This is what I hear on a daily basis:

Americans are bobbing in a pool of debt so deep that it’s tickling their earlobes.

If we don’t get a handle on the total U.S. consumer debt, we’re doomed.

Those aren’t tough messages to understand.  Too much debt is bad.  We have too much debt.  We need to start acting like responsible adults by paying it all down.  It’s time to embrace the concepts of savings and delayed gratification.

Well, maybe.

A lot of folks will say that the total U.S. consumer debt level, which is around $2.56 trillion, needs to go down.  Not everyone sees it that way, though.

There’s another school of thought, and I hear from its professors on a daily basis, too.

They argue that we don’t have a debt crisis and that consumer spending is the only thing driving our economy.  If we want to get out of this recession, they’ll argue, we need people to buy more stuff on credit.

There’s some support for that perspective, too.  A recent article I found via the Houston Chronicle.  It’s author, Erik Tyson, maintains that we don’t really have a big problem with credit and that things seem to be cruising right along just fine and dandy in that department.

“The recession has supposedly led to increases in family savings, major efforts by families to reduce debt and other belt-tightening measures, so the figures given in the Fed consumer-finance survey probably even exaggerate the extent of the current credit problem,” Vlasenko said.

In summary, Vlasenko says: “As is often the case, the reality is often less extreme and dire than we are led to believe. Sure, some families and individuals are drowning in credit card debt. And some misuse their credit cards.

“But the vast majority of Americans appear to manage their credit wisely.”

Now, it’s not so hard to get a grip on the pro-debt mode of thinking, either.  We don’t have the production and manufacturing base in this country that we once did, so our spending is critical to business success.  This is the same logic that’s led to things like the clunker law–encouraing people to take on debt in order to save the auto industry.

You can pick either of those perspectives and come up with at least a few decent arguments for yourself.  The problem with all of this is that they don’t seem to fit together too well.  You can’t simultaneously encourage thrift and debt reduction while salivating over the prospect of people spending more money.

Now that big picture stuff is a little complicated (and very mutually exclusive, it would appear), but the “on the ground” happenings are just as confusing.

Some people seem pretty happy that we’re putting a dent in the total U.S. consumer debt total.  This recession has led to some belt-tightening and some serious debt reduction, you see.  Apparently, we’re paying down billions and billions in consumer debt every month for the past half year.

If you’re in the “debt bad” group, that’s good news.  Or is it?

You see, a lot of that debt reduction seems to be coming from write-offs and settlements.  The lending banks realize they can’t squeeze green blood from the turnips suffering through this recession, so they’re taking the bad debt off the books.  We’re not really paying down all of the debt.  Some of the reduction is stemming from our simple inability to repay it.

That, as you’d guess, has a nasty impact on credit scores.  Thus, people aren’t getting as much credit.  Less credit extension means it’s harder to boost that total debt number.  Maybe we’re “paying it down” only because we’re not getting more of it.

And that’s scary news if you’re part of the “we need more consumer spending” crowd.  It’s hard to imagine consumers buying their way out of a recession when they can’t pay their bills and no one’s interested in giving them more access to credit.  Banks are slashing credit lines.

Personally, I’m still trying to make sense of it all.  At the risk of not doing my part to help the economy, however, I’m approaching my own life on the basis of what’s best for me.  I love the fine folks at GM, but I’m not buying a new car.  I’m sure that the people running those businesses in the shopping mall are real sweethearts and I know that they can’t employee people if we’re not in there sliding plastic so fast it melts, but I’m opting out.  The Lampsen plan involves reasonable spending, working with cash, and taking care of the future.

If I’m accidentally contributing to a long-term recession, I apologize.  Part of me wonders, though.  If the only way out of this mess is to either bottom out or to get even messier, maybe it’s just time to bottom out.

File the “cash for clunkers” bill under “we never learn”.

The last time I checked, there were a lot of pretty smart people making a pretty darn compelling argument that this whole recession is a “chickens coming home to roost moment”. We’re paying the piper now for a long debt dance during which people financed homes they couldn’t really afford and lived with little plastic cards clutched tightly in their hands. We overextended as Jane and John Doe. The big banks went too crazy. Everyone ran around writing checks that they couldn’t cash and finally the entire credit-based artifice began to crumble, crushing many underneath the rubble.

