hope we can all get along.

I certainly don't think I'm "absolutely right" or anything like that - I just have my opinions and thoughts and enjoy presenting them and reading other peoples' opinions and thoughts.

Let's all get along and continue please.

Pete

Thank you. Its good to see there still exists the philosopher in some of us. And to your statement about being impolite - I agree but as the well read George Carlin would point out that its been too long and a little too late to be polite. I don't tolerate fools gladly. I appreciate intellect with knowledge whether it be formal or informal I think things have been pushed to far to the right or too far to the left. Otherwise we become "enablers" And like Mencken, Dawkins, Saul, Paglia and Wright have one defining factor to describe our social and economic backwardness mine rests on the axiom of " Measure". What happened saying to someone you look like a fat piece of **&^. Now we must be POLITE and say gee you seem a little over weight or morbidly obese which takes the sting away from what the reality is. A good example is House.! Most people would see him as boorish and well for a lack of a better word mean and Callous. Will continue but thank Peter!!! BTW Im am also a PETER go Figure!!

[Bri]

With all due respect, I disagree. The world economy was over-heating. <snip>

"Stimulus" and Keynesian spending and taxing have been the norm for the last 20 years; largely financed by the US selling T-bills to China, Japan and other countries willing to buy them and largely hoping to prop up their export economies by doing so.

Every time the market tried to self correct - the Federal Reserve and central bankers would step in to blow more air into the bubble.

The current liquidity failure is a normal, healthy reaction to a situation wherein the economy is artificially over-extended.

The fall in consumer spending and confidence is also healthy and good.

If I am right that capital accumulation leads to growth in the long term - which you yourself admit - then please do tell me when it is ok for people and businesses to start saving? When does the "long term" finally start? Because for the last 20 years we've had "short term" (aka short sighted) policies which boiled down to "spend and inflate."

I'm sorry but we are talking about two different things here. First: the world economy was not overheating in 2008. Inflation was not out of control nor were unemployement levels below the NAIRU, which are the signs of economic overheating. Yes, there was a bubble in the late 90s but it slowly collapsed in the early 2000s and therewas a relativly mild recession. I can't give you the specifics of the US economy but Europe is already in the second cycle past that one.

Keynesian theory has been dead for over 2 decades: it suggests that there is a trade-off between inflation and employment that can be used to smooth out the bussiness cycle. This is proven to be false. The Monetarists proved that money has no inherent value ("money is a veil") and the trade-off does not exist. The Monetarist versus neo-Kenesian debate was finished in favour of the Monetarists.

The irony of the current crisis is that the rules the monetairists propossed to protect us from systemic risk failed. Mainly due to exessive risk taking by financial institutions. Reasons for that are legion: Return demands by investors, tax systems that make debt preferable over equitity, managers ignoring safety regulations etc.

There is only the now. So the short term and long term are now aswell. It is just a way to look at problems from different perspectives. The only source of economic growth is the human mind: technology and innovation are the true engines. Captial and labour are in limited supply, human imagination is unlimited. For more information check out growth models by Solow. It the basis for most modern economic thinking.

Note: the USA is the exception in the world in the area that it does not need to save and can rely almost completly on external savings. The reason is that the US economy is the most competative in the world and still gives the highest return on investment and the dollar is accepted as a reserve currency. Don't really want to get into the details as it gets quite far off topic but for more information check on Krugmans works.

This is the Keynesian explanation of business cycles.

<snip>

This just isn't how a healthy economy works.

Agreed, and to quote Keynes: "in the long term we are all dead". Same goes for his theory.

Yes; this reminds me of Paul Krugman's contention that in the macro-world, it's really not possible to talk about profit and loss since (in macro terms) all spending done in an economy is also a "gain" - but to me, this is yet another reason why macro-economics as a seperate discipline makes little sense and is pre-occupied with abstractions like "aggregates" far too much.

This statement doesn't make sense. Projects undertaken with a negative Net Present Value will just destroy value and not be in anyones gain. Krugman is a big name in the exchange rate field, sounds strange he would state such a thing in this context.

The real problem that you don't seem to touch upon is the fact that we have fractional reserve banking. Banks do NOT "loan savings from people to firms and pay interest over these deposits." It would be great if they did.

In reality, however, our fractional reserve system has banks loaning money they DO NOT HAVE, but which the central bank magically creates out of thin air by printing it up or by selling IOUs in the form of Treasury bills and the like.

Our banking system - I am sorry to say - is a ponzy scheme. A pyramid scheme - and at the base of the pyramid are government central banks.

