Election 2012

Why Elizabeth Warren Wants America to Be More Like Communist China

Warren thinks China's infrastructure spending is a model for the U.S.

|

Massachusetts residents who tuned in to the Olympics opening ceremony saw a new 30-second campaign commercial from the Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate, Elizabeth Warren, that said America should be more like Communist China.

"We've got bridges and roads in need of repair and thousands of people in need of work. Why aren't we rebuilding America?" asks Warren, a professor at Harvard Law School who served in the Obama administration. "Our competitors are putting people to work, building a future. China invests 9% of its GDP in infrastructure. America? We're at just 2.4%. We can do better."

The ad juxtaposes robust Chinese cranes and dump trucks with decaying American bridges and idle but sympathetic-looking American workers wearing hard-hats.

Warren has been in the news lately as an inspiration for President Obama's "you didn't build that" comment. And Mr. Obama himself has been making somewhat similar points about infrastructure on the campaign trail. On July 27, the same day Warren announced her new ad, Mr. Obama, campaigning in Virginia, said, "I think it makes sense for us to take half the savings from war and let's use it to do some nation-building here at home. Let's make sure that we're rebuilding our roads and our bridges. Let's build broadband lines into rural communities and improve our wireless networks and rebuild our ports and airports. We can put people to work right now doing the work that America needs done."

Warren's approach is so flawed that it's amazing that her campaign would spend the money on putting it into a prime-time Olympics commercial that was presumably designed not to alienate people but rather to get them to vote for her. You really have to see it to believe it.

The first problem is mathematical. U.S. gross domestic product is about $15 trillion a year. Increasing infrastructure "investment" to the 9% Chinese level that Warren cites would mean an additional $1 trillion a year in government spending. That's an immense spending increase. To put it in context, the entire federal government spent about $3.6 trillion in 2011, on revenues of about $2.3 trillion.

Where would this money come from? Not tax increases, right? Warren has already reportedly promised nearly a trillion dollar tax increase, spread over ten years, by raising the estate tax, imposing the Buffett Rule, and letting the Bush tax cuts expire for those earning $250,000 a year or more. But that money, she has said, would go toward deficit reduction. If Warren really wants to spend $1 trillion a year more on infrastructure, she'd need to eliminate all national defense spending ($705 billion) or all Social Security spending ($730 billion) and then find another more than quarter trillion dollars. Or else she'd have to go on the biggest borrowing or taxing binge in American history.

Math, though, is hardly the only problem with emulating China's approach to infrastructure spending. History is another. America and China are at different junctures in our development. America built a lot of bridges, tunnels, and highways in the 1950s and 1960s when China was stuck under Communism. A lot of China's spending now isn't going to outpace America but to catch up with things that we've had here for decades, like potable water and a population that is mostly non-rural.

Finally, not all of China's infrastructure spending is worth emulating. The Chinese Communist treatment of those who stand in the way of their projects makes Robert Moses, the mastermind of so many of New York's neighborhood-destroying highways, look like Mother Teresa. For example, the group International Rivers reports that 1.2 million people were displaced to construct the Three Gorges Dam. That $40 billion project also reportedly had devastating effects on the Chinese river dolphin, river sturgeon, and paddlefish.

China is able to spend so much on infrastructure because it's an unfree country. It lacks the rule of law that lets American community groups wage legal and political battles against big government projects. Warren may protest that when she's talking about "infrastructure" she mainly means maintaining existing roads and bridges, not building brand new projects that flatten urban neighborhoods or destroy scenic rivers. But that's not what's happening in China.

One of the ironies here is that some of the lawyers opposing big proposed American infrastructure projects on environmental or eminent domain or racial discrimination grounds were trained by Warren and her colleagues at Harvard Law School and at other similar institutions like the University of Chicago, where Barack Obama taught after attending Harvard Law School. Such opposition, sometimes spurious, can succeed in delaying and raising the cost of private development projects even if the opponents ultimately do not prevail in court or in the political process. Free-market fans tend to like the eminent domain suits and dislike the ones about snail darters, and it is a distinction worth maintaining.

But if the choice is between having people like Elizabeth Warren and Barack Obama in law schools training students to block these infrastructure projects, or having them in the government taxing the rest of us to pay for more of them, I'm glad to live in America rather than Communist China. Here in America, at least, the people may not get to elect the law professors, but we sure do get to vote on the president and senators.

Ira Stoll is editor of FutureOfCapitalism.com and author of Samuel Adams: A Life

NEXT: Behind The Scenes at Atlas Shrugged Part II

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Warren’s approach is so flawed that it’s amazing that her campaign would spend the money on putting it into a prime-time Olympics commercial…

    For some reason leftists seem to think that the people will be pacified by the idea of grand infrastructure projects. Is it because intellectuals see the ignorant masses as dump truck crazy?

    1. Ask Tony. He’ll tell you, Fist.

    2. Is it because intellectuals see the ignorant masses as dump truck crazy?

      Unfortunately, I’m afraid that the “intellectuals” are right on this. I’ve had the BUTROADZZZ!!1!! argument laid at my feet by people I thought knew better. I was mistaken in that belief…they really are that fucking stupid. And there’s a lot of them.

      We. Are. DOOOOOOOOOMED.

      1. What you mean to say is that infrastructure is so obviously a good counterargument for the quasi-anarchic fairy tales you buy into that it must be turned into an obvious fallacy, with no explanation necessary.

        1. You forgot to call us hillbillies, Tony. You’re not on your game today.

          1. You’re not all hillbillies. Some of you even went to four-year universities, albeit in Bumfuck, Iowa.

            But whether you’re an anonymous Internet personality or a Congressman, if you worship Ayn Rand or otherwise believe in adolescent libertarian bullshit, that’s evidence by itself that you’re just not very smart.

            1. Don’t ask me… I don’t worship Ayn Rand.

              Nice of you to stop and look down your nose at us, though. Don’t let us detain you any longer.

              1. Tell me, what books have you read? Or are you just so smart you don’t need to read any books?

                This working class grievance shtick is so unnecessary. I don’t even know how to put on overalls, so that’s something you have over me.

                1. “When we get out, do you think we could get a gig at CBGB? What’s that …?”

                  Shorter Tony: “Mommy dresses me.”

                2. Tell me, what books have you read? Or are you just so smart you don’t need to read any books?

                  Chony channeling MNG or is it MNG using a Chony handle?

                  1. I don’t remember MNG ever being that bad. He was a Team Blue pseudolibertarian like John’s a Team Red pseudolibertarian.

                3. Oh tony, that sounds like a fun game. Which books have you read in the past 3 months? Here’s my list.
                  “Coming Apart” Murry
                  “The Better Angels of Our Nature” Pinker
                  “Rambunctious Garden” Marris
                  “A Thousand Plateaus” Deleuze Guattarri
                  “The Clamor of Being” Badiou

                  Your turn.

                4. This working class grievance shtick is so unnecessary? Why does the Democrat party build its whole platform around it?

                5. Oh this is just galling, even for T-job:

                  T o n y|7.30.12 @ 5:27PM|#
                  Tell me, what books have you read? Or are you just so smart you don’t need to read any books?

                  Seriously, I wouldn’t know where to start. Age 12? This year?? I wouldn’t know how to organize a list or make it fit in the 500 character limit of HR posts.

                  So – Tony, have YOU read? =

                  People’s History of the United States – Howard Zinn

                  The Media is the Message – Marshall McLuhan

                  The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of the World Order – Samuel Huntington

                  The True Believer – Eric Hoffer

                  The Closing of the American Mind – Alan Bloom

                  Democracy and Capitalism – Milton Friedman

                  Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds – Charles Mckay

                  Capitalism and the Protestant Work Ethic – Max Weber

                  The Future of an Illusion – Sigmund Freud

                  The Republic – Plato

                  The Art of War – Sun Tzu

                  Collected Essays of Emerson

                  The Federalist Papers

                  Emile – Rousseau

                  Leviathan – Hobbes

                  Two Treatises of Government – Locke

                  ….

                  these are not what I’ve “read” – they’re what I’ve *read many many times* and refer to often. I’ve even read the silly shit Naomi Klein wrote… once. You presuppose you’re somehow *better read* in any way?? that’s got to be the most absurd claim ever made here by you – which is a fucking milestone. I can promise you, the *average* HR person makes you look like a Lamar Burton-needing illiterate.

                  1. I’ve actually read most of those! But I was asking FIFY. Didn’t need a bunch of anonymous boasters to come out of the woodwork.

                    1. T o n y| 7.31.12 @ 10:18AM |#

                      I’ve actually read most of those!

                      If true this is only more proof you’re a fucking idiot, because nothing has penetrated the layers of retard yet.

                    2. I could list all the things I’ve read, Tony, but you’d just sniff and look down your nose and continue to consider yourself superior, and not just to me.

                6. Tell me, what books have you read?

                  Among others, I’ve read The Decline and Fall of the Roman empire. They had a lot of clowns like you enjoying the bread and circuses while the vandals were at the gates.

                  -jcr

                7. I’ve read a lot of books. Never made it through any of Rand’s, though… just too tedious.

                  Nice to see that you hate the working class, though. Explains quite a lot.

            2. so which university taught you to be a condescending prick?

              1. I don’t believe this is the real Tony – too much faux superiority, too many sentences.

                B- trolling – pretty good work, but try harder.

              2. None, I was a child prodigy in that. It’s just that FIFY is such a ridiculous textbook insecure grievance machine that I can’t help myself. One day, in the middle of doing something with a carburetor or having a good chaw, he’ll get the joke.

                1. So FIFY actually has a useful skill in fixing carburetors and you are a useless eater who should be left out in the cold to starve? Gotcha!

                2. Bullshit, Tony, I doubt you have read as much as my 10 year old son. You have clearly never read Adam Smith or Milton Freidman or Thomas Sowell. Sowell has written at least a half a dozen books refuting the idiocy that you espouse here on a regular basis. He probably has more wisdom in a pube hair than you do in your entire….genome.

                  Seriously, peddle the stupid victim more and the MNG “I am superior” less. You are getting your personalities confused.

                  1. You have clearly never read Adam Smith or Milton Freidman or Thomas Sowell.

                    The real problem is that you guys haven’t read anything else.

                    1. Books I’ve read in the last few months:

                      Spectral Methods: Fundamentals in Single Domains by Canuto et al

                      Large Eddy Simulation for Incompressible Flows by Sagaut

                      Large Eddy Simulation for Compressible Flows by Garnier et al

                      Navier-Stokes Equations and Turbulence by Foias et al

                      Partial Differential Equations by Evans

                      Good books, all of them.

                    2. Still in school? Glad to see the next generation may not have its collective head as far up its collective ass as the previous ones. What will suck is that there are not enough of you to stop the slide back into the muck.

                3. Actually, I am not mechanically inclined. I drive for a living, though, if that helps you look down on me as a mere workingman.

                  I *wish* I had carburetor-fixing skills, though. Just not my bag.

              3. …so which university taught you to be a condescending prick?

                Undoubtedly a British university…where he received special one-on-one instruction from the headmaster himself!

                (Man this shit practically writes itself)

              4. All of them

            3. … if you worship Ayn Rand or otherwise believe in adolescent libertarian bullshit, that’s evidence by itself that you’re just not very smart.

              The in crowd worships government and believes in infantile socialist bullshit.

              1. That’s the bullshit I gave up after high school. Not a Rand fan either, not now or ever.

            4. that’s evidence by itself that you’re just not very smart.

              Oddly, this morning a woman told me I’m the smartest person she knows. (Poor woman, yeah, I know.)

            5. Some of you even went to four-year universities, albeit in Bumfuck, Iowa.

              Hey, buddy, I went to M.I.T.!
              It was a Wednesday, I think.

              1. I actually read Karl Marx’s works, Tony. Back in sixth grade. When I believed in that shit.

            6. Speaking of turning things into fallacies…

        2. LOL

          1. Best post ever from you, Derprider.

            Go out on that note.

            Hint.

        3. Read the article, this women cannot do basic maths, just like you, since you see no problem by spending another $ trillion a year.

          1. Only another trillion a year? Why do you hate brown children, NotSure?

          2. The Bushpigs pissed $1 trillion away in Iraq. A few bridges looks good in comparison.

            As long as we’re wasting money lets least do it here.

            1. Holy shit shrike no one here was in favor of the rebuilding Iraq and turning them into a democracy idea.

              God you’re like a retarded child.

              1. Yeah, but I was commenting on Comparative Keynesianism. The Bushpigs pushed open new boundaries. Obama racked up only 1/2 billion (1/3 his stimulus was tax cuts).

