Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Currencies and the Global Capital Markets -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lee who wrote (3213)	1/4/2002 10:50:34 AM
From: Ahda	Respond to of 3536

For example, I understand loaning to governments that need to build infrastructure, so long as its not a road to no where. My own belief is that the government due to the geographic size of nations yes has to be master of coordination of the design process. However on the question of infrastructure to me it has always amounted to if there is a need it will be built. The concept of build the infrastructure to insure growth is not valid for if the area and costs are conducive enough then growth will come on its own accord. To me it is a matter of demand and supply. My son in law use to say India can't grow it doesn't have the infrastructure. I never agreed infrastructure is the by product of growth. When doors are open for investment to the private sector and jobs are available the tax income rises so the the roads begin because need is there due to prosperity spreading. Then I suppose there is the question does one need government at all. I do not feel government can participate in future projections. Statistics are yesterdays and government is not future oriented it can't be it is the servant of the peoples wishes there of subservient. When it attempts to master the people you have a state of no freedom and no income. But countries such as Argentina, why loan the government money when the desire is for less government and more free enterprise? Probably because in our history we viewed humanity as being in need and we opted to be their confused saviors. It became a habit. At one point the IMF was the only hope for the less developed world obtaining funding. This however is now obsolete and useless fund wise. Argentina would of been better off advertising self to private enterprise who would of being able to access what the approximate the odds of return of the loan would be and just where the greatest opportunities for growth are. Loaning money to any government isn't to wise one must always remember the world of politics lives off of contributions, the world of business is where the contributions come from.

To: Lee who wrote (3213)	1/4/2002 1:14:11 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Respond to of 3536

For example, I understand loaning to governments that need to build infrastructure, so long as its not a road to no where. Indeed. There is NOTHING wrong with a country acquiring a national debt, SO LONG as its acquired for the purpose of improving national infrastructure and increasing the capacity of the economy to conduct business and achieve greater economic growth. This can also apply to subsidization of the educational process in order to provide a more qualified and skilled work force, which then attracts investment capital and corporations to conduct business there. This then leads to higher employment, higher wages, and eventually higher tax revenues from which the debt is paid back. What national indebtedness SHOULD NOT be permitted to be used for, is to pander to the voting class by creating massive social programs and entitlements that generate little economic return to the nation, but rather, further burden it with future unfunded liabilities. That's the problem Argentina and many other Latin nations have faced. They have used the available funding from the IMF to finance their own social programs, focused primarily on pandering to a particular voting class. They give them welfare, rather than the means to obtain employment. And the rest has been spent upon corrupt business practices, with dubious governmental contracts. Every nation faces such corruption to some extent. But in Argentina, it became a situation of putting the government in debt, pocketing what you can in the process personally, and then letting someone else straighten out the mess in the future, while the politicians spirit their "ill-gotten" gains to the US or some other safe haven. Hawk