There was a time, not that long ago, when I finally decided that I did not need to make that much money. I looked at all of my expenses, and figured that Benson and I could easily live off of half of what we make now--we wouldn't necessarily have all of the little luxuries, but we would have shelter and food. I used this to justify changing careers to something that would have more of an impact on the world, perhaps doing more in the service of mankind.

Then we went on a small spending spree--buying a new washer and dryer (environmentally friendly!) and a new color laser multifunction device (consolidating other devices and saving space!). We've thought about buying a new refrigerator (again, doing our part to save the world), and a new espresso machine (okay, this one has no redeeming qualities.) I've somehow decided that I need a nice leather recliner or armchair (from Pottery Barn perhaps?) and could use a new ultraportable laptop (my current one is just too damn heavy).

I'm not sure where this materialistic streak has come from, but it so strong that even after reading a Mother Jones article about the poverty of the migrant workers in California's San Joaquin valley ("Migrants No More" by Maggie Jones) this afternoon, I had only minor pangs of guilt thinking about when and where Benson and I will buy our commitment rings.

If I have to think of a justification for this, I could point to two things that have made me question the worth of money: the weakening dollar and the potential of a real estate bubble.

The weakening dollar has been scary since at least before the election, but it has been picking up steam--at least in the media. The Economist (whose name assures me I can trust it in matters dealing with the economy) had a pair of cover articles about this, entitled "The disappearing dollar" and "The passing of the buck?". In essence, the articles argue that the huge deficits that we are running--up to 6.4% of GDP compared to a maximum of 3% of GDP required for all countries that use the Euro--have led to a weakened dollar and to fact that the euro is becoming more appealing as a reserve currency. The effect of this is that foreign governments that currently finance our debt and buy massive amounts of dollars will stop doing so, sending interest rates soaring and the value of the dollar tumbling.

The dollar has been the leading international currency for as long as most people can remember. But its dominant role can no longer be taken for granted. If America keeps on spending and borrowing at its present pace, the dollar will eventually lose its mighty status in international finance. And that would hurt: the privilege of being able to print the world's reserve currency, a privilege which is now at risk, allows America to borrow cheaply, and thus to spend much more than it earns, on far better terms than are available to others. Imagine you could write cheques that were accepted as payment but never cashed. That is what it amounts to. If you had been granted that ability, you might take care to hang on to it. America is taking no such care, and may come to regret it.

A weakening dollar means that any money I put into savings today will be worth less tomorrow. Why put money into savings if this is the case? I could put money in the stock market, but if we have the recession that some predict, then the stock market sure isn't a good bet. Is it not therefore better to spend money now on goods that last a little while--refrigerators, washers and dryers, espresso machines, recliners--than letting the money sit in the bank and devalue?

One of the major savings goals that Benson and I have established is having enough money to afford a large down payment on a house. In the Bay Area, you need at least $500,000 to get a tiny house in a not-that-rundown area. That is a discouraging proposition, and makes the amount that we are able to put into savings seem quite small. I sometimes think that our only realistic option is to save up some money and move to the middle of nowhere where houses are cheaper. (I dutifully sent Benson a link to CNN's Take the money and run--to Auburn?", an article about this very topic.)

Regardless, buying a house seems so overwhelming that when I read an article like "Bubble Trouble" in U.S. News & World Report, I think about giving up on getting a house any time in the near future anyway. A lot of people think that the housing market is a bubble, and that rising interest rates--which could be accelerated if The Economist articles mentioned above are right--will pop it. Part of me has thought this was a bubble that was going to pop in the past, it hasn't yet, so it won't in the future. That is the same thing I was saying around 2000, right before the stock market bubble burst. The article also mentioned something I hadn't been aware of--housing prices in LA in 1990 fell by 40%, and in Boston and SF by 20%. Who in his or her right mind would buy a house in this market???

So the need to save for a house starts to seem a little less pressing--we'll just wait for the bubble to burst and then move in.

With less of a need to save for a house, and the fact that money I save today could be worth less tomorrow, it just seems to make more sense to spend money instead of saving it. While this logic makes sense to me, it still has an unusual feeling to it. I'm worried that the American economy is going to collapse, along with the housing market. Instead of preparing for it by saving money for hard times, though, I've somehow decided that saving money is useless.

I am being a bit dramatic. As with most areas where my only expertise comes from reading articles, I am skeptical about my reasoning, so I hedge my bets quite a bit. In fact, we still are saving quite aggressively--only a little less so than we would have otherwise. (On the plus side, we get shiny new things to show for it.)

Of course, this still leaves the question about whether this money we are spending on luxuries could be better spent on, say, feeding the hungry or helping to end injustice throughout the world. Yup, it looks like those pangs are back.