I’ve said this before: Betting against the US consumer has been a losing wager. And yet when we look at the parabolic rise of non-mortgage houshold debt (via the Research dept. of the St. Louis Fed) one cannot help but imagine that it eventually will be problematic.
The issue is one of timing.
UPDATE June 11, 2005 12:02pm
Someone in comments suggested this chart merely reflects population trends. I doubt that. For one thing, it started at Zero in the mid-fifties, while the population was a bit higher than that. But more significantly is the exponential acceleration of that curve — a true geometric gain would look like a straight line higher as the population expanded.
Not only are we becoming more indebted, but we are doing so at a more rapid pace. You can draw at least 3 separate trend lines on that chart — 1960-80; 1985-96 1999-2005 — each running at a higher rate than the prior trend.
Again, its been a losing wager betting that this ends tomorrow. However, that will not be the case forever. Whoever figures out exactly when the U.S. consumer gives up the ghost — with a Q or so — stands to make a lot of money betting on the downside, shorting retailers, banks and consumer cyclicals to name but a few.
Household Sector: Liabilites: Household Credit Market Debt Outstanding
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
Last Updated: 2005-06-09
Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data and lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Be sure to create straw men and argue against things I have neither said nor implied. If you could repeat previously discredited memes or steer the conversation into irrelevant, off topic discussions, it would be appreciated. Lastly, kindly forgo all civility in your discourse . . . you are, after all, anonymous.