4 ms·

> Putting aside how [President] Elon Musk pays for it all, facepalm you can't compare the side effects of a massive government spending plan without looking a

> Putting aside how [President] Elon Musk pays for it all, facepalm you can't compare the side effects of a massive government spending plan without looking at that! It'll all come out eventually. Either we borrow, and tax our future generations, or we tax more businesses now, which would also repress business activity and American competitiveness. There's a few items that could be solved with the market. Like: Remove city's zoning laws with a federal mandate, to encourage the market to build urban housing. You don't need the gov. to do it, just remove the limitations. Disallow internet providers from offering kickbacks to condo/apartment managers to open up the market. We should probably tax semi trucks & cars with snow tires more, because they're the ones that cause 90% of the damage to highways. In order to justify light-rail & subway construction, we really need to look at the costs involved. And the costs are getting out of hand, and are way more expensive in the US than in other countries. http://www.citylab.com/commute/2011/11/1-billion-doesnt-buy-much-transit-infrastructure-anymore/456/ http://www.citylab.com/commute/2011/11/1-billion-doesnt-buy-... Your Massachusetts background is showing.

Apocryphon 10y ago
America got out of the Great Depression and WWII with deficit spending. Sure we wouldn't be able to spend as much as then, but $900 billion could go a long way towards paying for these projects http://theweek.com/articles/624334/how-world-war-ii-reveals-actual-limits-deficit-spending http://theweek.com/articles/624334/how-world-war-ii-reveals-...
- civilian 10y ago
  That's a myth, granted a myth that was taught in all of our history classes. The Great Depression was going to end anyway. Here's a paper that discusses just that: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2123226?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents http://www.jstor.org/stable/2123226?seq=1#page_scan_tab_cont... and here's CATO's discussion of it. (I'm showing my bias now.) http://www.cato.org/blog/did-new-deal-help http://www.cato.org/blog/did-new-deal-help The thing is--- when does the deficit spending stop?! Our economy is doing decently now, and we're still deficit spending. I don't think that our political system is structured in a way where we can responsible deficit spend and then take back the surplus in the future.
  - ZeroGravitas 10y ago
    Global warming is a good measuring stick of how close to reality a free market ideologue will go: http://www.cato.org/research/global-warming http://www.cato.org/research/global-warming I particularly enjoy how reasonable they're trying to be in the initial paragraphs and how it descends into insanity as you scroll further down. Clearly their propaganda has evolved as it become more and more accepted as reality, but their prescription remains the same "all government intervention is bad". They just have to work a great deal harder to justify that.
eli_gottlieb 10y ago
>There's a few items that could be solved with the market. Like: Remove city's zoning laws with a federal mandate, to encourage the market to build urban housing. You don't need the gov. to do it, just remove the limitations. Disallow internet providers from offering kickbacks to condo/apartment managers to open up the market. We should probably tax semi trucks & cars with snow tires more, because they're the ones that cause 90% of the damage to highways. I completely agree. Rigorous antitrust enforcement is another major program I would pursue, alongside every measure to reduce and eliminate economic rents. >It'll all come out eventually. Either we borrow, and tax our future generations, or we tax more businesses now, which would also repress business activity and American competitiveness. Or we invest in infrastructure and R&D now to make the profit later. You know, like every sane country in history prior to the Reagan Revolution. >Your Massachusetts background is showing. No, I wasn't proposing my ideal economic program. That would start with a lot more of Karl Marx and Henry George. I was pointing out the ways in which actually-existing systems which we once actually used actually dealt with unemployment -- real things, not ideals. My whole point, facepalm, is that we've been so thoroughly indoctrinated with neoliberalism that we've managed to forget how the golden age of Western capitalism (1940s-1970s) actually worked.
- civilian 10y ago
  Hmmm. I'll agree to antitrust, but with a caveat. Most monopolies are government-enforced in the first place. Through some means or another, the government grants a business or group of business privileges above the other, usually through making it difficult to entry a market. Natural monopolies just aren't that bad--- they get to be natural monopolies because they're efficient and they're granted consumers good products at good prices. > Or we invest in infrastructure and R&D now to make the profit later. You know, like every sane country in history prior to the Reagan Revolution. But, do politicians ever get away from deficit spending? In order to follow the Keynes playbook you suggest, we need to take in a surplus eventually to pay off loans. And if we're taking this money from a larger economy the deficit spending has created, then Keynes' strategy also relies on the money being well spent. It's not enough to have employed people, they have to be projects that do help the economy and help wealth creation. Digging a hole & filling it up will not generate the profit we can skim in the future. And I question the ability of the government to spend money well. In general though, it just becomes an engineering/finance problem. (And whenever we can turn an emotional political problem in a boring engineering/finance problem. that's a good thing.) I suspect that highway expansions are usually worth it. Subway and light rail are questionable. I agree that subways are really awesome to ride, but the true cost of subways are masked from the consumer. The $2.75/trip new yorkers pay is about 40% of the actual cost. https://tcf.org/content/commentary/in-defense-of-the-cheap-subway-ride/ https://tcf.org/content/commentary/in-defense-of-the-cheap-s... (I suspect that they're only looking at operating costs, not capital costs.) > No, I wasn't proposing my ideal economic program. That would start with a lot more of Karl Marx and Henry George. I know you weren't, I was just noticing a pattern in your thinking anyway. :) I'm pretty Austrian so..... yeah. TIL Henry George though, he seems like a cool guy: http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2015/04/land-value-tax http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2015/04/land-val... Anything to motivate cities to develop more is good in my book!
gwright 10y ago
One reason infrastructure projects are so expensive in the US is the Davis–Bacon Act. Yet another example of government intervention in markets with 100% predictable negative side effects. Yet I'm sure there are many people in favor of "prevailing wages" while bemoaning the fact that we don't invest enough in infrastructure.
- infinite8s 10y ago
  That doesn't explain the vast infrastructure projects of the 40s - 70s after WWII.

