Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Treasury Secretary Says Stimulus Plan Is Hopelessly Inadequate
Between 1991 and last fall, the Japanese government spent $6.3 trillion on myriad construction projects in an attempt to revive the country's sluggish economy. According to a front-page story in last Thursday's New York Times, Japan "accumulated the largest public debt in the developed world—totaling 180 percent of its $5.5 trillion economy—while failing to generate a convincing recovery." Many economists, the Times notes, view this "stimulus" spending as a "colossal waste" that "did little more than sink Japan deeply into debt, leaving an enormous tax burden for future generations....Among ordinary Japanese, the spending is widely disparaged for having turned the nation into a public-works-based welfare state and making regional economies dependent on Tokyo for jobs."
But Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner draws a different lesson. As the Times paraphrases his position, "Japan's experience suggests that infrastructure spending, while a blunt instrument, can help revive a developed economy." The problem, according to Geithner and other advocates of stimulus spending, is that Japan spent too little money too slowly; wasted a lot of it on useless projects (including more than a few bridges to nowhere); and did not spend enough on education and social services. "One lesson Mr. Geithner has said he took away from that experience," the Times reports, "is that spending must come in quick, massive doses, and be continued until recovery takes firm root."
Leaving aside the (rather important) question of whether Geithner is right, the implications for the "recovery" package making its way through Congress right now are pretty clear: There is no way it can possibly work. The amount of money involved, not quite $1 trillion, is huge, but it pales in comparison to what the Japanese spent, and much of it will trickle out over several years, rather than "in quick, massive doses." Furthermore, given public skepticism of the current package, Congress is quite unlikely to authorize another $1 trillion, then another, and then another, if necessary, "until recovery takes firm root."
It's awfully convenient for stimulus supporters that every time a government has tried to spend an economy out of a recession, the failure was due not to the fundamental unsoundness of this approach but to poor timing, inadequate funding, and/or bad investment decisions. But even if they're right, there's little reason to believe these factors will not doom the current plan as well.
jasno|2.9.09 @ 11:40AM|#
I think I like where this is going... soon I'll be able to take
a government funded high speed rail line from my government owned
house to a government sponsored music festival and pay for it all
with my unemployment check...
I LOVE AMERICA!
Or maybe I should sell my house while it's still worth something
and buy guns and some fertile land in the hils... decisions,
decisions...
Taktix®|2.9.09 @ 11:41AM|#
These fuckers.
So they're already setting up the groundwork to ask for more money
when this bullshit stimulus fails to "revive the economy."
I think Reinmoose coined the phrase of the day:
I'm tired of this horseshit.
Lester Hunt|2.9.09 @ 11:46AM|#
I am getting the overwhelming feeling that I am being ruled by lunatics. Does that mean I'm the crazy one?
|2.9.09 @ 11:46AM|#
"One lesson Mr. Geithner has said he took away from that
experience," the Times reports, "is that spending must come in
quick, massive doses, and be continued until recovery takes firm
root."
Boy, is that ever a recipe for disaster.
Stimulus not working yet? Spend more money! Faster!
Still not working? Spend More!!! Faster!! Still not working? SPEND
MORE! FASTER!!!
Reinmoose|2.9.09 @ 11:50AM|#
What is so seriously wrong with these people? I mean, do they
really think the devil is in the minute details and not in the
theory itself?
If you want to give a billion dollars to Amtrak, go and give a
fucking billion dollars to Amtrak - but don't include it in a
"stimulus' bill. Heck, don't even argue the relative merrits of it.
But holy shit, don't make it sound like it's necessary to get us
out of a deep recession, or even the best way to spend one billion
dollars toward that end.
Everyone who's lived anywhere ever knows that it takes 20 years to
develop a single light rail or bridge project on an existing
corridor... If they're going to spend money on a project, I at
least want to see the results of the project, not a massive subsidy
to a group of people who conduct environmental analysis for
projects.
Yeah, I know - everything getting money this time is "shovel
ready"
Like hell it is.
|2.9.09 @ 11:50AM|#
something i think is funny is that it's rigged so that they spend until the "recovery takes root". how are we supposed to know when that happens? krugman blames the depression within a depression of 1937 on the fact that government tried to balance the budget and stopped spending. that was seven years after hoover started spending and five years after fdr upped the ante and spent more. at what point was the private economy supposed to take over from the public and how was the public supposed to know so they could stop spending? maybe the reason the economy collapsed again in 1937 was because the growth we saw up to that point wasn't really growth. maybe it was just propped up by the government. so if keynesian economists believe the economy could collapse again because of a retreat of government spending, they'll never cut back. it kind of goes against summers' "temporary" requirement, doesn't it? it's rigged so it can't be temporary.
|2.9.09 @ 11:54AM|#
What ever happened to bad economic times meaning that people tighten their belts. Things like, eating leftovers instead of tossing them the next day, putting a sweater on instead of expecting your house to be at 72* all winter, giving up the cellphone & cable-TV service till times get better...you know, simple things that involve USING YOUR WITS TO SURVIVE!!
|2.9.09 @ 11:56AM|#
something i think is funny is that it's rigged so that they
spend until the "recovery takes root".
Of course. Think of where we were a number of months ago before the
mortgage crisis really blew up, and most people's considerations of
government spending. Think where we are now. Light years. And
they keep going farther every week.
"Why can't I stop the spending?"
"Because I cut the brakes! Wildcard, bitches! YEE HAW!!!"
Oz|2.9.09 @ 11:56AM|#
This is a thought I just had, that I'm sure many of you have had
already, but is it possible that our government has just decided it
would be easier to spend spend spend, go bankrupt, and start all
over than it would be to work towards balancing a budget and
avoiding crisis.
I can understand deficit spending during a recession, but once it
has passed can you really expect any republicans or democrats to
have a balanced budget? Republicans will continue to cut taxes
without cutting any gov't and democrats will raise taxes almost as
fast as spending.
|2.9.09 @ 11:56AM|#
a massive subsidy to a group of people who conduct
environmental analysis for projects.
Can you say, "constituency", Energized?
Reinmoose|2.9.09 @ 11:57AM|#
But NAL - those things would cause people to lose JOBS! And JOBS are the only measure of wellbeing that we use in this country! What are you a commie or something?
|2.9.09 @ 11:59AM|#
This is pretty much a standard CYA maneuver in my opinion. If it
works, its genius. But when it doesn't work, we told you so.
The biggest omission the NY Times article and the MSM have made
with the comparison to the Japanese stimulus experience has been
the source of the debts. Japan's government for the most part
borrowed the vast majority of their stimulus loot from themselves,
from their own savings.
With the USA "stimulus," we will be borrowing from foreigners,
including, ironically, those same Japanese savers. That really
changes the dynamic there, and is something we willfully ignore in
these comparisons.
Neu Mejican|2.9.09 @ 12:01PM|#
Everyone who's lived anywhere ever knows that it takes 20
years to develop a single light rail or bridge project on an
existing corridor...
The RailRunner now going from Belen to Albuquerque to Santa Fe only
took a couple of years to complete. It included both existing
tracks from Belen to Albuqueruqe and new tracks to Santa Fe.
Orange Line Special|2.9.09 @ 12:05PM|#
I don't really trust the people involved, but this explanation
makes a lot of sense when you think about it.