So, what would the smartest possible reaction be to all of the mayhem?

I’ll tell you what it wouldn’t be… It wouldn’t be a government program designed specifically to encourage people to make large purchases on credit.

I mean, really, if you said the best way to create a sustainable economy involved increasing consumer debt loads, you’d be a laughingstock, right?

Wrong. Enter the “cash for clunkers” law.

This legislative gem provides folks who are driving fuel-inefficient used cars with a voucher worth either $3500 or $4500 (depending on the car’s mpg rating) to use toward the purchase of a brand new chunk of American steel!

Now, as you’ve probably noticed, new cars tend to cost more than $3500 or $4500. The Yugo is long gone. Even the el cheapo, no features standard vehicles run around twice the max voucher amount.

So, you’re tooling around in a 1990 Continental featuring a primer gray, yellow and red color scheme due to the previous owner’s affinity for fender bending fun. You’re sucking gas like a dehydrated guy holding a Super Big Gulp. Even if the car had tires with tread (those little wires poking out don’t count), it wouldn’t be worth $3500. But now, you can get a $4500 voucher to put towards the purchase of a brand spanking new Chevy Cobalt.

Where are you getting the balance of the money? Well, duh, the helpful people at GMAC Auto Finance will loan it to you. Or someone else will. Some dummy will spot you the extra moohlah, even though you might end up paying fat interest on the loan.

End result? You just added big ol’ chunk of change to your debt load. Instead of owning your Continental outright, you’re working part of every day just to pay GMAC.

Now, we can probably assume that you don’t have a ton of cushion in your monthly budget. Most folks limping along in rustbuckets aren’t living the high life. Thus, when something BAD happens (and it will), you’re going to have an issue making that car payment. Or you’re going to stiff someone else. Or you’ll go hungry (which seems like a high price to pay for a Cobalt). Odds are that you’re going to be trying to find a way to stave off the repo man when you become the unlucky person who officially pushes us into 10% unemployment.

More debt without more income? Bad. More debt in an already “iffy” economy? Bad.

Plus, cars are a miserable investment in the first place. Depreciation is faster than a new Mustang.

So, the cash for clunker law exists to encourage people to increase their consumer debt by purchasing an item that will lose value before the ink on the loan agreement dries.

Wow.

And that’s not all. It’s going to mess with the market value of older cars, artificially increasing their value and making them harder for the working poor to afford. It’s the worst kind of economic engineering.

The silver lining? It might not make a difference. It might be that the reeling credit industry won’t bother writing loans on new cars for voucher holders, anyway.

So, the cash for clunkers law would either make things worse or have very little real impact whatsoever. A loser either way.

If you want to read about the details of who can get what in exchange for what car and other assorted fun facts about this bit of foolishness known as “cash for clunkers,” check here.

Some other good reading: Elizabeth Hovde and I don’t share the same overall political perspective, but she’s so right about this law that I almost want to kiss her.

I think I do a pretty good job of keeping politics out of my posts here at Personal Finance Analyst.  Occasionally, I slip a bit and provide some clues regarding my personal outlook, but I really do try to keep my posts out of the nasty and generally ineffectual back-and-forths that too often pass for blog-based political debate.

I’m going to try to maintain that with this post, although the subject matter makes it tough to remain “above the fray” or non-partisan.

Here’s the deal.  President Obama and a Democratically-controlled Congress ran, at least in part, on the idea that it was time to pump some bucks into the economy in hopes of staving off a deeper and nastier recession.  Since his election, Presiden Obama has signed into law provisions creating more spending than anyone can truly comprehend as means of turning the economy around.

The economy isn’t turning around.  The stimulus doesn’t appear to be stimulating.  After reading a recent Associated Press article about the White House’s approach to the not-so-stimulating stimulus, I thought people might be interested in trying to figure out why it isn’t doing the trick.

Instead of giving you my personal take on why this is happening, I thought it might be nice to share a few possibilities.

It needs more time. Only a fraction of the money planned for stimulus spending has been pumped into the economy at this point and some supporters of the stimulus package will tell you that it will start working once the circulation of the cash begins to grow.  More of that money is supposed to be in action this summer, so if you take this position, you’re probably expecting progress soon.