Apocryphon 10y ago

America got out of the Great Depression and WWII with deficit spending. Sure we wouldn't be able to spend as much as then, but $900 billion could go a long way towards paying for these projects http://theweek.com/articles/624334/how-world-war-ii-reveals-actual-limits-deficit-spending http://theweek.com/articles/624334/how-world-war-ii-reveals-...

civilian 10y ago
That's a myth, granted a myth that was taught in all of our history classes. The Great Depression was going to end anyway. Here's a paper that discusses just that: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2123226?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents http://www.jstor.org/stable/2123226?seq=1#page_scan_tab_cont... and here's CATO's discussion of it. (I'm showing my bias now.) http://www.cato.org/blog/did-new-deal-help http://www.cato.org/blog/did-new-deal-help The thing is--- when does the deficit spending stop?! Our economy is doing decently now, and we're still deficit spending. I don't think that our political system is structured in a way where we can responsible deficit spend and then take back the surplus in the future.
- ZeroGravitas 10y ago
  Global warming is a good measuring stick of how close to reality a free market ideologue will go: http://www.cato.org/research/global-warming http://www.cato.org/research/global-warming I particularly enjoy how reasonable they're trying to be in the initial paragraphs and how it descends into insanity as you scroll further down. Clearly their propaganda has evolved as it become more and more accepted as reality, but their prescription remains the same "all government intervention is bad". They just have to work a great deal harder to justify that.

eli_gottlieb 10y ago

>There's a few items that could be solved with the market. Like: Remove city's zoning laws with a federal mandate, to encourage the market to build urban housing. You don't need the gov. to do it, just remove the limitations. Disallow internet providers from offering kickbacks to condo/apartment managers to open up the market. We should probably tax semi trucks & cars with snow tires more, because they're the ones that cause 90% of the damage to highways. I completely agree. Rigorous antitrust enforcement is another major program I would pursue, alongside every measure to reduce and eliminate economic rents. >It'll all come out eventually. Either we borrow, and tax our future generations, or we tax more businesses now, which would also repress business activity and American competitiveness. Or we invest in infrastructure and R&D now to make the profit later. You know, like every sane country in history prior to the Reagan Revolution. >Your Massachusetts background is showing. No, I wasn't proposing my ideal economic program. That would start with a lot more of Karl Marx and Henry George. I was pointing out the ways in which actually-existing systems which we once actually used actually dealt with unemployment -- real things, not ideals. My whole point, facepalm, is that we've been so thoroughly indoctrinated with neoliberalism that we've managed to forget how the golden age of Western capitalism (1940s-1970s) actually worked.

civilian 10y ago
Hmmm. I'll agree to antitrust, but with a caveat. Most monopolies are government-enforced in the first place. Through some means or another, the government grants a business or group of business privileges above the other, usually through making it difficult to entry a market. Natural monopolies just aren't that bad--- they get to be natural monopolies because they're efficient and they're granted consumers good products at good prices. > Or we invest in infrastructure and R&D now to make the profit later. You know, like every sane country in history prior to the Reagan Revolution. But, do politicians ever get away from deficit spending? In order to follow the Keynes playbook you suggest, we need to take in a surplus eventually to pay off loans. And if we're taking this money from a larger economy the deficit spending has created, then Keynes' strategy also relies on the money being well spent. It's not enough to have employed people, they have to be projects that do help the economy and help wealth creation. Digging a hole & filling it up will not generate the profit we can skim in the future. And I question the ability of the government to spend money well. In general though, it just becomes an engineering/finance problem. (And whenever we can turn an emotional political problem in a boring engineering/finance problem. that's a good thing.) I suspect that highway expansions are usually worth it. Subway and light rail are questionable. I agree that subways are really awesome to ride, but the true cost of subways are masked from the consumer. The $2.75/trip new yorkers pay is about 40% of the actual cost. https://tcf.org/content/commentary/in-defense-of-the-cheap-subway-ride/ https://tcf.org/content/commentary/in-defense-of-the-cheap-s... (I suspect that they're only looking at operating costs, not capital costs.) > No, I wasn't proposing my ideal economic program. That would start with a lot more of Karl Marx and Henry George. I know you weren't, I was just noticing a pattern in your thinking anyway. :) I'm pretty Austrian so..... yeah. TIL Henry George though, he seems like a cool guy: http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2015/04/land-value-tax http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2015/04/land-val... Anything to motivate cities to develop more is good in my book!

gwright 10y ago

One reason infrastructure projects are so expensive in the US is the Davis–Bacon Act. Yet another example of government intervention in markets with 100% predictable negative side effects. Yet I'm sure there are many people in favor of "prevailing wages" while bemoaning the fact that we don't invest enough in infrastructure.

infinite8s 10y ago
That doesn't explain the vast infrastructure projects of the 40s - 70s after WWII.