[Miffy]

I have been an avid viewer of spendaholics and found it really interesting to see other people cope with trying to come out of debt.

I owe £3k and I am hopefully going to gradually get out of it with my new budget and change of attitude.

But when I look back on my childhood and teenage years (I'm 26 this year) I can't find any reason for my over spending. On your programme you always find a reason, parents got divorced, suffered bullying, low self esteem etc, but I can't say any of those things.

I was just greedy, wanted what I couldn't afford and didn't seem to put together that the money on my credit card wasn't mine and I would have to pay it back.

I wonder what would have happened if I had been on your show, perhaps I wouldn't have been selected for it as I don't have any baggage to speak of.

I'm not discrediting what you do, I think that a lot of the people on the programme have no idea that there is a connection between their low self esteem and splashing out on new make up and clothes all the time. I just want to say that not everyone has an 'excuse' or reason, some of us are just useless with money!

[Benjamin Fry]

The suffering associated with "wanting" isnít new. The Buddha cited it as the source of all mankind's suffering many centuries ago. What is interesting is what we do with all this wanting and why.

We are not helped at all by the cunning of advertising and the media in general, but in the end it is our choice how we respond. The modern availability of credit has widened our possible responses. Some people chose to respond without restraint to the point of self-destruction. At that point it is reasonable to ask why.

People spend because people spend, just like people drink because people drink. We generally follow the trend in society. However not all people become alcoholics, like not all people are Spendaholics. The serious, chronic pathology of these addictions is reasonable grounds for examining the person's psychological history.

If you can stop when it becomes a problem then you are not an adict. In which case it is quite possible that you are just experimenting for no other reason than to just have fun!

[Deb]

Miffy, at least you are honest about why you overspend. To me, though, if you are enjoying what you are buying, the solution would be to earn a bit more, either as well as, or instead of, cutting down on the spending.

One slight criticism I would have of spendaholics is that the focus tends to be costs driven whereas for at least a few of the people on the show I would have thought their lifestyles are entirely reasonable for their ages and aspirations, and what they needed to focus on was earning more income rather than cutting their coat according to the cloth.

Going out to work can be an expensive business in itself. By the time you take into account the costs of transport to and from work, buying clothes and make up you wouldn't need except for work, socialising - can be quite a necessary part of work in terms of getting to know, and going along with, colleagues - if you are only on a modest salary to start with, a significant chunk of it has just been swallowed up.

Suzanne, you make a good point - that in spite of having a decent job you struggle to cover your basic outgoings. I've been in that situation and still bought things - going into debt - because I wanted some part of my salary, however miniscule, just for me, ahead of all the debts and other responsibilities I had at the time. I found the best solution for that kind of problem was to earn more.

Maybe this is irresposnsible, but to me there is something to be said for paying yourself first, ahead of all the other commitments. Even if it means taking a bit longer to pay off the debts. When I started to do that I felt a lot less depressed about my debt, even if all I was 'paying' myself was £40 a week.

[Miffy]

I think it would be refreshing if they chose someone to be on spendaholics that didn't have an 'issue' so to speak. Someone like me I suppose.

I got in to debt because I bought things on my credit card I couldn't afford, then only paid the minimum payment, then bought a little more...just little things here and there that added up. I've never been able to budget properly (or realistically) and so racked up the debt.

If I was on Spendaholics, I'm not sure quite what Benjamin would have to say to me? I feel that he wouldn't really have much to talk to me about - it went would be Jay who would be the one to sort me out, with reminding me about customising my clothes instead of buying new ones and drawing up a realistic budget. Benjamin could have a break beccause, well I seriously wouldn't have anything to say to him (no offence).

I do think that Spendaholics is a good programme and talks common sense and perhaps I should apply to go on the next show...although my debt is probably too small for them!

[Biscuits]

Interesting......you believe you don't have an issue or issues, but not wanting to budget or manage your finances in order to avoid debt does suggest something.

[Miffy]

Biscuits, on Sep 4 2006, 09:01 AM, said:

Interesting......you believe you don't have an issue or issues, but not wanting to budget or manage your finances in order to avoid debt does suggest something.

I do want to budget, I'm just not very good at it but it is something I am working on. I am trying to control my finances and am a regular lurker on moneysavingexpert.com's message boards.

I have come to realise that if I want to continue buying what I want I need to earn more, but as I don't want to change jobs and there is no pay rise/promotion in the offing, I've got to cut back. This along with freelance work on the side is actually starting to work for me.

I was not used to budgeting, moved out, was earning a low wage and never sat down and went through it all to see what was what. Which is how I racked up my debt.

I've been rubbish with my money, that is all. The point to my thread was the way the programme tackles the people on it and always seems to find some 'issue' in their past or present that explains (or is blamed for) their spending.

They are never just crap with money and budgeting.

[youcandoit]

I totally agree with what everyone is saying on this page, some people just spend because they want to look good. Not always because there is a deep emotional trigger that tells us we have to spend because of our misfortunes.

[CJ.]

I would like to add a more general objection to the spendaholic's approach to therapy, leaving asside issues of exploitation for TV, which I can't comment on with any authority.

My view is that the show, in attempting to trace the root of spending addictions to a given INDIVIDUAL's emotional baggage, denies the glaring trends across our society towards unrestrained consumption and indulgence. In the vast majority of cases, I would suggest that the difference between someone who gets into unmanagable debt and someone who is able to keep their high-expenditure lifestyle ticking along is merely one of degree, not qualitative type. But in focusing on specific individual problems, then the uncomfortable truth about how horrendously indulgent 21st century western lifestyles are can be conveniently skirted over. This is a perspective that Benjamin cannot possibly accept because firstly, it would mean that his thesis is largely obsolete, and secondly it would imply that his own lifestyle choices, along with those of everybody else, should be put under the microscope.