It could be worse. You don’t hear this a lot, but I think that it might be fairly persuasive.  It’s possible that the stimulus hasn’t pulled us out of recession but that things would be a heckuva lot worse if we hadn’t done anything at all.  The President sort of hinted at that when he recently stated:

“Now, I know that there’s some who, despite all evidence to the contrary, still don’t believe in the necessity and promise of this recovery act.”

“And I would suggest to them that they talk to the companies who, because of this plan, scrapped the idea of laying off employees and, in fact, decided to hire employees. Tell that to the Americans who received that unexpected call saying, ‘Come back to work.’”

Rose-colored glasses have limited the stimulation. This seems to be a developing theme among those who are speaking on behalf of the stimulus package and the White House.  Basically, they’re telling us that the original plan was created based on estimates that were later shown to be a little too optimistic.  That’s why we’re not back down to 8% unemployment and it’s why the economic graphs aren’t yet showing an up-tick.  The apparent solution to this error in estimation would be a little patience and/or more stimulus spending.

It’s not going to work.  Period. While the other explanations assume that the core thinking behind the stimulus package is sound, maniy will argue that it was doomed from square one and that the programs and spending aren’t going to do solve any economic problems but will instead exacerbate them.  As you’d probably expect, most of these arguments seem to be coming from free marketeers and the loyal GOP opposition.  The fact that they’re biased doesn’t mean they’re not potentially right (that holds true for the previously mentioned takes, too).

So, if you’re trying to figure out why you’re wallet isn’t being stimulated and are questioning the whole shebang, you can take your pick from those explanations.  Regardless of which one(s) you choose, the fact of the matter is that things aren’t yet looking up.  Until they do, it behooves all of us to do our part to back the approaches we feel offer the greatest chance for success and to do our best to keep our own financial houses in order throughout this downturn.

I know I promised to try to keep my politics out of this, but I don’t want to be accused of surreptitiously spinning the issues here.  So, I’ll come right out with it.  While my vote is always in play, I vote with the Democrats more often than with the Republicans.  I voted for Barack Obama and would do so again against the same competition.  That being said, I am not convinced of the stimulus package’s wisdom and an unimpressed with the unwillingness of Americans to accept the temporary pain of market adjustments.  I’m hoping I’m wrong, though.  I’m hoping that we’ll start to see and feel that stimulus package kicking in soon.  Misplaced or not, I always hope for the best after something’s been done, even if it’s not what I would’ve done.

Keep your fingers crossed.

I had a specific question about the 2009 economic stimulus package.  I hopped right on the Google train and crafted a precise search, sure that I’d find out exactly what I wanted to know.  I didn’t get an answer.  None of the first 20 sites on the list provided anything close to genuine information about my specific question.  Not even close.

Instead, I found myself looking at a collection of extremely opinionated sites and blogs that were more interested in ax grinding than in providing real information about the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.  There were those on the far left who decried the bill as an Obama sell-out.  There were those on the right who seemed to think that calling it “porkulus” is so clever and who pepper every other sentence with “socialism” or “communism”.  The mainstream left seemed to be more interested trumpeting imminent success of the legislation than in discussing its actual composition.  The mainstream right wanted to discuss deficit spending–not the actual components of the bill.

It made me wonder.  Where can you actually get information about the economic stimulus in detail?  You know, real information about what’s in the law, as opposed to opinion about the legislation in general terms or specific attacks/praises of a few individual provisions…  There’s plenty of healthy (and unhealthy, for that matter) debate out there about the package, but the actual provisions of the law are drowned out in all of the screaming, smarminess and editorializing.

Don’t get me wrong.  I like opinions.  I have a few myself.  I like sharing them, too.  I enjoy a vigorous debate.  Sometimes, though, you just want a little factual information without all of the hollering.

In hopes of putting folks in touch with a little bit of that, I’ve compiled a brief list of where you can get some relatively straightforward information about the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.  Here’s where you can learn about the economic stimulus package in detail…without too much editorializing.

The Full Text of the Law. Sometimes, you need to take a long look directly into the horse’s mouth.  You can read the whole law.  It’s provided in PDF form, so make sure you have the latest installation of Acrobat up and running.  If you’re not interested in wading through all 400+ pages of the online version of the bill, you can search the PDF.  The search tool is surprisingly fast, considering the size of the document and seems to work well.