See my coverage of the stimulus
plan for lots more:
* CBO said - w/o the plan - we'd have a "slow recovery" in
2010
* Where are we going to get all those raw materials from?
* A "hidden" cost of an additional $523 billion?
I guess actually going out an embarrassing politicians on video is
starting to look good right about now.
What's that you say? Reason would rather have a massive trillion
dollar scam than go out and make politicians angry at them? Oh.
|2.9.09 @ 12:08PM|#
Why can't LoneBonehead be OCD about something more interesting? Like furries or cosplay?
diddy|2.9.09 @ 12:08PM|#
Leaving aside the (rather important) question of whether
Geithner is right
I don't see how you can set aside this question. If you believe
Geithner is right then it would lead you to be incensed at the
types of cuts the Republicans have obtained (as reported in various
outlets). If you believe he's wrong you would be incensed that the
Republicans didn't succeed in excising even more.
Operationally speaking, your entire outlook on the stimulus
negotiations depends on whether or not you believe Geithner is
right.
I recognize that leaving aside the question allows you your final
paragraph -- "either way, this probably won't work" -- but it is a
lazy rhetorical ploy.
|2.9.09 @ 12:09PM|#
Yep, there's going to be another stimulus bill after this one.
You're not going to like that one, either.
And you're not going to be able to stop it.
It's awfully convenient for stimulus supporters that every time
a government has tried to spend an economy out of a recession, the
failure was due not to the fundamental unsoundness of this approach
but to poor timing, inadequate funding, and/or bad investment
decisions.
It's awfully convenient for stimulus opponents that every time the
government has stimulated us out of a recession (did you know there
was no period when GDP declined for two consecutive quarters under
FDR?), the recovery had nothing to do with the stimulus, and was
totally going to happen anyway, precisely when it did.
But neither of those are anywhere close to what the agnostics get.
You want convenient? How about the fact that neither conclusion can
be definitively proven, nor definitively refuted?
|2.9.09 @ 12:09PM|#
Clinton took off the panties, Bush greased up the cock and
Obama's going to shove it straight in the ass.
This country is fucked.
Bingo|2.9.09 @ 12:10PM|#
What's that you say? Reason would rather have a massive trillion dollar scam than go out and make politicians angry at them? Oh.
You are obviously in touch with a reality no one else can see,
please share more of your profound insights.
|2.9.09 @ 12:10PM|#
The RailRunner now going from Belen to Albuquerque to Santa
Fe only took a couple of years to complete.
Boolah boolah!
I assume they're planning to run a spur to Taos, for the
turistas. How much does it lose per passenger mile?
BDB|2.9.09 @ 12:10PM|#
Joe, what about the debt?
Is the plan really to have hyperinflation to monetize the debt?
Taktix®|2.9.09 @ 12:11PM|#
"...spending must come in quick, massive doses, and be
continued until recovery takes firm root."
When I read this, I imagine a small tomato plant wilting a little
bit, and Geithner running in with a firehose...
|2.9.09 @ 12:11PM|#
The definition of success will be roughly when poverty has been eliminated. We can't stop spending until the country is a perfect utopia where everyone has a job and a car, and unlimited health care. Cutting spending is just like stealing from poor people, don't you know?
John Maynard Keynes|2.9.09 @ 12:12PM|#
Is the plan really to have hyperinflation to monetize the
debt?
In the long run, we're all dead. Just don't worry about it.
|2.9.09 @ 12:13PM|#
When I read this, I imagine a small tomato plant wilting a
little bit, and Geithner running in with a firehose...
This is how I managed to kill my rose bush a couple of years
ago.
Roses don't take kindly to overwatering or overfertilizing. They're
hardy plants but you can kill them with excessive care.
Seward|2.9.09 @ 12:14PM|#
Neu Mejican,
They started getting serious in 2003; Phase I was finished in the
summer of 2006; Phase II was complete in 2008. So roughly five
years in all. And of course this doesn't deal with all the
discussion that went into the project prior to 2003.
|2.9.09 @ 12:14PM|#
did not spend enough on education and social
services.
Just by coincidence, Geithner is pushing for even more subsidies
for two of the Dems most important constituencies - teacher's
unions, and government employees.
Just by coincidence.
The flaw with infrastructure spending isn't that it is too slow,
its that it doesn't really target hard-core Dem constituencies, you
see.
This is definitely a stimulus bill. The mistake is in thinking it
is supposed to stimulate the economy. Its really supposed to
stimulate the Dem base. And as they refine it further, it probably
will.
|2.9.09 @ 12:16PM|#
ISN'T IT OBVIOUS?!?!?!? The solution to both problems: a Bridge
To Japan!!!
We can meet halfway, and right before we join the last link, we can
pour into the Pacific whatever pathetic remnants of our combined
GDP remain. And Geithner Sensei.
Sploosh!
|2.9.09 @ 12:16PM|#
* Where are we going to get all those raw materials
from?
I'm hoping from the companies I've just invested in. Construction
materials and commodities are in the tank right now; there are some
real bargains to be had.
Reinmoose|2.9.09 @ 12:17PM|#
Epi -
don't give SugarFree the idea to start posting links to cosplay
again. I could barely handle it last time.
And in all seriousness - it takes a lot more abstraction to claim
that by *not* passing a massive stimulus as quickly as possible
that we're hurting people, as opposed to punishing the savers,
renters, and those who choose to pay off the debts they've already
incurred instead of spending on new ones through methods that you
absolutely KNOW will cause inflation. I nearly flipped a couple of
weeks ago when I saw a talking head refer to moral hazzard as
thinking about "how can we not fund X important thing?"
|2.9.09 @ 12:17PM|#
In the long run, we're all dead. Just don't worry about
it.
"Crap; I guess I left my wallet in the car. You get the tab, and
I'll make it up to you next time."
|2.9.09 @ 12:20PM|#
R C Dean: Bingo.
And I chuckle at the idea that increased spending on social
services leads to economic health. Yes, that's why all the most
economically vibrant neighborhoods in the country are the ones
where there's the most spending on social services.
|2.9.09 @ 12:20PM|#
Construction materials and commodities are in the tank right
now; there are some real bargains to be had.
Dude, commodities speculation is so last year.
Seward|2.9.09 @ 12:21PM|#
joe,
...(did you know there was no period when GDP declined for two
consecutive quarters under FDR?)...
And of course correlation does not equal causation. Or so the
agnostic would say.
Still, I'm really not quite sure why one should be apologetic for
being a freshwater or saltwater type. In other words, what is
exactly your point?
|2.9.09 @ 12:22PM|#
I want them to spend a quadrillion dollars. That way, either
they are correct and we get more stimulated than Vincent Gallo
thinking about his own talent while looking in the mirror, or it
proves that stimulus is bullshit no matter how much money you throw
at it.
And if it's the latter, wasting a quadrillion dollars will probably
be greeted warmly as a cause for imprisonment...or worse. For
everyone in Washington.
Neu Mejican|2.9.09 @ 12:25PM|#
Seward | February 9, 2009, 12:14pm | #
Neu Mejican,
They started getting serious in 2003; Phase I was finished in the
summer of 2006; Phase II was complete in 2008. So roughly five
years in all. And of course this doesn't deal with all the
discussion that went into the project prior to 2003.
Yeah, my "couple" should have been "few," but the Rail Runner is an
example of a what "shovel ready" project might look like. If a
project is in the place Rail Runner was in 2003/4, the money
wouldn't take 20 years to get spent. It would go directly to
construction of the project.
