Sacrificing the future
Federal spending is the most obvious example. The federal government is a machine that takes money from future earners and spends it on health care for retirees. Entitlement spending hurts the young in two ways. It squeezes government investment programs that boost future growth. Second, the young will have to pay the money back. To cover current obligations, according to the International Monetary Fund, young people will have to pay 35 percent more taxes and receive 35 percent fewer benefits.
But government is not the only place you can see signs of this present-ism. Business has slipped into this pattern, too. C.E.O.’s serve short stints and their main incentive is to make quarterly numbers, not to build for the long term.
Banks can lend money in two ways. They can lend to fund investments or they can lend to fund real estate purchases and other consumption. In 1982, banks were lending out 80 cents for investments for every $1 they were lending for consumption. By 2011, they lent only 30 cents to fund investments for every $1 of consumption.
As Robert D. Atkinson and Stephen J. Ezell note in their book “Innovation Economics,” American firms are also lagging in their commitment to research and development.








Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Live in the present now… and bail out to another country WTSHTF
Enjoy the Decline….
I have a feeling that property owners are going to be royally raped in the next 20-30 years.
ninjapirate on February 12, 2013 at 9:28 PM
BTW, if David Brooks wants to know where the US changed from it’s future oriented outlook to a present oriented outlook then look at the it is with the civil rights movement…
1. America moved from a majoritarian outlook to a minoritarian outlook… the majoritarian outlook cares about doing big things and wielding the power of the majority to get it done… with the minoritarian outlook, interest groups take over. The more monolithic the dominate coalition is the bigger the things they will want to do. Diversity is not a strength.
2. Non-asian minorities tend to not be as future time orientated as whites… there have been plenty of studies on this.
ninjapirate on February 12, 2013 at 9:38 PM
Looks like Brooks’ noble “meritocrats” have destroyed the country and the country’s future. I’ll let Condi Rice’s much needed immigrants foot the bill.
Punchenko on February 12, 2013 at 9:39 PM
pant creases Brooksie… pant creases.
bannor on February 12, 2013 at 10:05 PM
Invest?! Under ochlocracy?! You must be joking!
OldEnglish on February 12, 2013 at 10:06 PM
There are days when I really do thank God that I am not in the top 10%. Seriously, would ANYONE here want to be a large-scale property owner under the pack of wannabe-Marxists and clowns that we call our government?
MelonCollie on February 12, 2013 at 10:17 PM
What, pray-tell, is a government investment program?
Brooks, once again, seizes the language of his hero, the mighty Barack Hussein Obama.
Bitter Clinger on February 13, 2013 at 7:14 AM