consumer debt initiative

US News and World Report puts average total household consumer debt at $22231, not including other debt, such as student loans, which adds another $10208, according to a May 2009 report. This debt load has provided fodder for the ...Do you have any debt? Studies show that many Americans have ten to twenty thousand dollars in consumer debt. Consumer debt comes from purchases that are consumption based versus investment based. A mortgage is considered an investment ...Debt Counselling is a Government Initiative to help both the companies and the people who owe them money out of this situation. The idea is to keep the ball rolling, instead of an entire economy falling apart. ...Cline was quietly making another big bet on the debt business. Through its funds, Accretive created a separate debt-collecting business. That firm, Axiant LLC, ran call centers and helped collect consumer debt following NAF arbitrations ...Many years in this industry has taught me that the only way to stop the continual onslaught of new regulations and negative press is to stop believing that because a consumer owes a debt they are fair game for any kind of tactics with the only bottom ... This is all the more reason that as members of the ARM industry we need to get behind the ACA's initiative to partner with the feds to create a self-regulatory body with authority to effectively police our own industry. ...Debt Counselling is a Government Initiative to help both the companies and the people who owe them money out of this situation. The idea is to keep the ball rolling, instead of an entire economy falling apart. ... CONSUMER debt is spiraling , with 150000 consumers expected to be under debt review by Christmas, the National Credit Regulator said yesterday. The NCR said the 100000 consumers currently under debt counselling owed R20-billion, of which R12-billion was mortgages ...At quarter end, Avon's total debt had increased $272 million from the year-end level, to $2.8 billion, and cash had increased $189 million, to $1.3 billion. Net cash provided by operating activities was $247 million through nine months of ... The region's revenue continued to be pressured by lower consumer spending and a continued double-digit decline in non-Beauty (Fashion and Home categories). North America's third-quarter operating profit decreased 19% (-15% in local ...Debt Counselling is a Government Initiative to help both the companies and the people who owe them money out of this situation. The idea is to keep the ball rolling, instead of an entire economy falling apart. ... The Consumer Debt report, compiled by national debt counselling agency Credit Matters, revealed that whites a�� who make up 9.2% of the population with 4.4-million people a�� owe a massive R680-billion in household debt, compared with R310-billion for blacks, ...The lawsuits and the letter to the federal authorities continues the Attorney General's consumer protection initiative targeting abuses within the debt services industry. The Letter Sent The Attorneys General of Alaska, Arizona, ...This striking assessment is to be found in the latest edition of what is known as the a�?Prosperity Indexa�?, an initiative launched by the Legatum Institute, a London-based think-tank. In fact Finland took first .... The year-on-year change in consumer prices, i.e. inflation, calculated by Statistics Finland fell to -0.7 per cent in August. In July it was -0.6 per cent. In August, consumer prices were brought down most from the year before by reductions in interest rates. ...
has anyone heard of these people? they're set in 1718 M St, NW 160 washington DC 20036. They contacted me but i cant find any info on them and i dont wanna get scammed


credit relief division


Don't get me wrong, I'm actually a strong supporter of Obama however I believe his plan will not solve our economic problems in the long run. To me it seems as if Obama is trying to emulate FDR's New Deal policies, which at the time were appropriate, however I believe a similar plan will do our economy no good based on the very different circumstances of both situations.

To illustrate, the current crisis is plagued with a national debt of more than 10 trillion and a massive current account deficit brought about from our tendency to import goods from China and other nations. These two factors are essentially the primary causes of this crisis, and these factors were practically nonexistent during the Great Depression.We have essentially sold off our wealth so that we can continue importing consumer goods from China, and now we're basically bankrupt.

The Obama economic recovery plan will boost the economy in the short run, as enough money will hopefully be jolted into the system so that we can go back to our consuming mannerisms for a while at lest. However, the massive spending bill won't work because:

A) It will increase our national debt even more, and not many if any of the projects will provide any monetary return

B) The jobs it will create which include improving roads, weatherizing homes, etc. are mostly temporary jobs, and are also jobs that most Americans probably don't want (would a former bank exec. want to pave roads). They also will affect other booming industries. If less energy is needed due to "going green" initiatives then the demand for coal workers will decrease and possibly forcing them out of work

(C) We also run the risk of inflating our dollar and making our currency worth next to nothing with all this money being made out of thin air

IMO the Obama administration should devise a plan that focused more on business development and not just trying to get money into our system. The U.S. HAS to become more self-dependent regarding consumer goods and everything else that we import. We essentially have to balance our current account by making our products more enticing to foreigners however the value of our currency must drop so that they can afford it. Obama's plan will essentially allow us to continue our over consumption before we face the exact same problem again in the future. There is no way in the world our economy can continue with such a large national debt and current account deficit.


