To: Crony who wrote (31577 ) 5/19/2005 7:32:24 PM From: GraceZ Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 306849 Feeling rich and being rich are two different things. The overriding fundamental principle of economics is that you can't get something for nothing. Borrowing to consume (using your house as an ATM) is simply bringing future consumption into today. If consumption in the future is more expensive you might be personally better off doing that, in fact this has been the thinking in the housing market, that future housing prices will be higher than today so I'd better buy now or risk not being able to buy tomorrow. But the bills come due and are paid down with real wages and what works for you on a personal level doesn't have the same macro effect. Houses are about the only consumption item in the last five years which has covered the cost of borrowing to buy it, things like plasma TVs and SUVs are getting cheaper on a real basis so borrowing for them means you pay more for them now than in the future. You are better off buying them with savings because when it comes to electronic toys the future is always cheaper. What everyone forgets here over and over is that for the most part people used the lower interest rates not to fuel new spending (except on houses and improvements) but to refinance old spending. The average 30k a year person with a house and a pile of credit card debt was able to refinance the house and the credit card debt, lower their monthly payments and significantly lower their monthly interest nut. If they did this, they could raise their consumption without increasing their total debt level or an increase in their debt service. I was able to refi my house a few years ago and reduce monthly payments, reduce the loan term and increase principle payments to the tune of 12k over what I would have paid during that time frame at the old rates. This all sounds like free money added to the economy until you consider that on a macro scale all that happened was some poor schlub that held my notes is now making significantly less money in interest and now has to reduce their spending. It's a zero gain for the economy on the macro level. It's worse than that though with most of the borrowing going into housing. It is worse because if borrowing had been used to fuel something that had a chance of being worth more in the future (training, capital improvements, new enterprises, patents, etc), rather than funding something that would have a higher price in the future then the interest would have been paid for with increased productivity. Increasing productivity is the only real way to increase a country's collective wealth.