            2. Palin’s Buttplug|7.30.12 @ 5:32PM|#
              “The Bushpigs pissed $1 trillion away in Iraq.”

              The Obumerfucks have them beat, idiot.

              1. Bullshit. I know my numbers. And I forgive Bush for his own failed stimulus (the $300 checks for everyone).

            3. That’s total. Warren’s proposal would burn through $1 Trillion A YEAR.

              1. Yeah? Well, she is on drugs then. That won’t happen.

                1. Holy shit Shreek said something tethered to reality.

              2. That’s not warren’s proposal, that’s Ira Stoll’s absurd strawman.

            4. Re: Palin’s Buttjuice,

              The Bushpigs pissed $1 trillion away in Iraq. A few bridges looks good in comparison.

              To the clueless, yes. They would both represent wasted resources if the bridges do not add value.

              As long as we’re wasting money lets least do it here.

              You seem to have conceded that infrastructure spending is wastefull.

              1. Was the Tennessee Valley Authority wasted infrastructure? I don’t know.

                I concede that infrastructure spending can be wasteful.

                1. TVA is a fine example of a past subsidized mistake similar to Solyndra.

                  1. Do you have any economic data that shows it to be a mistake? I’d love to see it.

                2. Was the Tennessee Valley Authority wasted infrastructure?

                  How can you say such stupid shit and then claim to be anything other than the Leftist turd you are? Of course it was fucking a waste, government doesn’t do efficient!

                  The “stimulus” was supposed to be about “roads and bridges” and it was pissed away to public employee unions and other wasteful bullshit. A second “infrastructure stimulus” would be more of the same. WTF did they do with the other $1,000,000,000,000? We should have gold plated fucking bridges for that kind of cash.

                  1. So the fact that Government built the infrastructure is proof that the infrastructure was inefficient, because government doesn’t do efficient?

                    Your argument seems… round? Spheroid? Shit, what’s that word? I just had it.

                    1. So the fact that Government built the infrastructure is proof that the infrastructure was inefficient, because government doesn’t do efficient?

                      Sorry, moron, you will actually have to try. The fact that the government always spends money in the least efficient fashion is proof that the TVA was no different.

                      Most efficient ways to spend money a’la Milton Freidman.

                      1. When you spend your own money on yourself, you are concerned with both quality and price.

                      2. When you spend your own money on other people you are more concerned about price than quality.

                      3. When you spend other people’s money on yourself you are more concerned about quality than price.

                      4. When you spend other people’s money on other people (the government) you are not concerned with either price or quality.

                      The TVA was not efficient. How do a bunch of do nothing bureaucrats added to any project increase the efficiency? Not only does it not, it simply can’t. The incentives for government are most often not based upon efficiency.

                    2. Government does not always spend money in the least efficient fashion. Here’s Milton Friedman admitting that market failures exist.

                      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BPnJHfiFWJw

                    3. The TVA stole the project from Alcoa, dipshit.

              2. What’s really funny is Bush claimed they were going to attack us, so what did we do, build them a nation (democracy) and an army. I’m sure we’ll sell them all our healthcare just ask Guilliani.

            5. tsk tsk, always thinking about yourself, roads and infrastructure, why not feed all the starving of the world with it? 🙂

              1. Oh yeah, and don’t forget vaccines and prozac. A little ritalin for the children.

              2. Fuck the starving people. I am a Darwinist.

                If the world can’t support 5000 tigers then 7 billion humans are far too many.

                AGW will zap 2-3 billion humans within 40 years.

                1. AGW will zap 2-3 billion humans within 40 years.

                  Dude, get to the hospital right away!! You are hallucinating that you are Paul Erlich!!!

                2. What’s wrong with you? Don’t you know you can shovel newly printed dollar bills down the starving peoples throat and keep them full for at least a week.
                  sheesh, some people are so selfish.

                3. What an anti-science retard. The world is supporting lots of species with populations way over 5K.

            6. And Taxagawea wants to do that every fucking year.

        4. Re: Tony,

          What you mean to say is that infrastructure is so obviously a good counterargument for the quasi-anarchic fairy tales you buy into that it must be turned into an obvious fallacy, with no explanation necessary.

          You mean like those anarchic fairy tales that ask not to throw tarmac ribbons over the ancestral lands of the Native Americans?

          Or sun-robbing panels over turtles?

        5. This comment couldn’t be any dumber if it were attached to an 800 word article explaining why our infrastructure needs aren’t as great as China’s, and why that’s a good thing.

      2. I have to disagree. The idiots making that argument are more often than not the self-defined intellectuals who dismiss the public, who, at least intuitively, know this is an eye-roller.

    3. there is nothing “amazing” at all about Warren’s campaign ad. Leftists are impressed by their own awesomeness and divide the electorate into two groups: the small cluster of other awesome leftists who believe their bullshit and the far larger cluster of the massively uninformed without whom liberalism cannot survive.

      1. the far larger cluster of the massively uninformed without whom liberalism cannot survive.

        This.

        1. Team Red treats most grown Americans like toddlers, too, but Team Blue is just a curly-hairs’ difference better at it.

          1. Apologies to Ken Shultz, but i thInk the correct phrasing is “cunt hair”.

      2. A moment of self-awareness:

        Leftists[Libertarians] are impressed by their own awesomeness and divide the electorate into two groups: the small cluster of other awesome leftists [libertarians] who believe their bullshit [rational and principled positions] and the far larger cluster of the massively uninformed without whom liberalism [the big government duopoly] cannot survive.

        It’s only fair to point out that we also believe we are correct about everything, and everybody else is stupid.

        1. believing you are correct is one thing; plundering other people’s pockets to force your correctness on them is quite another.

          1. So it’s OK to think you’re the only correct one, as long as you’re an anarchist?

            Because everybody else supports taxes, one way or another.

            1. It’s okay to think you’re the only correct one IF YOU FUCKING ARE or have good reason to believe so. In other words, shut up Derprider.

              1. ’nuff said

        2. It’s only fair to point out that we also believe we are correct about everything, and everybody else is stupid.

          True, but that is not the same as believing one thing and attempting to trick the stupid people into agreeing with us with lies. How much of this bullshit is actually not believed by Obama/Warren but intentional lies to increase their personal power? They don’t even believe the garbage they peddle, they just know that the rubes (see shriek above) will believe it.

          1. How much of this bullshit is actually not believed by Obama/Warren but intentional lies to increase their personal power? They don’t even believe the garbage they peddle, they just know that the rubes (see shriek above) will believe it.

            ^^THIS^^

            Rhetoricians, they are. Nothing more than pretty word peddlers, and they do it well enough to have the power to fuck a lot of people.

        3. One important distinction. Libertarians usually offer up an argument based on facts and/or principles to support their claim. Liberals generally argue from the authority of their own presumed superiority or the authority of the collective.

          1. This has been the complete opposite of my experience in this thread.

          2. One other important distinction: libertarians don’t want to spend someone else’s money to support our claim.

    4. C’mon, you know you loved playing construction worker with toy cranes and dump trucks as a kid. Warren just thinks the average voting American is still a child.

      1. Warren just thinks the average voting American is still a child.

        On a mental scale, she is being proven correct beyond any doubt.

        1. Sadly, this appears to be true. The average American knows as much about economics as a diseased poodle.

          1. Why the diss on diseased poodles??

            ANIMAL HATER!!!

            1. The poodle bites… the poodle chews it.

              1. It’s a good thing poodles can’t vote*.

                * except in Chicago

                1. It’s a good thing poodles can’t vote*.

                  * except in Chicago

                  WOAH, now. Fifi Van Buren was a real person, I tell you.

              2. Come on frenchie…..

                1. Not a speck of cereal…

      2. Actually, I loved playing construction worker with real cranes and dump trucks as an adult and I love seeing more money spent on civil works nearly as much as the next guy who owns a hardhat.

        I say nearly as much because I am aware of how much public spending is politicized and directed at enriching cronies. Such spending results in overbuilding, asset bubbles and just plain misallocation of capital.

    5. That bridge? You didn’t fail to maintain it. Somebody else did.

      1. You win one Internet, ProL. Too bad you didn’t do anything to contribute to building it, though… Other People built it.

        1. I mentioned this concept in a dying thread last week: If the government wants credit for and power over everything, it can damned well take the blame for everything, too.

          1. But… but… government NEVER fails. Just ask any leftist.

            1. 1. Government build a bridge.
              2. Bridge collapses.
              3. It’s all your fault.

            2. There is no such thing as a market failure. Just ask any Libertarian.

              1. What exactly is the definition of market failure?

                Because I always see it used as ” X costs Y, and Y is too much.”

                It’s a totally arbitrary standard.

                1. Wiki:
                  Market failure is a concept within economic theory describing when the allocation of goods and services by a free market is not efficient. That is, there exists another conceivable outcome where a market participant may be made better-off without making someone else worse-off. (The outcome is not Pareto optimal.)

                  If this seems “arbitrary”, you don’t understand economics.

                  1. exists another conceivable outcome where a market participant may be made better-off without making someone else worse-off.

                    I’ve bolded the fly in the statist ointment. I can conceive of a ton of stuff that isn’t practical. Apparently so can the government. The difference is, I don’t force other people to try it with a gun.

                    1. If the conceivable outcome isn’t practical, meaning the costs of creating that outcome cannot be paid for from the benefits, that conceivable outcome isn’t Pareto optimal, either.

                    2. The problem is that the government doesn’t have the right incentives. So in practice, it almost always ends up being an expensive clusterfuck, even if it works in theory.

              2. God Mary…just go take your menopause pills and shut up already!

                1. Haha stupid women!

                  There’s a reason this is a giant sausage-fest.

                  1. The Derider’s (and every other socialist’s) definition of market failure is any outcome with which they personally were dissatisfied.

                    Interesting that someone accusing others of being selfish should think it so important that his own whims and desires should be fullfilled in preference to everyone else’s.

                    1. I thought market failure was where poor people don’t get the same outcome as rich people.

                    2. If the economic terminology I used to describe a market failure was too complex, I can make it simpler.

                      Just FYI, I don’t accuse others of being selfish, nor do I think selfishness is necessarily a negative trait. Also, not everyone who defends an orthodox interpretation of economics is a socialist. Unless you think Milton Friedman was a socialist.

                    3. Market failure is a concept within economic theory describing when the allocation of goods and services by a free market is not efficient.

                      Compared to what?

                      That is, there exists another conceivable outcome where a market participant may be made better-off without making someone else worse-off.

                      So it’s an entirely theoretical construct. Got it.

                      I’ll stick to the real world.

                    4. Not efficient meaning “not Pareto optimal”, a “Pareto optimal” solution is what you’d expect to happen in a perfectly competitive market.

                      Economics is theoretical, like any hard science, and like any hard science, it is predicated on data gathered from the real world.

                    5. Haha economics is a hard science.

                      Oh my fucking god it’s a laugh a minute with you.

                    6. When your reading comprehension is that low, I bet pretty much everything you read is hilarious.

                    7. Hard sciences don’t use the word “unexpectedly” as often as economists do.

                    8. I’m not suggesting that econ IS a hard science, only that LIKE all hard sciences it has a theoretical component and is informed by real-world data.

                    9. The Derider|7.30.12 @ 7:34PM|
                      Economics is theoretical, like any hard science, and like any hard science, it is predicated on data gathered from the real world.

                      The Derider|7.30.12 @ 8:04PM|#
                      I’m not suggesting that econ IS a hard science, only that LIKE all hard sciences it has a theoretical component and is informed by real-world data.

                      That’s Paully Krugnuts level of stupidity there buddy.

                    10. Could you please drill it all down and let me know what a “perfectly competitive market” is and who will manage it?

                    11. Could you please drill it all down and let me know what a “perfectly competitive market” is and who will manage it?

                      Top Men of course. Who else?

                    12. A managed market can’t be perfectly competitive, by definition.

                      ’nuff said

                    13. nope, how will it achieve perfection, what constitutes perfection, what businesses, etc… you’re the economist and I am the ignorant one…so please lay it out detailed, I’m trying to take your side here…:)

                    14. oops, sorry, you said can’t be managed, so if it can’t be managed what then would constitute perfection?

                    15. Government intervention in a market will never produce a solution as efficient as one produced with perfect competition. This does not preclude government intervention from improving the efficiency of an imperfect market. Those improvements will never make the market perfect, just less imperfect.

