Civic Investment

I was talking with someone from a financial management company today about what his company does and what they are about. All-in-all, the man's company seemed on the up-and-up. While he was showing me the investment strategy side of his company's business, he asked if I knew about "The Rule of 72", while it pained me to admit it, I had to be honest and tell him that I knew absolutely nothing about the rule of 72 other than it being greater than the "Rules of 0-71" and less than the "Rules of 73 - infinity".

He tried to explain it to me, but not being astute to the rules and practices of financial planning/strategy, I didn't understand all of it, but basically it has something to do with the amount of time it takes for an investment in a mutual fund to multiply. As he was speaking, I was struck with two thoughts:

1. My wife and I need to get our financial planning on track, or we won't be able to afford adult diapers let alone afford to live a reasonably decent life after retirement (with the current trend of inflation).

2. As much as people in general have become more and more enamored with instant gratification, the concept of long-term investment can be rationalized for a child's education, retirement, vacations, weddings, buildings, companies, stocks, bonds, etc, but long-term investment in government or anything related to civic engagement, comes off like a twisted dream sequence from a Tim Burton movie, a fantastical idea of wonder and imagination that could only exist in the make believe land of cinema.

As I thought more and more about this in the car on my way home, I became both saddened and pissed off. No longer than a month or so ago, President Obama, declared that scientific Research and Development needed to be a higher priority for both companies and the nation as a whole. However, I have never heard anyone ever mention a word about necessary R&D to push democracy or government to its potential. Ironically, both of those areas have been sorely under-invested for decades if not a century.

Technically, the last real investment in government came after 9-11, but that was hardly an invest for the progress of government in the way of Homeland Security, but that more an investment in the nation's defense and that is one area this country has rarely had a problem short-term or long-term investing in. One could also look at "The New Deal", FDR's response to the Great Depression, but that again was an invest in an acute aspect of government, but not in government itself.

Money is a relatively easy way to fix the "investment" gap, but as can be seen with institutions like the Department of Education, throwing money at an issue only provides more possible resources, but not actual solutions. However, education and applied practice could provide a lot more bang for the proverbial buck. If people gave more money to their local, state and federal governments, it wouldn't help them improve or become more productive, most likely the money would do exactly what "rainy day" surpluses in budgets like social security and the like do in the hands of governments, get used to miraculously provide "tax cuts" that rarely do the good for the needy that is often promised.

But, if people were taught, not only the pros and cons of our systems of government, but also how to maneuver in and through those systems for the purposes they were intended; the yield of that investment in government might be great enough to make Wall Street traders blush. Still, all the other investment examples I brought up earlier have their own people who advocate for short-term and long-term invest in those various areas. Who do we have to advocate for the same level of investment in government or democracy?