This problem is compounded by a fiat currency monetary system where governments have a monopoly on the creation of money and can set its' value at whim - or at least try to.

I'm sorry but this is incorrect. Financial institutions create money, not (just) the central bank. The central bank sets the interest rates for which banks can borrow from the central bank. Banks themselves can loan and borrow funds on the interbank market. Money creation happens because banks to not have to keep a 1:1 ratio of deposits versus loans but a 1:12 (roughly) one. The law of large numbers and the interbank market make it that banks don't fail when there is a so-called bank run. What happened in the last decade is that mortgages (and other financial derivatives) were taken of the bank balance and put in special companies that trade on the financial markets but are not banks. These companies were not bound by the 1:12 rule and this is where the problem lies. When they started to collect bad debt they dragged their investors (mainly banks, insurance, pension funds etc) down with them. (International) Government regulations could not keep up with reality.

The solution is at least to return to a gold standard so that politicians can't play with our money every time they want to win an election and - AT LEAST to bring some democratic control over central banks. I would personally not mind seeing them abolished, but if we have to have them - then couldn't they, as government institutions in democracies at least ...you know - allow audits? Couldn't they be subject to the same democratic controls that other government institutions are subject to?

The gold standard would only remove exchange rates. Money is neutral remember. The Monetarists fought heavily for an independant Central Bank. Who is acting Keynesian now Most Central Banks are under democratic control. The FED is accountable to congress but not to the administration.

These are some examples of where I do not agree with the Keynesian model.

Actually the problem is the government stimulus packages - which are nothing new - governments have been trying to "stimulate" people for decades now, and they've "stimulated" us all into reckles debt and bankrupcy.

They should just leave people alone to do as they please with their money.

You make it sound as though people wouldn't even want to go on a date with a cute girl unless the government stimulated them. That's not how people function - thankfully

Stimulus packages are there to easy the pain of the worst fall out. It's social policy to prevent public unrest. No sane economist will state that Keynesian stimuli should be used to kick start the economy. It's only to ease the pain and give people time to get back on their feet. To use your analogy: You'd still want to go out on a date with a cute girl, but if there were few girls around and the government would give you a ticket for a beach holiday in Florida during spring break qith a few dozen college girls...well I seem to be thinking off rabbits now

It is an even bigger misconception to think that we can speak of "economic theory" as though there was only ONE. The one you are presenting is a form of Keynesianism, modeled after John Maynard Keynes. It is one of the two dominant majority views in modern economics - the other being monetarism in the vein of the Chicago school.

I personally am closer in my views to the monetarist view than to the Keynesian view, but also have much respect and fondness for the Austrian school of economics - people like Hayek, Mises, and Rothbard.

In any event - there is not just one "economic theory" - and I do think that this crisis has revealed (not for the first time) the short comings and weaknesses of Keynesian economic theory. Pete

Afaik the word theory has can be used for one or multiple. This crisis is not a mystery of any sort and can be easily explained even by text book knowledge. It's very similar to what happened to Japan in the 80s hence the fear for debt-deflation spirals who are far worse then adding some demand stimuli. Keynes vs Monetarists is no longer relevant. Current research focusses on behavioural theory and growth theory. The former is based on the works of Nash and the overlap of economics and psychology. The latter on Solow growth models.

Edited February 24, 2009 by Bri

[edwin3060]

It's amazing how economists or people who think they understand economics can always come up with an explanation after the fact but cannot predict what will happen--which is what their models are supposed to do.

But I agree with you Bri-- "The only source of economic growth is the human mind" -- and this is, in fact one of the biggest problems. Because most economic growth nowadays is, in fact, imaginary (and has no real value), we have things like the current recession.

[Bri]

It's amazing how economists or people who think they understand economics can always come up with an explanation after the fact but cannot predict what will happen--which is what their models are supposed to do.

But I agree with you Bri-- "The only source of economic growth is the human mind" -- and this is, in fact one of the biggest problems. Because most economic growth nowadays is, in fact, imaginary (and has no real value), we have things like the current recession.

Economics is like meteorology in that respect. Meteorologists can predict the weather a few days in advance, but they can't tell you if it will rain on 12 october 2013 in Amsterdam, New York or Tokyo. There are to many unknown variables involved that will affect the model. It's not uncommon for mathmaticians and physicists who work on meteological models to work on economic models aswell.