" The suffering associated with "wanting" isnít new. The Buddha cited it as the source of all mankind's suffering many centuries ago... but in the end it is our choice how we respond."

- Well you're 50% right Ben. It's in our nature to want things, but it's certainly not our choice to cease to be creatures of want at a given convenient point. The Buddhists likened induling our desires to drinking salt water - the more you do it, the more insatiable your yearning becomes.

It is both our society and our human nature that have conspired to give us what we want, in terms of a consumer paradise, but unfortunately it has not done us any favours. In order to ascertain what we really need in our lives we need to be able to quieten down our desiring and think rationally about what is happening to and around us, and how we can regain some mastery. But the more intensely and frequently that one indulges in consuming and desiring, the more difficult that task becomes because the intellect is the servant, not the master of the will. It can only gain temporary ascendacy when the latter is kept in quiet and in check. As grand, cryptic, mind-boggling and unpleasant a truth that may seem, it is one that must be accepted if we are really to get to the root of why so many of us are spendaholics.

Imagine that a large number of us have decided to set sale for Capetown on homemade rafts. Ben is trying to explain the spate of sinkings by looking at the characteristics of an individual raft. I am saying that what is ultimately at fault is the choice to undertake the journey at all.

[Trying]

For ages I tried and tried to be careful with spending money in an effort to be more 'Buddhist' like. I sold most of my cds and my entire dvd collection, and various other things to get rid of these distractions and help find that inner tranquility that can only be found by giving up attachments.

Well I can now see how completely lost I was. I was confused. I believed I'd just become another consumer and felt depressed. I didn't realise that trying to opt out of being a consumer was actually a narcissistic attempt to feel different, special or maybe better than other people.

There is actually nothing wrong with our spending and buying culture, and there is certainly nothing wrong with enjoying your purchases. What is wrong is guilt, and it's actually guilt that keeps the spending going. You spend money - you feel guilty - so you spend more money to feel better, and so on. I felt guilty about every single thing I bought becuase my mother taught me these attitudes. I now see this 'sensible' approach has done nothing but hold me back because it has instilled in me a fear of risk taking.

THAT was the problem. Guilt. I had to lighten up and enjoy spending money, and now, ironically, I'm not so at the mercy of my urges to buy things anymore. I know plenty of control-freak saver types who are far from happy because of an inner preachy voice which is really just their parent's voice. I think a similar inner parental voice could be to blame when we start preaching about the 'faults of society'.

Surely looking at individual emotional histories as the trigger for their behaviour IS looking at society as a whole? Isn't society simply a collection of millions of individuals histories? What I'm saying is I don't think Benjamin Fry avoids anything. He's looking at the real reasons behind our compulsions, which we'll continue to blindly indulge unless we can see why we're doing it.

[CJ.]

We have to be careful exactly what we're speaking about here. There is a clearly a happy medium between trying to live the life of a buddhist monk and indulging in materialism without restraint. It would be quite understandable why, in attempting to go cold turkey it would actually propel you to the opposite behaviour, in much the same way that someone who attempts to supress all sexual feelings for reasons such as guilt or faith may find themselves all the more haunted by sexual thoughts. You can't skip steps; you can only live a truly frugal lifestyle when you have a genuine desire to do so. Yourself changes first, and then the outward trappings follow, not vice versa, otherwise it would indeed be a very damaging experience for someone.

But you should not use the dangers of one extreme as a justification to go to other. Clearly the repressive, guilt-laden approach of the past did us no good, but I'm afraid I cannot buy into the view that our current consumer frenzy is, in the majority of cases, a product of repressed guilt. For one thing, younger people have likely been more sheltered from the guilt felt by older generations, and contemporary culture is one in which indulgence is encouraged with virtually no condemnation. To deny that there is something unhealthy about this, both morally and pyschologically, is to engage in self-deception in order to justify an indulgent lifestyle. Incessantly focusing on the emotional problems of a given individual is to deflect the blame from 'us' to 'him or her'. But we are all to a substantive degree products of our society.

Asside from that, our buying and spending culture is massively wasteful; resting on the backs of those that have very little, and ultimately unsustainable over time. Whether we like it or not, we will be living more frugal lives in the future, and it would do us a lot of favours in the short term if we were to engage in restraint and moderation, rather than now partying like there's no tomorrow.

[Benjamin Fry]

When an individualís behaviour is so pronounced that it threatens their stability and way of life, we usually begin to think of this as pathology (i.e. an illness) rather than just a bit of misguided excess. Obviously the boundary is highly subjective.

However, once engaged with looking at pathology there are two distinct questions to answer. Taking the narrower example of general addiction, these questions would be 1. what so troubles this person that they need to act out in this way, and 2. why is this their drug of choice.

The point above about our society answers the second question in many cases. What I try to throw some light on in the television programme is the first. It is quite possible to argue that the state of "society" is the answer to both questions, but if that was the whole story then we would all behave the same; which we do not.

I like the raft analogy though. What perhaps it misses is that whatever the feasibility of the journey, there are some people who are too damaged to cope with it. If you are lucky enough to not know what that feels like, then that's great. However it is perhaps unkind to suggest to people who face very painful and difficult issues of emotional and mental health that their problems don't really exist.

[CJ.]

Thanks for you reply Benjamin.

I'm not going to add anything else to the discussion because I think we have both presented our respective viewpoints very clearly. For me this has been a worthwhile and interesting discussion, and I appreciate the fact that your position is one that is sincere and well considered. I also commend you on your ability to remain diplomatic and polite as ever, even in the face of someone challenging your views.

Best.
CJ