I read your link on passing current debt onto future generations. You say a liability must also an asset.
Does that apply when debt is used pay for unproductive current expenditure and secondly does it apply if the Government pays 52 billion for a fountain pen .
Thirdly does it apply to something like the NBN where almost certainly it will have a value of 0 by the time my Grandkids start paying tax.
You must differentiate the financial arrangement from the physical investment. In a financial sense, all debts are assets. Some will be bad debts, and hence risky assets. Fro a physical real production perspective, choosing to devote resources today to a less productive investment will “cost” future generations compared to the alternative of having instead invested in the best option.
If you are skeptical that current government expenditures will bring future productivity, there will be lots of claims on future production but not much future production to satisfy those claims.
Normally when there is a bad debt like this the asset holder must take a haircut, but it's a big deal if the government does it.
I have not read this book and I will check it out. But I did read the last book by Henry Kissinger (Leadership) which featured Lee Kuan Yew as one of his 6 examples of good political leadership. While it had to be acknowledged his was ruthless in his use of power, I did come away with a sense of admiration of what he did and achieved. He could have (given his natural disposition) used his power for evil instead of good. Yet the thing that struck me was that he a strong vision of what was good for his country and he doggedly stuck to that vision and the housing system in that country (for all its authoritarian and social engineering basis) was transformative for his country socially and economically.
I recently read a book about Merkel and she had the same streak of pragmatism, without the authoritarian streak. LBJ also struck me as a pragmatism (at least on domestic affairs) and I wonder what all these leaders think of the current crop of political leaders who are blinded by power, status and not conceding an inch to their opponents.
I am currently reading a book on Marcon and while he is a different beast, he certainty has a few different ideas, but again with a greater vision for France and Europe.
Good stuff. I would read an entire book dedicated to guiding lawmaking using ranked preferences among differently presented, yet fiscally equivalent, policy choices.
I read your link on passing current debt onto future generations. You say a liability must also an asset.
Does that apply when debt is used pay for unproductive current expenditure and secondly does it apply if the Government pays 52 billion for a fountain pen .
Thirdly does it apply to something like the NBN where almost certainly it will have a value of 0 by the time my Grandkids start paying tax.
You must differentiate the financial arrangement from the physical investment. In a financial sense, all debts are assets. Some will be bad debts, and hence risky assets. Fro a physical real production perspective, choosing to devote resources today to a less productive investment will “cost” future generations compared to the alternative of having instead invested in the best option.
If you are skeptical that current government expenditures will bring future productivity, there will be lots of claims on future production but not much future production to satisfy those claims.
Normally when there is a bad debt like this the asset holder must take a haircut, but it's a big deal if the government does it.
I have not read this book and I will check it out. But I did read the last book by Henry Kissinger (Leadership) which featured Lee Kuan Yew as one of his 6 examples of good political leadership. While it had to be acknowledged his was ruthless in his use of power, I did come away with a sense of admiration of what he did and achieved. He could have (given his natural disposition) used his power for evil instead of good. Yet the thing that struck me was that he a strong vision of what was good for his country and he doggedly stuck to that vision and the housing system in that country (for all its authoritarian and social engineering basis) was transformative for his country socially and economically.
I recently read a book about Merkel and she had the same streak of pragmatism, without the authoritarian streak. LBJ also struck me as a pragmatism (at least on domestic affairs) and I wonder what all these leaders think of the current crop of political leaders who are blinded by power, status and not conceding an inch to their opponents.
I am currently reading a book on Marcon and while he is a different beast, he certainty has a few different ideas, but again with a greater vision for France and Europe.
Good stuff. I would read an entire book dedicated to guiding lawmaking using ranked preferences among differently presented, yet fiscally equivalent, policy choices.
I’ve been trying to decide which book on Yew I should read - thanks for the tip!