A powerful and dangerous force has been unleashed on the global economy. Ita��s a new source of skilled labor that has put American workers at a competitive disadvantage a�� and no one knows just how many jobs have already been lost because of it. The U.S. is running a huge trade deficit with this force; every year wea��re spending millions more on what it produces than it spends on American goods and services. And to top it all off, this entity has built a massive currency reserve, investing large sums of it on U.S. government securities and thus enabling Americaa��s fiscal profligacy.

Why, oh why, wona��t the U.S. government do something to protect us from . . . Tiger Woods?

You thought I was talking about China, and I was. But Ia��m also talking about the modern-day golf legend. You see, China and Tiger Woods are a lot alike.

In seven out of the ten years since Woods burst onto the golf scene hea��s been the top money-earner on the PGA Tour. He has forced his best competitors into second place while pushing countless players at the bottom of the heap out of the pro game entirely. He also has nudged athletes of all stripes from the lucrative endorsements market. Hea��s the best-paid corporate mascot ever, lending his name and likeness to General Motors, General Mills, American Express, Accenture, Nike, and more.

Such success both on an off the course has paid very well. Woods cana��t possibly spend all the money he makes. (He took in $100 million from his Nike deal alone.) And what he doesna��t spend he either saves or invests, no doubt putting ample resources into U.S. government securities.

So what is Tiger Woods doing thata��s any different than what China is doing?

Both are competing successfully. Both are earning more than they are spending. And both are saving and investing their wealth. If you think of Tiger Woods as his own country, he and China are just the same. Yet not a day goes by that we dona��t read of some new political effort to throttle competition from China for the sake of the American worker and the American economy. Where are the initiatives aimed at protecting us from Tiger Woods? Think about that the next time a politician proposes protectionist legislation aimed at China.

Of course, pro golfers arena��t whining about being beaten by Woods. Rather, they know they must improve their games a�� or at the extreme, find new games to play. Competition is the lifeblood of sports, and the professionals accept this premise. At the same time, the consumers of sports a�� the rest of us who watch it on TV a�� insist on it: If there were no competition, sports wouldna��t be very interesting.

So why are American manufacturers whining about being beaten by China? And why do our politicians support these false notes?

Competition is the essence of business just as ita��s the foundation of sports. Thata��s why we have antitrust laws; theya��re an attempt to keep competition alive and well. And just as in sports, competition is good for consumers. It forces businesses to improve their products and keep prices low.

Yet there are people who understand all this in principle and still make an exception when it comes to competition from foreign nations. Why? Therea��s no fundamental difference between competing with someone across town or someone across the globe. Why the different set of rules for China and Tiger Woods, or for foreign and domestic competition?

One of the usual arguments against foreign competitors is that they are a�?unfaira�?; that they expect us to buy from them, but they wona��t buy from us. China, it is said, is cheating us by building up an enormous a�?trade surplus,a�? which now totals over $1 trillion.

But Tiger Woods doesna��t buy as much from America as America buys from Tiger Woods. In fact, Woods is no different than anyone who has ever succeeded enough in life to accumulate savings. China does just that and ita��s a problem. But ita��s no problem when Woods does it, or for that matter when you and I do it. We often hear that the a�?trade deficita�? with China means that America has gone into debt to buy Chinese goods. But thata��s no more true than saying wea��ve gone into debt in order to watch Tiger Woods play golf.

Some of the goods we import from China are paid for with exports. In fact, U.S. exports right now are running at record levels. For the rest of the goods we import from China, we pay money. But thata��s money we have earned, fair and square. Just because China sold more to us than it bought from us doesna��t mean therea��s any debt involved.

Say you bought a pair of Nikea��s because you thought that ad with Tiger Woods in it was so cool. Did you pay for your sneakers with money, or did you export something to Nike? Last I checked this isna��t a barter economy, so you probably paid money. But that doesna��t mean you went into debt for those sneakers.

