Thursday, January 26, 2012

Ignoring the obvious

I would like to think I go through life anticipating the issues I might have rather than just reacting to them when they choose to arise ... and this would probably be the only area where my views would correlate with America's pre-emptive attacks on 'Terrorist-harbouring countries', but I digress.

If I notice I'm getting fat, I eat less. If I notice my expenses are becoming overbearing, I spend less. If I realise that superannuation/pension/social security is a farce and will never support me in my old age, I turn to other methods to (attempt to) assure I have a reasonable future ahead of me.


This article mirrors one of the perspectives I hold true. To say the contents of this article should be obvious to anyone who can think would be an understatement. That is why I find it amusing when this doctrine is not employed by governments and countries where they apparently hire 'smart people'. You don't get out of debt by spending more money to get you out of debt with money you don't have ... or am I wrong?

The only way you get out of debt is by spending less money on things you can live without. Spending a trillion dollars a year on defense might seem like a nice idea, but if your debt is over 14 trillion - and climbing - you would think there would be a few cuts to budgetary spending, rather than increases. Maybe I'm not seeing 'the big picture' or maybe I just don't understand the ramifications that would result from cutting costs, but to me it would seem obvious.

UPDATE:
I think I might understand the reason why: I've managed to look behind the curtain to the wizard pulling the strings.

It seems the economic model we use requires enormous amounts of debt to maintain:


This is funny and scary and required watching for everyone.