Bubble Chart and Other Graphics. If you’d like to see a breakdown of how the stimulus money is being spent, you can take a look at the bubble chart from Recovery.org.  Obviously, this is coming from the current Admininstration which means that it was drawn up by a supporter of the law.  As such, you have some language choices with which not everyone would agree.  However, the bubble chart breakdown, the per state distribution map and the list of expenditures on a per agency basis are all seemingly solid sources of core information about the law.

Another Graphical Breakdown. Here’s a more detailed graphical representation of where the stimulus money is going.  The overall accuracy seems good, though I’m sure we could argue over details.  The trick here is to scroll to the right as you evaluate the information.  It’s an interesting way of showing how resources are to be distributed.

Read the Stimulus. This site was originally set up while the law was still under consideration.  It called for greater transparency during the deliberative process.  Today, you can still use the site to search the full text of the ARRA.  You can do that with the official government PDF, too, but this does seem a little quicker and may be a welcome alternative for those who don’t like dealing with PDFs.

There are a number of reports available dealing with individual provisions of the economic stimulus package in detail, as well.   Once you pinpoint the aspects of the law using a search of the full text of the law, these become much easier to find.

If you want specific information about the actual provisions and details of the ARRA or just need an overall picture of what it actually contains–not what people think about its politics or the likelihood of its success–you may want to start with the above-mentioned resources.  Sometimes it’s nice to just find out what’s really in there instead of dealing with folks on both sides of the political divide claiming that an apocolypse/massive economic boom are on the immediate horizon!

Zecco, which is a phonetic representation of the acrononym ZCO (zero commission cost), is an online trading platform that’s been around since 2006.  The company has managed to weather a nasty economy and the related drop in small investor market participation by making a few adjustments to its approach.

Here’s a brief overview of Zecco and what it’s all about.  If you’re looking for a place to buy and sell without broker assistance or huge costs, it might be a good option for you.

Zecco’s Legitimacy

Before you start signing up to invest your money with anyone, you should ascertain their legitimacy.  Zecco appears to be a legitimate, legal entity.  In addition to the their 3-year track record and a large number of happy customers, Zecco is a subsidiary of Equinox Securities.  According to Bargaineering:

Equinox Securities (CRD# 135398, SEC# 8-66916) registered as a corporation in California on 01/21/2005 and is located in Ontario, CA. It’s currently not suspended by any regulator and has not yet had any Arbitration Awards, Disciplinary and/or Regulatory Events. I downloaded the full Equinox Securities Report and you can see Zecco Trading listed on page 4.

CashMoneyLife gives us some additional reasons to feel confident about Zecco:

Zecco is a member of Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), which is the largest non-governmental regulator for all securities firms doing business in the United States. Zecco is covered by the Securities Investor Protection Corporation (SIPC), which is an organization that acts as insurance against your broker filing for bankruptcy or otherwise going under.

Basic Structure

Finding that we should doubt the premise that Zecco might be a phony scheme operated out of low-rent motels by recent parolees is great, but being legit is only part of what makes an investment platform attractive.  The actual structure and standards for participation are pretty darn important, too.

Accounts at Zecco are free and there isn’t a minimum deposit requirement.  It takes just a few minutes to get things set up.

Right now, Zecco is charging $4.50 per trade.  If you maintain a balance in excess of $25,000 and make at least 25 trades per month, you qualify for ten free trades.  Options contracts cost an addition fifty cents.

$4.50 trades aren’t a horrific deal, but for Zecco veterans they may seem a little expensive.  That’s because the company was offering freebies to folks with balances of only $2,500 and it doesn’t appear as if there was a 25-trade requirement at that time.  The changing nature of the economy and overall decreases in stock market participation led Zecco to change their policy.  Keep that in mind when reading Zecco reviews–many of them were written before this policy change.

Overall, though, $4.50 per trade is a decent deal and the right combination of extras could make Zecco one of the best trading options available.  So, let’s look for some nice extras…

Zecco Extras

Let’s start with the Zecco Zirens.  Zecco went out and hired a handful of spokesmodels/actresses to record a series of trading instruction videos.  They named this crew the Zecco Zirens.  The videos themselves do contain some valuable information and can be really handy for newbie investors.

