Unlike some cynics, I am as ready and eager as our new President to embrace the new golden age of affluence that she has announced is upon us. An age of self-assurance, tolerance and peace too, as she said, but never mind that, we can probably buy those if we make money enough, fast enough. Affluence is our goal, its time has come, and not a minute too soon. We have been poor Paddies for long enough. But an embrace requires a minimum of two parties. It is a complete waste of time attempting an embrace on one's own. And with regard to embracing affluence, the parties to be approached are, principally, the banks and building societies. They are the recognised experts in the affluence-embracing business. If you go about it the right way they will hug you to death with money, and there can be no better way to go.

Those who need proof of their skills have only to look at last week's Bank of Ireland interim results, which showed profits of £250 million for the first six months. Brokers expect the next six months to be even better. This means the bank is embracing profits of £10 million every week. That is the sort of affluence we should all aspire to.

Of course, if you are anybody at all, even the owner of a second-hand shed, you are already the subject of overtures by the money institutions. You are being wooed regularly, romanced daily in the post and through the media with a fabulous variety of investment plans and other affluence-creating confections. Like ardent swains, the moneymen are tingling at the thought of your embrace, rapt at the prospect of your succumbing to their charms, swooning at the thought of blissful union. How to behave then? Play it coy is my advice. Keep them dangling. Play one off against another. Offer little tid-bits of encouragement, but beware of commitment. In this way you will increase their ardour and their inducements. And keep away from the riffraff. You don't want to embrace the wrong crowd and have the golden age of affluence turn to an old age of base metal, drinking meths and dossing down in shop doorways. Are there any other dangers involved? Oh yes. Your caution is understandable. The main worry is that if we, the consumers, do not consume enough, and often enough, if the embrace is merely half-hearted or lukewarm, the moneymen will suffer and will be less able to afford to send us colourful literature urging us to borrow more.

Economics is, or possibly are, that simple.

But it is disappointing that the moneymen have not yet come up with a simple euphemism for "borrow". For the older consumers among us, this word still retains disturbing connotations, principally the dreary notion of "paying back". Embarrassing, I know, but there it is, and it keeps some of us from making all the life-enhancing investments in second homes and holidays and new cars and stereo equipment and timeshare developments and conservatories and wine cellars and other consumer goodies that would show our enthusiasm for this golden age of affluence. Equally embarrassing was the story in the paper just the other day about a farmer who borrowed just under £70,000 from a building society, repaid (at irregular intervals) over £73,000, but ended up seven years later owing the society more than £198,000. It is a shame that such tales become public and tarnish the gold on the golden A. of A. The one cheering note was that some of the lawyers involved were able to mop up a heap of this cash and add to their own affluence.

Regarding investment opportunities, most recently I (myself) have been invited to consider buying an apartment for any college-going offspring I might have. The idea is that when the young wan is finished college I can "retain the apartment as an investment". This shows a great deal of ignorance on the part of the would-be lenders about how most students look after their apartments. Neither do they know much about the young wan in question. I may invite them to have a look at the state of her room.

But a certain courage is required to gain standing in the age of affluence. This courage is most evident in those who support the National Lottery, who invested £100 million in scratch cards last year, and who spent more than twice that on the Lotto. With money like this to spend, they have been the front-runners in establishing the new and exciting era of buccaneering investment. It is surely time that those who occasionally lose (as well as the big winners) should have their names published, and their contribution to the golden age of affluence finally recognised.