• Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
  • Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!

Whats the role of government in ensuring the financial well-being of its citizens?

rocketman

flying low
Thought this could strike a fun discussion:

Op-Ed Columnist - David Brooks - The Great Seduction by Debt - Op-Ed - NYTimes.com

The deterioration of financial mores has meant two things. First, it's meant an explosion of debt that inhibits social mobility and ruins lives. Between 1989 and 2001, credit-card debt nearly tripled, soaring from $238 billion to $692 billion. By last year, it was up to $937 billion, the report said.
Second, the transformation has led to a stark financial polarization. On the one hand, there is what the report calls the investor class. It has tax-deferred savings plans, as well as an army of financial advisers. On the other hand, there is the lottery class, people with little access to 401(k)'s or financial planning but plenty of access to payday lenders, credit cards and lottery agents.

The loosening of financial inhibition has meant more options for the well-educated but more temptation and chaos for the most vulnerable. Social norms, the invisible threads that guide behavior, have deteriorated. Over the past years, Americans have been more socially conscious about protecting the environment and inhaling tobacco. They have become less socially conscious about money and debt.

The agents of destruction are many. State governments have played a role. They aggressively hawk their lottery products, which some people call a tax on stupidity. Twenty percent of Americans are frequent players, spending about $60 billion a year. The spending is starkly regressive. A household with income under $13,000 spends, on average, $645 a year on lottery tickets, about 9 percent of all income. Aside from the financial toll, the moral toll is comprehensive. Here is the government, the guardian of order, telling people that they don't have to work to build for the future. They can strike it rich for nothing.
 
I would propose that the government has a marked interest in the financial well-being of it's constituents, but not necessarily an obligation to ensure the financial well-being of all of its constituents.

The rub of course being, what are the proper procedures for encouraging certain behaviors and discouraging other behaviors without trampling all over the right of the morons to behave like morons.

Certain elements are already in place. Tax benefits of home ownership, retirement savings, and college saving. Statewide bans on "skill games", slot machines, and other gambling. Sin taxes. And so on.

I don't know if more legislation and/or programs such as those suggested in the article would help deter people from being idiots, but something needs to be done to get people to stop being such twits.



And as far as the state lotto, I do find it amusing that the only acceptable gambling in the state is state-sanctioned. AND that the Ohio Lottery Commission has run advertisements suggesting buying lotto tickets as a retirement plan. AND that they remind us to "play responsibly" like they really care.

EDIT - I suppose Lotto isn't really the only gambling in the state. Wasn't really thinking about racing and the sort. However, I guess my point was more that the state will take a moral high ground on other gambling, while running it's own outfit.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
There was a state rep. named Gene Krebs from Preble County a few years back that proposed a bill that would have required every individual who received any form of state assistance in the past to pay the state back with lottery winnings exceeding $600.

They guy was an ass, so very little of his legislation ever made it through the general assembly, but this was one idea that I wish would have. I don't know if it would have curbed lottery spendings, but I liked the idea anyway.

Oh, and yes. The state lottery system is a joke!
 
Upvote 0
On the other hand, there is the lottery class, people with little access to 401(k)'s or financial planning but plenty of access to payday lenders, credit cards and lottery agents.


Part of the correction going on in the housing market (i.e. foreclosures) is because of this as people overextended themselves. I don't feel sorry for the cc companies as they readily extend credit to just about anybody. My son who is a college student and generally unemployed for most of the year (makes less than $3,500) is continually receiving cc offers in the mail. He has American Express (for emergencies) and Capital One cards (for staples) which have low credit ceilings on purpose. He must receive 3-5 in the mail every week.....:smash:
 
Upvote 0
MaxBuck;1181116; said:
State-run lotteries are sufficient to demonstrate why the USA has no fucking business going to war with other nations on "moral grounds."


Max-- Don't go all Taos on us, man.
 
Upvote 0
AKAKBUCK;1181125; said:
Max-- Don't go all Taos on us, man.
Oh, I'm not, trust me. There are lots of good reasons for going to war, but they all ultimately relate to national self-interest (in a moral vacuum).

So back to the national debt. As with any debt, one needs to focus more intently on value relative to the productive capacity of the debtor. Here's an interesting graph:

National-Debt-GDP.gif


So our debt load hasn't grown since the Eisenhower years (no thanks to the Republican administrations of Reagan, Bush I and Bush II).

With respect to debt, there is another factor that everyone seems to forget. We don't have a debt that is owable to Martians; debts are related only to moneys loaned by Party A to Party B. Most of the "national debt" is held in government-issued bonds and related securities, which in turn are ultimately held by private individuals. Consequently, the payoff is not going into some black hole, but rather constitutes yet another set of transfer payments.