[VFTF1]

Bri: Thank you for pointing me towards Nash and Solow. I will check them out. As you can probably tell, I've been "out of the loop" in terms of what is considered the most relevent in current academia - it's been a while. I am not an economist, nor did I study economics, but I have always had a life long facination and have done a lot of reading, as well as having many colleagues who are economists.

Some comments on some of your points:

Stimulus packages are there to easy the pain of the worst fall out. It's social policy to prevent public unrest.

This is something I can better understand and agree with. Public unrest, the growth of demagogy and the risk of a political system slipping towards some form of tyranny are very high during economic crisises and certainly ought to be worked against.

However - what always alarms me is that to the extent that a policy makes an economic situation worse and not better, it prolongs the conditions under which social unrest can develop.

I'm sorry but this is incorrect. Financial institutions create money, not (just) the central bank. The central bank sets the interest rates for which banks can borrow from the central bank. Banks themselves can loan and borrow funds on the interbank market. Money creation happens because banks to not have to keep a 1:1 ratio of deposits versus loans but a 1:12 (roughly) one. The law of large numbers and the interbank market make it that banks don't fail when there is a so-called bank run. What happened in the last decade is that mortgages (and other financial derivatives) were taken of the bank balance and put in special companies that trade on the financial markets but are not banks. These companies were not bound by the 1:12 rule and this is where the problem lies.

I think we actually agree.

We're just using different terminology. What I call "fractional reserve banking" is precisely what you describe - a situation where the ratio is not 1:1, but instead the reserve is fractional - a fraction of the initial deposit (1:2 or 1:12 or whatever).

The 1:12 rule itself is, in my opinion, unhealthy.

Finally - the only reason - in my opinion - why a bubble developed on the interbank market and did so in a systemic way was because governments since Brenton Woods have allowed for free floating currencies not bound to gold or silver or anything else beyond the fiat power of central banks.

Money is neutral remember. The Monetarists fought heavily for an independant Central Bank. Who is acting Keynesian now

And this is exactly where Monetarists and me part ways. The idea of a central bank independent from politicians is good. But the idea of a central bank independent from politics - in the sense of democratic control and oversight - is bad. The chairman of the Federal reserve often testifies before Congress, but Fed board meeting minutes are never made public, nor is the Fed ever audited like other federal agencies - basically - the entire institution is - for lack of a better term - an oligarchical institution.

The Monetarists feared a Central Bank that caters to the inflationary desires of politicians who wanted to buy elections by spending on their voters without raising people's taxes. That was good. But all people are faliable and the principles of limited government need to apply to everyone - even central bankers.

But I guess this is why I agree with you when you write:

The irony of the current crisis is that the rules the monetairists propossed to protect us from systemic risk failed. Mainly due to exessive risk taking by financial institutions.

Moving on:

This statement doesn't make sense. Projects undertaken with a negative Net Present Value will just destroy value and not be in anyones gain. Krugman is a big name in the exchange rate field, sounds strange he would state such a thing in this context.

It was in one of his NYT op-eds from a few weeks back. I tried to find it so I could give you a link, but I couldn't. He wasn't saying that this was his opinion - he was giving it as a "possible view" that he went on not so much to debunk as to work around to get to his point - which was something else entirely. Sorry for making it so confusing - if I could find the link that would probably help...

What happened saying to someone you look like a fat piece of **&^. Now we must be POLITE and say gee you seem a little over weight or morbidly obese which takes the sting away from what the reality is.

The reality is that sh#t is not human, has no feelings and is usually skinny compared to a person. I can't agree that by swearing, we make our point stronger. If anything, we merely make our emotional state more pronounced to others.

But do you really think that if you called someone a fat piece of sh$t - this would encourage them to try to loose weight and improve their health? Or would the effect be the opposite - would it make them so sad and stressed that they would eat more and isolate themselves from the outside world in order to avoid similar attacks?

Finally - it's all a matter of context. I would definitely call my best friend of 10 years a "fat piece of sh#t" and tell him to do something to help himself - why? - because we've been buddies for years, we've experienced a lot together and we can lay it out "like it is."

But to use that language with strangers or in a public forum does absolutely no good. It distracts from whatever merit your views might hold and makes people uncomfortable.

I'm flattered you agree with some of what I say - but I'd rather you disagreed with everything I have written on economics if only you'd agree to please not swear and understand that other people might feel slighted if you belittle their profession with an ad hoc attack.

As for collections and the economy - to sum up and get back on track:

I think that the fact that we even HAVE collections is a testimony to the strength of our economies - despite these troubles. If you think about it - these are total "unnecessary" luxuries. Or - at best (which is how I think of them) - they are expressions of appreciation for a certain artistic spirit. It's kind of like having busts of the David and other famous statues in your palace or something...

