The Relationship with Money and Material Objects

Money and material objects are omnipresent throughout the diary. This is not surprising in a testimony about addictive buying, in which the author describes a person economic behavior in great detail. However, the symbolic meanings of products and money, which are sometimes explicitly mentioned and other times are implicit in the author’s interpretations of the buying episodes and other life events, reveal some deep-rooted materialistic values. For example:

I admit now that I dreamt of one day shopping in good shops like my big boss….haha… A friend (female) before she  got married, who was always dressed in the latest fashion, drew my attention a lot, like the boys who were well dressed. I was mistaken, but nothing can be done about it.

Although, at times, she seems to question the importance of money and material objects, these values constantly emerge. For example, an important motive for worry and anxiety is the damage that her buying behavior has caused to her husband and children. On one occasion, she mentions the possible emotional damage caused by her permanent state of anxiety and irritability; she also considers at one point that her spending habits have not set a good example for her children, but most of the references to this issue refer to the pain she feels because the accumulated debts now prevent her from buying things:

I see people with their flat all set up buy a car, things for their child, and I think how I have ruined my family… It takes a great effort to acknowledge these feelings, like seeing a friend who has kept his money under control and has many more things.

What is outstanding throughout the diary is the degree to which family relationships and friendship revolve around the purchase of products, going to shops as a leisure activity, and gifts, both in the form of material objects and money. One fact that illustrates this centrality is the friendship maintained for years with another buying addict from whom she frequently receives money and gifts.

Money, material objects and presents in family relationships and friendships.

What did I spend money on? On everything and on everyone.

It can repeatedly be seen that purchases, material objects, and money have always been and are present as means of communication and relating, both in family relationships and in friendships. Gifts of articles of clothing and other products to various family members and friends are frequent, not only on special occasions, but as a routine that is carried out either by buying or by paying for what others buy. For example:

Last week I went to get clothes for my nephew, I went with my niece… I think that they have forgotten about that affair of them buying me the suit, but it doesn’t matter.

At times, money and presents fulfill a reciprocal function: They are a way of paying for, or returning favors.

One day, I had a quarrel with my nephew, the one I always said was my child, and the relationship no longer feels the same to me. I feel sorry about the affection and about everything I spent on them. Of course, you must understand that they now have a good friend that gives them a lot, and an uncle without children who is giving them a lot of money, you can see it in their clothes and everything.

The inappropriate nature of my relationships with certain friends, based on excessive gifts, becomes evident to a good friend, someone from outside the family.

Everything I gave them didn’t seem right to my friend. When that happened, I was often with the wife of one of these friends. They had a daughter whom I was very fond of. As they didn’t have much money I always bought things for the girl, shoes, a dress, a jacket. My friend was right, it was too much. For my birthday, I went to the shop and I really took advantage of this friend, because he pays by installments. I bought a jacket, a skirt, a jersey, a jacket with a polo shirt, and, to round it off, two pairs of pants because last year’s pants are no use to me.

In fact, this friend’s gifts include clothes and other products for the husband and children. These family values, beliefs, and customs with respect to money and material objects, in short, the predominant material culture in this family generates an atmosphere of permissiveness that favors the development of addictive buying.

The behavior of both women during these visits reminds one of a relationship with a child, a nephew or niece, or a grandchild, because each time there is a visit, there is always, or nearly always, “pocket money”. Last Monday, my mother came to bring me prescriptions, well, I was waiting to see if she would give me something… she gave me five hundreds.

I’m going to draw a five hundreds for today or tomorrow because my nephews and nieces are coming. I draw a thousand because there are two of them and they’ll spend it on the machines, if not, I’d only take five hundred.

Addiction to buying, also known as compulsive buying constitutes a compulsive pattern of acquisition of products that is analogous to drug addictions. Based on market research and prevalence studies estimate the scope of the problem in different countries at between 1% and 7% of the population.

However, in western consumer societies, a growing tendency has been noted of buying, which is impulsive, recreational, and compensatory for negative emotional states, and the percentage of consumers who are prone or vulnerable to addiction is estimated to be between 19.5% and 25% of the population. These figures indicate the social relevance of this phenomenon, which is not limited to a small percentage of subjects suffering from a mental disorder, but instead reflects a socio-cultural tendency whose medium- and long-term consequences should be considered.

The definitions of addiction to buying include as key characteristics a perceived difficulty in controlling one’s impulsive and excessive buying behavior, its chronic nature, its functions of emotional repair and of symbolically improving self-esteem, the development of a strong psychological dependence, and its damaging effects at the economic, psychological, and family levels. Similarly, they point to learning processes as factors that explain the difficulty to control the behavior and its repetitive nature, and they acknowledge vulnerability factors of a cultural, social, situational, and psychobiological nature.

The above-mentioned perception of difficulty to control, linked to the highly impulsive nature of buying, has led to different and, at times, contrary interpretations of the nature of addictive buying, even going so far as to indicate that addictive buying can present characteristics of voluntary behavior. This latter point of view has also been defended by other authors in the field of addiction to chemical substances (Megías et al., 2000; Peele, 1987) and of impulsive behavior in general (Baumeister, Heatherton, & Tice, 1994). These different conceptualizations are directly related to the different conceptual models of addictive behavior and to the issue of addicts’ personal responsibility for their own behavior and aspects.

My current rant is against financial advisers who suggest borrowing in a currency with a low interest rate to purchase a home in a different country. That can work, but most people don’t understand the real risk.

For instance, some would find the appeal it purchasing a house in New Zealand using the Singapore dollar, which has a much lower interest rate than the New Zealand dollar. But there is danger in gambling with foreign currency using borrowed money.

Let’s say the new house will cost NZ$100,000. The bank will lend a maximum 80 percent of the cost. The bank will lend it in either Singapore dollar at an interest rate of 2 percent, or NZ dollars at an interest rate of 10 percent. But financial advisers often fail to tell you this critical point: based on pure interest rate theory, the NZ dollar will depreciate against the Singapore dollar by the differential of the interest rates of 2 per cent and 10 percent.

Of course, currencies and interest rates fluctuate for many reasons. The point is that if the bank has loaned you the maximum of NZ$80,000 in z. foreign currency equivalent whose value then rises, the bank will consider you to be in debt for more than NZ$80,000. A friend of mine in this situation, whose loan is far greater than NZ$80,000, recently received notice — a “margin call” — from her bank requesting a further S$175,000 to make up the difference, and she is now sick with worry.

And be aware. If you rely on NZ-dollar rentals from your new home to pay your Singapore-dollar mortgage, you are back in the currency risk trap. New Zealand dollar rental payments can in theory depreciate against the Singapore dollar over time, meaning that you risk receiving less when the rental is converted to Singapore dollars—and thus bringing in less to service your Singapore borrowings.

In some cases, the bank will allow you to give the margin-call money to them to hold on deposit, which you can earn interest on, but you continue the same risk of speculating with currencies using borrowed money. In fact, if you read the small print in your loan agreement you may find that the bank also has the right to demand a revaluation of the house if New Zealand property prices slide instead of increase. If the house valuation goes down, this has the same potential result of a margin call, in that your loan may now exceed 80 percent of the value of your house.