                    16. Compared to what?

                      ^^This^^
                      The entire “market failure” paradigm relies on the fallacy that, somehow or another, voters, politicians and bureaucrats have the key informational elements that market participants are unable to observe or obtain. It’s laughable.

                    17. No, the market failure paradigm relies on the proven fact that unimpeded free markets do not always produce the most efficient outcomes, and that government intervention can improve those outcomes.

                      https://reason.com/blog/2012/05…..youll-have

                    18. You repeatedly presume knowledge of the most efficient outcome, which is where your theory falls apart.

                      Give me a real world example of an inefficient market outcome and what the most efficient outcome would be.

                    19. So your example of a market failure is a classic example of government working to ban a market based solution to a problem of allocating resources?

                      Troll or stupid? I report, and the good people of H ampersand R can decide.

                    20. Well, I think you have to consider that our friend “The Derider” absolutely refuses to face the number of government failures that have occurred (consider eg the Bush/Greensapn asset bubble due to artificially low interest rates – among other things) when he talks about “market failures.

                      Oh, wait, the “market failures” he’s talking about are government failures.

                      Oh, snap,

                    21. Except that’s a circular argument. You say the government can intervene to improve outcomes, but presume that the government knows the ideal outcome. And the evidence that it knows is that it’s improved the outcome.

                    22. You keep mentioning Friedman. Do you think that under the current circumstances Friedman would support more government spending? OF COURSE NOT, so stop the stupid pretense that your argument is supported by Friedman Ideas

                    23. If the economic terminology I used to describe a market failure was too complex, I can make it simpler.

                      You mean, if the terminology you copied and pasted from somewhere else was too complex, you can copy and paste a simpler description from somewhere else.

          2. Nope.

            Individuals fail, but only groups can succeed.

        2. That witty comment? You didn’t right that.

          1. That comment on the witty comment? You didn’t write that, either.

            1. Good, then I’m not the one responsible for using the wrong homophone.

          2. The skwerls rote it

    6. Her YouTube performance here.

      1. “Infastructure” @ 0:13.

        Gotta love it.

    7. They’re trying to get people to harken back to the bad good ol’ days of the New Deal. They think if they can promote Government Doesn’t Work projects like those of yore, people will love being taxed and spent to death.

      1. I’m always so confused! I thought leftists loved the frogs and spotted owls. Now they want roads and smog yet don’t want cars, which is why we’re going to build high-speed trains? What planet am I on?

    8. For some reason leftists seem to think that the people will be pacified by the idea of grand infrastructure projects.

      The irony is that grand infrastructure projects have been rendered impossible by the regulatory burdens imposed by leftards.

      1. That just means they need more money to do them.

        1. And more bureaucrats and lawyers to oversee the regulatory circle-jerk. Win-win.

  2. The really sad thing is that people will actually vote for her. I won’t be a bit surprised to see her in the Senate this fall.

    1. I think she’s a bit much, even for Massachusetts, but they’ve impressed me with their idiocy before this. So, no, not surprised.

      1. They kept reelecting Kennedy for over 40 years, and he was a murderer (manslaughterer?), so I’m never surprised by their idiocy.

        1. That’s a little different, but, yes, I essentially agree.

        2. He was a rapist. That is well documented.

          1. One man’s rapist is another man’s sandwich artist

          2. Was it rape rape of the not unresponsive?

    2. They did elect a guy like Deval Patrick so Warren would fit right in.

      http://www.gloucestertimes.com…..Tarrs-fire

  3. And cue the “you’re taking her out of context” in 3..2..1..go.

    1. She is a minority, so any criticism of her must be based solely on racism.

      1. Who wouldn’t want to be able to claim a fistful of racial spoils while maintaining her New England camouflage?

        Fauxcahantas indeed!

  4. What the fuck is the federal government doing building broadband and wireless networks for anyway?

    And sorry, Liz, we’d love to rebuild airports and bridges, but grandpa’s Hoveround gets priority.

    1. What the fuck is the federal government doing building broadband and wireless networks for anyway?

      Votes, what else? It’s why we need term. fucking. limits.

      1. It’s so they can control it, Brutus. You know, eventually, the Almighty FedGov (PBUI) will have to clamp down on dissent For Our Own Good.

        And For The Children.

        Also, fried chicken.

        1. Besides, government built the Internet so it could eventually be used by mere individuals to make money.

          Barry told us so.

          Um, is the “also, fried chicken” thing still worth using? I’m’a bit behind the curve on memes.

          1. Since it’s my one lasting contribution to this cess-pit, I say, a resounding YES!

            Also, fried okra.

            Goddamnit, I fucked up my own meme.

            Also, fried chicken.

            1. I’m sure “fried okra” is just as offensive, depending on whom you ask.

              1. Especially Monday.

            2. Great taste, disgusting texture.

        2. O.k. I missed a meme. What’s with the fried chicken.

          1. Taylor Swifting, ‘cept your chewing chicken while drag assing.

            Okay, I made that up.

    2. Lack of competition. Of course, instead of increasing competition, they’ll just create a competitor with unfair privileges who drives out the old oligopoly and replaces it with a terrible monopoly.

  5. Every time one of these lefties starts going on about infrastructure, the immediate response ought to be “Well how about the Keystone Pipeline, shithead?”

    1. That was private, it doesn’t count.

      1. Oh, and PEAK OIL! Also AGW!

      2. Now it’s going to head west and be privately owned by the Chinese government.

    2. “But toes feruners tuk er jerbs!!!111!”

    3. Well, infrastructure is infrastructure after all. Good one, Mike.

    4. Infrastructure is code for “union labor payoff.”

  6. So it’s not just big O’s administration that’s tone-deaf. This seems to be the next big trend for TEAM BLUE. Say astonishingly dumb shit and then go “What? What did I say that was so bad?”

    1. It is because they only talk to each other. They honestly think everyone believes this shit.

      1. Everyone (more than 50.1%) does.

        1. That remains to be seen. I don’t think so, at least not yet.

        2. Not working well in the wake of ‘you didn’t build that’.

      2. when you add up those who believe it and those too apathetic to find out if it’s true, you often get 50% + 1.

    2. It doesn’t appear to matter to their voter base what they say, no matter how stupid. So, since it seems to be more natural for the lefties to say really stupid stuff, they may as well go for it.

  7. I love how they bitch and moan about infrastucture and then never mention the environmental laws that make building such expensive or impossible.

    Gee Lizzie do you think the Three Gorges Damn could get built in America? Do you know what the EIS would look like you moron?

    1. That just creates more jobs. Regulations are the ultimate multiplier effect.

      1. I’m going to smash every window I see on the way home tonight. I’ll be hailed as a great job creator.

        1. God Bless you Brutus!

          (just not in my neighborhood!)

          1. poverty pimp

          2. Why do you hate glaziers?

    2. Exactly. How long did it take to build the empire state building back in the 1930s? How long has it taken to rebuild the towers at the world trade center site?

      We can employ as many people in the public sector to build infrastructure as we want to. By the time anything gets done, it will be obsolete, a half ass job, and will need done again. We don’t have the will and attitude to do anything.

      I see her vision for what it really would be. I see a bunch of lazy guys standing around leaning on shovels making entirely too much money for what they are worth, and not shit getting done.

      1. When Warren says “infrastructure” she means “more money for public employees’ unions”. She doesn’t actually want anything built.

        1. Building…bad…AGW…

        2. Yes. They had their shot at infrastructure in 2009 and blew it all on bailing out public employees. The progs won’t build scenic highways through “wilderness areas” anymore.
          That is the past they are ashamed of, not the holy science of eugenics.

      2. The infrastructure cycle:
        “OHMYGOD!!! OUR INFRASTRUCTURE IS FALLING APART!!! IT’S A CRISIS!!! WE NEED TO SPEND A SHITLOAD OF MONEY RIGHT NOW!!!”
        (public writes check and waits a couple of days)
        “Well, you know, we’ve got to use union labor on these projects. And, of course, set aside a number of contracts for women and minorities, who have historically been disadvantaged by the white male patriarchy. And we certainly can’t forego the environmental, aesthetic and social reviews to ensure that everyone is given the proper input into every aspect of these projects. And, what’s so special about bridges, roads and tunnels, anyway? Why, in Europe they have wonderful systems of high speed rail and public transport that we would be wise to try to emulate. And, while there might be some roads deteriorating, why Senator Bumblefuck’s district has never had the development that a truly national road system can afford….”
        (wait a couple of years)
        “OHMYGOD!!! OUR INFRASTRUCTURE IS FALLING APART!!! IT’S A CRISIS!!! WE NEED TO SPEND A SHITLOAD OF MONEY RIGHT NOW!!!”

        1. That was awesome

        2. I second Shocked’s awesome. For most of my life I’ve seen this cycle almost every election. “We Need to Improve Our Infrastructure! Now! before it’s too late.” Then just a couple of years later, “We Need . . .” And no one notices that nothing got done the last ten times the meme surfaced and the money was appropriated.

  8. If people want to use “roads and bridges”, then they should be paying the direct cost to use them.

    Infrastructure subsidization causes bad infrastructure- that will never be adequately or practically maintained.

    1. People do pay for their infrastructure. They pay untold billions in gas taxes and tolls. The problem is the money gets stolen and used for something else so that people like Warren can ask for more.

      1. THIS IS THE KOCHTOPUS AT WORK STEALING THAT MONEY AND GIVING IT TO THE 1% TO DO CRONY CAPITULISTZZA!!

        Oh, that’s not what you meant….?

      2. I’ve talked about this before around here. NH has a Constitutional amendment that states that gas tax and toll revenue must be exclusively used for ROADZ. How do they weasel around it? The DOT issues Bonds against the revenue stream.

        1. Given the amount paid in gas taxes and tolls, there is no excuse for the infrastructure being anything but gold plated.

        2. There is nothing ipso facto wrong with issuing bonds against a future revenue stream. It can occasionally allow for additional major infrastructure construction in a given year.

          The downside is that it can be used as an acounting trick and it can also cause overbuilding or building ahead of the market, which is often the cause of serious misallocation of resources.

          1. The downside is when it’s the General Fund which is the recipient of the Bond proceeds.

            1. It strikes me that that is contrary to the Constitutional provision that gas tax and toll revenue must be exclusively used for roads.

        3. Didn’t Reason recently have an article about an even larger percentage of the federal gas tax getting used for public transportation crap, like cutsie little trollies and subways across plain and forest?

      3. Fuel taxes are not a market based, up front charge for using specific infrastructure. The tax allows spending to be politicized by diluting actual demand. It covers interstates and major highways fine (if the money doesn’t get diverted), but can never fully cover all improved roads that people believe they are entitled to.

        1. People pay nearly 50% of their income in taxes if you add it all up state and local and such. Yeah, they are way entitled to decent roads. The pay plenty. The problem is that it is mostly stolen by people like Warren.

          And why could it “never cover all improved roads”? That makes no sense. It could cover whatever they wanted to set the tax for.

          The problem is that we don’t build roads and do other essential functions with the taxes we pay. The problem is not that lazy entitled tax payers don’t pay enough taxes.

          1. yup…revenues that in name sound like dedicated funding streams wind up in the general fund. NC had the Highway Trust Fund which turned out to be the trough of troughs for the connected. It’s also why the state is seriously considering the inspired notion of toll booths in interstates.

            1. If GA applied all the damn DNR license fees to their mission half the damn state would be public hunting and fishing preserves with a well-paid workforce to maintain it all.

    2. then they should be paying the direct cost to use them

      No, only those making more than $250K/yr should be paying. For everything.

      Geez…

    3. “What? You can’t charge for the use of roads and bridges! They need to be open to all of the public!”

      “Guys, I don’t think there’s a good justification for taxes.”

      “What!? But you are obligated to pay your fair share for roads and bridges!”

  9. Why shouldn’t hillrods be paying for their own internet?

  10. China wouldn’t have thought twice about building the Keystone XL. Why does Elizabeth Warren hate Obama?

    1. They wouldn’t think twice about the environmental impact either. If she wants to compare what they are acheiving compared to us, maybe she should take into account the amount of regulation they have as compared to us. Surely the squaw is taking that into account?

      I can just see us widening some major highway and expanding it to new routes somewhere else when environmentalists discover that the new traffic pattern might disturb some fucking ducks. Yeah, we are really going to get a bunch of infrastruture built, just like China is doing.

      1. Ducks?

        Enviro’s stop projects in CA for disturbing microscopic shrimps.