I treat anime and the whole hobby industry as a form of art and culture - a very unique one. Like all art and culture- it has its' crass and kiche sides - but also there is much beauty - technical and aesthetic to it. And it adds happiness to life in many ways.

Economic downturns always suck - no matter what the theory and no matter what benefits might follow them.

Pete

[Bri]

As for collections and the economy - to sum up and get back on track:

I think that the fact that we even HAVE collections is a testimony to the strength of our economies - despite these troubles. If you think about it - these are total "unnecessary" luxuries. Or - at best (which is how I think of them) - they are expressions of appreciation for a certain artistic spirit. It's kind of like having busts of the David and other famous statues in your palace or something...

I treat anime and the whole hobby industry as a form of art and culture - a very unique one. Like all art and culture- it has its' crass and kiche sides - but also there is much beauty - technical and aesthetic to it. And it adds happiness to life in many ways.

Economic downturns always suck - no matter what the theory and no matter what benefits might follow them.

Pete

Thank you for the discussion. This part I can fully agree with -off course-. Anime and hobbies in general are part of the nicer things in life. Unnecessary maybe from a rational perspective but definitly food for the soul.

[VFTF1]

Well - get ready for happy days again at least according to THIS guy - once the 1/2000 SDF-1 comes out, we'll all be buyin' three of them

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090224/ap_on_..._re/wall_street

I hope he's right. That's a pretty bold prediction though...

Pete

[D_Unit]

I currently work as a graphic artist in an printing company (we do labels and such for major industries). Right now things are slowing down and I've personally took a lot of time off for health reasons (freakin' eczema!). The one good thing about not being at work as much is the fact that I don't have to be around some of the retards at work (the boss's sons); we have a high turn-around because the two little "Nazis" keep pissing people off. I also do web design and work on my own website on the side.

I've been collected Transforming toys for most of my life now and I don't see that coming to an end anytime soon. I've had a pretty hard life but I've also had many great moments. I got my business degree from University so I saw this catastrophe coming years ahead... it's just common sense I guess. It was a couple of years ago when I reached a moment in my life where I was faced with joining the rest of society, marrying a young career woman that I been dating for years or...

Well, I took one last trip abroad and when I came back I broke things off with her. The thought of dumping/selling my collection and living the rest of my life with an opinionated hag just didn't seem very appealing. At the time I worked hard enough to own my new home out right, my car payments were almost done, and everything was set for a family. But as I mentioned earlier, I lived a relatively "colorful" life and I've been with many different types of people. To spend the rest of my life shopping and gossiping about nonsense would be betraying all the people that I've shared the past good/bad times with.

Financially, I guess I've done all the preparations that I could do to weather a long downturn. I'll have to buy less toys/figures so that I can afford the ones that I really want, just in case my future income may cease (almost everyone has to prepare to that scenario).

Emotionally, I've taken quite a toll the past few years. Because of my last relationship I've broke ties with many of my friends (what an idiot I was). Still, it may not have been a big loss since most people around me bought into the massive commercialism blitz after the turn of the millennium. I couldn't have a decent/meaningful conversation without some idiot bring up the subject of real estate and stocks. I really miss all the bros that I rolled with, and all the hunnies that made life uncomplicated.

Bottom line - friends and family come first, then things. But if the people you're with ain't worth it, then stick with what you love. If money is a problem, take care of yourself and your basic needs first; one day things will get better and you will have money to start collecting again. I found through making my toy-fan site that you don't have to buy/own a lot of figures to be passionate about toys. There are so many things that people can do that give life meaning. You can volunteer, play sports, take inexpensive trips, or just spend time with the people you're close to.

[transfan52]

As far as the economy goes I am spending less overall on things I don't really need. I'm not done collecting entirely yet as there are still things here and there I pick up. I've never been a hardcore toy collector that has to have everything and if I ever feel I have too much I start selling off things that take up too much space.

If my savings allow I would like to be able to purchase at least a set of armor parts for the dx-25 valk. Other than that there's not much else id like to buy toy wise. It depends on how bad the economy gets in the next few months... If prices on necessities skyrocket I will definitely cut back on things I don't need but as long as the economy is somewhat stable I may always buy one thing here or there.

[VFTF1]

D Unit - I like the way you think dude

And in general - dag - I am learning so much from this thread. People are opening up and I guess unsurprisingly it turns out that this great forum is populated with great people

Pete