The concept of a shovel ready project is not a fantasy.
Whether this bill does anything to find and fund them is another
question.
|2.9.09 @ 12:27PM|#
...(did you know there was no period when GDP declined for
two consecutive quarters under FDR?)...
You might not want to pick THE DEPRESSION for the 'good' economic
stats that 'prove' you right.
|2.9.09 @ 12:28PM|#
She just don't have the appetite
For gas somehow,
And Dad, I got four carburetors
Hooked up on it now.
I tried to hook another
To see if I'd do a little good,
But ain't no place to put it
'Less I perforate the hood.
|2.9.09 @ 12:30PM|#
Joe, what about the debt?
We're going to need to pay it off during the good times. Let's all
try to remember how bad we feel about that debt right not, and get
all silly about "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter" the next
time the government runs a surplus.
Seward,
And of course correlation does not equal causation. Of
course. Although a lack of correlation goes a pretty long way to
refuting an assertion of causation. *Glares long at hard at Amy
Shlaes*
In other words, what is exactly your point?? Merely that
the "it's awfully convenient" argument cuts both ways.
|2.9.09 @ 12:31PM|#
Your government has no credibility, except among the true
believers.
Say buh bye to it.
BDB|2.9.09 @ 12:31PM|#
"We're going to need to pay it off during the good times.
"
What if the "good times" don't come? Everyone is saying this could
last for years.
BDB|2.9.09 @ 12:32PM|#
"and get all silly about "Reagan proved that deficits don't
matter" the next time the government runs a surplus."
I don't think we ever need to worry about the government running a
surplus ever again if $2 trillion in spending (TARP + "stimulus")
is just the beginning, as you say.
Taktix®|2.9.09 @ 12:32PM|#
The concept of a shovel ready project is not a
fantasy.
Perhaps, but the concept of a shovel-ready project actually
stimulating the economy, however...
|2.9.09 @ 12:35PM|#
You might not want to pick THE DEPRESSION for the 'good'
economic stats that 'prove' you right. Oh, I think I
will
http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2009020603/fdr-failed-myth
Those trend lines seem pretty convincing to me.
|2.9.09 @ 12:36PM|#
What if the "good times" don't come? Everyone is saying this
could last for years.
Then the good times come in ten years.
BDB|2.9.09 @ 12:37PM|#
"Then the good times come in ten years."
In the meantime, we have USSR-style national bankruptcy from the
debt.
This whole thing is a risky scheme.
|2.9.09 @ 12:38PM|#
I don't think we ever need to worry about the government
running a surplus ever again if $2 trillion in spending (TARP +
"stimulus") is just the beginning, as you say.
TARP = $0.7 trillion. Stimulus (no scare quotes, thanks) = $0.8
trillion.
Total $1.5 trillion.
I don't think 2 trillion is "just the beginning." I think it's just
about where it's going to end up.
Neu Mejican|2.9.09 @ 12:38PM|#
P Brooks,
Boolah boolah!
I assume they're planning to run a spur to Taos, for the turistas.
How much does it lose per passenger mile?
It runs at a modest deficit, iirc...but I haven't seen it broken
down by rider-miles. Ridership is exceeding projections so far
(between 5 and 10 thousand riders a day).
No plans for it to go to TAOS, that would make no economic sense at
all. Very expensive to build, and not enough volume.
|2.9.09 @ 12:39PM|#
In the meantime, we have USSR-style national bankruptcy from
the debt.
Oh, ok. Just as long as you're not "scaremongering."
People around here HATE scaremongering.
robc|2.9.09 @ 12:39PM|#
Since stimulus can be neither proven nor disproven, how about we
not do it and avoid the debt.
Maybe we get a short term fix? Maybe not. Lets not fuck up the mid
and long term.
Taktix®|2.9.09 @ 12:40PM|#
...the next time the government runs a surplus.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!11!!1!!!!!
Yeah, that will even happen...
|2.9.09 @ 12:40PM|#
It's awfully convenient for stimulus supporters that every
time a government has tried to spend an economy out of a recession,
the failure was due not to the fundamental unsoundness of this
approach but to poor timing, inadequate funding, and/or bad
investment decisions.
If the Japanese had only put the right people in charge
the recession would have only lasted a year. Fortunatelt, we have
those folks working in the Obama administration so there is nothing
to worry about.
... and did not spend enough on education and social
services.
As we've all observed the huge uptick in K-12 education results
since the feds started throwing hundreds of billions at the problem
since 1980.
robc|2.9.09 @ 12:41PM|#
I don't think 2 trillion is "just the beginning." I think
it's just about where it's going to end up.
Tarp2 discusses are suggesting $3T more. That puts us at $4.5T.
Hopefully T2 cant pass, but if it does too, hard to stop at less
that $2T. :)
Gilbert Martin|2.9.09 @ 12:42PM|#
What is "awfully convienent" is that liberal Democrat's ideas
about "stimulus" plans is no different than their ideas have always
been:
use government to steal wealth from the people who earned it and to
whom it legitimately belongs to give it to some other people who
didn't earn it and have no legitimate claim on it.
Because of course, they are the party of the sponge, leech and
parasite class and their objective is to expand that class as much
as they possibly can.
robc|2.9.09 @ 12:42PM|#
Yeah, that will even happen...
shudder.
Lets reanimate Andy Jackson and stick him back in the White
House.
shudder.
Neu Mejican|2.9.09 @ 12:43PM|#
P Brooks,
It seems projections for the Rail Runner are for less than 10
million per year in deficit.
This, of course, doesn't factor in the reduced cost to 1-25
expansion/maintenance.
Calculating costs/benefits of any transportation system needs to
take a systems view. Whether the state spends money on roads or
rail, transportation infra-structure is typically seen as a boon to
economic development in an area.
No?
BDB|2.9.09 @ 12:43PM|#
"People around here HATE scaremongering."
I've never made any accusations of scaremongering.
Anyway this may work, it may not. But if it doesn't, we're in big
trouble. It's a risky spending scheme.
|2.9.09 @ 12:44PM|#
The RailRunner now going from Belen to Albuquerque to Santa
Fe only took a couple of years to complete. It included both
existing tracks from Belen to Albuqueruqe and new tracks to Santa
Fe.
And turns a profit? Or just another yuppie boondoggle? Link
requested.
Neu Mejican|2.9.09 @ 12:45PM|#
J Sub D,
I think all you need is available in the above comments, plus
google. Their is a RR website.
|2.9.09 @ 12:46PM|#
It seems projections for the Rail Runner are for less than
10 million per year in deficit.
This, of course, doesn't factor in the reduced cost to 1-25
expansion/maintenance.
Or the reduded gas taxes paid.
BDB|2.9.09 @ 12:47PM|#
J Sub, when is light rail (outside of the Northeast cities) ever NOT a yuppie boondoggle?
|2.9.09 @ 12:48PM|#
Neu, I should have read down before asking. Like most AMTRAK routes, it's a yuppie boondoggle.
Seward|2.9.09 @ 12:48PM|#
joe,
The name is Amity Shales.
Although a lack of correlation goes a pretty long way to
refuting an assertion of causation.
Unless the economy was never going to recover from the 1929-1932
downturn any claims about what FDR's policies did or did not do
have to take into account the natural recovery that was underway by
the time FDR was in office. Furthermore, the economic performance
of the time also has to take into account the screw-ups which the
administration of FDR undertook; wage and price controls being one
of many.