      2. When the government owns everything it is amazing how regulations get out of the way.

    2. Why is road-building an infrastructure project, but pipeline building is not?

  11. China may be communist in name, but its leaders are nowhere near as purist communist as this woman is. If she were in China I doubt she would get very far in the CCP, she would be seen as too ideological, and having no numeracy skills in China is not a benefit either.

    1. We should send her to North Korea*. THAT, would be worth the expenditure of taxpayer money.

      *One-way only. And burn her passport right in front of her. Or, send her to Mars.

      1. Hell no, no sending her to Mars. There is a planet that is not yet fucked up by retarded leftists. Mars still has promise. Stick with NK, and I am all for it.

    2. They are raging capitalists. That is how they have accomplished what they have. There is too much cronyism going on, but still, it is capitalism that build the China that you see today. And of course, a lot of the country is still impoverished and very rural.

      1. Capitalists? Fascists, maybe.

      2. And there’s also empty cities and roads that nobody uses. The Chinese have a problem in that they have 100s of millions of people they have to employ so they are basically using make work projects that produce massive “infrastructure” that nobody uses. What makes this more bizarre/ironic is that Krugman was actually predicting the Chinese economy was false growth 10+ years ago.

        http://www.businessinsider.com…..11-11?op=1

        It’s like looking at “Life After People.”

        1. Been there. Big open highway with no traffic – peasant women hand sweeping the shoulders.

    3. If she were in China I doubt she would get very far in the CCP, she would be seen as too ideological, and having no numeracy skills in China is not a benefit either.

      All true, and it speaks volumes that being a mid level party hacks in China requires more intellectual rigor that being an esteemed professor at Harvard.

  12. Warren has been in the news lately as an inspiration for President Obama’s “you didn’t build that” comment. And Mr. Obama himself has been making somewhat similar points about infrastructure on the campaign trail.

    Warren must’ve given him head… I mean, a head’s UP. I mean… I mean…

  13. Here’s a money-making idea for somebody with more ambition than I have (i.e. anybody): produce and sell tee shirts with the slogan, “I’m glad I didn’t go to Harvard.”

  14. “Our competitors are putting people to work, building a future. China invests 9% of its GDP in infrastructure. America? We’re at just 2.4%. We can do better.”

    I’m sure she’ll encourage her own spawn to get right out there and pick up a shovel.

    1. “We can do better.”

      She is right, we can do better when we get rid of every single person in government who thinks the way that she does. The only way that she thinks in the same way as the Chinese is towards banning stuff and oppressing people. As far as getting stuff done, no way, we will never get anything significant accomplished while having a majority of retarded leftists in power at the federal level.

  15. They focus on infrastructure because it’s one of the very few things the government can do that doesn’t totally suck, and they use that as leverage to get all the other bullshit through.

    Take the stimulus, for example. If instead of pissing it away, they had put the bulk of the money into infrastructure, at least we would have something to show for it, something of value. It wouldn’t be the most efficient use of the money, not by a long shot. But it’s better to borrow $100 and build something worth $90 than to gamble it all away. Hell, if they had put the money into the energy sector (the functioning one, not the pie in the ski solar crap) then it might have done better than that.

    1. I agree. Anything is better than just stealing it, which is what progressives always do.

    2. I still like the idea that they would have divided the 800 billion betweeen every man, woman, and child in the country. I forget the math, but I think that came out around 30k per individual. I think that would have stimulated the economy a little more than what actually happened.

      1. You’re as bad at math as she is.

        1. No, I didn’t do the math, as I just stated, I just couldn’t remember what I read somewhere. Since one billion is a thousand million and there is around 350 million people in the us and the stimulus was 800 billions, the number would be closer to 2+ thousand per person. But still, that is a lot of money. Iwould have been very happy with my 2k share instead of the government pissing it all down a rat hole.

    3. Wow, it’s almost like there was another party who demanded that stimulus funds be spent on tax cuts.

      1. How the fuck do you spend something on tax cuts? That doesn’t make any sense at all.

        1. It’s a Zen Koan. You’re just not enlightened enough to comprehend it.

          Mu.

        2. Only if you think semantics can make arithmetic stop working.

          1. T o n y|7.30.12 @ 5:42PM|#
            “Only if you think semantics can make arithmetic stop working.”

            Once more, ’nuff said.

        3. When reality makes you incredulous, it must be reality’s fault.

          1. The Derider|7.30.12 @ 5:49PM|#
            “When reality makes you incredulous, it must be reality’s fault.”

            You and reality are not well acquainted.

            1. ’nuff said

              1. “You and reality are not well acquainted.”
                The Derider|7.30.12 @ 7:01PM|#
                “’nuff said”

                So you agree?

                1. ’nuff said

      2. The Derider|7.30.12 @ 5:31PM|#
        …”stimulus funds be spent on tax cuts.”

        ‘Nuff said.

        1. If ’nuff said means you’re going to stop posting, I agree.

          1. No it means you’re a moron.

            1. ’nuff said

              1. lol, glad you agreed with Cytoxic that you are a moron.

                1. He’s conceding all over the place.

    4. They tried, but look at their track record on “shovel-ready” jobs. Even so, any kind of stimulus is going to have crappy long-term effects since labor and capital are going to get reallocated to ride the money train, and then when the stimulus ends, they’ll be useless. A stimulus is just a government-designed bubble.

    5. If roads and bridges are so wonderful, surely they can see their way clear to cutting, say, the Department of Education to fund them, right? Or maybe Commderce, Energy, HHS, HUD…why no prioritizing?

      1. Heh heh. I’ve made a similar comment to an advocate of infrastructure spending. Basically, I indicated I’d support a massive infrastructure program, if it included a repeal of Davis-Bacon; exemption from any set-asides (strictly low-cost bidder), environmental regulation or review; and all projects were strictly proven as cost effective beforehand with audited financials. I was bluffing. I still would have been opposed. But, that did shut him up pretty quick.

        1. A similar tack that I’ve taken with leftards is to just state that infrastructure should be done as ‘economically’ as possible, which often gets them to admit that but it’s also about stimulus and ‘saving money’ defeats the stimulative effect. Or as John says, it’s all about stealing money for them. Actually building anything is incidental to that.

  16. One of the ironies here is that some of the lawyers opposing big proposed American infrastructure projects[…] were trained by Warren and her colleagues at Harvard Law School[…]

    Oh, don;t worry – they will all do an about-face as quickly as you can say “expediency.”

  17. Apologies to Ken Shultz, but this woman is an open, oozing herpes-sore on a cunt, not even the cunt itself.

    1. And not even a real cunt; the roast beef cunt of a Manila transvestite.

      1. No Manila transvestite ever tried to take any money they didn’t earn. So don’t compare them to Warren.

        1. You’re quite right; I’m maligning hard-working Manila man-whores by comparing them to an open would-be thief and dictator.

        2. No Manila transvestite ever tried to take any money they didn’t earn.

          Whoa, whoa, whoa…there are plenty of pickpockets in those crowded “buy-me-a-drink” bars.

          Jus’ sayin’

    2. Use “Kant.” As Warty enjoys pointing out to passing nuns, it’s pronounced “Kunt.”

      1. It really is pronounced “cunt” in German. Speaking of the topic of words sounding rude in other languages, I once was told that Ford marketed a car in South America that in the slang there meant “small penis”.

        1. This is why they called David Hume the laughing philosopher.

          1. Emmanuelle Kant In Space

            The series starred Krista Allen as Emmanuelle Kant, a hedonistic young sex philosopher who finds herself teaching the ways of sexuality to a group of sex-aliens who land on sex-Earth, and Sherman Hensley as an alien space sex-captain. The story follows a sex-pirate crew that finds Emmanuelle sex-adrift in a space-sex module, who is sex-taken out of suspended sex-animation and sex-brought to sex-Earth.

            As is the case with the other Emmanuelle Kant films, Emmanuelle Kant in Space contains much sex-nudity and sex-sexual content. Today, the various episodes of Emmanuelle in Space are generally available sexily edited together into sexy feature-length productions on Pirate Bay and occasionally show up on sex-broadcasters such as Philosomax and on sexy cable networks outside the U.S.

            1. How did they pronounce Kant?

              1. The proper German way, of course. Your pop culture illiteracy is astounding.

                1. Indeed.

                  So, this was porn with a message? Or just porn?

                  1. All porn has a message. It is aspirational for all women who long to hear the most romantic words a man can ever utter: “Roll over, I want to finish in your mouth.”

                    1. There’s an old joke this reminds me of:

                      You know how they do foreplay in the South? “You awake?”

            2. Ahh, Krista Allen. Her 5 seconds in “Liar, Liar” were the best part of the movie.

        2. The Thai word for “fuck” is pronounced “yet”. The Thai word for “cunt” is pronounced “he”.

          1. The Thai word for Phuket is Phuket.

        3. The “a” is most certainly not pronounced as (english) short “u” in German. Mann is not proonunced “mun.” “Kannst du” is not pronounced “cunst doo.” Wasser is not pronounced “vuhsser.” Hamburg is not pronounced “humboorg.” And “Kant” is not pronounced as “cunt,” unless you have a severe accent or speech impediment, anymore than Norfolk is pronounced is pronounced in American as Nohr-folk. It’s Nor-fuck, dammit!

          1. Well, Warty? Care to explain this challenge?

  18. To answer the question posed in the headline: because she’s a Communist. Or, at least (to avoid any No True Chinaman debates), the sort of person that would be ideologically at home in China’s Communist Party.

    1. I’d say the ChiCom government would be too right-wingy for her tastes.

    1. Dukeshire walked around the side of the house and asked if she could have one, the witness told investigators. When Mazur refused, he said, she opened fire

      Not that it’s an excuse for shooting him, but I’m betting he said a little more than just “no” to set her off.

      1. “Do me a favor,” she said, “could say ‘Sea Hag’ instead of ‘ma’am?’ It’s just a thing, I worked so hard to get that title, so I’d appreciate it, yes, thank you.”

    2. OT? Well, she does pose a striking resemblace to Warren.

    3. From the same page as the pic of the “Sea Hag”:

      MORE COVERAGE FROM YAHOO! NEWS
      About-face: Former climate change skeptic now says global warming is man-made

  19. It’s pretty bad when Scott Brown is head over heels better than the alternative.

    I guess I know who I’ll be voting for *sigh*

  20. We need to build more infrastructure like stadiums for that TRIUMPH IN CAPITALISM, the Olympics, right Ira?

    1. You just can’t stand it that there is such a thing as “private enterprise” in this country, can you?

      1. Hey… could Elizabeth Warren be “The Derider” in internet disguise?

        1. I like to think of Liz as “Red Injun”. Teh DerriDURRHURRDURR? is more like Choney’s retarded cousin, the one with the extremely limited vocabulary and life options…

          1. Speaking of injuns, I was thinking how great an Elim?White Indian debate would be.

            1. Elim/White Indian

    2. Yeah, dumbass – so many people round these these parts shillin’ for mo’ STADIA for their friends who own professional SPORTS TEAMS, like the Mittster?

      You run along and rejoin Choney in the Special Needs section.

      1. In all fairness Ira Stoll did write this.

        1. PAY NO ATTENTION TO THAT MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN!

          lulz – good times, that one!

          A DIFFERENT DAY, A DIFFERENT SUBJECT! I AM LIZ, THE GREAT AND POWERFUL…!!!

          1. Sorry. Next time I’ll be sure to tow the lion. 🙂

    3. Re: The Derider,

      We need to build more infrastructure like stadiums for that TRIUMPH IN CAPITALISM, the Olympics, right Ira?

      You need to get out more, son. There’s a sun shining outside as I write this and you struggle to read while you move your lips.

      1. I see that you and Ira Stoll have a special connection, and I’ll stop pointing out when his most recent article directly contradicts the one preceding it.

        I wouldn’t want to hurt your feelings.

        1. Re: The Derider,

          I see that you and Ira Stoll have a special connection, and I’ll stop pointing out when his most recent article directly contradicts the one preceding it.

          Again, you should get out more, son. Even if one subscribes to the notion that stadiums are good for the economy (I don’t), that does not mean that spending $1 Trillion on “infrastructure” like the Native American Warren suggests is good.

          1. She suggests “The US can do better” not “I want to spend precisely the same percentage of our GDP on infrastructure as those godless commie chinese”

            1. “can do better” how, if not in spending?

            2. Re: The Derider,

              She suggests “The US can do better” not “I want to spend precisely the same percentage of our GDP on infrastructure as those godless commie chinese”

              Thre must be something wrong with you. She is saying: “China invests 9% of its GDP in infrastructure. America? We’re at just 2.4%. We can do better.