The cheese factor, however, is high.  I really can’t imagine that this approach is doing much to increase Zecco’s perceived legitimacy or seriousness.  If you need an attractive teacher in a little black dress to teach you about an option call, however, Zecco has that covered.   The photo accompanying this post features one of the ZZ’s.

Zecco also has a very active member community.  If you want your investment with a heavy dose of Web 2.0 interaction, it’s a pretty good choice.  The forums are hopping and Zecco makes it easy for folks to make contact and to discuss matters amongst themselves.

If you’re looking a place to manage your trades, Zecco seems like a pretty reasonable option.  They’re legit, they have a solid basic structure and at least some of their added options have real value.

Here’s a common question:

“When can I take money out of my 401k?”

It’s a question that’s been asked more than usual over the past year.  Many people are watching 401k balances dwindle due to the big stock market dip while others are dealing with new financial stresses.  When times are tight and you’re looking for money, that pile of cash in your 401k looks inviting.

But can you actually start yanking money out of your retirement plan?  In some cases, you might be able to do that.  In others, you could be stuck.  It’s going to depend on your unique circumstances and the 401k policies your employer set up.

You can cash out your 401k when you retire.  At that point, you pay the standard income tax rate on the dispersals.  Obviously, though, most of the folks asking “When can I take money out of my 4o1k?” already know that they can have it once they retire.  They’re more interested in whether or not they can get fast access to that money.

Generally speaking, there are two circumstances that will allow you to actually pull money out of your 401k plan.

First, if you terminate employment, die or become disabled.  If you’re canned or finally scream “Take this job and shove it!”, you can get access to the dough.  Termination of employment, regardless of whose idea it was, qualifies you to play with your nest egg early.  If you die, the funds are available to your heirs.  That probably isn’t part of your plan, though.  If you become disabled, you can also get to the money.  We don’t want that to happen, either, though.

Second, you can often take a chunk of your 401k money if you are experiencing a serious hardship.  Many plans have caveats in them that will allow contributors to withdraw a portion of their 401k money under certain specific circumstances.  The desire for a better television set does not qualify you for a harship exception.  Nor does your bad decision to go on a spending spree with your credit cards.  These early-access opportunities are reserved for those who end up facing serious medical bill problems or who may be waiting for the sheriff to come by with that foreclosure notice.  If you can’t document a serious emergency, don’t expect to get your money out early.  Even if you do, you probably aren’t going to be able to get more than a small percentage of the total funds in the account.

So, if you’re not quitting (or getting laid off) and you’re not staring down the barrel of a financial crisis unrelated to your personal debt obligations, how can you get to your cash?

To be honest, you can’t.  Yes, it’s your money.  However, in exchange for receiving any employer matching funds and the tax advantages associated with having a 401K, you give up some of your control over the money.  It’s yours, but you can’t have it just because you’d like to hit the casinos or pay off the folks at Discover.

You may be able to secure a loan against your 401k, though.  You’ll have to pay it back with interest, though.  And if you happen to lose your job before repaying the loan, the balance will suddenly become due in full.  It’s not a dream scenario to take out a loan this way, but it is sort of a roundabout way of getting your money in your hands.   Oh, and you’ll only be eligible for a loan representing a fraction of your total balance.

So, that’s how you can do it.  The bigger question is if you should do it at all. Generally speaking, the answer to that is a resounding “no”.  They’re going to automatically hold back a percentage to cover the income taxes on your cash out and you’ll also get hit with additional penalties for pawing that cash before hitting retirement age.  Usually, that combination of disincentives is reason enough to leave your money in place until you retire.

(NOTE:  We keep using the word “usually” for a reason–many of the answers to this post’s questions can only be determined with certainty after carefully reviewing the rules of your specific plan.)

“When can I take money out of my 401k?”  When you quit or get fired.  When you’re facing a serious economic hardship or when you retire.  That’s about it, unless you count taking out a loan.

In the end, however, you’re better off not scrambling your nest egg.  Leave your 401k money in place if you can.  As Dave Ramsey apparently said:

QUESTION: Chad and his wife have $35,000 in debt between credit cards, student loans and car loans. They bring home $150,000 a year. They also have $25,000 in their 401-K savings. He wants to (pay off his debt). Should they use that money to eliminate their debt?

I would never cash out retirement savings to pay off debt unless it is to avoid foreclosure.