Merely that the "it's awfully convenient" argument cuts both
ways.
Basically the only country and the only time period that I see
batted around as an exemplar of what counter-cylical policies can
do is the U.S. during the 1930s. Now why is that? Because for time
periods where we have better economic data - and if the governments
of the world did anything during the Great Depression it was to
create methods and means by which to accumalate and trace such data
(see, I wrote something positive about FDR's administration) - we
have yet to see any clear cut examples where such policies lead to
worthwhile results.
That could mean a couple of things. It could mean that the U.S.
experience during the 1930s was an odd outlier which will rarely if
ever repeat itself. Or it could mean that much of what is trumpeted
about that experience is so much hagiography. It could also mean
some other things too.
Reinmoose|2.9.09 @ 12:48PM|#
If you create artificial markets for goods and services or overpay for them in the spirit of "stimulus," does anyone here (including our resident moderates/democrats) think we'll ever be able to go back to a real market rate for those goods or services?
Neu Mejican|2.9.09 @ 12:49PM|#
And J Sub D,
Government projects are typically not "for profit" ventures.
Hardly seems like that should be the criteria for this kind of
project.
The costs/benefits outcome should be reasonable, of course, but
profits don't seem to be the final arbiter of a government
project's worthiness.
And I don't think that most people would consider that profit
should be that arbiter.
Bingo|2.9.09 @ 12:50PM|#
It's like Wimpy asking for a trillion hamburgers because he will be able to pay you back even more 10 years from now.
|2.9.09 @ 12:51PM|#
less than 10 million per year in deficit.
Is that operating costs, or does it include infrastructure and
other overhead? Would you invest your own money in a company which
proudly proclaimed, "And look- we only lose ten million bucks per
year; aren't we special?" Or would you just force other people to
"invest" in it?
Who rides this train, and why? I do not *recall* any noteworthy
flow of commuters between Santa Fe and Albuquerque.
Seward|2.9.09 @ 12:52PM|#
joe,
Actually, the Fed has thrown around a trillion to a trillion and a
half by itself if I recall correctly (it hasn't been all that well
reported as far as I can tell); so we are in the 2.5 to 3 trillion
dollar range.
Neu Mejican|2.9.09 @ 12:54PM|#
it's a yuppie boondoggle.
It would be incorrect to characterize the riders from Belen and Los
Lunas as yuppies...and then there are the riders from the Pueblos.
You really don't know wtf you are talking about on this one.
A working public transportation project will serve people across
economic boundaries, with those at the lower end benefiting the
most. And, so far, the Rail Runner seems to fit that model.
|2.9.09 @ 12:55PM|#
It's like Wimpy asking for a trillion hamburgers because he
will be able to pay you back even more 10 years from
now.
I was thinking it was more Bluto ramming a can of spinach into
Popeye's ass and claiming that since spinach stimulates Popeye,
ramming a huge can of it up his ass will work great.
Neu Mejican|2.9.09 @ 12:56PM|#
P Brooks,
Last time I heard a figure there were 70,000 commuters a day
between SF and ABQ. And almost as many between Belen/Los Lunas and
ABQ.
The 10 million would include all costs, iirc.
As for the profit thing, see my response to JsubD.
Jerry|2.9.09 @ 12:57PM|#
"You're just not hitting it hard enough!"
You think Geitner is projecting his relational problems upon the
nation?
Seward|2.9.09 @ 12:59PM|#
Neu Mejican,
The costs/benefits outcome should be reasonable...
They should be more than reasonable I would say. The benefits
should obviously outweigh the costs, otherwise it is simply a waste
of resources. One can call that "profit" or use some other
signifier.
Taktix®|2.9.09 @ 1:00PM|#
I wonder if they're still talking about building the Maglev
between Pittsburgh and... well, Greensburg, Pa.
I imagine that one's been shovel-ready for years...
|2.9.09 @ 1:03PM|#
The local paper suggesting burying the power lines in Kentucky as a "shovel-ready" project.
Bingo|2.9.09 @ 1:03PM|#
Let's just build monorails everywhere. As joe and NM have shown, it doesn't need to be profitable, it just needs to be infrastructure. Which, as we all know, is stimulative and will pay back its value in 10 years.
Neu Mejican|2.9.09 @ 1:03PM|#
Seward,
One can call that "profit" or use some other
signifier.
The concept of "profit" or whatever, however, like I said above has
to involve the whole transportation system, not just the particular
project.
So the question would have to be:
"Does NM's transportation spending provide a big enough benefit for
its cost?"
NOT
"Does the Rail Runner pull a profit?" or "Does the cost of a ticket
cover the cost of operating the train?"
|2.9.09 @ 1:07PM|#
Neu, congresscritters have been proclaiming for fuckin' decades
that AMTRAK will be self sufficient or cut off. The cutoff never
happens, but the lie is consistently told.
They've had the wrong idea about rail all along? It's
supposaed to lose money?
Neu Mejican|2.9.09 @ 1:07PM|#
BDB,
Quantifying benefits is, indeed, one of the major challenges for
any community. Quality of life is a difficult aspect of the
calculation. Figuring out how much the time saved by commuters is
worth is also difficult. How much value do you get out of the work
that is done on the train that couldn't be done while driving? Also
hard to calculate.
This is why we have a political process...the community gets to
decide if the costs/benefits are worth it. It is a messy process,
but it is the best we've got.
Fresno Bob|2.9.09 @ 1:07PM|#
What about the debt?
No worries. We'll just have to pay it back it the good times.
Neu Mejican|2.9.09 @ 1:09PM|#
They've had the wrong idea about rail all along? It's
supposaed to lose money?
Their mistake is considering it in isolation from the rest of the
transportation system.
Do we lose more money on rail than roads in the US? I don't know
for sure, but I kinda doubt it.
Reinmoose|2.9.09 @ 1:10PM|#
J Sub D -
Like convention centers?
I think that the benefits are being qualified in the current
stimulus as basically "not having people rioting in the streets and
forming groups to overthrow their governments"
BDB|2.9.09 @ 1:10PM|#
"Do we lose more money on rail than roads in the US? "
Roads are paid for by gas taxes, which are very close to a user
fee. Raise the fare rate of using light rail to what the average
motorist pays in gas taxes per trip and I'd be more willing to
support it.
|2.9.09 @ 1:11PM|#
I recall a very interesting survey done in the Bay area,
relating to BART.
A large number of resondents said they voted for BART in the hope
that "other people" would use it, thereby freeing up the roads for
an easier commute.
You know- "If those damned poor people would just get out of my
way..." Not that that would *necessarily* make it a yuppie
boondoggle.
|2.9.09 @ 1:11PM|#
Inflation is a remedy like homeopathy. No matter how many times
it fails, there will always be true believers pushing it.
-jcr
BDB|2.9.09 @ 1:11PM|#
"J sub D | February 9, 2009, 1:07pm | #
Neu, congresscritters have been proclaiming for fuckin' decades
that AMTRAK will be self sufficient or cut off. "
It IS profitable in the northeast. Which is the only place
it should exist.
Seward|2.9.09 @ 1:11PM|#
BDB,
In theory governments do a lot of things to mimic the information
clearing, etc. benefits of the price mechanism; and that's how they
determine what is and is not a "benefit." Of course, it is a lot
harder for them to aggregate, etc. the subjective value
considerations of citizens than it is for the market to aggregate,
etc. the subjective value considerations of buyers and
sellers.
