

Our Love Affair With Shopping Malls Is on the Rocks - ksvs
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/01/business/01mall.html?pagewanted=all

======
sangaya
The article is huge so here's the main point:

"Here, ladies and gentlemen, is the crux of the problem: We are reliably
informed that whatever part of the economic crisis can’t be pinned on Wall
Street — or on mortgage-related financial insanity — can be pinned on
consumers who overspent. But personal consumption amounts to some 70 percent
of the American economy. So if we don’t spend, we don’t recover. Fiscal health
isn’t possible until money is again sloshing into cash registers, including
those at this mall and every other retailer."

I think the statement that money must be sloshing into cash registers again is
a misnomer. Why must we spend money on items we don't really need? Is it our
fault that the products are "nice to haves", but not so nice that we're
willing to spend on them? I believe that the products and services offered
will have to stepped up a notch; become items that improve people's lives and
increase happiness.

I see these times as Darwin's law applied to products, services, and
businesses in general. If it's not profitable it should fail.

That said the current mess of the economy is at such a scale that it's hard
for me to even keep straight in my head. As Henry Ford said, "It is well
enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary
system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow
morning. "

~~~
raamdev
Thanks for the summary and the great quote by Henry Ford. What he said is so
true.

The scary thing is that for most people, their lack of understanding the
bigger picture means that when things get really bad, it will happen fast. I'm
shocked by how many people simply don't even somewhat understand the way the
US financial system works (I can't even say I fully understand it), and by how
many of them treat bills and debt as their absolute, life-long moral
responsibility. To the bankers, it's all a big game. To the average consumer,
it's their entire life.

The most important thing I see missing from all this is education. Financial
education should be required by every public school (and should be taught by
the parents) to help prepare people for the "real world" of managing debt,
credit cards, loans, and even mortgages and investments.

If everybody understood that filing for bankruptcy (I did after losing 3
investment properties to sub-prime) or downsizing and living a more simple
life was perfectly OK to keep your family fed (I went from $2.5k /mo expenses
to $800), then we wouldn't have people killing their families and committing
suicide because of a few financial issues.

~~~
callmeed
Maybe I'm reading you wrong, but you seem to be saying that it's okay for
people to renege on debts when convenient.

In my opinion, people who take on debt _do_ have a moral responsibility to pay
it back. If you don't want that responsibility, don't take on the debt.

I understand that bankruptcy is necessary for some–but I would hope people
arrive there as a last resort. Teaching people that bankruptcy is a "card up
your sleeve" is sending the wrong message.

~~~
ahoyhere
OK, here's what he's trying to say:

1\. Individuals, the final end consumer of debt, treat debt as a lifelong
obligation. A serious, serious obligation. So much that they chastise each
other for bankruptcy on Internet forums. (oh no! someone on the internet is
fiscally irresponsible!) And act as if not fulfilling monetary obligations to
big, anonymous corporations is tantamount to proving that one is a worthless
human being.

2\. And yet, at the same time, the same corporations that these very-
responsible-debt-paying people owe fealty to, will perpetrate enormous fraud
-- of the technical definition and just general "looks like a fraud, smells
like a fraud, who cares what the law says" kind. This fraud can fuck not only
other such corporations, but the entire financial system, and the country's
stability as a whole.

Got it?

Debt payors are considered horrible people if they do not repay all their
private debts. Debt payees, on the other hand, have carte blanche to act
however they want and get excused by saying "That's the way free market
capitalism works."

Thus you have individuals lambasting other individuals, and going "OH NO, you
cannot just say that DEBT is NOT a MORAL OBLIGATION!" with regards to
individuals who owe, but just shaking their heads and clucking their tongues
with regards to the acts of corporations.

This is basically a case of the serfs policing themselves, while the nobles
are pleased to promote any kind of ignoble acts among themselves.

~~~
callmeed
I have no problem with that assessment at all. So long as you're not
extrapolating that into _"since big corporations are dishonest and fraudulent,
then it's ok for me to be also"_

I think that sort of one-downsmanship would spiral into even worse issues for
our economy.

And, for the record, I think debt is an obligation for whoever makes
it–individual or corporations.

If you don't like the way such corporations act a) don't patronize their
services, b) work to change the way they are regulated/operate, c) create a
startup that disrupts their business model ... but for goodness' sake, don't
act like them.