              She is providing the baseline for the discussion: The 9% of GDP in infrastructure spending from China. What else should one gather from the sentence “we can do better” that follows the Chinese percentage of GDP in infrastructure spending, if not that “we” should spend closer to that mark? If she didn’t mean that, then why bring China’s spending up?

              1. Yes, she’s advocating for more infrastructure spending.

                No, she’s not advocating that we spend 9% of GDP on infrastructure.

                So saying Elizabeth Warren suggests we spend a trillion dollars on infrastructure is simply not true.

                1. RTFA or just the relevant sentance dipshit.

                  1. Please quote it for me. I think you’re the one who didn’t RTFA.

                2. Re: The Derider,

                  Yes, she’s advocating for more infrastructure spending.

                  No, she’s not advocating that we spend 9% of GDP on infrastructure.

                  And you know this because you can read minds? Again, the ONLY information anybody can have about what she wants is the mention of China’s 9% spending in infrastructure, followed by the sentence “we can do better.”

                  So saying Elizabeth Warren suggests we spend a trillion dollars on infrastructure is simply not true.

                  You can’t know that. Not by what the add is suggesting.

                  1. Actually, there’s a lot more information that we could use. You’re just incredibly lazy.

                    Here’s her campaign website: China spends 9% of its GDP on infrastructure, and Europe spends about 5% of GDP, while the US is spending 2.4% and looking for cuts. This is no way to build a competitive future. We could be making improvements right now – creating good jobs and investing in our future.

                    By your logic, Elizabeth Warren wants the US to spend both 9% and 5% of our GDP on infrastructure. Clearly the woman is a schizophrenic!

                    Either that or you’re making unfounded assumptions.

                    1. Re: The Derider,

                      Here’s her campaign website[…]

                      Are you nuts? It’s a serious question: Is there something wrong with you?

                      The issue is not what the campaign website says, it is what her ADD, the one they spent a FORTUNE on, says.

                      Here’s her campaign website: China spends 9% of its GDP on infrastructure, and Europe spends about 5% of GDP[…]

                      Europe is not a country. Not only are you dishonest, you are gullible to the extreme.

                    2. 1) Ad, ADD is a verb.
                      2) The AD does not state that Warren wants to spend 9% of GDP on infrastructure.
                      3) Yes, Europe is a collection of countries. That makes no difference whatsoever because we’re talking about Infrastructure/GDP.
                      4) You are making unfounded assumptions about the AD, and her campaign website makes that abundantly clear.
                      5)’nuff said

                    3. The Derider|7.30.12 @ 7:47PM|#
                      “1) Ad, ADD is a verb.”
                      Oh, look! The Idiot can find spelling errors! The Idiot is proud!

                      “2) The AD does not state that Warren wants to spend 9% of GDP on infrastructure.”
                      The ad repeats the same stupid comment, idiot. Do you have evidence that it intends otherwise?

                      “3) Yes, Europe is a collection of countries. That makes no difference whatsoever because we’re talking about Infrastructure/GDP.”
                      So we should bundle ChiCom and Vietnam? Or France and Russia?
                      How much is cherry picking paying these days?
                      “4) You are making unfounded assumptions about the AD, and her campaign website makes that abundantly clear.”
                      You are making claims you can’t support.

                      “5)’nuff said”
                      I’m glad you like my comment, but it only works when an idiot sticks foot in mouth. Idiot.

                    4. 2) How can I prove a negative. The ad doesn’t say “The US should spend 9% of GDP on infrastructure”. I can’t know what Elizabeth warrens internal thoughts are, and NEITHER CAN YOU.

                      3) You’re losing the thread of our discussion here. Warren says that “Europe spends 5%” of GDP on Infrastructure. Does this mean that Warren wants the US to spend 5% of GDP on infrastructure? How can she want us to spend both 5% and 9% of our GDP on infrastructure? Your interpretation must be wrong.
                      5. ’nuff said

                    5. The Derider|7.30.12 @ 8:10PM|#
                      “2) How can I prove a negative. The ad doesn’t say “The US should spend 9% of GDP on infrastructure”. I can’t know what Elizabeth warrens internal thoughts are, and NEITHER CAN YOU”

                      You claim she means something else; let’s hear it, Idiot.

                    6. The Derider|7.30.12 @ 8:10PM|#
                      “3) You’re losing the thread of our discussion here.”

                      You’ve been ducking and weaving so I doubt you’ve ever had a clue as to the ‘thread.

                    7. The Derider|7.30.12 @ 8:10PM|#
                      “Warren says that “Europe spends 5%” of GDP on Infrastructure. Does this mean that Warren wants the US to spend 5% of GDP on infrastructure?”
                      Hard telling, since Europe isn’t a country.

                      “How can she want us to spend both 5% and 9% of our GDP on infrastructure?”
                      Because she’s as stupid as you.

                      “Your interpretation must be wrong.”
                      You’ve yet to show it.

                      “5. ’nuff said”
                      ‘Nuff said (Note the cap, Idiot)

                    8. How is this ‘competitive?’

                3. The Derider|7.30.12 @ 6:22PM|#
                  “Yes, she’s advocating for more infrastructure spending.
                  No, she’s not advocating that we spend 9% of GDP on infrastructure.”

                  Hmm. Yep, The Idiot *knows* what fauxcohantas thinks.

                  1. Note the word “advocating”, which means publicly defending. Mind reading is irrelevant. There is no evidence whatsoever of her advocating spending 9% of GDP on infrastructure.

                    1. The Derider|7.30.12 @ 8:01PM|#
                      “There is no evidence whatsoever of her advocating spending 9% of GDP on infrastructure.”

                      Other than the fact that she uses it as a comparison, right, Idiot?
                      Anyone other than some brain-dead idiot would presume she’s suggesting that’s the goal.
                      But as a brain-dead idiot, you’d rather invent some theory that she really didn’t mean that, right Idiot?

                    2. Listen, on her campaign website she says “China spends 9% on infrastructure, and Europe spends 5%” and compares those values to the US’s 2.4%. Does this mean that she advocates both 9% and 5% infrastructure spending?

                      Obviously, no. A comparison is not advocacy. She clearly wants more infrastructure spending. How much? Unclear.

                    3. ’nuff said

                    4. The Derider|7.30.12 @ 8:12PM|#
                      “’nuff said”
                      ‘Nuff said.
                      (note the cap, Idiot)

                    5. The Derider|7.30.12 @ 8:12PM|#
                      “Listen, on her campaign website she says “China spends 9% on infrastructure, and Europe spends 5%” and compares those values to the US’s 2.4%. Does this mean that she advocates both 9% and 5% infrastructure spending?”
                      Anyone who isn’t a brain-dead Idiot would presume that:
                      1) Europe isn’t a country, so Fauxcohantas isn’t real bright
                      2) That 5% would be a floor (in her worthless opinion) and 9% would be the goal.

                      “Obviously, no. A comparison is not advocacy. She clearly wants more infrastructure spending. How much? Unclear.”
                      So 2.5% would be just fine?

                    6. I have no idea what Elizabeth Warren’s optimal infrastructure investment rate is.

                      NEITHER DO YOU.

                    7. The Derider|7.30.12 @ 9:29PM|#
                      “NEITHER DO YOU.”

                      Oh, oh, look! All CAPS! Well, I guess that decides the issue!

                    8. She could continue to run the same ad with the same complaint until we spend 9% on infrastructure.

                      Since she’s a woman, the only safe course of action is to assume that she’ll keep repeating her complaint up to and through the point at which the content of the complaint ceases to be logically possible to argue.

                    9. She could, but she hasn’t. Until she does, your conclusion is faulty.

                      Also, HAHA stupid women! Wait why do we keep losing elections guys? Bros? Dudes?

                    10. Holy hell you may be the most mendacious audacious shit-seller in the world. You’ve even convinced yourself.

                      When you quote a Chinese stat and then say ‘we can do better’, it’s implied that the Chinese are doing better. Be clear or ready for ridicule.

                    11. *rubs eyes*

                      Joe?

                    12. Well, it doesn’t take a genius to surmise or deduce she’d want it between Europe and China. Say, 7%? Given her uber-leftist drivel this is reasonable, n’est pas?

  21. Let’s build broadband lines into rural communities and improve our wireless networks

    IANA Telecommunication expert, but I think there are some redundancies in there. Which means some of that infrastructure is unnecessary.

    Oh, I see. It’s not about actual usefulness. Kinda like Lizzie herself.

  22. “We’ve got bridges and roads in need of repair and thousands of people in need of work. Why aren’t we rebuilding America?” asks Warren, a professor at Harvard Law School who served in the Obama administration. “Our competitors are putting people to work, building a future. China invests 9% of its GDP in infrastructure. America? We’re at just 2.4%. We can do better.”

    That’s because China is a developing country you nit-wit. Our economy and infrastructure are already developed.

    Of course, Warren probably thinks devolving America into a 2nd World country so we can employ people to re-develop it into a 1st World country is sound economic policy.

    1. Infrastructure doesn’t stay “developed” forever. Technology changes and population growth ensure that infrastructure depreciates in value, even if it is fully maintained (which ours has not been).

      1. depreciates in value

        So what?

        Unless it’s private “infrastructure”, which is exactly not what Fauxcohontus was talking about.

        Try again, dumbass.

        1. So you could accurately describe England’s infrastructure in 1870 as “developed”, but no one would argue that the same level of infrastructure development was “developed” today. Technological changes reduce the value of incompatible infrastructure.

          Dumbass.

          1. All the more reason to let the private sector build it dipshit.

            1. I’m responding to someone who said “That’s because China is a developing country you nit-wit. Our economy and infrastructure are already developed”

              And I explained why this is wrong, Dipshit.

              1. The Derider|7.30.12 @ 6:52PM|#
                “And I explained why this is wrong, Dipshit.”

                Idiot, you need to learn what an “explanation” is.
                Specious claims it ain’t.

                1. Which claim is specious? I’m honestly surprised you know that word, so prove that you can use it correctly.

                  1. The Derider|7.30.12 @ 8:14PM|#
                    “Which claim is specious?”

                    Most all of them.

                    1. ’nuff said

                    2. The Derider|7.30.12 @ 9:27PM|#
                      “’nuff said”

                      That doesn’t mean what you think it does, The Idiot.

      2. Re: The Derider,

        Infrastructure doesn’t stay “developed” forever.

        It still does not cost 9% of US GDP to expand it and/or maintain it. Warren is not talking about that, she’s talking about expropriation of wealth, “infrastructure” simply being the convenient excuse.

        1. Please show me where she suggests spending 9% of GDP on infrastructure.

          You’re making unfounded assumptions.

          1. Re: The Derider,

            Again with the obfuscation. That is what she SAID in her ADD – and don’t bring back the campaign website because it makes you look silly by not realizing that Europe is not a country.

            1. No, that’s not what she said in her ad!
              She said “America can do better”.

              When Ron Paul says “Government is too big” do you interpret that to mean “We should eliminate all government”?

              1. Re: The Derider,

                No, that’s not what she said in her ad!
                She said “America can do better”.

                Right after she said that China spends 9% of GDP in infrastructure.

                When Ron Paul says “Government is too big” do you interpret that to mean “We should eliminate all government”?

                No, because he has indicated the baseline for 30 years, D: Only that government that is allowed by the Constitution. Albeit for me, above NONE is too much when it comes to government.

                1. Right, so to interpret Ron Paul’s statements you look at multiple sources of data in order to eliminate spurious conclusions like “Ron Paul wants to eliminate all government”.

                  If you did the same for Elizabeth Warren, we wouldn’t be arguing about anything.

                  1. You are a tiresome, argumentative asshole.

                    1. Argumentative is one thing. Psychotically mendacious is another and that’s what the Derprider is.

    2. Another thing – geography. If nothing else, China’s fucking HUGE – add that to your point about where each country is in its develkopment, and there tend to be a lot MORE needs over a larger physical area in China.

      How many more bridges and dams and ROADZZZ!!1! do we NEED in the US? Probably not a whole lot more (if any). Yeah, some need work – budget for that (my state does), and shut the fuck up with the post-WWII “we need an autobahn and MOAR TVA!!!!!” bullshit.

      1. China is geographically smaller than the US. It’s certainly a lot more dense, however.

        1. China is not geographically smaller than the United States.

          Obscure Source here.

          1. What’s the size ranking these days? I assume Russia is still number one, with Canada second? Then China, the U.S., Australia, then, what, Brazil?

            1. Brazil before Australia, then India and Argentina.

          2. I checked the when I posted originally. Apparently the US is slightly larger when you consider territorial waters, but slightly smaller when you don’t.

