Consumers spend money on goods and services because they need them. After the goods and services are acquired and the need is satisfied, the urge to buy more of such goods and services reduces. For example, the more a person takes of a bottle of beer, the less is the desire for more. The point at which a person is no longer willing to buy and drink more beer is the point of satiety. A person's demand for a good or service at that point is said to have been satiated. A drunkard may be an exception to the rule. After reaching the point of satiety, a drunkard can continue to buy and take in more beer until he drops. That is an abnormality. The economic man in him is not normal. When a drunkard gets to the satiety point but continues to buy beer, he ceases to be a righting person. Economics is the study of human behaviour as to how a right-thinking person acquires or creates wealth and how he or she disposes of wealth so created, to achieve maximum satisfaction. Another exception to the law of satiable demand is the rich person who acquires more of luxury goods or services after the satiety point has been reached. For example, a person may buy more cars to ride in or put up more building to live in after acquiring the first, second or third. An economic person who behaves that way is not sick. His or her behaviour is normal. He or she demands more of a particular goo or service to satisfy his or her ego - after satiety. The concept is described in economics as a conspicuous demand. "Conspicuous" is defined in the dictionary as "clearly visible, striking to the eye; attracting notice, remarkable". A person who indulges in conspicuous consumption wants to show or display wealth. Such a person can afford to be profligate or "licentious, dissolute or recklessly extravagant". Like individual human beings, a nation can indulge in conspicuous or profligate consumption. A nation can spend money extravagantly. That happens when that nation has more money than it needs to satisfy the needs of its people. That is why some of the wealthiest nations of the world are said to be indulging in over production and over consumption. For example, Spain has paid over $400,000 each to her footballers for making it to the FIFA 2010 World Cup finals in South Africa. For winning the FIFA World Cup, each Spanish player is paid over $700,000. The cost of the solid gold trophy is far less than the total amount the Spanish has spent in qualifying for South Africa, and has paid to her players at the FIFA finals. Why do some countries behave that way? It is because they have the means. National pride and national status can impel or drive a nation to spend far more than she gets for a piece of trophy or a social, political or cultural event of great significance. Should poor or developing countries spend conspicuously or profligately? A poor person has a weak purchasing power. He or she can afford only what his or her money can buy of goods and services. A right-thinking person cuts his or her coat according to his or her cloth. A hand-to-mouth person who rushes to a drinking bar and spends half of his pay packet on liquor - deserves to starve for a week or two before the next payday comes. Mismanagement, misjudgement and poor planning can cause poor nation to spend far more than she earns. When such expenditures are made conspicuously or profligately, especially on luxury goods and services - they must be called to question. Upon assuming office in 2009, President John Evans Attah Mills complained about reckless and profligate expenditures by the previous government. What spending and on what projects by the John Agyekum Kufuor's government can be said to be reckless and profligate? The Golden Jubilee House, the Bui Dam project, the Ghana at 50 celebrations and Ghana at 50 projects, the hosting of the African Union conference in Accra the CAN 2008 soccer finals in Accra and the award of medals to 200 Ghanaians - come to mind. Looked at closely, I do not see as conspicuous or profligate expenditures on the Bui Dam, the Golden Jubilee House, hosting of the African Union Conference, the CAN 2008 and building of two new stadia and renovation of two old ones. They are investments in one way or another. Expenditures on the Ghana at 50 celebrations are matters before the courts. I refrain from commenting on them. Awarding of gold medals to 200 distinguished Ghanaians at the Ghana at 50 - is debatable. It depends on how one looks at it. To some, it can be seen as reckless and extravagant. The awards were meant to serve as incentives or rewards for contributions made to the economy in the past. Incentive awards are investments but they are not direct investments. Returns to incentive awards are slow and may not be perceived. However, the number of Ghanaians the Kufuor administration chose to honour was high - 200. Past awards had been less - not more than 20 or 30 at a time. The Spanish government gave extravagant awards to its footballers for winning the 2010 World Cup in South Africa. Is Ghana Justified in awarding $20,000 to each Ghanaian player for making it to the quarter-finals? Is the STX and the Ghana Government agreement for 200,000 housing units at $10 billion in five years - reckless and profligate? Such issues are also debatable and it depends on how one looks at them. Written by Larweh Therson-Cofie Source: Daily Graphic