The China-bashers also say that Chinaa��s investments in U.S. government securities are a�?unsustainable,a�? and they worry about what will happen to U.S. interest rates if those investments are liquidated. Well, suppose China took that money and started buying U.S. goods with it, instead of saving it. That means U.S. producers would have a lot of very profitable work to do. And that money wouldna��t disappear. It would simply change hands, and its new holders would ultimately have to invest it.

Perhaps China worries so many, and Tiger Woods doesna��t, because hea��s an American and China is, well, China. But try this thought experiment: If Woods werena��t an American, would you feel differently toward him? Would you want to slap a targeted tax or other penalty on him? Or would you restrict Americans from doing business with him? Your answer is likely a�?noa�? to each of these. You love watching him play golf. And even his competitors know that if he wins and they lose, that he has raised the level of the game and made it a better business for everyone involved.

So why do so many endorse protectionist laws against China? Dona��t these very same people love buying cheap toasters at Wal-Mart a�� toasters made in China? And dona��t the American firms which cannot compete with China understand that the ascent of this new economic force has lifted the entire global economy, ultimately making it a better game for everyone?

When you think it through therea��s only one sensible approach to trade with China: Go get a��em, Tiger!


Please read and let me know how you would analyze this article:The Water Crisis: Analysis and Proposals

By Celine Tan

Water and sanitation is the first of five priority action areas under the
WEHAB plan for the post-WSSD implementation of sustainable development.
The challenge of providing safe and clean water and sanitary conditions for
an increasing world population, in the face of rising inequities, is
phenomenal.

Forty percent of the worlda��s population, in 80 countries, currently suffer
from serious water shortages. A billion people worldwide lack access to
safe drinking water and 2.4 billion people lack access to adequate
sanitation (Global Economic Outlook 2002).

Yet, the biggest threat to universal access to clean water and adequate
sanitation is not mother nature but corporate globalisation. Privatisation
of water is aggressively exported to the developing world under the rubric
of poverty reduction and debt relief strategies, free trade and economic
development. By turning a scarce resource into an economic commodity, the
worlda��s economic leaders and policy planners claim that existing water
resources can be managed and consumed efficiently in accordance with
competitive market principles. These claims are not only misguided, they
are deceitful. There are two myths being projected: first, that placing a
price on water will encourage conservation and wise water consumption.
Secondly, that market competition will lead to more consumer choice and
better services. In reality, the water sector is monopolistic when placed
in the hands of the market. It is thus alarming that the commodification of
water resources is now heralded as the answer to the worlda��s water woes.

Monopoly and subsidies for corporations

Water is a US$400 billion global business, controlled by a handful of
European transnational companies and consortiums, namely French
multinationals Vivendi and Suez Lyonnaise, SAUR and British water companies
Thames Water, Anglia Water and United Utilities. The global drive towards
privatisation of water services is thus pursued not by a collective of
democratically elected governments acting in the interest of the worlda��s
population, but by a cartel of corporations motivated by profit and market
conquest.

To make matters worse, these companies are subsidised by their governments
(and invariably their taxpayers) through support from domestic export
credit agencies, and by multilateral development banks, such as the World
Bank and the African Development Bank. They are also subsidised by
developing countries who raise credit from international financial
institutions to upgrade their water systems prior to private takeover. This
corporate subsidy comes at the expense of consumers, most of them in
developing countries, who are made to pay for what is a necessity of life.
For the poor this means no access to water.

Additional loans to facilitate the privatisation process are raised by
developing country governments from multilateral and bilateral sources.
Often, these loans are also used to finance the creation of an a�?enabling
environmenta�� for foreign water and wastewater investors. This includes the
drafting of local investor protection legislation to guard against
re-nationalisation of the water industry and to provide for hefty
compensation for any attempt to renege (for good reasons) against the
privatisation contracts.

In many cases, corporate access to a developing countrya��s water system is
paved by a loan or debt relief conditionality requiring the poor or
indebted country to privatise its water and sanitation services. For
example, the IMF insisted that Tanzania privatise its Dar es Salaam Water
and Sewerage Authority (DAWSA) as a condition of its debt relief package
under the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) Initiative.

Fallacy of privatisation

Experience shows that the privatisation of water services cannot ensure
universal delivery of safe water and efficient sanitation. Privatisation
imposes additional financial obligations on governments. They may have to
bail out failed privatisation project, and also shoulder the costly legal
risks of rescinding a privatisation contract with a wealthy transnational,
even if the companya��s performance is unsatisfactory. Argentina, Hungary and
Bolivia have found that the legal claims for compensation by private water
companies in Tucuman, Szeged and Cochabamba respectively, have made
terminating contracts prohibitively expensive.

