PDA

View Full Version : Issue 56 the short-term pain and long-term ills confronting governments(on Obama)



xiqqin
11-19-2008, 01:31 AM
ISSUE
56”Governments shouldfocu more on solving the immediate problems of today rather than trying to solve the anticipated problems of the future.”
A successful gvernment should find a compromising point between Immediate pain and anticipated ills and keep this point its target.And this point is not precisely half and half,it’s,more often than not,biased toward long-term ills----pretty much like an dieing man diagnosed with Leukemia,he should set aside the problem that some necessay treatment will carry to his image and take every operation so as to survive,if that’s what he’ve wanted.
From generation to generation,history has sufficient precedence to convince us into the mentality that a government make such a fuss of the short-run bug will lose the big picture and ultimately lose everything.
To put it straight,I’ll make a twofold explaination.On on hand, any government that is short-sighted is deemed to worsten not only the nation’s situation in the near-future but in the far-future.For instance,when Ronald Reagan rised to office 28 years ago,his major challenge was soaring inflation,which his three predecessors----Richard Nixon,Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter----has tried to confront without much headway made.Is these due to excessive attention the three presidents put in the long-run ills or because they turn a deaf ear to the short –run economic growth problems?I guess neither.Short-term pain bugged them so much that they spare no efforts to took measures that flausible in the short run.That’s why the Mr Nixon’s Revenue sharing policy,Mr Ford’s whip inflation now policy and Mr Carter’s anti-inflation policy never worked out.
Yet,on the other bright side,If a government can bear the short-run pain and go ahead to take initiatives concerning the long-run issues,it will lead the nation to the right track..Mr Reagon adopted the course to cut taxes at the same time allowed the a Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Vocker the freedom to attack the inflation by sharply raising interest rate.But in the early 1980’s Mr Vocher was blamed for causing a severe recession that bagan in the early Mr Reagon’s tenure and continued through November 1982.The Republicans lost a loss in 1982 midterm election and the Demoncrats thought they werr in good shape to win back the White House in 1984.Instead the economy was clearly in recovery by then and inflation was down sharply.Mr. Reagan was re-elected in a landslide, and was so successful that he became the first president since Calvin Coolidge to leave office and be succeeded by a member of his own party.
However,does that mean that the government should turn a blind eye to recent tricky issues?Not necessaily,However forward-looking and sagacious a government is,it won’t survive long in harmony cause soon it will drive itself to a deadend cutting off all its leeway----like a man in lybrinth give up every chance to approach the exit only to find himself surrounded by cold walls in a blind alley.To bring home this point,I’ll take the reason why governments’ve always been striving for a smooth short-run growing trend of GDP as an illustritive example.By maintain the growth rate in a range can maximize the surpluss amount of gross production.In only a month a nation with .9 growth rate the first 15 days and also .9 percent the last 15 days gains more than on e with .10 percent the first 15 days and .8 percent the rest days.Thus,short-run pain should also be given enough attention unless the government will suffer from the consequences of it in the long run.
As I mentioned at the begining,the governments should focus on the long-term-biased point compromising the short-term pain and long-term ills.It makes the best manifestation that Obama’s eventual success as president depend a lot on a willingness to do what Mr Reagon did:be willing to combat long-term economic problems while accepting short-term pain and the risk of a prolonged slowdown that could damage his popularity. In doing so, he would be wise to keep in focus the longer-term problems that need to be solved, and to try to stimulate the economy without worsening those problems. They include severe budget deficits, crumbling infrastructure, accelerating costs for health care and a housing crisis marked by falling prices and rising foreclosures.
All in all,the government should try their best to avoid worstening immediate pain and focus on the long-run well-being,if needed,at the cost of short-term pain.


Sorry for the size.Something wrong when I added it here from word.Hope you can spend time read this pretty awkward form...

Split whatever you've got.I'm not a native.Wanna share my opinion with you guys!

RonPrice
11-19-2008, 03:40 AM
I am now working on this document.-Ron....will post it back when finished.

