The Ignorant Investor

Ignorance Can't Stand in the Way of My Opinion

Sunday, February 19, 2006

 

Back to Being a Downer: Our Savings Rate is the Worst in 72 Years

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Americans' personal savings rate dipped into negative territory in 2005, something that hasn't happened since the Great Depression. Consumers depleted their savings to finance the purchases of cars and other big-ticket items.

The Commerce Department reported Monday that the savings rate fell into negative territory at minus 0.5 percent, meaning that Americans not only spent all of their after-tax income last year but had to dip into previous savings or increase borrowing.

The savings rate has been negative for an entire year only twice before -- in 1932 and 1933 -- two years when the country was struggling to cope with the Great Depression, a time of massive business failures and job layoffs.

You know, I wrote a post on this story a few weeks when it first came out but never posted it. It involved a long story about a young couple that lived next to my family as a kid for a year or two before their debts caught up with them and they were forced to sell their beloved house and move. It seemed like a nice parable for consumerist America, but I couldn't get the angles in the story right, and what the hell- I'm not Tolstoy and this isn't War and Peace. So screw it. Instead I'll be brief.

Besides the obvious significance of the news on the savings rate, I know that somewhere there is a very intelligent economist saying that this news is insignificant in the broader picture of our incredibly resilient economy- an economist who is arguing with a self-assured smirk that the savings rate doesn't take into account the new realities of global trade, or the merits of a highly developed credit system, or some other explanation that I don't begin to understand.

I'm not an economist, and I can't argue economics like an economist. But I have to ask myself: if they've been keeping track of this number since the 1930s, it's got to mean something. And whatever that something is, I can't imagine that it's a good thing. And if it isn't a good thing, why would this economist tell me that it is?

Comments: Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]





<< Home

Archives

June 2005   July 2005   August 2005   September 2005   October 2005   November 2005   December 2005   January 2006   February 2006   March 2006   April 2006   May 2006   June 2006   August 2006   September 2006   October 2007   November 2007   December 2007   January 2008   March 2008   May 2008   January 2009   February 2009   July 2009   November 2009   December 2009   January 2010   April 2010   September 2010   October 2010   November 2010   February 2011   March 2011   April 2011   August 2011   September 2011  

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Subscribe to Posts [Atom]