Then of course there is public theory to contend with, which paints
a somewhat less disinterested picture of how government works.
adrian|2.9.09 @ 1:16PM|#
And I don't think that most people would consider that
profit should be that arbiter.
Of course not, I pay taxes out of goodness of my heart, i don't
care if it actually is worth me working to pay my taxes. Someone is
benefiting from it, and we will be forced to continue to pay for
that benefit which they receive unearned.
I wish all taxes went to buy fireworks, so then everyone could see
their money go up in smoke together. For the common good!
Neu Mejican|2.9.09 @ 1:16PM|#
BDB | February 9, 2009, 1:10pm | #
"Do we lose more money on rail than roads in the US? "
Roads are paid for by gas taxes, which are very close to a user
fee. Raise the fare rate of using light rail to what the average
motorist pays in gas taxes per trip and I'd be more willing to
support it.
Drivers are among the primary beneficiaries of commuter rail
lines.
As for the gax tax to rate thing.
Assume an average car with around 25 mpg...3 gallons, about $1.10
in state gas taxes. I think the fares are already higher than
that.
|2.9.09 @ 1:18PM|#
I think a lot of opposition to light rail and buses is that
municipalities put the cart before the horse in too many
cases.
It should go like this: Light rail is needed in an area, it's
built, people use it for its superiority to the car, highway and
other car-supporting funds are cut. Too often it's: An area wants
light rail because successful areas of the country have light rail
(causation fallacy), area builds light rails despite no one wanting
to use it, area then cuts car-supporting monies to drive people to
use the light rail whether they want to or not. (Insert public
buses as needed.)
The minute a city or state starts to try and figure out how to
coerce people out of their cars, public transit jumps the
shark.
|2.9.09 @ 1:20PM|#
Survey question: "Should the government make life better?"
Who would say no to that?
Next, ask: "Should the government take fifty (or seventy, or
ninety) cents of every dollar you earn, to make somebody else's
life better? Should the government impoverish you, and your
children, and your children's children, to make somebody's life
better?"
Who would say no to that?
BDB|2.9.09 @ 1:21PM|#
I have much less of a problem with buses. They are less expensive and use currently existing infrastructure.
|2.9.09 @ 1:22PM|#
In this train vein, they have actually begun work on the 2nd
Ave. subway line (I wonder what color it will be?). Boston, your
years of embarrassment over The Big Dig will soon be over as this
project spirals so far out of control that you'll look responsible
in comparison.
I predict this project will be the Tony Montana of big city
infrastructure projects.
|2.9.09 @ 1:22PM|#
Yep, there's going to be another stimulus bill after this
one. You're not going to like that one, either.
And you're not going to be able to stop it.
Maybe not, but that's no reason to keep quiet while the emperor is
strutting around buck naked.
-jcr
BDB|2.9.09 @ 1:23PM|#
"In this train vein, they have actually begun work on the 2nd
Ave. subway line "
I bet the never finish it.
jtuf|2.9.09 @ 1:23PM|#
spending must come in quick, massive doses, and be continued
until recovery takes firm root.
That's like telling someone he should keep singing until he
convinces the sun to rise.
Neu Mejican|2.9.09 @ 1:23PM|#
BDB,
Last time I checked, that 10 million in deficit would be covered
entirely by NM. But I could be wrong on that. Seems the state tax
would be the one to use.
But feel free to compare the $5 for 75 mile trip and see if it
would cover 75 miles worth of gas tax.
|2.9.09 @ 1:27PM|#
I bet the never finish it.
It will get finished. The question is: how long does it take. 20
years wouldn't surprise me at all.
BDB|2.9.09 @ 1:28PM|#
But wasn't this particular subway line started before and never finished IIRC?
Reinmoose|2.9.09 @ 1:28PM|#
A comparisson to train fees to gas taxes is silly, since the train fee should also take into account cost of purchase and maintenence on the vehicles themselves. If you choose a reasonable time period to factor in the cost of a car and its maintenence vs. a train you'll get a better picture, I think, of what the price comparisson should be like.
Neu Mejican|2.9.09 @ 1:28PM|#
BDB,
If we include federal gas tax, the trip from Santa Fe to ABQ would
need to be made in a vehicle getting 9 mpg or less to equal the
fare on the Rail Runner.
|2.9.09 @ 1:30PM|#
I think a better headline for this article would have been
"Power-hungry bankster asks for more power."
-jcr
Reinmoose|2.9.09 @ 1:31PM|#
But I'm with Sugarfree's 1:18pm comment, unless it's in the case of a very very new city. The concept of "transit oriented development" has been used to justify many a line.
Neu Mejican|2.9.09 @ 1:32PM|#
Average cost per mile for a car...around 56 cents a mile.
Most transit systems calculate a rider-mile at around 30 cents.
|2.9.09 @ 1:32PM|#
I'm with Reinmoose; trying to draw a meaningful conclusion from comparing a ticket price to a theoretical gas tax number is absurd.
|2.9.09 @ 1:35PM|#
Most transit systems calculate a rider-mile at around 30
cents.
Is that a full car? What's the cost per rider mile if there are
seven people in a car designed to carry sixty?
|2.9.09 @ 1:36PM|#
But wasn't this particular subway line started before and
never finished IIRC?
Since 1929. More here.
They're going to call it the "T" line? That's dumb. And it's going
to be light blue? That's way too close to the A/C/E color, man!
|2.9.09 @ 1:36PM|#
I don't think the stimulus comparison with the New Deal is apt,
whether you believe it was a savior or a ruse.
The United States that existed in the 1930's does not exist today,
especially when viewed as a balance sheet.
The United States in 1930 was by far and away the world's biggest
creditor. United States industrial capacity exceeded all of
Europe's, combined. Our balance of payments with the rest of the
world vis-a-vis exports/imports and debt/credit flows was
completely in our favor. It was the old imperial powers of Europe
that were saddled with huge armies in poorly thought out adventures
in places like Iraq and Afghanistan, the US military was
essentially de-mobilized from WWI, with the costs to match. Also,
there was no vast, bankrupt social pension schemes like Social
Security and Medicare loading the US Government with $trillions$ in
off-balance sheet obligations. Outside of government worker
pensions, there was no long-term liabilities held by the US
Government outside of a manageable Treasury debt.
Now, we print fiat money, are the world's biggest debtor, have the
world's largest balance of payments deficit, and entitlement
obligations that boggle the mind in the coming decades. Almost half
of our Federal Budget is now consumed by social-pension/insurance
obligations and debt financing. Oh, and the rest of the world has
grown up to some degree or another, vs. the colonial/fascist
basket-case the planet's political map was back in FDR's
time.
It is a a useless comparison without factoring in such obvious
differences in the American financial situation then versus
now.
Reinmoose|2.9.09 @ 1:37PM|#
If it's a system that doesn't turn a profit, theoretically all of it, right?
|2.9.09 @ 1:37PM|#
That's way too close to the A/C/E color, man!
New York City does not care about color-blind illiterate subway
riders.
Citizen Nothing|2.9.09 @ 1:38PM|#
"This is why we have a political process...the community gets to
decide if the costs/benefits are worth it. It is a messy process,
but it is the best we've got."
