Friday, July 31, 2009

Economists/Intellectuals - Are we hurting our children?

I took my economics class from Prof. Michael Brandl at the McCombs School of Business. Many a time in the he mentioned. (may not be the same words but this my interpretation of the essence).

"Not all government borrowing is the same. It depends on how the proceeds from the borrowing are spent. If the government borrows today and spends the money in a way that benefits the next generation, then that spending makes it easier for the next generation to repay the debt that has been created. But, if the government borrows today simple to increase current consumption, then the current generation is passing the bill for their spending onto the next generation. That is called a negative intergenerational transfer.".

To be honest, It did not fully sink into me the seriousness of the subject, until I started hearing and questioning myself on how the Stimulus money is going to be spent.

Today's news on "Cash for Clunkers" that the house rushes to approve 2B additional dollars really put me over the edge. I am really happy for the consumers who are taking advantage of the program to buy new vehicles. However, when buying the car, I am wondering if even one of them thought for moment - who is going to pay for the $4,500 that Gov't has convieniently agreed to pay these auto makers?

I guess, each one said or figured: "Not Me"; If it is not the guy who is buying the car, not the person who is actually selling the car, then who is? - Simple answer - That some body else is none other than our children or the collective us.

To a certain extent, shame on the "collective us" - the politicians who want to be populist, the citizens who just want to pass the buck or play ignorant, and the companies who lobby for incentives that benefits them at the cost to society.

So next time when you hear - We are going get the economy going by re-paving a road or putting more government officers on the streets - Question yourself - aren't these like paying for the maintenance your car, or paying for security system to protect your home; then why is it that we are borrowing money to pay for these, shouldn't they be paid for by current income ? To me this is classic Negative Intergenerational Transfer.

Going forward, when you hear an announcement about stimulus/borrowing - Think Again, Question it, Validate that it leads to a future benefit - if not we are just cheating ourselves and passing the pain to our children.

Thanks
Nagesh
The views represented in this blog are my personal views and are not a "reflection of" or "opinions of" any of the institutions I am associated with or have worked for

3 comments:

  1. Right on buddy! It is disgusting ... all the hope and change rhetoric from Obama, is all GAS! Hardworking middle class will never see any benefit, except will get taxed more and see dim future for their children. I am even okey with all this Stimulus crap as long as there is a light at the end of the tunnel. The entire country is running on false promises and assumptions.

    ReplyDelete
  2. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Shiva,

    My intention for this blog is not take political sides. My intention is to simply analyze and take a position on an action, announcement or policy in terms of economics, technology and business.

    Having said that, I still drive a 1996 Honda Accord. It runs flawlessly. I was and I am considering replacing it. Now that I understand the implications of a program like "Cash for Clunkers", I sure will stay away from it primarily because I really do not need the help and would not like to pass the buck to the next generation. I really hope that that one car goes to some one who really needs the help. At the end of the day stimulus should help the folks that really need the help so that we as society can benefit from getting the most bang for dollar spent/borrowed.

    Additionally, I am sure if everyone applied this kind of logic or took responsibility for their actions - then
    1.) We still would have money in the program
    2.) We would make banks lend to people who really need the money, not just take the easy route of picking folks who are just going after a good deal and have good credit.
    3.) Our borrowed dollar would go further into economy there by driving more value for the dollar spent.

    Thanks for your comment. Hopefully this helps.

    Thanks
    Nagesh

    ReplyDelete