NY Times article on the mission to kill Bin Laden
Upon hearing the news of Osama bin Laden's death, I didn't feel any stirrings for a desires to celebrate the event, nevermind chanting "USA". If there is any sweetness, the bitterness of this 'victory' overwhelms it. There is no satisfaction, because that would only allow this man to matter more than the lives lost on September 11, 2001.
I spent my time mourning the loss of innocent lives rather than celebrating the death of a madman. Afterall, his death won't likely not diminish the chances of another attack, nor will it afford us the opportunity to bring our military personnel home, away from the toils of combat any sooner.
On September 11, 2001, I watched, in shock, the attacks on the World Trade Center unfold through my living room and bedroom windows which had unfettered views of the towers a few hundred yards away. I grimaced as bodies fell from the north tower raging like a monolithic pyre. Some of those bodies seemed to be alive, as I imagine that some might have taken their own lives after watching the south tower collapse just minutes earlier.
I found it compelling and reassuring that our government, in planning an assault to kill or capture the most wanted man, had taken the time to decide how his body would be laid to rest. I wondered if Al Qaeda ever made such considerations when planning one of their deadly attacks. I don't imagine they did. Even in planning out our most violent acts where the safety of our own people is supreme, our leaders took the time to pay respect to the religious beliefs of this man who so hated our way of life that he sent 19 men thousands of miles for the sole purpose of committing mass-murder.
It makes me wonder, how can they call Americans the infidels, the barbarians when they defile their own morality to sate their lust for hate?
Monday, May 2, 2011
Thursday, March 10, 2011
Debt, Government spending and other date conversation topics for married people...
A friend of mine recently forwarded me this piece from J. Kyle Bass of Hayman Advisors.
My response:
From what I understand, an economy can not expand during credit contraction (This stands to reason since whenever there is a credit contraction, the people who find it hardest to access credit are small- to mid-sized businesses who are the engines of growth; however, governments of developed economics rarely find it hard to access credit even at such time. I think this more a function of the markets than policy. As those of us in the asset management have seen, there is usually a 'flight to quality' -aka: US Treasuries- during periods of distress.). But saying so, assumes that all debt is equal. In modest recessions, I think government's incurring debt has a stimulative effect, especially if it is incurred to maintain money flows and some capacity building infrastructure projects.
But in times when public sector debt is already high and interest rates are low, new public debt must be incurred very carefully. Initially, it should only be done for stop-gap measures to prevent an all out financial meltdown; after that, towards measures that transfer funds to consumers and businesses with urgent spending needs for critical expenditures such as housing and ongoing salaries, but this can't be done for very long because it risks creating a long-term entitlement mentality. After this, the next thing that government should spend on are deferred maintenance projects rather than new ones. This is because maintenance and retrofit projects can usually get going with little ramp-up time and such projects can increase economic capacity while providing short-term stimulus.
But the fact remains that we must pay down our aggregate public debt, and we must restrict the incurring of new debt to only equal to spending on either capacity building expenditures or on acquisition of assets with long useful lives. Further, there must always be a policy for paying down and retiring old debt. We should not be borrowing to service current liabilities, especially entitlements and pensions. In fact, funds for deferred future liabilities, such as pension and benefits of government employees, should be set aside as they are incurred, not paid with future revenues.
I think most rational policy people would agree with the above conditions. And up to this point, I agree with true conservatives (not the opportunist GOP politicians currently in Congress or the wacko Tea Party-ers). Where true liberals and conservatives diverge is on the right level of taxation and types and levels of entitlements. So, what level of taxation is sufficient to pay for services that the people deem as being the mandate of the government (national security, judicial, police, fire, primary education, maintenance of public assets, safety and equity regulations,...). On top of this, we need to add to this the cost of paying down and servicing existing debt. Pretty quickly, even with a pared down government, we get somewhere near 20-30% of GDP in my estimation.
From what I understand, no society has ever been able to maintain law and order on anything less than the government commanding less than about 20% of GDP. If there are examples refuting this, I'd certainly would like to see them.
My response:
From what I understand, an economy can not expand during credit contraction (This stands to reason since whenever there is a credit contraction, the people who find it hardest to access credit are small- to mid-sized businesses who are the engines of growth; however, governments of developed economics rarely find it hard to access credit even at such time. I think this more a function of the markets than policy. As those of us in the asset management have seen, there is usually a 'flight to quality' -aka: US Treasuries- during periods of distress.). But saying so, assumes that all debt is equal. In modest recessions, I think government's incurring debt has a stimulative effect, especially if it is incurred to maintain money flows and some capacity building infrastructure projects.
But in times when public sector debt is already high and interest rates are low, new public debt must be incurred very carefully. Initially, it should only be done for stop-gap measures to prevent an all out financial meltdown; after that, towards measures that transfer funds to consumers and businesses with urgent spending needs for critical expenditures such as housing and ongoing salaries, but this can't be done for very long because it risks creating a long-term entitlement mentality. After this, the next thing that government should spend on are deferred maintenance projects rather than new ones. This is because maintenance and retrofit projects can usually get going with little ramp-up time and such projects can increase economic capacity while providing short-term stimulus.
But the fact remains that we must pay down our aggregate public debt, and we must restrict the incurring of new debt to only equal to spending on either capacity building expenditures or on acquisition of assets with long useful lives. Further, there must always be a policy for paying down and retiring old debt. We should not be borrowing to service current liabilities, especially entitlements and pensions. In fact, funds for deferred future liabilities, such as pension and benefits of government employees, should be set aside as they are incurred, not paid with future revenues.
I think most rational policy people would agree with the above conditions. And up to this point, I agree with true conservatives (not the opportunist GOP politicians currently in Congress or the wacko Tea Party-ers). Where true liberals and conservatives diverge is on the right level of taxation and types and levels of entitlements. So, what level of taxation is sufficient to pay for services that the people deem as being the mandate of the government (national security, judicial, police, fire, primary education, maintenance of public assets, safety and equity regulations,...). On top of this, we need to add to this the cost of paying down and servicing existing debt. Pretty quickly, even with a pared down government, we get somewhere near 20-30% of GDP in my estimation.
From what I understand, no society has ever been able to maintain law and order on anything less than the government commanding less than about 20% of GDP. If there are examples refuting this, I'd certainly would like to see them.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)