David, I'm not sure what your friend is getting at about relative ease of access. I have more credit card credit than I could ever pay off if I actually used it. If I used it all, I would have a hard time paying the interest payments. However, I could take some of the money that I'm not paying to someone else in interest payments and save it, so for me, savings is easier and less risky than credit.

On top of this, like many, I'm not the greatest at tracking my finances. I have, upon occasion, made late payments, lost track of how much I have in my checking and savings accounts, and made various other errors of the like. If I make errors with credit card debt, I get dinged with huge fees and rising interest rates. If I make mistakes with my own money, I may not get the interest I should get, but I won't get dinged right and left.

I fully accept that I'm not financially astute, but combining what I know of finances with what I know of human nature, credit seems risky to me. I do think that house credit is different, because it allows you to build equity. Alas, with houses costing what they do here and with the relatively low wages of my chosen profession, I don't see that happening any time soon.

And Trudes, hie thee to a recruiter!

ION, Jack Chick comic on the evils of homosexuality: [link]

Catholic costumes for children: [link]

I'm down with having 7,500 in savings and having it available in credit too. Especially if the $7,500 in savings is making little babies. Because that would make it unnecessary for $7,500 in debt to make its own bigger babies.

I'm watching a bunch of Mission: Impossibles. Apart from stoking the Nimoy love, it's made me wonder: how is the premise best pitched? I find it doesn't really generate any tension for me. This may be because of a certain snobbishness I retain towards late 60s TV. I do find the plots pretty hard to follow, since I'm used to a more audience-friendly setup of the protagonist's plans. Perhaps I should get over the afore-mentioned snobbishness.

What fruits other than apple have lots of water and lots of fibre?

Trudy, I'm impressed. About Caroline's not the boss being a fucker

Citrus if you eat the white parts?

Berrys.

David, I'm not sure what your friend is getting at about relative ease of access. I have more credit card credit than I could ever pay off if I actually used it. If I used it all, I would have a hard time paying the interest payments. However, I could take some of the money that I'm not paying to someone else in interest payments and save it, so for me, savings is easier and less risky than credit.

I think his argument is that having $7,500 in credit is worth more than having $7,500 in savings. Because the $7,500 you have in savings could be invested in a higher yield that brings you money, and you'd still have the credit.

Also, he thinks the idea of "financial emergency" - while resonant - is actually overstated/overvalued.

Anyway, I won't flog the horse. I'm just putting his argument out because I think it's an interesting refutation of the conventional wisdom about finance.

The Caroline's thing is sweet, Erika.

The voiceover reel is even sweeter -- I'm being "groomed" a bit and all that. By a casting director of some note who needs comedic women and is tired of hearing reels he thinks are crap.

Oh, and if Richard Belzer's hair has gone white I saw him in a health food store today.

I should maybe have added that I also don't have credit card debt. My stupidity is savings vs things that might well make me more money but are riskier.

eta:

David, I'm not sure what your friend is getting at about relative ease of access. I have more credit card credit than I could ever pay off if I actually used it. If I used it all, I would have a hard time paying the interest payments. However, I could take some of the money that I'm not paying to someone else in interest payments and save it, so for me, savings is easier and less risky than credit.

In other words, this is me.

My stupidity is savings vs things that might well make me more money but are riskier.

His point is that risk can be calculated (in dollar amounts) and that your return (including the financial ability to absorb emergencies) is much, much higher with investments over savings.

He's such a Spock and so logical about it, I don't know if his advice will ping people who are dealing with an emotional or fearful relationship to money (as most people do). But I truly believe that he understands finance better than conventional wisdom.

Because ultimately finance is only odds - just like a casino. The numbers will play out.