I was reading an interesting CNN/Money article about the price of religion that detailed the way a strong adherence to one’s faith can run up some hefty bills.  The article, in part, profiled a family of Orthodox Jews who are spending more than most of us can imagine to remain consistent with their religious beliefs.

The article was an eye opener on those turns, but it also made me think about a related issue.  How are churches faring during the recession?  Churches are, in large measure, funded by giving from the congregation and it made sense to me that contributions would probably fall with an economic downturn.  Generally, one might start a look at that issue with a personal perspective, but I’m not much of a churchgoer, so I don’t really have a personal reference point.  So, I started doing a little research instead.  I discovered a few interesting things.

First, churches are having a rougher time, overall.  C. Michael Tillman wrote an essay in a New York newspaper and noted:

Fifty-seven percent of congregations have experienced a drop in contributions, 20 percent have had layoffs, and nearly half have reduced or frozen staff salaries. History shows a “lag effect” for churches in recessions, meaning the worst may be yet to come.

Those are scary numbers.  Lighthouse Christian Ministries in Bakersfield, CA, can vouch for the impact of the downturn, too.  They’re closing up their church and selling the property.  The money just wasn’t there to stay afloat.  When you think about what an economic downturn means in human terms, that isn’t surprising.  A Bakersfield.com article explained:

On Easter Sunday, [Reverend Donald] Vereen echoed the reality of his congregation from the pulpit: “Several people here have lost their house. Several people here have lost their jobs. There are some people here who say, ‘If it wasn’t for prayer, my PG&E bill would have been cut off,’” he said.

Those comments sound a lot like the warning offered by Pastor Keith Drury, who laid out a troubling scenario for churches in the event of a long-term recession.  Among many other potential problems, Drury noted:

We ministers like to pretend that since a depression might prompt revival it might increase our church’s income. We are wrong. If your church has 100 working folk who give a percentage of their income to the church each month and 20% of them get laid off they will tithe their unemployment check, When unemployment runs out and they have no income at all they will tithe their income–but “10% of zero is zero.” Sure, some dedicated Christians will take food out of the mouths of their children to support their church, but most will say, “I’d be worse than an infidel if I didn’t care for my family first.”

Second, there really are exceptions to every rule.  That includes the “recession puts churches at risk” rule, too.  For instance, those big mega-churches like Rick Warren’s jumbo-sized Saddleback congregation, don’t seem to be suffering quite as much as some others.

Only 7% of the big churches feel as though the recession is having a “very negative” impact on them.  Nearly half report that they don’t feel the recession at all in financial terms.

There are also a handful of smaller churches who aren’t seeing decreases in tithing and intensified financial pressures.  The churches around Cedar Falls, Iowa, for instance, seem to be faring well.

So, it looks like a mixed bag in terms of churches and the recession, but with a pretty significant downside for many congregations.  It will be interesting to see if church financial problems become a bigger story as the economy continues to struggle.

I also learned something else interesting while looking into this.  Apparently, Catholic seminarians often get “full ride” scholarships that include room and board.  At least one observer thinks this could lead to more people entering the priesthood.  That’s something in and of itself, but the real juicy tidbit from Anthony Lee, who was primarily writing about the potential impact of the economy on tithing, is that he says people actually go through seminary for the sake of the free education and then pursue their religious vocation for only a few years before walking  away from the priesthood with their Masters Degrees.  And some of them do this intentionally–they have no plans on making a life as a priest.  I had no idea!

Fidelity Investments surveyed over 1,000 millionaires to see how those perched toward the top of the economic ladder are feeling these days.  Nearly half of them said they didn’t feel wealthy.

It’s true, the millionaire crowd has taken a massive whipping in the marketplace.  The stock market nosedive and all of the associated bad economic news has taken a toll on their investment holdings.  It’s never fun to lose money, even when you have some of it.  It’s probably more than a little frustrating to see your portfolio shrink faster than a 400-pounder on The Biggest Loser.

And while some of the dissatisfaction expressed by 46% of the millionaires may have been an attempt not to rub others’ noses in their cash heaps when times are tough, the resounding message coming out of the Fidelity survey could be expressed like this:  46% of millionaires have absolutely no sense of perspective.

