When I was young, I was quite poor. My father gave us his car instead of trading it in. What a lovely, helpful gift! Wow, I hope I don't damage it while driving. I hope it lasts. But, we are getting wealthier so if necessary, I could afford a different used car.
Then, we got a washing machine. Wow, hope it runs forever! But we could afford some repairs if needed. Later, the danger was that we were "too far in" to be able to pay for everything if many repairs and replacements were needed at once.
Zoom out to the same process over the entire US: infrastructure, weather satellites, education, social security, Medicare and Medicaid, -big money needs.
In the little family, not all that much is needed, used or consumed. So, if all the new acquisitions break down at once, the little family is back where they were. However, on a national scale, people can rely very heavily, vitally even, on a part of the structure so when funds need to be cut back, it can be a genuine hardship or worse.
In the little family, how much should be saved in reserve for replacements and breakdowns? Suffering is cheaper, maybe, and more fun. Why save for all possible contingencies, especially when the contingencies that I can IMAGINE (and might not remotely come to pass) keep growing ever greater in number? Why not just spend on travel, fun and plan to suffer through not replacing any precious possession that fails?
In the nation at large, the tail end of the whip travels are much greater speed. The people who depend on an innovation, an operation, a product, a job, may be at risk for much greater devastation than not having a washing machine. For moving and educational insights into the problem of poverty worldwide, look at "The Blue Sweater" by Jacqueline Novogratz. Or better still by quite a bit, listen to her read her book on the audiobook version.
--
Bill
Main blog: Fear, Fun and Filoz
Main web site: Kirbyvariety
