It’s only money. Tens of thousands of dollars of money.

Sasha Obama, taken the day Digging Out From Our Mess got out of the red.

We spend so much time online looking out for fellow travelers, people who encourage you to spend your money, invest it wisely, and take ownership, that we never dreamed there was an online subculture of financially irresponsible people and their enablers; people who pay nominal attention to increasing their net worth, and who think that intending to get out of debt trumps actually doing so.

We recently discovered Digging Out From Our Mess, a blog posted by the female half of a couple who have an autistic kid, a normal kid, four credit card balances, two student loans, and $71,930.29 in consumer debt. Is this cause for shame? Possibly, but not when you can brag about it!

The anonymous 30ish woman behind the blog qualifies that total, admitting that her and her husband’s cumulative debt load does not include a “retirement loan”. We’d never heard that term before, and you probably haven’t either: Google only returns 628 results. It turns out that a retirement loan is an advance on a 401(k). Yes, a woman in the prime of life is borrowing now to avoid incurring penalties on a forced retirement plan that the law prevents her from touching until she turns 59½. But if you’re going to borrow against your 401(k), why even have it in the first place? Borrowing against it defeats the purpose of “forced saving”. We’re guessing the author also carries life insurance, although she’s coy about any weekly lottery ticket budget she might have (every ticket a potential winner!)

We’ll resume attacking her in a second, but in the meantime know that if you attempt to touch your 401(k) before you turn 59½, for anything other than emergency medical expenses, you’ll pay a 10% penalty.*

Anyhow, Mystery Blogger is proud that she’s 6% of the way to getting out of debt. (There’s a graph that illustrates this on her website. DON’T VISIT IT.) This means she’s en route to getting out of debt in her early 50s. Excluding the retirement loan, of course, which she’ll have to start paying back shortly thereafter. She recently posted that she spent $1000 to send her kids to camp for the summer, and is upset that her mother, maybe mother-in-law, it’s hard to remember which, didn’t contribute.

$1000 is close to 1.4% of her family’s ostensible consumer debt total. She could have moved her debt arrow that much closer to the end of the graph. When you’re only at 6%, that $1000 makes a visible difference. Yet she chose to put her money in something fleeting instead.

Incur debt, cry about it, go public with your halfhearted attempts to reduce it, then do something that increases it, while hoping that someone else might subsidize it. In which universe does that make sense? (We’re finding out that it does make sense in the world of international finance, but that’s a different and more ominous story.)

Alright, we give you permission to visit Digging Out From Our Mess, but only to witness this exchange in which Mystery Blogger defends herself and her methods against a humble Control Your Cash sniper. Mystery Blogger is the financial equivalent of the fat woman who loses 3 pounds and is so proud of her accomplishment that she has to share it with everyone and act as an authority on the topic of weight loss, even though she needs to lose another 77. Congratulations, you went 10 minutes without a cigarette. Here’s your Medal of Honor.

Once again, and this will be far from the last time: the only way to build wealth is to buy assets and sell liabilities. It’s elegant, it’s symmetrical, it’s simple and it never fails. Your kid’s summer indulgence is a liability. You should sell (i.e., not buy) it. A 401(k) is an asset. You should buy (i.e., contribute to) it. A loan you borrow with your 401(k) as collateral is a grenade. You should throw it at the Viet Cong.

It’s at times like this that we wish Tim Berners-Lee had majored in women’s studies instead of giving people like this an outlet. Maybe the Chinese have the right idea about censoring the internet, because Digging Out From Our Mess is far more obscene than anything you’ll find on 2 Girls 1 Cup, LiveLeak or Lemon Party.

If you’re $78,000 in debt, log out of BlogSpot, back away from the keyboard and spend that time at a second job.

* If you don’t have a 401(k), and you qualify, get one. Yes, it’s something you can’t enjoy for years, but it lowers your tax obligation. It’s a way of giving the federal government a few ounces of flesh instead of the requisite pound. Plus, most employers offer matching contributions up to a certain level. If your company is willing to exploit its own tax situation by giving a few dollars to your retirement rather than a few more to Uncle Sam, let ‘em.

Note: We didn’t bash the autistic kid, we bashed the mother. Relax. If anything, she should hand the autistic kid the keys to the checkbook and the bank passwords. He couldn’t do much worse than her.

Goldman Sachs, and why should I give a damn?

Lloyd Blankfein, exhibiting the kind of manicure most of us can only dream of.

If you work for a living, especially if you do anything that gets your fingers calloused or makes you sweat, it’s easy to wonder what a financial services firm does aside from employ well-dressed people to shuffle paper.

Goldman Sachs is a financial services firm, one of the world’s biggest. An investment bank, if you want a slightly more limiting but descriptive term.