            There’s not much difference in either case, so geographic size seems irrelevant in either case.

  23. “take half the savings from war”

    What does that even mean?

    1. It means that on the day Romney is sworn in Team D will magically become opposed to wars again, but will still use war spending as part of the baseline below which federal spending can never again go.

  24. Personally, I’d like to see every single government employee on road building duty, chained together if necessary, and yes, it’s necessary.

    1. I just got back from our great West, and saw lots of road building. Most was public(federal) funding [they had signs bragging about it in Montana] but the contractors were private. No matter whether it was private or Montana or Washington DOT, there seemed to be five guys standing around for every one doing something.

      1. they had signs bragging about it in Montana

        Those signs piss me off to no end. I’m going to pull over with a can of spray paint and change it to:

        We stole money from more populous states to get our roadz built.

        Fucking disgusts me.

  25. Why Elizabeth Warren Wants America to Be More Like Communist China

    You know, this question was never answered. I still don’t know why, although I suspect that the reason is because she’s an authoritarian jerk.

    1. Fuck you, that’s why.

  26. China’s military killed 2,000 students in the capitol square in 1989. In America we haven’t killed college students since 1970. This is unacceptable.

    Mao murdered about 40 million people during his communist revolution. The US only killed a few hundred British. This is embarrasing. We should kill all who oppose the Big Brother.

    China is a great example to follow, straight to 1984.

  27. Re: Tony,

    What you mean to say is that infrastructure is so obviously a good counterargument for the quasi-anarchic fairy tales you buy into that it must be turned into an obvious fallacy, with no explanation necessary.

    You mean like those anarchic fairy tales that ask not to throw tarmac ribbons over the ancestral lands of the Native Americans?

    Or sun-robbing panels over turtles?

    1. No, he’s talking about anarchist fairy tales like “taxes are slavery”

      1. Re: The Derider,

        No, he’s talking about anarchist fairy tales like “taxes are slavery”

        There’s no way to determine that from the thread of the discussion. There’s definitively something wrong with you.

        Besides, you have it wrong. Taxes are not slavery. Taxation is thievery, and that’s not fantasy, that is what it means when one takes property from someone through the use of violent force.

        1. Soh-shul Kon-tracked

          ’nuff said

          1. The Derider|7.30.12 @ 7:53PM|#
            “Soh-shul Kon-tracked”

            Brain-dead Idiot.
            ‘Nuff said.
            (BTW The Idiot, note the cap)

          2. Social Contract?

            Ha! And you talk about ‘fairy-tales’.

            1. You can leave whenever you want. If you stay, you agree to the premise of the contract.

              It’s not a fairy tale. It’s just inconvenient for those who don’t want to pay taxes.

              1. The Derider|7.30.12 @ 9:25PM|#
                “You can leave whenever you want. If you stay, you agree to the premise of the contract.
                It’s not a fairy tale. It’s just inconvenient for those who don’t want to pay taxes.”

                Idiot, you were asking for an example of “specious”? Well, thank you for just giving one.
                I’m sure your stupidity is such that you ‘bleeve’ making specious claims somehow represents ‘evidence’.
                It doesn’t and you haven’t a clue as to what a ‘social contract’ might actually mean, The Idiot.

              2. A certain dipshit doesn’t understand what a contract is.

  28. Oh wow. Did the Warren commercial run in Massachusetts after the Opening Ceremonies salute to the National Health Service? I wish I had seen that.

  29. I haven’t read the article in full yet, but % of GDP into infrastructure is totally flawed. If anything, we should be looking at % of tax revenue used for infrastructure.

    The North Koreans probably use damn near 100% of GDP for infrastructure. GDP doesn’t belong to Elizabeth Warren. GDP belongs to me. Tax revenue, on the other hand, once stolen taken acquired should be used mostly for Roadz! and not pet, democratic special projects not listed in enumerated powers.

    1. Actually the North Koreans follow the policy of Songun or “military first”, where spending for the military is prioritized.

      1. North Korean is run by Republicans?

        1. *Korea* Dammit, if only there was a proper commenting infrastructure in place then the market failure of my typos could finally be corrected.

        2. North Korean is run by Republicans?

          Nah, they’re obsessed with juche instead of our 1st president, JESUS!

      2. Well, I’m sure they do considering their people are starving while they have a massive nuclear program. Point being, when politicians believe that “the GDP” is “theirs”, we have a problem.

        Warren could have made a plausible argument if she’d have said that 85% of tax revenue in China is spent on infrastructure, where only 13% of tax revenue in the US is spent on same.(making numbers up)

        Unfortunately, that would look bad for Democrats who want to spend 90% of Tax Revenue AND GDP (one in the same, in their eyes) on healthcare.

  30. “Our competitors are putting people to work, building a future.”

    I cannot believe no one has yet asked who else put people to work, building a future.

    1. That’s just it, isn’t it. She wants to put people to work. Not make it so people can find jobs.

    2. Some future (and, yeah, I also posted this link up thread):

      http://www.businessinsider.com…..11-11?op=1

  31. Part of the problem with taking anything Warren says seriously, to the point that you respond with a serious analysis, is that it makes people start to think that maybe Liz Warren should be taken seriously.

    And she shouldn’t be.

    The threat is real. She’s a serious threat to the economy just like Obama has been. But her rationalizations and proposals aren’t real. She doesn’t take what she says seriously herself! And neither do her supporters.

    That’s a big part of what her supporters are all about. They don’t believe anything she says–they understand that she’ll say anything to get elected, and getting her elected is all they really care about…

    Caring more about power than ideas, that’s another reason why progressives are America’s most horrible people.

    1. Can’t the same be said about Team Red?

      1. Nope.

  32. This thread is a testament to the enfeebled nature of your false god Episiarch.

    1. Who dares take my name in vain? I have already dispensed with you, NutraSweet. When my modhood arrives tomorrow, it will not be ProL that I ban first. It will be Paul, just to show you guys that I am completely capricious. Then it will be you, NutraSweet.

      1. And then Paul again, for you are as cruel as you are mercurial.

        1. WELSHIEEEEEEEEEEEE

        2. Way to ruin it. Now he knows, and it won’t come as as much of a surprise.

          1. You are always a surprise.

      2. Nick, this is the guy I was talking about. Don’t ban him; just force him to comment under the name, “Lazy Susan.”

        1. After my incipient modhead arrives and I ban you, ProL, I think will allow you back to post, but only Real Genius quotes. Your new handle will be “Kent”.

          1. I defy you. I’ll post only in Repo Man quotes under the name, “Miller.”

            Where is your god now, Lazy Susan?

            1. Taunt me while you still can, ProL.

              “This? This is ice. This is what happens to water when it gets too cold. This? This is Kent ProL. This is what happens to people when they get too sexually frustrated.”

              1. There’s fuckin’ room to move as a fry cook. I could be manager in two years. King. God.

          2. After my incipient modhead arrives…

            So is this something akin to testicles dropping, or what? Because “modhead” sounds like a childish nickname for something genitalia-related.

            1. I think it’s something they deliver to you. Like a pizza.

            2. I figured it would take you about 15 minutes to get me to decide to ban you next, JJ. I see I was right.

              I’ll also allow you back to post, but only quotes from the Ghost of Christmas Past From the Future, and your handle shall be “Goblox “. Or maybe “Turkatron”.

              1. I can’t get the character I most resemble in real life – Hand Bananna?

                1. If I was going to do the one you most resemble, JJ, it would be MC Pee Pants.

                  Just be thankful it’s not Willie Nelson.

                  “Now remember: you have no regard for human life, especially women, because they have the organs that you wish that you had! So you want to make a suit from them.”

                  1. Don’t make me angry Episiarch, or I’ll do a number on you!

                    *brandishes electric shaver*

                    *is then shot by police for brandishing a weapon and making them feel threatened*

              2. Also,

                “What does a Mod need with a starship?”

                1. You doubt me?

                  1. I doubt any mod who inflicts inane movie quotes for his own pleasure.

                    1. What’s the matter? Don’t you like this face? I have so many, but this one suits you best.

                      (changes face to Squiggy from Laverne and Shirley)

                    2. Please, Captain. Not in front of the Defazios.

      3. It will be Paul, just to show you guys

        Wouldn’t you rather keep me here, as a sort of cautionary tale?

        1. Fine, Paul, I’ll ban sage instead. That was good, though, the groveling. I like that.

          1. I’m not groveling. I just know my limitations.

  33. While I am no fan of Warren or Democrats in general, I must observe that you could have used this same approach in criticizing the Space Race of the 1960s: “Ivan is sending cosmonauts to the moon! We need to be more like the USSR!” No. Whatever Libertarians think of a government-run space program, the idea was that going to the moon (or controlling space) was important. We needed to do it first and better than our rivals. Warren is upholding the long-held “liberal/progressive” belief that infrastructure is important, that government spending is central to infrastructure development, and that if we fall behind China or others in this regard, we will be at a severe disadvantage. This is not at all the same as saying that we need to turn into some kind of copy of Communist (actually, Mercantilist masquerading as Communist) China. To imply such a thing is inaccurate at best and intellectually dishonest at worst. If you think she really feels that way, however, feel free to offer better quotes as evidence.

    1. “Mr. President, we must not allow a mineshaft gap!”

      1. Had the government spent a shitload of money developing self-sustaining underground habitats, we’d be a lot closer to a moon/mars colony than we are right now.

        1. HAHAHAHAHAHA

    2. From the point where the private sector starts sending men into orbit, how long before they reach the Moon, Mars? I bet it’s within a decade and maybe even less.

      1. And once they get there, just who’s going to regulate the moon? Mars? A private company? I don’t think so.

        1. Me. All these worlds are yours, except for the ones you land on. Those are owned by Pro Libertate, who bought the rights to the Sol System from a commercial property company out of Sirius.

        2. It’ll be just like Deadwood, with people heading there to make their fortunes while people like FoE fill in the Al Sweargen role and provide drinks and tail.

          1. I prefer to be what’s his face from The Fountainhead.

            1. TOTAL RECALL

      2. I’d take that bet in a heartbeat.

        A private manned mission to mars in 10 years? No way, Jose.

      3. Why would a private company go to the moon or mars? Tourism? Unobtainium?

        Gotta be profit.

        1. For all that profitable basic research, duh!

          1. The Derider|7.30.12 @ 7:54PM|#
            “For all that profitable basic research, duh!”

            And you claim a degree in Econ?

            1. I do, and since you can’t patent fundamental research, it’s not often profitable to conduct.

              Market failure — non-excludability.

              1. The Derider|7.30.12 @ 8:16PM|#
                “I do, and since you can’t patent fundamental research, it’s not often profitable to conduct.
                Market failure — non-excludability.”

                Idiot, please tell that to the guys at Wham-O toys.
                Dunno if they had degrees, but they were ‘way smarter than The Idiot.

                1. Goddamnit, Wham-0 toys are PATENTED because they embody APPLIED research not FUNDAMENTAL research.

                  You can patent a Frisbee-its a physical object. You can’t patent Quantum Theory, because it’s not.

                  1. The Derider|7.30.12 @ 9:21PM|#
                    “Goddamnit, Wham-0 toys are PATENTED because they embody APPLIED research not FUNDAMENTAL research.”

                    Are you addicted to lies? And stupidity?
                    Check, oh, Hula Hoops. And frisbees.

                    1. Hula Hoops and Frisbees were patented.

                      The theory of relativity wasn’t.

                      You can patent things like Frisbees and Hula Hoops, but not conceptual, foundational research like the theory of relativity.

                      I feel like you’re making me dumber by osmosis.

                    2. The Derider|7.30.12 @ 9:52PM|#
                      “Hula Hoops and Frisbees were patented.”
                      Yes, the names were. But an Idiot would presume that to be a patent, right The Idiot?

                      “I feel like you’re making me dumber by osmosis.”
                      Doubt it’s possible to ‘make you dumber’

                    3. Oh, and:
                      The Derider|7.30.12 @ 9:52PM|#
                      “The theory of relativity wasn’t [patented].”

                      And?
                      Do you suggest that Einstein didn’t profit by the work?
                      What is your point?

              2. It’s not profitable to give shit away to poor people either, but charity exist. Sure, donation-backed science might be smaller, but who’s to say that government-backed science is worth what it costs?

                1. I’m saying the profit motive is what brings the efficiency and the will to excel. Without it, you may as well have the government do it, except I wouldn’t need to pay for such a boondoggle, which would be a big plus.

