|
|
|
Second Commentary on Philosophy of the Economy
Monetary and Fiscal Policies;
Main differences of the Marketizm’s Monetary and Fiscal Policies and the current ones from a Macroeconomic prospective are the ways the Monetary and Fiscal balances are achieved: when the currently used balances are based on a cash method: Income to Expenses; the new ones add on an accrual method: Equity to Debt. Or the securities coming from the Equities are taken in consideration for the Monetary and Fiscal policies.
In a way it is as the current Company’s Accrual accounting and general underwriting policies. Thus the evaluation of an Economy and Country’s Current Level of Development is rated corresponding to the Current Level of Possibilities in Global prospective. Additionally the new “underwriting” will give the corresponding more adequate numbers for Monetary quantities, currencies values, acceptable social expenses, infrastructure expenses, deficit and etc.:
There are two main requirements for such underwriting to be done:
Fiscal Deficit and Economic Growth
The planning commission deputy chairman rightly opined that growth takes precedence over deficit. In other words, the commission would like to concentrate on the economic growth now and about the deficit later. At present the fiscal deficit in Indian economy is about 11% of GDP. The government’s goal is to bring it down to 3% of the country’s GDP. The exclusive deficit of the central government is about 7% of the GDP. Some statistical organisations put India among some of the very high fiscal deficit economies.
Five year plans and investment:
The Politics and Economics of Energy
The politics and economics of energy are something to behold! There is a saying among environmental researchers that scientists do not make the laws. How true! This is reflected even with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). That agency’s proposed budget for the next fiscal year is in the 10 billion dollar range, the largest annual budget in its history. The funding comes from Congress, thereby subjecting the agency to politics. This is not a bad thing. If the EPA were to get too far out of the political currents it would become ineffective and the federal government would begin to break down. Imagine the chaos, for example, if the EPA were to order Americans to destroy their vehicles and start walking, bicycling, or canoeing to work!
One might at first blush expect science, specifically environmental science, to be the driving force for the development of an energy policy suited to our 21st century. Not so. It is one of three, alongside of politics and economics. The goal of the Administration is to phase out the use of fossil fuels in favor of alternative non-polluting fuel. To accomplish such a goal it would be necessary to have those non-fossil fuels available and affordable. It would also be necessary for people to accept new fuels and the changes that would be involved. For example, if lighter vehicles were required in order for battery-driven energy to be practical, would Americans give up their bigger and heavier vehicles?