You have a neighborhood bank – e.g. Chase, SunTrust, BB&T. You deposit your paychecks there, withdraw cash, earn interest, maybe borrow money to buy a house or start a business. The bank makes money by charging more interest on its loans than it pays out to its accountholders.

Investment banks such as Goldman Sachs have better, more lucrative ways to occupy their time. Say a medium-to-large firm wants to buy another, or sell itself or a piece. The firm hires an investment bank to value the assets and liabilities involved, help with pricing and look for contingencies that the parties involved in the transaction might have missed (e.g. determining the rightful owner of certain assets, making sure that a legal transgression doesn’t render a transaction void.)

Investment banks do more than that, too. You probably know that some companies issue bonds to raise money – in other words, they borrow it from whoever’s willing to lend it. You can buy a bond issued by Johnson & Johnson for a little over $100, and receive 4.061% annually until the bond matures 13 years from now. It’s an investment bank that underwrites that issue of bonds – figuring out how much Johnson & Johnson should borrow and what rate to offer, then selling the bonds to brokerage houses that will in turn sell said bonds to their clients. The same goes for issuing stock, only in that case the investment bank helps determine the initial market price and the volume of the issue. After that point market forces (and in 2010 America, governmental suasion) take over.

Banks like Goldman Sachs also exchange currencies, millions of dollars (or pounds or pesos) worth at a time, to keep their clients liquid and protect them from inflation in whichever nation they happen to be conducting business. Of course, said banks take a cut. An investment bank’s clients also trust it to buy equities, bonds and commodities on its behalf, putting the clients’ assets to (presumably) efficient use instead of just having them sit around in cash that doesn’t earn interest.

Investment banks also create and manage mutual funds and pension funds, pooling different investments to create a meta-investment that you can buy into and hopefully preserve your assets in. Investment banks also manage assets for foundations, colleges and universities, and rich individuals and families. And occasionally, an investment bank will invest in a business itself. In Goldman Sachs’ case, everything from Las Vegas casinos to Chinese meat processing.

So while what investment banks do isn’t as tangible as what engineering firms or agribusinesses do, investment banks still serve a clear purpose that helps resources find their most efficient use, which is the whole point of capitalism and progress. This takes skill and experience. You wouldn’t hire a bunch of teenagers and pay them minimum wage to underwrite your next bond issue.

Investment banking is intellectually challenging, risky, and should offer commensurate rewards. And when the bankers make the wrong decisions – charging too low a rate of interest, buying a security whose price then tailspins – they should eat the losses.

Should.

In 2007 Goldman Sachs made huge profits on mortgage-backed securities, the investments made up of mortgage debt pooled and sold with the promise of interest. Lots of people defaulted on their mortgages, which made the mortgage-backed securities lose money. A couple of Goldman Sachs employees predicted this, sold short all the mortgage-backed securities they could find, and the company profited while other Wall Street firms got burned. However, Goldman Sachs created securities of its own that were dubious and difficult to value – including several whose underlying investment was home equity loans, which are always at a relatively high risk of default. Goldman Sachs stock went from a high of $234 in October of 2007 to $52 in November of 2008.

Around the same time, you helped out by buying $10 billion worth of Goldman Sachs stock. Because it’s your federal government’s job to keep investment banks viable, for some reason.

Greece is bankrupt, or close to it. For 11 years Goldman Sachs helped the Greek government fudge its numbers, allowing the nation to pile up debt that it now has to refinance to the tune of $11,500 per citizen. In 2009, Goldman Sachs received cash from U.S. government ward AIG in return for even more dubious securities. That’s cash that originated with American taxpayers. Goldman Sachs sold further securities (collateralized debt obligations) to investors, then bet short against them, the equivalent of Los Angeles Lakers owner Jerry Buss wagering on the Utah Jazz in their current NBA playoff series against the Lakers (which would pay 17/4 had he wagered before the series began.)

It’s those collateralized debt obligations that are the primary reason why Goldman Sachs is in the news. Goldman Sachs hired an independent firm (ACA) to review them, but allegedly never informed ACA about a hedge fund (Paulson) that wanted to short the collateralized debt obligations. Which would be fine, except Paulson helped select the underlying mortgages. Continuing with the Jerry Buss analogy, it’d be as if Buss hired a new general manager to release his entire starting 5 of Kobe Bryant, Pau Gasol, Ron Artest, Derek Fisher and Andrew Bynum, then signed 5 random New Jersey Nets to replace them.

The 2 Dutch firms on the other side of what became a billion-dollar loss are understandably miffed, and have taken their case to the Securities and Exchange Commission. Goldman Sachs argues that hey, we just bring buyers and sellers together and what happens after that is up to the market.

In a completely unrelated and independent development, Goldman Sachs employees and family members contributed more money to the president’s election campaign than any firm but one. Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein has visited the White House 4 times, which is 4 times more than you. Enjoy your work week.