                  1. I don’t have some need for government scientists to be doing theoretical research at the Ministry of Mind, or something.

                    Offering bounties (like the X prize) would incentivise the private sector to produce research and prototypes that have uncontained positive benefits.

                    1. The Derider|7.30.12 @ 10:00PM|#
                      “I don’t have some need for government scientists to be doing theoretical research at the Ministry of Mind, or something.”
                      You seem to have spent quite a it of time arguing otherwise

                      “Offering bounties (like the X prize) would incentivise the private sector to produce research and prototypes that have uncontained positive benefits.”
                      Broken clocks. Try for two times.

                2. Me and a bunch of economists.

                  1. The Derider|7.30.12 @ 9:50PM|#
                    “Me and a bunch of economists.”

                    You and other idiots graduated from Wiki U?
                    Or are you referring to, oh Krugman who hasn’t hit a single in the last 10 years?

                    1. No, like the 95% of economists who aren’t Marxists or Austrians. Full disclosure: that group does include Krugman.

                    2. The Derider|7.30.12 @ 10:01PM|#
                      “No, like the 95% of economists who aren’t Marxists or Austrians. Full disclosure: that group does include Krugman.”

                      They all agree you’re an idiot?

                    3. This is the group of idiots that can’t forecast worth a crap right?

    3. Re: James Anderson Merritt,

      I must observe that you could have used this same approach in criticizing the Space Race of the 1960s

      Who said that the space race is free from criticism? It was a huge waste of resources meant only to win a dick-sizing contest with the Russkies, nothing more.

      1. But without it, we wouldn’t have some pointless accomplishment to compare other relative lack of accomplishment to.

        Russians never have had the ease or pleasure of saying, “You’re telling me we can send a man to the moon, but we can’t [insert something stupid]!”

        1. We should’ve claimed the Moon and started selling off parts of it to the highest private bidders. That would’ve made the whole thing worth it, economically.

          1. What, and price out all the lunar homesteaders?

            1. The Derider|7.30.12 @ 7:11PM|#
              “What, and price out all the lunar homesteaders?”

              No, The Idiot. Selling it to the highest bidder would reserve it for lunar homesteaders.
              But the Econ degree from Wiki didn’t cover that, did it?

              1. Did you honestly think that was a serious response?

                And selling to the highest bidder would likely reserve it for conglomerated mining corporations. They might keep the mineral rights and sell the right to homestead to individuals– but that’s not what you’re talking about.

                1. The Derider|7.30.12 @ 9:20PM|#
                  “Did you honestly think that was a serious response?”

                  Yes, The Idiot.

      2. The entire cold war was a huge waste of resources, but at the point that you’re fighting it, winning a dick-sizing contest can have actual benefits.

        1. …at the point…dick-sizing contest…

          I see what you did there.

        2. Re: The Derider,

          winning a dick-sizing contest can have actual benefits.

          For the mediocre who can only feel accomplishment through the notion of national “greatness,” maybe. For those of us who do not subscribe to such mysticism, it was a total waste of resources.

          1. I mean that part of winning the cold war was winning the dick-sizing contest. The war was, in part, about showing that capitalism was better than communism.

            If you don’t think winning the cold war was important, I agree that there would be no benefit to winning a dick-sizing contest.

            1. Re: The Derider,

              If you don’t think winning the cold war was important, I agree that there would be no benefit to winning a dick-sizing contest.

              The result of “winning” it was bigger government and bigger military budgets. It’s not accurate to say that the US “won” the Cold War; more accurate to say that the US simply did not lose first.

              1. Was not losing first a good thing? Insofar as it was, winning the dick sizing contest was a good thing, too.

              2. sophistry steeped in reverse american exceptionalism.

                i mean, seriously ..lol

                what utter rubbish

                1. Ironically, calling an argument “sophistry” without explaining why is, itself, sophistry.

                  ’nuff said

                  1. The Derider|7.30.12 @ 9:47PM|#
                    “Ironically, calling an argument “sophistry” without explaining why is, itself, sophistry.”
                    No irony involved, The Idiot. Simply calling your bullshit, bullshit.

                    “’nuff said”
                    I’m honored you find my comment valuable. Unfortunately, you use it inappropriately and without proper capitalization.
                    But what else is to be expected from The Idiot?

                    1. instead of being able to admit “we won” (which reverse american exceptionalists hate doing.), he says “we did not lose first”. if that’s not sophistry, nothing is.

                      we won. period

                      intelligent people can argue “was it worth the cost”, “are we better off”, bla bla bla

                      but to argue that it was not a win, but was an example of “not losing first” is an example of using more words to say less, to try to sound profound, when instead you just sound like a pompous fool, afraid to say anything positive about amerikkkka lest you lose your reflexive reverse american exceptionalism cred.

      3. Well, sort of. Largely it was a weapons race. We and the Soviets were both trying to tell everyone that they had better damned well leard to obey OUR missles.

        1. I agree to a point, but Vietnam (Korea, Afghanistan…) wasn’t about missiles, it was about free markets vs. communism.

      4. The point of my comment was not to say that the space program was beyond criticism. I was there; I saw the criticism and, once I got older, learned to appreciate and even agree with much of it. My point was to say that credible criticism of the time was never in the form of such derision as “Comrade Kennedy wants us to be Russians, now,” which is the kind of rhetoric we see being used against Warren.

    4. Somehow I don’t think Americans will get worked up about a “roads and bridges gap” with the Chinese, the way we did over the “missile gap” JFK used to help get himself elected.

  34. “but we sure do get to vote on the president and senators.”

    The latter only since the 17th Amendment. The former, in formal Constitutional terms, never. The States did an end-run-around the Constitution to establish that illusion for us…

    1. Every time I see a poll with Obama and Romney neck and neck, I always wonder whether people realize that numerous presidents have been elected without wining a majority of the votes.

      They still teach this stuff in high schools, right?

      Bush Jr. without a majority of the popular vote. Clinton did it twice.

      http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781456.html

      We gots computers and interwebs now. Surely they can come up with something better than a sampling of popular opinion. The majority of popular votes has only made in difference in, what, two of the last five presidential elections?

      1. Fivethirtyeight.com

        1. The Derider|7.30.12 @ 7:57PM|#
          “Fivethirtyeight.com”

          Links. How do they work?

          1. Jesus, type it in your browser you lazy fuck.

            1. The Derider|7.30.12 @ 9:12PM|#
              “Jesus, type it in your browser you lazy fuck.”

              Jesus, you stupid shit, post a link. Oh, and stuff it up your butt.

      2. “They still teach this stuff in high schools, right?”

        Damned straight they still teach it in MY high school (where I teach now, I mean; though I doubt they still teach it where I learned about the Constitution, and for that I am sad).

  35. What I want to know is, what makes her think that the Chinese government is telling the truth? It would be a complete break with tradition, not only for Communist China, but for all Chinese governments throughout history.

    1. Oddly, people like her always believe them. It is like watching a movie about a George Orwell book with bad acting.

  36. I’m going to go ahead and risk the wrath of the anti-team TEAM: if you can, vote Brown. Warren is not a standard turd sandwioch/douchenozzle. She will NEVER STFU in power.

    1. No, I agree. She’s extra bad.

    2. As much as I dislike the GOP, I have to conclude voting for Brown is the right choice. It’s a historic opportunity to block a truly repulsive creature that is a disgusting admixture of ignorance and evil from coming to power.

      It’s like time traveling and finding yourself in a position to keep Nancy Pelosi from being born… you have to take it.

      1. As much as I dislike the GOP, I have to conclude voting for Brown is the right choice. It’s a historic opportunity to block a truly repulsive creature that is a disgusting admixture of ignorance and evil from coming to power.

        So, along the same lines, are you voting for Mittens? If not, how do you square that?

        1. If the Democrats came in third place after the Libertarians and Republicans it would be the slap in the face wake up call they have been needing for a long, long time.

          Second worse case scenario after an Obama landslide would be a Romney landslide. A Romney mandate. Think about that.

          Best case scenario for the health of the nation would be the Democratic party to die off completely with the True Believers committing mass suicide, and the GOP to be reduced to minority status as the newly stung faces of non committed democrats wake the fuck up and convert to libertarianism.

          1. No one loves Romney. He is not getting any ‘mandate’ and even if he did he wouldn’t know what to do with it.

            1. Well, there’s a good possibility of an anti-mandate for Obama, which would look like a landslide win for Not-Obama.

    3. Most of her money’s coming from Hollywood–in a Massachusetts senate race?!

      http://bostonherald.com/news/c…..fice_elite

      That says 60% of her cash is coming from outside Massachusetts.

      And that money coming from Hollywood isn’t about a senate race in Massachusetts. She has national ambitions. She wants to run for president. She already has a national campaign finance apparatus.

      Better that Princess Lie-awahta lose horribly now.

  37. Maybe Pricess Fauxcahontas wants us to build cities that nobody lives in.

    More here.

    1. Austrian Business Cycle ftw!

  38. “We’ve got bridges and roads in need of repair and thousands of people in need of work. Why aren’t we rebuilding America?” asks Warren, a professor at Harvard Law School who served in the Obama administration.

    Aren’t an increasing number of these unemployed people college grads with useless degrees? You think they are going to want to be construction workers? I highly doubt that many unemployed people today are capable of being competent construction workers.

    1. We’ve got bridges and roads in need of repair and thousands of people in need of work. Why aren’t we rebuilding America?

      Um…because our government spent all our money paying people not to work?

      1. And getting granny a hip replacement.

  39. She is so egregious. But she will probably be elected on this stupidity, just as Obama will find he wins even going down this absurdist path.

  40. The Derider|7.30.12 @ 5:39PM|#
    “Wiki:
    Market failure is a concept…”

    No wonder you’re an idiot! You think you can learn econ off of Wiki!

    1. I think I learned econ getting my degree in it.

      I think I can teach YOU econ with Wiki, however.

      1. OMG HE THINKS HIS DEGREE IS WORTH SOMETHING HOW ADORABLE

  41. The Derider|7.30.12 @ 7:50PM|#
    “I think I learned econ getting my degree in it.”

    Either Wiki confers degrees, or you should ask for a refund.

  42. Re: The Derider,
    Sooner or later, they all fall into the trap.

    Market failure is a concept within economic theory describing when the allocation of goods and services by a free market is not efficient.

    A concept it is. What it is NOT, is an economic concept.

    That is, there exists another conceivable outcome where a market participant may be made better-off without making someone else worse-off. (The outcome is not Pareto optimal.)

    The concept of “market failure” actually means something entirely different. It only means all outcomes that were not the result of perfect competition. You can perfectly have Pareto optimal results and still have market failure if the prices were not the result of perfect competition.

    If this seems “arbitrary”, you don’t understand economics.

    It IS arbitrary. The reason you can’t see this is because YOU don’t understand economics. “Perfect Competition” is some ideal model where products and people’s preferences are static, not dynamic. That is, humans act like robots and are susceptible to the slightest of price changes, never mind logistics, time, if it’s raining lawn chairs, etc. It’s nothing more than an intellectual exercise disguised as an “economic” concept, but no more useful than Black Box models.

    1. 1) Here’s Milton Friedman talking about Market Failures — http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BPnJHfiFWJw
      You don’t know shit about economics.
      2)A situation where a Pareto improvement exists but is not contracted is a market failure, period. Here’s an example of government addressing a market failure by assigning property rights https://reason.com/blog/2012/05…..youll-have

      1. The Derider|7.30.12 @ 9:10PM|#
        “1) Here’s Milton Friedman talking about Market Failures — http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BPnJHfiFWJw
        Do you read your own links (when you learn to post them)? That’s Fiedman explaining why supposed ‘market failures’ are far superior to the alternatives. Some ‘failures’, Idiot.

        “You don’t know shit about economics.”
        And your comic books didn’t teach you much, either, Idiot.

        “2)A situation where a Pareto improvement exists but is not contracted is a market failure, period. Here’s an example of government addressing a market failure by assigning property rights https://reason.com/blog/2012/05…..youll-have”
        Yes, it the government(s) got out of the way and allowed private ownership, things would be far better.
        What an Idiot!

      2. Er yeah. We’re all in favor of Coasian bargaining here. Who do you think you’re arguing with.

        1. HazelMeade|7.30.12 @ 10:26PM|#
          “Er yeah. We’re all in favor of Coasian bargaining here. Who do you think you’re arguing with.”

          Back-pedaling, grasping at straws, trying various CYA moves? Just plain stupidity in linking what The Idiot didn’t read?
          Probably “yes”.