Hahahaha. Neu has just summed up the case against politics.
robc|2.9.09 @ 1:38PM|#
NM,
Also hard to calculate.
This is why we have a political process
Wrong. That is why we have money. The "value" of all those
different things can be converted to a common unit and
compared.
ChrisO|2.9.09 @ 1:38PM|#
Spending more on education is useless--we already spend too much
to support the education bureaucrats and receive precious little in
results for it.
Spending more on "social services" won't increase wealth creation
one iota--it simply transfers dollars away from the productive to
the unproductive. Thereby producing a surplus of the
unproductive.
For joe and his ilk, the important thing about the porkulus bill is
that it is being passed by Democrats.
JB|2.9.09 @ 1:40PM|#
My advice: guns and ammo.
Thankfully you won't need to waste ammo on democrats...the rifle
butt will take care of them fine.
|2.9.09 @ 1:40PM|#
New York City does not care about color-blind illiterate
subway riders.
Subway rider?!?
Taktix®|2.9.09 @ 1:40PM|#
For those who say "this is just the beginning:"
Over lunch, I heard Obama on the radio saying they're going to set
up some sort of recovery.gov website to "track" the number of jobs
created and where the money is going, and that we will be his "eyes
and ears" to ensure the money is properly spent.
What the fuck is going on in this country? It really is something
out of a dystopian novel. Track you're own stimulus dot com?
I'm really tired of this horseshit...
Fresno Bob|2.9.09 @ 1:41PM|#
The current economic crisis could more accuratly be called a
debt crisis.
Clearly, much more borrowing and spending are needed, and fast.
Consumers may be tapped out and deep underwater, but the gubmint
credit card has no limit. We'll be fine.
BDB|2.9.09 @ 1:42PM|#
"Over lunch, I heard Obama on the radio saying they're going to
set up some sort of recovery.gov website to "track" the number of
jobs created and where the money is going,"
In reality its going to be about as reality-based as those computer
print outs from the '60s the govt. gave to the media that said we
were "winning" in Vietnam.
|2.9.09 @ 1:44PM|#
According to my sources, the stimulus package is responsible for the invention of Velcro.
Taktix®|2.9.09 @ 1:44PM|#
They're going to call it the "T" line? That's dumb. And it's
going to be light blue? That's way too close to the A/C/E color,
man!
Pittsburgh has a T line that they started and never finihsed as
well, although it's more above-ground than under.
They only managed to get one leg built, which runs directly south
through all the afflent neighborhood that don't use the
Subway.
Now imagine this fuck up on a national level and you've got our
beloved leader's stimulus...
Neu Mejican|2.9.09 @ 1:47PM|#
P Brooks | February 9, 2009, 1:35pm | #
Most transit systems calculate a rider-mile at around 30
cents.
Is that a full car? What's the cost per rider mile if there are
seven people in a car designed to carry sixty?
I think that takes into account of the riders per day per mile
averaged out across trips...or something along those lines. It does
cost more per mile for the empty trips, or course.
In the Northeast corridor, the calculate it at 10 cents per rider
mile.
Sugarfree,
SugarFree | February 9, 2009, 1:35pm | #
How much of the $5 ticket is taxes?
Not a cent. It is a fee...which is a slightly different thing than
a tax.
Neu Mejican|2.9.09 @ 1:47PM|#
robc,
Wrong. That is why we have money. The "value" of all those
different things can be converted to a common unit and
compared.
Nope. Not all things of value have a price.
Taktix®|2.9.09 @ 1:48PM|#
Obviously, I'll need a piece of the stimulus to correct my
typing ability. I figure $1.2 million should do the trick.
Anything for jobs, you know...
|2.9.09 @ 1:50PM|#
Yes, I know the hip kids call them "trains." I was trying
for a wider audience.
You used to be cool, man. Then you moved from Williamsburg into the
city, stopped wearing ironic t-shirts, and referred to the train as
"the subway". What happened to you?
dfd|2.9.09 @ 1:52PM|#
They should build the Second Ave. line as an elevated. It would be cheaper and they could sell it as all hip and retro.
Reinmoose|2.9.09 @ 1:52PM|#
In the interest of saving my job, I should require a pay
raise
Am I a teacher, you ask?
No
What!? Then I don't get a raise to stimulate the economy!?
|2.9.09 @ 1:52PM|#
Those were, of course, the same sources who claim "not all things of value have a price."
The Angry Optimist|2.9.09 @ 1:53PM|#
Citizen Nothing - I promise you I am going to tear up the High Street Trolley Tracks. We're gonna get drunk and do it; you in? :P
|2.9.09 @ 1:54PM|#
They should build the Second Ave. line as an elevated. It would be cheaper and they could sell it as all hip and retro.
|2.9.09 @ 1:54PM|#
Not a cent. It is a fee...which is a slightly different
thing than a tax.
So, unlike the license, gas, repair labor and parts, and sales
taxes, a train ticket isn't taxed? Interesting. Good thing light
rail is staying away from economic coercion on drivers.
|2.9.09 @ 1:55PM|#
Fare from Albuquerque to Santa Fe: $5.00
And you're on foot. The problem with light rail transit between
cities is it is not, like a horseless carriage, door to door. I
know the rejoinder of "Aha! City buses!" which fuckin' suck in
every city I've ever been in.
Take the train to Detroit and the first stop is the car rental
agency. It's cheaper to drive your own into the city.
|2.9.09 @ 1:56PM|#
Something odd is happening to my brilliantly witty comments. I
shall try again.
------
They should build the Second Ave. line as an elevated. It would
be cheaper and they could sell it as all hip and retro.
And all the stations can be on the thirteenth floor.
|2.9.09 @ 1:57PM|#
They should build the Second Ave. line as an
elevated.
That would be a disaster beyond all reckoning. 2nd Ave is already a
canyon; where are you going to build, over the center of the
avenue? It would block out sunlight, cause massive traffic while
being built, and would still have to be brought underground to hit
any trains they want to station with.
Neu Mejican|2.9.09 @ 1:58PM|#
P Brooks,
Pricing is an imperfect mechanism used to allocate resources.
Or do your sources tell you otherwise?
;^)
The Angry Optimist|2.9.09 @ 1:59PM|#
The Columbus Trolley is definitely going to be a yuppie boondoggle. It is going to go up and down High Street and connect OSU, the Gayborhood and the Party Bars in the Arena District. It's a 200million dollar plaything for the hipsters and the chic in the Short North.
The Angry Optimist|2.9.09 @ 1:59PM|#
Pricing is an imperfect mechanism used to allocate
resources.
Imperfect compared to what?
JB|2.9.09 @ 2:01PM|#
Neu Mejican: "Nope. Not all things of value have a price."
Bullshit. Everything has a price in money or time (which are nearly
the same thing). Name one thing you can appreciate without money or
time.
Nothing is instantaneous; everything takes time.
|2.9.09 @ 2:01PM|#
J sub D,
Bingo. Unless light rail is taking you subway/bus system to
subway/bus system, it's going to eat you alive on one end or the
other or you beat your feet.
As one of the few human beings to have ever survived a Cincinnati
to D.C. train trip, I cannot say I recommend it.
Neu Mejican|2.9.09 @ 2:02PM|#
JB,
"Time is money" is not, strictly, true.
