NB Symphony <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Typical of Adrian to only think of things in monetary terms.
Er, the thread was about money. > My dictionary gives "To use, give, or devote (time, talent, etc.), as for a > purpose or to achieve something" as a definition for 'invest' I think what the government wants to achieve is more votes at the next election. So I guess you could stretch to calling its giving away of money (or "grants", as that is more politely called) as an investment in that light. OTOH, my dictionary defines "spend" as "use up energy or resources". Sounds more like government to me. Baz Juniper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >On 7 Aug 2007, at 08:29, Adrian Stott wrote: > >> Despite the language practice of Prudence, rigorously imposed on his >> party, government spending is almost always just that - spending - not >> investment. >> >> AWM is not investing; it is merely spending. > >Depends what your definition of a return on the investment is. If >it's cash back to the original account, then obviously not. If it's >a lot of relatively happy rural businesses and, perhaps, an extra >vote or two at the next democratic charade, then maybe Prudence would >regard that as an investment. > >Baz Actually, I think what Prudence wants is to avoid is being labelled as "tax and spend". "Tax and invest" sounds better (to those who are taken in). Adrian Adrian Stott 07956-299966