RonPrice
11-19-2008, 06:12 AM
I have edited the first two paragraphs, Xiqqin, to give you some idea of the problems of English expression you have. You need to: (a) do lots of writing and (b) have someone correcting your English one page at a time. I am not your man, as I indicated in my first email to you. This is the kind of thing I did for 30 years or more and I have had enough of this kind of activity in my life. Sorry about thatóas I said at first.-Ron Price, Tasmania.
--------------------
Topic: ďGovernments should focus more on solving the immediate problems of today rather than trying to solve the anticipated problems of the future.Ē
--------------------------
I have edited the following:
------------------
A successful gvernment should find a point of compromise between immediate pain and anticipated ills on the one hand and pleasures and gains on the other--and keep this point as the base, the turning point, of the required analysis. This point, this compromise, is not a precise one, not a half-way point for example. Itís more often than not biased toward long-term ills. Itís somewhat like a dieing man diagnosed with leukemia. He should set aside the problem of his appearance that some necessay treatment will bring about. He should take every operation so as to survive; indeed, he must if he wants to survive.

From generation to generation in history there is much evidence that governments take action for short-term results and in the process lose the big picture and ultimately lose everything. To put it more plainly let me add the following. Any government that is short-sighted will worsen not only the nationís situation in the near-future but in the long range; for example, when Ronald Reagan came to office 28 years ago, his major challenge was soaring inflation. His three predecessors----Richard Nixon,Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter----had tried to confront this problem without much headway. Was it due to the excessive attention that these three presidents gave to long-term ills or due to the fact that they turned a deaf ear to short-term economic problems? Perhaps it was neither factor. Short-term pain caused them so much concern that they spared no effort to take what they thought to be reasonable measures in the short run. Thatís why Nixonís revenue sharing policy, Fordís inflation policy and Carterís anti-inflation policy never worked.

------------edited work finished at this point.-------------------------
Yet,on the other bright side,If a government can bear the short-run pain and go ahead to take initiatives concerning the long-run issues,it will lead the nation to the right track..Mr Reagon adopted the course to cut taxes at the same time allowed the a Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Vocker the freedom to attack the inflation by sharply raising interest rate.But in the early 1980ís Mr Vocher was blamed for causing a severe recession that bagan in the early Mr Reagonís tenure and continued through November 1982.The Republicans lost a loss in 1982 midterm election and the Demoncrats thought they werr in good shape to win back the White House in 1984.Instead the economy was clearly in recovery by then and inflation was down sharply.Mr. Reagan was re-elected in a landslide, and was so successful that he became the first president since Calvin Coolidge to leave office and be succeeded by a member of his own party.

However,does that mean that the government should turn a blind eye to recent tricky issues?Not necessaily,However forward-looking and sagacious a government is,it wonít survive long in harmony cause soon it will drive itself to a deadend cutting off all its leeway----like a man in lybrinth give up every chance to approach the exit only to find himself surrounded by cold walls in a blind alley.To bring home this point,Iíll take the reason why governmentsíve always been striving for a smooth short-run growing trend of GDP as an illustritive example.By maintain the growth rate in a range can maximize the surpluss amount of gross production.In only a month a nation with .9 growth rate the first 15 days and also .9 percent the last 15 days gains more than on e with .10 percent the first 15 days and .8 percent the rest days.Thus,short-run pain should also be given enough attention unless the government will suffer from the consequences of it in the long run.

As I mentioned at the begining,the governments should focus on the long-term-biased point compromising the short-term pain and long-term ills.It makes the best manifestation that Obamaís eventual success as president depend a lot on a willingness to do what Mr Reagon did:be willing to combat long-term economic problems while accepting short-term pain and the risk of a prolonged slowdown that could damage his popularity. In doing so, he would be wise to keep in focus the longer-term problems that need to be solved, and to try to stimulate the economy without worsening those problems. They include severe budget deficits, crumbling infrastructure, accelerating costs for health care and a housing crisis marked by falling prices and rising foreclosures.

All in all,the government should try their best to avoid worstening immediate pain and focus on the long-run well-being,if needed,at the cost of short-term pain.:grad:
-------------------------------------THE END---------------------------