And "price" does not refer to "how much time I lost."
|2.9.09 @ 2:04PM|#
I shall merely refer you to the curve labeled "Demand". Note that there is a (non-constant) slope to the line describing the relationship between price and quantity.
Neu Mejican|2.9.09 @ 2:04PM|#
TAO,
The world is imperfect.
The price mechanism is part of the world.
It does not manage to provide a signal of the value of all
things.
|2.9.09 @ 2:04PM|#
TAO,
Lexington has gotten a federal grant to bring back street cars.
Just another wad of fucking money flushed down the business
district toilet. Our downtown is dead because there's very little
to do, not some mythical lack of parking. On the most wildly
optimistic route they talked about, you could walk it in about 15
minutes.
Tim Cavanaugh|2.9.09 @ 2:10PM|#
O Fackler, you've done it again!
I don't know how fair it is to be refuting a reporter's paraphrase
of a tax-challenged treasury secretary's deeply held beliefs, but
this is striking:
spending must come in quick, massive doses, and be continued
until recovery takes firm root
Nicky Machiavelli beat me to this observation, but I like to hope
common sense would have led me there eventually: This is exactly
wrong. From a leadership standpoint, it's pain that needs
to be delivered in quick, massive doses. Relief is what
you dole out as stingily as possible.
dhex|2.9.09 @ 2:11PM|#
"They should build the Second Ave. line as an elevated."
as epi has pointed out that's totally nuts.
all the local storeowners on 2nd ave who are having their
businesses destroyed due to the construction are also enjoying the
view.
Neu Mejican|2.9.09 @ 2:11PM|#
JB,
I should clarify...the term "price" as used by robc above, would
refer only to money as he was claiming that all value could be
directly converted to money for value comparisons.
|2.9.09 @ 2:11PM|#
BDB | February 9, 2009, 12:10pm | #
Joe, what about the debt?
Is the plan really to have hyperinflation to monetize the
debt?
we'll inflate it away. no need to "hyperinflate" when 5-6% for 10
years would do the trick. buy TIPS and gold.
JB|2.9.09 @ 2:11PM|#
Neu Mejican,
In essence, price does refer to how much time you lost. Go look at
'time value of money' and 'opportunity cost'.
There is no way to express value without time or money.
|2.9.09 @ 2:12PM|#
The Angry Optimist | February 9, 2009, 1:59pm | #
Pricing is an imperfect mechanism used to allocate resources.
Imperfect compared to what?
Neu Mejican | February 9, 2009, 2:00pm | #
TAO,
Compared to perfection, of course.
Define perfection as it relates to resource allocation.
JB|2.9.09 @ 2:15PM|#
Money is nothing but a tool to express value.
People often convert from time to money: "don't waste my time",
etc.
Neu Mejican|2.9.09 @ 2:17PM|#
Now that we have moved to "define perfection" I will get back to
work, time is money as we all know.
A quick response to JsubD before I go...we don't need to have
perfect resource allocation, just reasonable resource
allocation.
JB|2.9.09 @ 2:17PM|#
Regardless, my argument is that you pay a price for
anything...either in terms of money or time.
Or more crass: you always pay for pussy.
Snake Oil Salesman|2.9.09 @ 2:17PM|#
"Of course, the more you take, the better it works. You're looking mighty puny, son. Better buy a case. Mebbe two."
Tim Cavanaugh|2.9.09 @ 2:19PM|#
They should build the Second Ave. line as an
elevated.
Do you mean Second Ave. in Manhattan? If so, u r coo coo.
Neu Mejican|2.9.09 @ 2:19PM|#
JB,
JB | February 9, 2009, 2:15pm | #
Money is nothing but a tool to express value.
People often convert from time to money: "don't waste my time",
etc.
I don't disagree. See my comment above. robc was claiming that all
value could be converted to money. This just isn't true. Money is a
tool to express value, but like all tools, it does not have
universal utility.
Bye guys.
|2.9.09 @ 2:24PM|#
You know, maybe I could get behind this stimulus if it all went toward my plan to lay down a massive network of pneumatic tubes rated for human use.
PC|2.9.09 @ 2:27PM|#
"We're going to need to pay it (the debt) off during the good
times."
When has that ever happened? A lot of states are going broke
because when times were good, they just found new "needs" to fund.
If we don't have the will to tighten up during the bad times, we
sure as hell won't during the good times.
|2.9.09 @ 2:28PM|#
PL's thread also contains me struggling with a commenter who didn't know the difference between supply and demand. Good stuff.
robc|2.9.09 @ 2:28PM|#
Nope. Not all things of value have a price.
Everything has a price.
I value some things so highly that all the money in the world
couldnt buy them, but they still have a price.
The Angry Optimist|2.9.09 @ 2:29PM|#
You said it was imperfect, and frankly speaking, unless you're
defining perfection as "nothing that offends my emotional
sensibilities", you have to compare perfection to what's
available.
Prices are a perfect evaluative mechanism, because they are the
best available.
|2.9.09 @ 2:31PM|#
I value some things so highly that all the money in the
world couldnt buy them
Aww... it's cool how you can finally admit your feelings for
me.
|2.9.09 @ 2:32PM|#
Not all things of value have a price.
Since the only thing govt can collect thru taxes or borrow from
China is money, this is irrelevant. Govt can't do anything to
anything that isn't also open to being priced in dollars.
robc|2.9.09 @ 2:32PM|#
Time is literally money sometimes. Was it Kenya that people were using cell phone minutes as currency?
robc|2.9.09 @ 2:33PM|#
jsh,
Dont say that. They might try to tax love next. But, as pointed out
at 2:17, that has a price.
Winston|2.9.09 @ 2:33PM|#
"Over lunch, I heard Obama on the radio saying they're going to
set up some sort of recovery.gov website to "track" the number of
jobs created and where the money is going,"
"In reality its going to be about as reality-based as those
computer print outs from the '60s the govt. gave to the media that
said we were "winning" in Vietnam."
Of course not, in six months you will be able to clearly see that
the chocolate ration will have doubled due to the efforts of our
most holy savior. Just don't record the numbers or attempt to
validate them.
|2.9.09 @ 2:34PM|#
I value some things so highly that all the money in the
world couldnt buy them, but they still have a price.
"How much for the little girl? Sell me your children!"
|2.9.09 @ 2:36PM|#
Episiarch,
Um, no. I had that idea back when I was a kid, watching checks go
to the teller and magic lollipops coming back.
robc|2.9.09 @ 2:37PM|#
Epi,
If I had any, they would be probably be crazy cheap. I'll
sell you a vial of pre-children if you really want it.
I didnt write that.
|2.9.09 @ 2:50PM|#
There's also Logan's Run and that Genesis something that Roddenberry produced with John Saxon and Lurch. They used intertubials.
Gilbert Martin|2.9.09 @ 2:57PM|#
"Nope. Not all things of value have a price."
If it doesn't have a price, you are incapable of proving it has a
value to begin with.
|2.9.09 @ 3:02PM|#
Lexington has gotten a federal grant to bring back street
cars.
Please tell me this isn't serious.
|2.9.09 @ 3:08PM|#
I wish.
Lexington Herald-Leader
Keep trolleys' return on track
People who lived or worked in downtown Lexington during the years buses outfitted like trolleys circulated around the area remember them fondly. The service was halted in 1997 after 15 years because ridership was low and the trolley maintenance bill was growing.
Before long, we hope, those memories will be replaced when people can climb aboard a trolley again, thanks to a federal grant announced last week.
