The Crack Cocaine of Personal Finance

(Thanks to Radley Balko for the metaphor). I'm sympathetic to the libertarian position that generally speaking, the less the government interferes in our lives and in the economy the better. If prohibition against alcohol didn't work, why should prohibition against illegal substances be expected to work? Why is it OK to take risks physically on skateboards, or spend one's entire life reading some book (either the Bible or the one I'm reading) , which may seem a waste to those who don't share one's interest? And why not make inhalants illegal? Oh, yeah, we want them for something else. But then even if drugs were only decriminalized and not actually legalized, a lot more people would be able to hurt themselves with them. So maybe it's not such a good idea. But then what is the libertarian insistence on keeping it easy to buy guns? Since they're dangerous weapons, shouldn't access be restricted?

Now instapundit is inveighing against the bankruptcy bill, which seems to me be inconsistent with his stand against gun control. He thinks people are smart enough to use guns safely, but not smart enough to handle their money.

(BTW, Jane Galt has some interesting things to say about this.) Yes, the credit card companies are out to make money. Big surprise! Maybe people should read the contracts before they sign them. In fact, generally speaking one should only use a credit card as a convenience, to avoid having to carry around a wad of cash, or in cases like renting a car, where they need some kind of security. Then when the credit card bill comes in, pay it off in full. I can't believe how many people are unable to defer spending and so enrich the credit card companies. If you don't truly need something now, don't buy it. Then the anti-bankruptcy people say that bankruptcy befalls those who fall into some financial catastrophe. I suspect many of them haven't saved any money, because they're spending too much.

So much of what people consider necessities aren't really necessary. Like this so-called extreme saver (via The Budgeting Babe) who can do without cable but not without DISH.

At least he can afford it. In the October 25, 2004 New Yorker (the same one I mentioned earlier), I also read "Not Poor Enough; Cassie Stromer's old age", an article by Susan Sheehan about a seventy-six-year-old woman who was having trouble making ends meet, and yet spends $45 a month for her cable TV. The writer feels a need to explain this:

Television is Cassie's primary form of recreation: she watches several daytime soaps, listens to the news, sometimes looks at the country-music channel, and in the evening watches one or two favorite shows, like "NYPD Blue" or "Law & Order."

Most of those are available without cable. She could save quite a bit by just choosing from whatever's on broadcast TV, and maybe reading the occasional book.

By the way, I don't even subscribe to the New Yorker; I've got too much to do, and anyway, it's available in the library.