Not Fade wrote:
"There are men regarded today as brilliant economists, who deprecate saving.........
Henry Hazlitt
Oh that economics could be as simple as some wish! The only way to save is for the value of the saver's labor to be greater than the value of what he consumes. But, for that saving to have value in the future it must be borrowed by someone else. Then, years later, the saver asks for his savings (deferred labor value) to be returned. The borrower then has to have a surplus value in his labor, using the value of his labor to support himself and to help support the saver. In some ways, it really isn't any different from the borrowing penchant we see today that must be repaid by later generations.
Historically the American economy has been based on waste. We build, we throw away. At the risk of stirring up strong sentiment, military spending is largely waste. We build a bomb, and then explode it. All the labor that went into the bomb, or the missile, or the round of ammunition, goes poof, and becomes nothing more than a useless hole in the ground. Or how about all the labor that goes into the food and fuel and clothing that ends up as nothing more than boot tracks in the sand? If you look at it cold heartedly, you will see that military spending is largely waste. We choose to spend it because it does provide a return in terms of national security. But, how much national security can we afford?
Then there is Obamacare which will cause billions of dollars to be expended in removing ruptured appendixes, or setting broken legs, or caring for an aged and ailing person in the last few months of life. There is no question the first two are valuable to society in general. The third one, in the minds of some, has questionable value in the long term for society, aside from being an expression of compassion. So which is the more admirable choice? Spend billions to pay staff and buy disposable medical material to care for ailing and dying people, or pay soldiers to go look for and clobber off Al Qaeda guys? Don't answer, just think about it. Economics ain't simple. We can't endlessly continue to do both.
On the other hand, we send money to China, they use it to build homes and buy food while they build a smart phone for us. Then we use the smart phone for a couple of years and throw it away. How smart is that in the long term? Yes, the smart phone helps us enjoy life, and is a tool to help in making things we need and want, but isn't it also a waste to some extent? In contrast, years ago Western Electric built telephones which the Bell System rented to subscribers and had an expected life span of 40 years!
See, economics ain't simple. Because it isn't, it's hard for politicians and citizens, and us forum members, to discuss it rationally.
Keep in mind, for every $50,000 a year in waste, fraud, and abuse that is prevented, someone, somewhere loses a job.
