|
In the prior segment (part I) of this "mini-series", I highlight the differences
between the advice from financial planners and the opposing "advice" given
by some so-called "economists" (predominately from the Keynesian school of
economics). As a brief recap of the prior essay, I point out two divergent
points of view:
Advice by Financial Planners to individuals: "Do not spend more than you take
in"
Advice to nation from Keynesian economists: "Spend and borrow! Deficits are
OK"
I find that an interesting (and disturbing) dichotomy. What are individuals
but parts of the whole (nation). Why is financial responsibility good advice
for the parts but not for the whole? Why are "financial deficits" bad for individuals
yet good for the entire nation (read that "government")? What's good for all
the "parts" is indeed good for the "whole". Anyway, let's move on to the second
financial concept:
All individuals should save a portion of their
income.
As I have taught in my financial seminars for years (www.ProsperityNetwork.net),
you should save (where possible) a portion of your income (inflow) and put
that sum somewhere safe and accessible. Keep in mind that "saving" and "investing" are
two distinctly different activities so do not confuse them.
In good times, people should have at least two months worth of gross living
expenses in a savings account. It can be a FDIC-insured bank account or a secure
money market fund. In bad or uncertain times, that amount ought to be as high
as six months worth.
Of course, financial planners may differ as to how much and that's fine. The
main point is that the overwhelming majority of financial planners recommend
that you should have savings in your over-all financial picture (along with
investments). Savings act as a "rainy day" fund or an "emergency" fund. You
should always have money to fall back on when unexpected expenses arise or
when you have events such as losing your primary source of income. Doesn't
it make obvious sense? Not to some economists...
It is maddening to hear or read some highly visible "economist" telling some
congressional committee or Radio/TV audience that "America needs to stimulate
demand...we need to spend more to get the economy moving". More times than
not, their next point is "If consumers are not spending then the government
should be doing more spending to stimulate the economy". Of course, spending,
debt and government deficits are the "three stooges" of national finance!
Although Americans lately are saving more, they still need to increase their
savings. After years of over-spending, America's over-indebted consumers are
finally learning the virtue of saving money and this should be applauded. They
should ignore the calls to "keep spending and spending". The politicians and
bureaucrats should ignore these (primarily) Keynesian economists that are issuing
this claptrap. They should understand that expanding savings leads to capital
formation which in turn helps true economic recovery.
Unfortunately (and tragically), it is an ingrained feature of politicians
and bureaucrats to spend and spend and spend and to keep dissipating America's
resources. While Americans are (correctly) being more frugal, our government
(federal, state and local) are spending at alarmingly high (record) levels.
The government's massive debt and mind-boggling trillion-dollar will hurt us
very badly. We need to prepare our finances (such as at www.ProsperityNetwork.net)
for the greater debacles that are yet to come because our irresponsible government
is listening to the advice of alleged "economists" instead of financial wisdom
that has served us for centuries.
|