3 ms·
I totally lost any trust to the author of that article after I've read this: > 9. We're looking at gridlock in Washington. Gridlock in Washington is a good thi
by dennisgorelik 16y ago
I totally lost any trust to the author of that article after I've read this:
> 9. We're looking at gridlock in Washington.
Gridlock in Washington is a good thing for economy.
Government is not capable to interfere with business and spends less -- the result -- boom in the economy which we observed in ~1994-2000 ("Clinton with Republican Congress" era).
- akadien 16y agoBeware the blanket assumption of 'gridlock is good". Gridlock in DC is good when it meant the rate of damage done is scaled back. It's not good when it means hard choices (spending reductions) aren't made. I read 'gridlock' as more of the same: kicking the can down the road, more pork, etc. But, I'm kidding myself to think that DC would make the hard choices.
- leot 16y agoAll the unemployed could, and probably should, be put to work building/restoring public infrastructure. None are now because that would be "socialism". It is a fun/depressing exercise to imagine how you would improve the US if you had 14.5 million (http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t12.htm http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t12.htm) people to order about.
- leot 16y agoWell, I suppose that came out sounding a bit communist, and OT. Fwiw, the point was that, if there's gridlock, then there's no hope of seeing any of the needed job-and-value-creating investment in public infrastructure development.