  43. How can China afford to spend so much on infrastructure? One reason might be because they don’t spend most of their tax revenue on transfer payments and public pensions.

    1. PapayaSF|7.30.12 @ 8:23PM|#
      “How can China afford to spend so much on infrastructure? One reason might be because they don’t spend most of their tax revenue on transfer payments and public pensions.”

      More to that than you might imagine.
      Want medical care in China? Well you can get the free stuff, and it’s worth every penny. Or you can pay for it.
      Public pensions are reserved for the connected; all else, well, you’d better have a cheap place to live (move back to the sticks), or have the kids you snuck through the ‘one-kid’ policy.

    2. What I wonder is how anyone can seriously attribute China’s economic success to road construction.

      WTF? What sort of hole have you been living in the last 30 years?

      1. maybe it’s their roads recipe:

        99% asphalt
        1% smushed idealistic protester

        MIX thoroughly and spread…

  44. The really funny thing is that in any other context this cunt would argue that cars and planes are evil devices that are contributing to global warming.

    So she apparently wants to spend billions more on building roads and airports that she doesn’t want anyone to actually use.

    1. 1. Not a she
      2. There’s a reason why there aren’t any women here, dick
      3. Your mind reading needs some serious work. I do not hold every position that you associate with liberals/progressives/socialists– although I am informed enough to know those words do not mean the same thing.

      1. 1. Not a she

        So in addition to lying about her ethnicity, she’s lying about her gender??

        1. I’d offer to email you dick pics, but you know how Sevo gets jealous.

          1. You’re Elizabeth Warren, or do you just have pictures of her penis?

            1. Yeah, wow, I missed the threading.

              1. The Derider|7.30.12 @ 9:40PM|#
                “Yeah, wow, I missed the threading.”

                I seem to recall you busting someone for add vs ad, right, The Idiot?

  45. That dude really seems to make a lot of sense man!

    http://www.Anon-Go.tk

    1. Thanks. I was actually voted Most Likely to Make Sense in high school.

  46. A week after fleeing house arrest in Frankfurt, eco-saboteur Paul Watson released a letter Monday claiming charges against him were influenced by the shark and whale poaching industries he has interfered with for decades.

    http://news.nationalpost.com/2…..-shepherd/

    “I know the whale killing poachers of Japan will continue to exploit all avenues to find a way to stop me. I have, however, eluded them once again,” wrote the founder of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society from a “place on this planet where I feel comfortable, a safe place far away from the scheming nations who have turned a blind eye to the exploitation of our oceans.”

    1. The Jap whalers ought to hire the Yakuza to harpoon his ass.

    2. Christ, if there was one guy I’d wish to be swallowed by a fucking whale it’s that pantload.

  47. “Warren’s approach is so flawed that it’s amazing that her campaign would spend the money on putting it into a prime-time Olympics commercial that was presumably designed not to alienate people but rather to get them to vote for her. You really have to see it to believe it”

    five words: professor at Harvard Law School

    in other words, it’s not that amazing when you consider she may be an ivory tower academic with no understanding of how people outside the narrow confines of ivory tower academia actually think

    academia is the last refuge of all sorts of scoundrels and ideologues.

    and thoroughly infected by people (not all academics obviously) who are completely disconnected AND don’t recognize themselves as such.

    surround yourself with fellow travelers and it’s easy to think this type of shit would go over well with the american people.

    1. It’s only the most prestigious academic institution in the world. Obviously everyone there is a brainwashed idiot.

      Antiintellectualism is the first refuge of the stupid and ideological.

      1. T o n y|7.30.12 @ 10:39PM|#
        “It’s only the most prestigious academic institution in the world”
        According to those who think so, like shithead.

        “Antiintellectualism is the first refuge of the stupid and ideological.”
        And appeals to authority are the last refuge of ignoramuses, shithead.

        1. What do you consider the most prestigious academic institution?

          1. I should note that Harvard Law is notorious for grade inflation and the fact that 40% of the class graduates at least cum laude.

            1. Harvard and all of those Ivy League Post-secs are grossly overrated.

          2. Maybe we should look at the institutions the top brass of Lehman, Bear-Stearns, Goldman, AIG, etc. were alums of. I’d be willing to bet there are all sorts of grads of “prestigious academic institutions” running the EU and all of its pseudopods, too. Not a lot of Tallahassee JoCo folks at the helm of these fine organizations.

            What you’re describing, Tony, is elitism, not intellectualism. I have a degree from a “name” school, too, but I don’t treat it as a substitute for actual thought and accomplishment.

          3. T o n y|7.30.12 @ 10:53PM|#
            “What do you consider the most prestigious academic institution?”

            Sorry, shithead, I make no appeals to authority. Only ignoramuses do.

      2. It’s only the most prestigious academic institution in the world.

        No it is not.

        Even so, didn’t W. graduate from Harvard, Tony?

      3. “Few of the great tragedies of history were created by the village idiot, and many by the village genius.” ?Thomas Sowell

    2. No disrespect to my friends from MIT and Oxford. Apparently, though, you too are closed-minded simpletons by virtue of your superior credentials.

      Intellectual pursuit takes an infinite number of forms. Right wing crazy is all the same.

      1. you too are closed-minded simpletons by virtue of your superior credentials.

        Do they not teach English out there in the prestigious universities of Oklahoma, Tony?

      2. T o n y|7.30.12 @ 10:44PM|#
        “Intellectual pursuit takes an infinite number of forms.”
        Shithead, back-pedaling suits you as well as sanctimony; both look just right on you.

        “Right wing crazy is all the same.”
        Assertions minus evidence does also, shithead.

      3. T o n y|7.30.12 @ 10:44PM|#
        “No disrespect to my friends from MIT and Oxford.”

        “From”?
        Are you suggesting life began at those locations? Were those ‘friends’ born in those locations?
        Or are you just making a stupid comment?

  48. harvey silverglate on the creeping tyranny of our federal govt: When one steps back and takes in a broader view than Juszkiewicz allowed himself to see, it is apparent that the problem is not just a war against capitalism. When a businessman is harassed by overzealous prosecutors, he declaims a war on business just as when a newspaper is harassed, it declaims a war on journalism. It would be a boon to the nation as a whole if those under attack by federal prosecutors could better understand the scope of the problem: they are victims of a war against all of civil society, waged by a Department of Justice wielding incomprehensibly vague and broad criminal statutes enacted by a Congress that too often seems not to know what it’s doing. The supposed restrictions that federalism imposes upon the power of the national government become a farce in the face of such a tangle of laws and regulations, and we all stand to lose from such an outcome.

    from volokh.com

    1. Beautiful

    1. truth is no defense to charges of hate speech. that’s established case law in canada(really), and par for the course in pretty much all of “civilized” europe.

      1. all of “civilized” europe

        “bunch of Caucasoids”

      2. We got rid of Section 13 here in Canada!

        1. Canada! Fuck Yeah!

    2. Technically true as Il Duce Redux is a Negroid.

      Even when you capitalize it as a classification, the libtards will have a self-righteous hissy. Just like you can’t use the word “niggardly” anymore, the PC idiots are winning our language.

      Also, “Fried Chicken!”

    3. Mongoloid is also a derogatory term for a handicapped person. Considering that he was attempting to be derogatory I think we can discount the possibility that he was discussing their anthropology.

  49. More welfare programs and roads. Is that seriously all the Democrats have to offer?

    1. Don’t tempt them, Hazel. Or they’ll definitely sweeten the pot.

    2. Yes, but we must not require those on welfare to actually do work like building roads.

  50. I just saw a Nork lift 150kg.
    How many extra bowls of rice does he get to eat to get that strong?

    1. Make that 174kg

      1. are you referring to Norik Vardanian?

        if so, great lifter.

        his dad, of course was BEYOND great. and his record total still stands (although they kludged by changing the weight classes)

        1. It was Kim Un Guk. He broke the world record.

  51. “What you’re describing, Tony, is elitism, not intellectualism. I have a degree from a “name” school, too, but I don’t treat it as a substitute for actual thought and accomplishment.”

    what tony is doing is bringing up an irrelevancy

    of course harvard is a great, storied, dare i say it ELITE academic institution

    that’s entirely unrelated to the fact that SOME academics, in all sorts of elite (and non-elite) academic institutions can and do fall prey to ivory tower isolationism, iow they fail to understand how the real world works, outside the ivy colored walls of their “home base”

    the pauline kael story may be apocryphal, but it’s a great example of the concept – how the majority of a nation can vote for one person, but the sheltered (in this case – journalist) doesn’t KNOW a single person who voted for them.

    there is a reason why academia is one of the last places in the US where marxism can still flourish. because it’s entirely possible to be successful in this mostly closed system, and still have complete fundamental misunderstandings of how the everyday world, outside academia works (not saying she is a marxist, just giving an example of ivory tower bizarreness)

    and i don’t consider hillbilly an insult tony.

  52. The only thing more ugly and fraudulent than Elizabeth Warren is her politics and propaganda.

    1. You’re usually much more verbose, John.

      What gives?

    2. What about Reason’s new site design?

      JK! You guys are aces.

  53. Warren’s pic above reminds me of those old movies where some totally whacked out perp tries to explain away his heinous crimes by say, “Don’t you see? Don’t you see?”

  54. Christ, I’m drunk and this page is such a long a fucking scroll I’m wiped except for a simple ‘Fuck Eliza Warren’. She’s a butt nekid rep of igno.

    1. Me too Agile. Good grief, why cant her voters put that lying bitch out of our misery?

  55. Testing 123

  56. Be certain that the more annoying a statist, you can be sure the more likely they will rise through the ranks. She will be given a major speaking role at the Dem convention. God save us from where she will go next and how she will infllct herself on us.

  57. Where was Warren when the stimulus funds were spent, on projects “not as shovel ready as we thought” Obama touted, but that turned out to be handouts to government union employees who produce ….. I thinking …. nothing but headaches for the 99%. But if you’re a 1% campaign bundler for the president, then you get handouts and favors from the bureaucrats and politicians such as Imelt and Buffet.

    Warren produces no evidence or rationale for the level of infrastructure spending, or government spending. She might as well advocate 100% of GDP on infrastructure spending (she does say we can do better than the Chinese).

    I wish Warren to be harassed by government lawyers she’s taught to harass citizens, and be lawyered to death (not literally). But I’d like to see bureaucrats attack her the way they attack citizens who’ve harmed no one.

  58. Dear Mr. Stoll,

    Your entire extrapolation is absurd. Elizabeth Warren never said we should spend 9% of GDP on Infrastructure, she said, as you correctly quoted, “We can do better.” Now you can certainly argue, if you choose, that we shouldn’t spend more money on infrastructure, but you don’t do that, instead you spend an entire essay refuting an argument that Elizabeth Warren didn’t make. Now that leaves us with one of two interpretations of your motives, 1. You intentionally misrepresented her point in order to mislead voters to vote how you wish, or 2. You are very, very stupid. Which is it?

  59. Firstly, she was drawing a comparison in the different infrastructure budgets not saying we should exactly emulate them.

    Secondly, river dolphin, sturgeon, and paddlefish? I guess “We’re all environmentalists now.”

  60. fuck, you people are stupid. every once and a while i come around here and it’s the same bullshit. let’s analyze this one:

    WARREN: “Let’s make sure that we’re rebuilding our roads and our bridges…and rebuild our ports and airports.”

    then soon after ira goes into this bit:

    IRA: “Math, though, is hardly the only problem with emulating China’s approach to infrastructure spending. History is another. America and China are at different junctures in our development. America built a lot of bridges, tunnels, and highways in the 1950s and 1960s…”

    this whole sleight of hand tangent that only works on folks like you circlejerking in the comments section. did you all see the RE in rebuild?

    then ira goes with this:

    IRA: “Warren may protest that when she’s talking about “infrastructure” she mainly means maintaining existing roads and bridges, not building brand new projects that flatten urban neighborhoods or destroy scenic rivers. But that’s not what’s happening in China.”

    no, ira, that’s not what see may protest and say, that is what she already said. that’s what she said In.Your.Article. you led off with it. ??? wtf. seriously? does this shit work amongst you mouth breathers?

    and then the bit about caring about “Chinese river dolphin, river sturgeon, and paddlefish” is cute, too. like your type ever let killing an animal or two thousand get in the way of a big project.

  61. I think it isn’t so much infrastructure in which Warren wants us to invest. Instead, it’s the environmental groups, their lawyers, and government lawyers who’ll rake it in regarding all the challenges to any government infrastructure project.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.