responding to Judd Gregg

We could say that Mr. Gregg's main argument is that government spending, if it is pursued, will bankrupt the nation. I take issue with that on this basis: the nation is likely to face bankruptcy regardless - government or no government - and the question is not how that can be avoided best be managed, or weathered.

If we look at an individual's financial history as analogous to the economy of a nation, or even to the world economy, I think it illustrates my point. Almost everyone faces some form of bankruptcy at some time in their lives. Why is that? It must be attributed to things like momentum, or inertia. If we then ask why such forces are in play, they end up being rooted in genetic strategies for survival. Readers who discount anything genetic can attribute these forces to genesis. In either case, there is a constructive aspect, which is an area of agreement with the conservative view.

Again, the question is not whether we will experience a financial pinch, at some point, as individuals, as nations, as a world population, it is how we will respond, and, too, it is how we are preparing, if we are in better times.

There are certain actions we can take, during what we can call economic contractions, of any of the listed types. For example, individuals sometimes respond with aggression or even violence, sometimes with patience or even generosity. To be a little less dramatic, individuals sometimes respond impulsively, and sometimes in considered ways. This actually sounds like a useful way to think about it. Let's ask what the likely effect of different kinds of actions is likely to be, given different kinds of circumstances.

President Obama represents, and recommends, a certain general approach, which I think we can call investment. Investment uses funds to create capital, the means of production. What is to be produced is, fundamentally, abundance, and abundance is, fundamentally, well being. Conservatives and liberals are likely to define well being and abundance in similar ways. What Judd Gregg is asking is whether, on the one hand, government spending is likely to produce abundance (whether it can be a good investment), and, on the other hand, whether the means by which funds are to be raised, for it, will not lead to disaster. This might be a good framework for further inquiry.