The dominance of foreign water companies and the liberalised investment
climate - mostly facilitated by structural adjustment, and now under trade
agreements including those under the WTO A? in developing countries will
also ensure that a large portion of profits from water privatisation will
not accrue to the countries themselves but are repatriated abroad instead.

The imposition of full-cost water pricing as a result of privatisation will
only deprive more and more people of access to clean and safe water by
forcing poor communities to seek alternative sources of water for
consumption, such as untreated well water and water from sewage-ridden
urban rivers.

Forced upon rich and poor, consumers and industrial producers, similar
rates for water use will also result in greater income disparity and deeper
social cleavages, leading to higher risks of civil unrest. In 2000, martial
law was declared in the Bolivian city of Cochabamba as a result of
city-wide riots precipitated by high water prices. A private consortium led
by International Water doubled the water prices to city residents. Water
bills went up by 35% and some, twice that. The World Bank supported
full-cost water pricing and prohibited any use of its structural adjustment
loans to subsidise water services for the poor.

Future fears and WSSD outcomes

There is no agreement on the text in the WSSD Draft Plan of Implementation
that commits governments to supporting the UN Millennium Development Goal
of halving, by 2015, the proportion of people unable to reach, or afford,
safe drinking water and access improved sanitation (paragraphs 7 and 7[alt]).

However, the most pressing concerns over universal coverage of water and
sanitation services are not expressed in these bracketed paragraphs.
Rather, they are reflected in the general lack of political will
demonstrated by developed countries to address the systemic issues leading
to a crisis of sustainable development in the south, and the alarming
emphasis placed on public-private partnership funding and implementation of
sustainable development programmes. The relinquishing of responsibility by
developed countries is marked by their reluctance to commit to specific
disbursements of ODA and by repeated references to voluntary partnerships
and initiatives as a means of financing WSSD programmatic outcomes.

In the absence of firm commitments by governments, Type II partnerships on
water and sanitation services will only increase private sector involvement
in this crucial area. The private sector is already identified as a key
implementer of the a�?Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH) for All
Initiativea�� involving 28 countries, six UN agencies, the World Bank, and
the Asian and African Development Banks.

Another major threat to universal access to water and sanitation is
liberalisation under the WTOa��s rules. Although Member countries have the
right to liberalise at their own pace, and even choose not to open up a
sector under the WTOa��s General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS), there
is tremendous pressure especially on developing countries to liberalise.
Thus in the ongoing negotiations at the WTO, developed countries are
submitting extensive A�requestsA� that seek access to every sector in the
developing world, including water services and sanitation.

If developing countries succumb, privatisation of water services initiated
under World Bank and IMF structural adjustment programmes could become
permanent under the binding rules of the WTO. Once a country is locked into
the GATS regime, the right of its government to regulate liberalized
service sectors will be diminished, paving the way for foreign
transnationals to enter the domestic market. Any attempt to reverse the
situation would be subject to WTO disciplines and penalties.

Any real effort to achieve the Millennium Development Goal must therefore
include commitments to review loan conditionalities that impose
privatisation and countries must not be pressured to offer water services
under GATS liberalisation. Essential services should be exempted from GATS.

Conclusion

Privatisation does not address the deeper economic and ecological issues of
water shortages. Questions of why there are water shortages in countries
not under water stress are not resolved by shifting responsibility of
service provision to private companies. Water management and water
distribution are also key factors in determining water supply and universal
coverage. Until and unless rich countries fulfil their commitment to
provide resources for developing countries to build solid, cost-effective
water delivery systems which support the needs of the worlda��s population
equitably and ecologically, the water woes of the world will not go away.

At the same time, all governments need to recognise and support the
diversity and replication of community water management systems and
practices. These have proven in many countries to be the most sustainable
approach to rural water management for rural populations. The WSSD process
and the last 10 years of the work of the CSD have called for good and best
practices in sustainable development. However, where water resources are
concerned the trend and emphasis are privatisation which has proven
destructive.

Firm commitments must be made at the WSSD to reverse the trend of corporate
takeover in the water and sanitation sector, rather than to accelerate the
process of privatisation and corporate monopoly. Undermining the sovereign
power of governments to regulate supply of water in their countries and
passing the bucket onto private transnationals to steward the worlda��s water
resources would probably be a most anti-development and anti-ecological step.