Unemployment is around 9%.  Although we’ve slowed the slide toward economic armeggedon and will undoubtedly survive this downturn, things aren’t going to get better tomorrow.  Life is tough out there for many, many people.  It was tough before the downturn for many, many others, too.  While the millionaires are bummed about losing money, they should try to remember that they were fairly lucky to have some money to lose in the first place.

People have lost their homes.  There are over 100,000 people in chronic homeless nationwide–and that’s just “chronic” status, who knows how many people are temporarily in trouble right now?

While millionaires lament the status of their portfolio and the drop in their home’s value over a slightly smaller cut of Kobe beef, someone out there is sucking ketchup packages in the rain.  While the millionaires don’t “feel” wealthy, some kid is not feeling well because of malnutrition.  Who do you think is better-positioned to come out of this downturn in good shape?  I’m thinking the millionaires are.

Forgive me if I don’t weep a crocodile tear for the dissatisfied millionaires of America.

Don’t get me wrong. This isn’t some kind of crazed “eat the rich” populist rant.  I don’t dislike the rich because they have things.  I understand the role those with greater wealth play in the well-being of the overall economy.  I know that they’re people, too, and I want them to be happy.

HOWEVER…  Anyone who can look out over the economic landscape right now with a net worth in the millions and feel anything less than wealthy just doesn’t get it.  Hey, 46%ers, it’s time to recalibrate your perspective!  Maybe you shouldn’t “feel rich”.  Perhaps, instead, you should feel “wildly rich and much, much better off than so many other people that I thank my lucky stars fifty times per day”.

According to Fidelity’s survey:

Asked what made them feel wealthy, most said to “live within means with little or no debt and with spending under control.”

Here’s a solution, based on that response, for the sad millionaires among us.  Spend less and adjust your idea of what “living within means” really means.  That’s what everyone else has been doing for the last year or two.  Welcome to the party.

Let’s get things moving.  A better economy.  Let’s eradicate poverty to the extent possible.  If we can do that in a way that allows millionaires a little more breathing room, so be it.  I’m not just on the side of the poor.  I’m on everyone’s side–even the Thurston Howells of the world.

In the meantime, if you’re toting a net worth of a million dollars or more, develop some perspective.  You might not feel wealthy but you are.  If you’re not sure, ask someone who’s gone from a working class home to a homeless shelter.  Ask a few of the half million people who lost their jobs last month how you’re doing.  I’m sure they’ll let you know.

The gold rush is on!  This time, though, no one is digging the stuff out of mountain mines or panning for it in streams.  The 2009 gold rush consists of people digging through jewelry boxes and knick-knack drawers searching for spare gold items that are gathering dust.

With the economy in its current lousy state, the price of gold has hopped considerably.  While some investors are interested in stockpiling the stuff, regular Joes and Janes with scrap gold in their homes are looking for ways to transform their unused “junk” into some much-needed cash.

If you can bear an hour or two in front of the tube during the afternoon, you’ll find yourself bombarded by companies who are willing, ready and able to make you a cash offer for your gold.  You send it in, the send you a check.  If you don’t like the offer, you send it back.  They then return your gold.  This previously little-known enterprise is now a TV advertising special.

Those “cash for gold” places may not be the best place to peddle your wares, though.  They’re notorious for making questionable offers and people have had problems with getting items back when they get a low-ball check in the mail.

So, if you don’t move your gold via one of those companies, what’s the best route to follow?

There’s no easy answer to that one.  If you’re looking to figure out how to sell your gold the right way, it’s probably going to involve shopping your items around for the best possible offer.  You have multiple options.  Some jewelers might be interested in the nicer stuff (or even the scrap in some cases).  Pawn shops will occasionally surprise you with a good offer.  There are folks who specialize in gold buying, too.

The quality of offers isn’t consistent across any one type of establishment, though.  That’s why you should prepare to make a few phone calls to find out what kind of deal you might get.

The trick to making this work, however,  is having a little understanding of what you’re selling and how much its probably worth.  Although the design and age of piece of jewelry can influence value, we’ll be discussing the gold itself in this post.  If you have a collectible or something that’s just drop-dead gorgeous, it’s a whole different story.

First, figure out what kind of gold you have.  Is it 24k, 14k, 10k or what?  That matters.  The karat description gives you an idea of just how pure the gold is.  You can think of it this way…  24k gold is pretty close to pure.  24 out of 24 parts are the real deal.  18k, on the other hand, consists of 18k of gold and 6 of other alloys.  It works that way right down the line.