I really believe that most people's consternation over the national debt is misplaced. It really is not a huge deal. When it gets to be too big, the bondholders will get stiffed. Much as I get stiffed when a tenant fails to pay his rent, or when a client fails to pay his bills. Happens all the time.
 
Upvote 0
MaxBuck;1181135; said:
I really believe that most people's consternation over the national debt is misplaced. It really is not a huge deal. When it gets to be too big, the bondholders will get stiffed. Much as I get stiffed when a tenant fails to pay his rent, or when a client fails to pay his bills. Happens all the time.

Perhaps I am misreading, but are you suggesting that it wouldn't be a big deal if the US govt failed to make a bond payment? I hope I'm not around the day that happens.
 
Upvote 0
Best Buckeye;1181141; said:
To answer the question of he thread . None.
The SSA is on hold for you - they want to know if you really want to give back next month's check. :wink2:

In simple answer to the thread question though one thought is the following.

Once the US Government became directly involved in securing national credit, and in the issuance of a unified currency, the primary responsibility they held to ensure the best chance for the financial well-being of the citizenry was to act as wise and sound stewards of that money supply.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
MaxBuck;1181135; said:
I really believe that most people's consternation over the national debt is misplaced. It really is not a huge deal. When it gets to be too big, the bondholders will get stiffed. Much as I get stiffed when a tenant fails to pay his rent, or when a client fails to pay his bills. Happens all the time.

Wrong.

If the U.S. defaults on its debt - its trillions of dollars of debt - we will be in a world of shit, especially now that we are by far a net consumer nation rather than producer nation. We would be dreaming of $5 gas, as the dollar would become like czar-era rubles or something. Inflation would be like Zimbabwe's. Immense pools of dollar-denominated assets would be crushed, and financial systems would be in chaos.

Likely? Probably not. But remember when Russia defaulted? It would be like that - only many, many times worse - I'm not smart enough to quantify it, maybe NYB or 14-0 can chime in.

Bondholders get stiffed when our rates are too low or inflation eliminates NPVs, but a default on U.S. debt would be a very, very bad thing.

Seeing how the government is essentially a gatekeeper for a nation's economy - both protecting some portions of the economy and deregulating others as it sees fit - it absolutely has a fiduciary duty to its constituents to maintain the country's solvency.
 
Upvote 0
buckeyegrad;1181117; said:
There was a state rep. named Gene Krebs from Preble County a few years back that proposed a bill that would have required every individual who received any form of state assistance in the past to pay the state back with lottery winnings exceeding $600.

They guy was an ass, so very little of his legislation ever made it through the general assembly, but this was one idea that I wish would have. I don't know if it would have curbed lottery spendings, but I liked the idea anyway.

Oh, and yes. The state lottery system is a joke!

Wow. I'm from Preble county originally, I know that guy but I can't place how at the moment.

Wierd.

Sorry for the hijack.
 
Upvote 0
My real point is this -- far more damage is done when people panic unnecessarily over our national debt than is done by the debt itself. I am in no way proposing that our government assume a casual attitude toward the national debt, but rather that we just chill out. We're in no real danger at the present time, and claiming that we are has the potential to do real harm.
 
Upvote 0
MaxBuck;1181194; said:
My real point is this -- far more damage is done when people panic unnecessarily over our national debt than is done by the debt itself. I am in no way proposing that our government assume a casual attitude toward the national debt, but rather that we just chill out. We're in no real danger at the present time, and claiming that we are has the potential to do real harm.

I see what you're saying, and panic is never a good thing, I agree. But there is room for concern these days. The combination of our total debt/low rates/growing inflation is contributing to the remarkably weak dollar and subsequent record asset prices.

For example: Is demand for oil high? Yes, absolutely, and that adds pricing pressure at the pump. But we would feel it less from a personal budget standpoint if we were paid in Euros or Pounds, for example, as those currencies have risen relative to the dollar, which is what oil is traded in. Just saying.

Also, and this is not to pick on you Max - sorry if it seems that way - but the article was also focused on whether or not the government should do more to protect people from becoming too deep in personal debt. And that I'm not sure on. Are some rates ridiculously high (credit cards, pay-day lending)? Yes, absolutely. But are some people particularly risky credits (jobless college kids, the very poor)? Yes, they are. Regulating rates on these types of things would essentially limit credit to the uncreditworthy, and that, I think, is the debatable part.
 
Upvote 0
Back
Top