The Motley Fool Discussion Boards

Previous Page

Investment Analysis Clubs / Macro Economic Trends and Risks


Subject:  Re: Here's your chance: Balance the Fed budget Date:  1/2/2007  7:09 PM
Author:  qazulight Number:  200183 of 603831


I am amazed at your cynicism.

The government provides important foundations for wealth to be created. Mostly it does it by providing a means for wealth to be retained.

If the government did not provide a way for us to hold and "own" land, we would all have to stand around with our private armies to protect where we live. This is not an efficient way of living. It makes long term investment very risky. By having a secure way of owning land, we allow investment long term investments in homes, factories, farms and so on. The amount of money added to the economy has to be greater than the money spent by the government to accomplish that.

It is apparent from current international money flows that many people perceive that the U.S. government, and the states governments, are adding more value to the economy than they are spending. Furthermore because of the unique nature of this country, intra-state migrations help indicate which state and local governments are spending their money effectively.

To simply complain about government spending with out comparing it to how effectively other governments are spending money....well its just meaningless.

I admit that Dave has a point about private enterprise being more effective than government spending. It has to be, it gets measured every day in the stock market, but there are many things that private enterprise simply cannot do. (This last statement could be discussed pro and con forever, my argument would have to do with time horizons and accountability.)

I submit that Boeing contracts help secure your ability to invest in bonds, and your land, and your education. I also submit that transfers of wealth, make it easier for you to get to work because little kids are not in the roadways begging for money. Finally I submit that SS provides security, not for the old folks, but for the middle aged people who would have the middle of their lives disrupted by the burden of elderly parents. It seems to me finically prudent to pay for the care of elderly people in a systematic way rather than a haphazard way. This is the same principle that life insurance was founded on.

I also submit that war is a lousy way to provide security. I further submit that money spent paying diplomats to drink and smooze is a lot more effective than blowing buildings up. However, they have no power if there or no troops in the barracks. It was my experience that the first Gulf War happened because we had a diplomat fail in her job, Saddam mis-read what she told him. The second Gulf war was the result of poor intelligence, or the interpretation there of, both were the result of budget cutting in the foreign service areas. In this case money was not spent as well as it should have been, but still it is being spent more effectively than say, the budget of Nigeria.

I could go on and on, the Texas constitution was written to protect land owners from unfair lending pratices, the FDA was created to help remove harmful drugs from being marketed. The Minerals Management Service provides a frame works so that oil companies don't have to have their own private navies to protect thier offshore investments. The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality keeps me from dumping my sewer into the drain that runs by other peoples homes. The EPA has a roll to play here as Texas is attempting to steal most of the water from the Sabine River basin that is shared with Lousianna.

And so on.



Copyright 1996-2020 trademark and the "Fool" logo is a trademark of The Motley Fool, Inc. Contact Us