Some of the reason for running a deficet in last 7years is just a lack of political will to have surpluses anymore. There`s a valid criticism that a surplus indicates that either taxes are too high or spending is too low.
I don't know that this is always the case. Should a country really run with no savings, no money to put aside for its future emergency expenses? Most states have these sorts of funds. Or do we just trust to sovereign debt to fix the issues when they arise? Is that the best way to use the money?
Changing the global economic system might be good job for the UN to fix these global economic woes. I mean try to solve issues before they happen would be only logical.
We know stock markets crash. We know disasters happen that take money to solve. Some things are preventable, some not. So why not encourage countries to set aside money for rainy day. That way when famine stikes, or earthquake, or war, or hurricane, or corruption, or volcano, or whatever... That way the money is there to fix it...
But doesn't that just devalue all the money when it's out of circulation like that?
In the ideal world, one could just enact revenue and tax measures as needed. It's the government, they don't need to save, they can just let the money remain in the private sector until such time as more revenue is needed, then take it at that time. I'm fairly liberal, but I see no reason to have money idling in state coffers.
Good points.sophia_sadekAugust 15 2011, 15:52:21 UTC
I agree with your closing observations on the American system. One party is spineless and the other party is brainless. America is in a state of decapitation.
Re: Good points.allhatnocattleAugust 16 2011, 01:55:41 UTC
It's not the parties that are really to blame. American system is at fault.
I mean American congressmen can't just introduce and vote on a simple bill, 5-20 pages long, dealing with a single subject like this for example.
You see our system in Canada is designed for enacting laws rather quickly that are effective and efficient. The Prime Minister can prioritize and direct parliament to deal with various issues. We're not constantly swatting the lobbyists and the lobbyists are certainly not swatting back. We don't have this God-given individual liberty within the political parties that votes against it. Leadership is democratically elected and thereby obeyed.
Re: Good points.sophia_sadekAugust 17 2011, 15:29:56 UTC
I like the way French and English are both used in Canadian legislation. Given the size of our Spanish speaking population, a better system would include both languages.
In Washington, smaller legislation is usually tacked on as an amendment to a larger bill in order to get it moving out of Congress. The President is not supposed to have power over Congress, although that has been the case with respect to secret diplomacy and militarism. The role of lobbyists has been part of the American system since the days of Hamilton's financial backers. (The national bank was a case of the President handing ready-made legislation to Congress, as was the more recent case of the Patriot Act.) Lobbying is considered to be "democratic" despite its obviously corrupting influence.
Comments 9
I don't know that this is always the case. Should a country really run with no savings, no money to put aside for its future emergency expenses? Most states have these sorts of funds. Or do we just trust to sovereign debt to fix the issues when they arise? Is that the best way to use the money?
Reply
In Canada the only province that has put away some money is Alberta with it's Heritage Trust Fund... and it's not nearly anywhere it should be.
I understand Alaska has one as well.
But I don't know that any countries do that. And almost everyone carries debt... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_external_debt
Reply
We know stock markets crash. We know disasters happen that take money to solve. Some things are preventable, some not. So why not encourage countries to set aside money for rainy day. That way when famine stikes, or earthquake, or war, or hurricane, or corruption, or volcano, or whatever... That way the money is there to fix it...
But doesn't that just devalue all the money when it's out of circulation like that?
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
I mean American congressmen can't just introduce and vote on a simple bill, 5-20 pages long, dealing with a single subject like this for example.
You see our system in Canada is designed for enacting laws rather quickly that are effective and efficient. The Prime Minister can prioritize and direct parliament to deal with various issues. We're not constantly swatting the lobbyists and the lobbyists are certainly not swatting back. We don't have this God-given individual liberty within the political parties that votes against it. Leadership is democratically elected and thereby obeyed.
Your Presidents always seem so powerless.
Reply
In Washington, smaller legislation is usually tacked on as an amendment to a larger bill in order to get it moving out of Congress. The President is not supposed to have power over Congress, although that has been the case with respect to secret diplomacy and militarism. The role of lobbyists has been part of the American system since the days of Hamilton's financial backers. (The national bank was a case of the President handing ready-made legislation to Congress, as was the more recent case of the Patriot Act.) Lobbying is considered to be "democratic" despite its obviously corrupting influence.
Reply
Leave a comment