Second, figure out how much of it you have.  Gold is generally measured in pennyweight or troy ounces.  Get access to a jeweler’s scale and find out what the weight of your available gold is.  You can even use a kitchen scale, but you’ll need to convert the weight into one of those two units of measurement.

Third, find out the current market value of gold.  You can get that number from the daily paper.

Now, you put it all together the weight of your gold, multiplied by its purity percentage multiplied by the current value per unit will render a “market value” for the actual gold in your jewelry.

Remember, however, that whoever buys it is going to need to melt it down.  They have overhead expenses, too.  Thus, you can’t expect to receive 100% of your calculation.  At least one reputable source says you should shoot for about 85% of your calculation.

Now, start collecting offers.  Call people and tell them exactly what you have.  Give them the karat number and the weight.  Now you’ll recognize it if someone is trying to take advantage of you.  It will also give you a base pooint for negotiating prices.

Do your research and find the buyer willing to offer the best deal.  Then, if it makes more sense for you to sell than it does to keep your gold, make the transaction.  If you can’t get a good number, you might want to sit on your gold for awhile.  In a worst case scenario, you can send your stuff in to one of those TV companies.  You might not get much, but you’ll probably get something.

So, we’re in a recession.  We’ve been in recessions before.  We know what a recession is, definitionally, but that doesn’t really give us any idea of why we have them.  What are the causes of economic recession?

Quite frankly, the answer to that question will depend upon who you ask!

David Cornish blames unrestrained capitalism and exessive greed.

Gaynor Borade sees a link between oil price spikes and the onset of recession.

Tejvan Pettinger argues that tight fiscal policy and fast, unsustainable growth have both led to recession in the past.

Stormy Brain explains why so many people are happy to blame the Fed for recessions.

A Washington University news article maintains that experts blame excessive consumer debt for our current economic downturn.

Love a Recession has three lists of potential causes.  The “mainstream” outlook, the authors personal opinion and other potential causes.  The range from speculation to underwhelming consumer confidence to Satan.  Take your pick, right?

Love to Know has an article with the title, “Causes of Economic Recession” that doesn’t even bother to list a single potential cause of recession.  Instead, it maintains that it’s “difficult to predict the causes of economic recession”. 

Another vote for high oil prices in this video.

How about government spending overseas, inflation and the fear of a recession.  Maybe FDR was onto something with that “the only thing we have to fear…” thing, huh?

Those crazy kids who don’t mind being associated with Lew Rockwell blame excessive government regulation.  No.  Really.

Are you getting the gist of this yet?  NO ONE REALLY KNOWS WHAT CAUSES A RECESSION.

That doesn’t stop them, however, from pretending as if they do have an answer.  Not so coincidentally, the causes they uncover are often linked to specific governmental programs of which they don’t approve on other grounds, too.  

In other words, if someone tells you that George Bush caused the recession, that someone probably doesn’t have a “W” bumper sticker.  

If someone tells you that the recession is a direct results of government policies designed to promote minority home ownership via subprime lending, you can probably guess how they’d feel about that policy even if we weren’t in a recession.

For every so many people who blame deregulation for the recession, there is at least one person out there who will take the contrarian view that regulation caused it.  

As far as I’m concerned, you can spin the wheel and embrace whichever pet “cause” it stops on, because your causal analysis isn’t going to amount to a hill of beans anyway.  

The more important consideration at the moment is the fact that we’re in a recession and we might wanna think about how to get out of it before too many more people end up losing their jobs and/or homes.

Which is why I’m proposing the Big Omnibus Recession Elimination Solution (BORES).  Basically, it boils down to developing alternate energy sources to reduce the price of foreign oil and our exposure to price spikes while we engage in less restrictive monetary policy and encourage increased consumer spending (but not debt).  We do this while cutting foreign aid to our allies and banning speculative stock trading.  We’ll deregulate all business by drafting better regulations that will make us more recession-resistant, even though we’ll recognize the inevitability of recessions as part of the business cycle.  Oh, we also need to find a way to defeat Satan.

That’s BORES.  And that’s what you end up with if you start believing the various single (or even “one or two”) issue explanations of the underlying causes of economic recession.