Perhaps the most unfortunate occurrence in our modern times is the credit crunch we are currently experiencing. It seems that the consequences know no bounds, know no prejudice, have no bias one way or the other. The circumstances affect us all from the wealthiest of the wealthy to the poorest of the poor. It gives one pause to wonder at its cause. Why is there a credit crunch? Was it not seen coming? Are we as a people so preoccupied in getting 'ours' that we have been hit blindside as a consequence? Or, have we just been denying the obvious and hoping against hope reality would pass us by? Well, dear reader, we --you and I, and everyone else-- have none but ourselves to blame and it is for no more reason than our having violated the most basic of economic principles: You have to earn more than you spend in order to succeed. Whenever outgo is greater than income you are bound for eventual and unavoidable trouble. I'm guilty! As well are all my friends. It's so easy when they lenders just hand it out with so few questions asked. "Sure! We trust you. You look like an honorable chap, eh, what?" At some point though even a pawnbroker must realize there is more unredeemed on his shelves than he has space and as a result he stiffens his requirements, he becomes far more conservative in his business on a loan-to-loan basis. The banks here and abroad have been far too liberal in their requirements of borrowers and borrowers have been far to faithful in their estimation of ability to pay. The end result is that we are all screwed in the end, no pun intended. One could say that the lending practices were predatory but that defies logic. If a lender only makes money from interest and has to bear great expense to liquidate assets securing a loan, he experiences a loss at the transactions completion. Predators expect a meal. It is true that lenders are as culpable as anyone else in this debacle: perhaps born of greed they have made poor choices as regards how much to loan to whom and for what. But was that done for the purpose of preying upon the ignorant or poor? No. Lenders did however enable borrowers to view credit sources as a sort of lottery, which is a complete abuse of the purpose of credit on the part of the borrowers. Credit exists for the purpose of getting something now which you cannot afford to have now. But it is imprudent to elect to borrow for something which merely COSTS money and never replaces its worth. Or worse yet, never even offers that possibility. Credit is a type of investment. It is an investment in the future. None of the great companies throughout history came to be without credit. They began as an idea backed by the confidence that said idea would pay off in time. When the borrower and lender were correct in this assessment both profited as a result. When such appraisal was in err, they both lost. Such is the game and its rules. When you buy a toaster on credit, hoping you will catch up next week you are probably doing it wrong because that toaster simply does not offer enough in return. There are simpler and less expensive ways to brown your bread. A wealthy real estate mogul in the US when filing bankruptcy once said, 'when you owe the bank 100,000 and can't make the payments, you have a problem. When you owe them 100,000,000 and can't make the payments, THEY have a problem.' My question to you is this: what have you charged?