- Important: All passwords were reset on 06/15/11. Old passwords will no longer work. Click here to retrieve your password.
- Subscribe to Our Free Dewsletter
We are non-commercial, all volunteer and supported by our readers. Please help sustain the Dew by making a donation.
The spouse, a now-retired professor of film studies, who was certainly entitled to be considered “outstanding in his field,” addressing movies from a literary and communications media perspective and having authored a couple of biographies of Nevil Shute Norway and Charlie Chaplin, as well as the totally original study of movies about war, “Looking Away; Hollywood and Vietnam“, is not really a studious person. Indeed, it’s quite likely that he moved from the study of novels and poems to film because movies made it possible for him to be somewhere else, even as he had to sit still in a room. So, it is a running joke with people looking for him now to be told that he’s out, standing in his field, admiring his , most which (13) he has dug by hand. Obviously, other people can admire them, too, and they don’t even have to be out standing in the field. They can see them from the road.
But, that’s not really the point of this post. This intro is just to explain my somewhat astonished amusement at a report from the Federal Reserve that I happened to peruse today, which may explain how come everybody seems to be so confused about debt.
The formal title of this report, which the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis issues quarterly, with about a two month delay – preliminary figures for the quarter that ended in September came out on November 7th – is “Consumer Credit-G.19.” I mention that with such specificity, because this is a document certainly worth perusing, especially when you realize that the top category, “Consumer Credit Outstanding,” actually refers to what consumers owe to banks and other financial institutions, including, increasingly, the Federal government.
They call it credit because, of course, they’re looking at money from the perspective of the banks. They have extended credit to consumers and consumers bit and, as a result, the consumers are now in debt. But, you’d never know it from the accounts. From the perspective of a normal person, the whole system is ass-backwards. Indeed, most recently, the banks are issuing debit cards, which actually mean they’re holding money for you in an account and, if you want to use it, they’ll charge a processing fee. And consumer credit outstanding does not refer to the max the bank has agreed to lend, but that hasn’t yet been spent. No, “consumer credit outstanding” is the sum total of what we all owe, loans on real estate excepted.
As of September 2012, projected, American individuals are in debt to the tune of two trillion, seven hundred and twenty-two billion dollars, not including what we owe on our houses. That’s almost two hundred billion more than we owed at the end of 2007, but in 2009 we owed almost a hundred billion less than before the crash. Which means that the banks were collecting less interest. Moreover, the chart of “major holders” of debt reveals that where we owed the federal government a mere ninety three billion back in 2007, in 2012 that’s projected to have increased to five hundred and nine billion dollars.
A footnote explains:
Consumer loans held by the federal government include loans originated by the Department of Education under the Federal Direct Loan Program, as well as Federal Family Education Loan Program loans that the government purchased from depository institutions and finance companies.
No wonder the banks aren’t happy. That’s about four hundred billion on which they’re no longer collecting interest – the interest, btw, which is still due but which is now supposed to pay for Medicaid expansion.
See, now that’s what I call an outstanding deal – one for which the Obama Administration deserves credit. ‘Cause, I for one, definitely prefer debts being owed to us, rather than the greedy banksters. And, you know, they were greedy. If they’d been content with a modest service charge for handling our bank accounts, they wouldn’t have had these recurring crashes.
That’s not just my opinion. Listen to Warren Stephens, the Lord of Little Rock, who calls himself a middleman, expound on how prudent investment is done.
Finally, it’s no wonder people don’t know which way is up when the economic jargon is laced with euphemisms, to boot. Consumer credit outstanding!! That’s debt, buddy, and we can handle it. Our Uncle Cons are counting on us to continue to be confused.
Worthy of Comment
Also on the Dew
Last month I was on assignment in a remote place, the kind of place where you see trucks and tractors but few cars. Farm territory. I parked along a weedy, poorly maintained road and as I stepped from the car I saw a sight from childhood. A tangled thicket of briars with succulent, shiny blackberries glistening like onyx pendants. Red berries, hard and yet to ripen, waited their turn for sunshine to do its magic. Seeing this explosion of blackberries brought back childhood memories. Pickin’ berries was great fun, a tradition. You’d reach into the briars and pluck a big berry, pop Read on →
There were superficial reasons—when he thundered on the political scene at the Democratic Convention in 2004 and then rode on the wave of that thunder to his election in 2008—to compare Barack Obama with Abraham Lincoln. There was the Illinois connection, for instance, and the gifted orator connection, and the “new birth of freedom” connection. Add to these the evident high esteem, even reverence, held by Obama for that towering mentor of his spirit, and it is easy to link the two of them. But what about things deeper than the surface? A sobering intimation arose in me, in the wake of the Read on →
The French Impressionists attempted a rendering of what they saw, an "impression" yes, but the interesting aspect is best illustrated by Seurat's Pointillism. Interesting because in the late 1800s there was a shift in emphasis among painters of an adventurous nature, what came to be called the "avant-garde," from the "subject" depicted to the "act" of perception. This shift may have grown out of or been influenced by then current scientific theories of how the eye works, but I believe it was based in an emerging self-awareness. The excitement was not about "how" I see but "that" I see. I Read on →
How did it come to this? How did our political life in America get to be so drenched in hostility? While reading an article about how “anti-environmentalists” are spending thousands of dollars to alter their vehicles to increase the smoke they produce, I came across this statement from one of that group, who call themselves “coal rollers”: “If [Obama’s] into the environment, if he’s into this or that, we’re not.” And it’s not just the president they’re hostile to, it’s also those Prius-driving “librels” who, according to the article, might be specially targeted with a blast of smoke and soot. How did “if they’re for it, I’m agi Read on →