A $1,212,800 grant will be used toward paying for four replica trolleys that will...
Reinmoose|2.9.09 @ 3:19PM|#
Is it just me, or are trolleys that don't run on fixed rails a
total joke?
I mean, they're just a glorified bus.
|2.9.09 @ 3:26PM|#
Actually, they are bus with no windows that are easy to fall out
of... The downtown is seriously tiny. This is a stupid idea.
You want to revitalize Lexington's downtown? Get rid if the open
container law, loosen the restrictions on getting a liquor license,
stop arresting people for public intoxication unless they are
fucking shit up, and give restaurants and bars a massive tax break
when they occupy storefronts that have been empty for more than a
year.
|2.9.09 @ 3:36PM|#
Next, ask: "Should the government take fifty (or seventy, or
ninety) cents of every dollar you earn, to make somebody else's
life better? Should the government impoverish you, and your
children, and your children's children, to make somebody's life
better?"
Who would say no to that?
He's my analogy:
Let's say you have a particular plan ... or maybe a dream. Your
goal is to develop a private aerosapce firm that raises money on
small consumer electronics and funnels the profits into developing
cheaper launch technology.
Should the government take 50% of everything you and your company
makes to provide health care to poor people?
In other words, should the government be making moral judgements
that the welfare of others is more important than your personal
dreams or goals, so you should be forced to support other people at
the expense of your own amibitions and desires?
Should the government be in the position of making moral judgements
about what goals are "good" in the first place?
Gilbert Martin|2.9.09 @ 3:58PM|#
My take on it is that is the first responsibility of the federal
government to not exceed the ennumerated powers delegated to it by
the Constitution as per the 10th Amendment.
And mandating charity from one group of citizens to another isn't
even remotely related to any of those ennumerated powers.
raul duke|2.9.09 @ 3:59PM|#
I can attest that the Japanese have paved a huge amount of their
country with un-used roads and bridges since their bubble burst in
1989. I had no idea it was $6 TRILLION worth. What is clear is that
the spending helped keep the same party in power while it was going
on AND it helped to centralize power to an un-heard of level.
Our Treasury secretary has already laid the groundwork for his
boss' excuses later: spending was way too small and too spread out
to be effective. "If only we had spent more, we would have turned
things around."
Paul|2.9.09 @ 4:05PM|#
The problem, according to Geithner and other advocates of
stimulus spending, is that Japan spent too little money too
slowly;
Come on now, how fucking predictable was that? Ohhh, it wasn't big
and fast ENOUGH! If only we'd have just done it bigger, longer and
uncut!
Someone has to stop these crazies, and frankly, I'm getting to the
point where it may involve the second amendment, because we've
already lost the first.
|2.9.09 @ 4:11PM|#
"If we'd only had this Bill on Obama's desk by Groundhog Day. Now, look at the mess we're in."
|2.9.09 @ 4:15PM|#
From a leadership standpoint, it's pain that needs to be
delivered in quick, massive doses.
Er, mission accomplished?
|2.9.09 @ 5:00PM|#
Joe writes:
did you know there was no period when GDP declined for two
consecutive quarters under FDR?
Isn't the definition of a recession 2 qtrs of declining growth? Why
was the recession in 1937 called a recession then? Also, isn't one
of the key acts that FDR did to bring us out of the Depression the
Emergency Banking Act? That's the primary difference between what
FDR did and what Japan did.. Japan didn't seriously write down bad
assets until 2001. Or how would you explain why Japan's recession
lasted 10 years?
of course|2.9.09 @ 5:16PM|#
every one is aware that Libertarians are only a fringe zealot
minority. At least, that is what American liberals keep telling
themselves and the rest of us over and over, while the rest of the
world leaves their failed Keynesian policies in the dust when we
are forced to suffer their scourge.
Interviewer: "In the fight with the financial crisis, are you a
Keynesian or a Friedmanite?"
Prime Minister Tusk (of Poland): "The problem with these theories
is that they serve well in thought, but they don't serve well in
practice. If I had to identify myself with someone, at this time it
would have to be with Friedrich von Hayek who, talking about the
business cycle, highlighted the fact that every artificial boom
caused by the expansion of credit by banks works in the end against
itself. Today in the philosophy of operating American financial
institutions there are too many footprints of the Keynesian
tradition of regulation, such as intervention for achieving - in
effect - only temporary results."
and of course,|2.9.09 @ 5:17PM|#
if the liberal establishment was correct in theory and implementation, TARP would have worked, and we would be well on our way to recovery.
|2.9.09 @ 6:20PM|#
You want convenient? How about the fact that neither
conclusion can be definitively proven, nor definitively
refuted?
If we do not know which one will work then why do you support the
one that leads to more debt?
|2.9.09 @ 6:31PM|#
For joe and his ilk, the important thing about the porkulus
bill is that it is being passed by Democrats.
The difference between FDR and Carter and Obama is that FDR's face
was not on TV every 30 seconds sandwiched between a constant stream
of bad economic news. It took awhile for the public to turn on
Carter, but with today's hyper news cycle it would not surprise me
at all if a year from now Obama will have become a defacto lame
duck.
Joe's confidence that a second stimulus package is unstoppable
really is false bravado..fire side chats do not work anymore..this
sucker has be perceived by a pretty skeptical public to work or
Obama is dead meat.
|2.9.09 @ 6:52PM|#
Obama faces--and knows he faces--a serious risk of revisiting
Clinton's house of horrors in 1994. While the GOP is certainly
unpopular right now, if a pack of "stimulus" bills get passed
despite public displeasure, at least one house of Congress may go
right back to the Republicans.
One other problem for Obama is that Congress is at a very low level
of popularity, and he has to be careful about hitching his horse
too closely to it. Really, he's learning Catch-22 up close, isn't
he?
MJ|2.9.09 @ 7:06PM|#
"The problem, according to Geithner and other advocates of
stimulus spending, is that Japan spent too little money too slowly;
wasted a lot of it on useless projects..."
Speeding up the rate of spending will make it all the more likely
the money is wasted on useless projects. Not that it's likely to be
spent on very useful projects anyway, but increasing the rate will
necessarliy decrease the level of scrutiny of the merits of each
particular project. It guarantees waste.
This is the quality of thinking of someone who's tax cheating we
had to ignore in order to get the benefit his great experience and
intelligence?
Orange Line Destroyer|2.10.09 @ 1:10AM|#
If Geitner didn't claim his kiddies summer camp as a tax
deduction and the rest of president 666's cabinet paid their taxes
they could probably have all the money their cronies desire.
But who'd voluntarily pay taxes to watch it disappear into another
leftwing fantasyland project? Geitner , Daschle, Rangel, Dodd,
Clinton and the rest certainly didn't. What they know that the rest
of the lemmings don't?
|2.10.09 @ 2:10PM|#
if the liberal establishment was correct in theory and
implementation, TARP would have worked, and we would be well on our
way to recovery.
The Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP) is a program of the
United States government to purchase assets and equity from
financial institutions in order to strengthen the financial
sector
Yeah TARP sure sounds like a "libertarian" program.
lol
Curous George|2.11.09 @ 10:47AM|#
If only they spend more money they can transform Harlem into
paradise. If only the Congress spends more money it can create
world peace and love.
If only the democrats would stop drinking the Kool Aid.
Hope, change, Hussein.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245