- Joined
- Jan 28, 2013
- Messages
- 94,823
- Reaction score
- 28,342
- Location
- Williamsburg, Virginia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
That would, by definition, require an increase in tax revenue. Which would, most likely, need to be shouldered by those most able to do so.
"You wanna fix the ****ing economy? Get some money together, and build a big ****ing WALL! Then you open the big ****ing WALL restaurant, the big ****ing WALL gift shop, and the big ****ing WALL casino hotel and resort..."
"You wanna fix the ****ing economy? Get some money together, and build a big ****ing WALL! Then you open the big ****ing WALL restaurant, the big ****ing WALL gift shop, and the big ****ing WALL casino hotel and resort..."
Well, yeah, actually, that is the point. We could just build lots of walls, and keep building walls, employ everyone. Walls on every border of every state, and when we're done, we'll make them higher. Why not? China built tons of useless crap, and they're perfectly fin...well. Hm."You wanna fix the ****ing economy? Get some money together, and build a big ****ing WALL! Then you open the big ****ing WALL restaurant, the big ****ing WALL gift shop, and the big ****ing WALL casino hotel and resort..."
Oh I get it now, you're a parody.
Nice.
Build roads, save the world. I'm intrigued. What do you think?
How to fix the world worker glut: Build more roads
"Maybe everyone is overcomplicating America's economic challenges today. Maybe there are no deep mysteries behind the slow growth, the stagnating incomes and the widespread economic anxieties that have given rise to populist movements on the left and the right.
Maybe the problem is simple: too many workers.
That is the argument made in a new paper released by the centrist Democratic think tank Third Way, which theorizes that the world economy is suffering from an oversupply of labor and too little demand for the goods and services those workers produce.
But the solution, they say, also is simple, though politically unpopular: roads and bridges, and a lot of them.
Penned by investment banker Daniel Alpert, the paper, builds on his 2013 book “The Age of Oversupply,” and it's Third Way’s latest effort to shape the liberal policy conversation in the 2016 presidential primaries. It does so in decidedly un-centrist fashion — by embracing a larger infrastructure spending program than Bernie Sanders does. . . "
Well depending on how it's done, it can be really, really stupid or good.
We don't want a bunch of roads to nowhere, that are and will be completely un/under utilized.
If you build it, they will come.
I disagree.
Destroying the environment to build roads that people may use is not a smart plan.
Better to improve existing roads, build roads that are needed and to spend on getting roads that aren't needed/used.
Any road is a needed road.
Doubtful.
We could always force the telecoms we give tons of money to, to actually build the infrastructure they're supposed to.
Building a bunch of roads for no other reason that to stimulate the economy, is in line with the broken window fallacy.
Broken window policing is not a fallacy.
Infrastructure is important but if you overspend on it where it is unneeded then you are just racing faster towards national bankruptcy and widespread poverty. Build a 1 billion dollar bridge in middle of nowhere that will not come close to ever being profitable in adding needed and relevant wealth creation is not too bright. It would be basically the same "smart" policy of creating a huge gravel pit and hiring everyone at $25/rh to dig in it and calling it 100% employment. Spending on infrastructure is smart if it is needed and will more than pay for itself in aiding wealth creation. And the lower it costs, and the lower amount of labor to create it, the better. This frees up labor to create other wealth.
Infrastructure is important but if you overspend on it where it is unneeded then you are just racing faster towards national bankruptcy and widespread poverty. Build a 1 billion dollar bridge in middle of nowhere that will not come close to ever being profitable in adding needed and relevant wealth creation is not too bright. It would be basically the same "smart" policy of creating a huge gravel pit and hiring everyone at $25/rh to dig in it and calling it 100% employment. Spending on infrastructure is smart if it is needed and will more than pay for itself in aiding wealth creation. And the lower it costs, and the lower amount of labor to create it, the better. This frees up labor to create other wealth.
A government that issues money can not become bankrupt. Government infrastructure spending simply results in economic growth by employing resources that would have otherwise not been utilized. There is no cost to me if the slacker sitting on the couch gets a productive job creating something that provides value to me, but otherwise wouldn't exist if he didn't get a job building it.
So you are a perpetual motion econ guy. Magic monopoly money.
A government that issues money can not become bankrupt. Government infrastructure spending simply results in economic growth by employing resources that would have otherwise not been utilized. There is no cost to me if the slacker sitting on the couch gets a productive job creating something that provides value to me, but otherwise wouldn't exist if he didn't get a job building it.
Just because a government can print any amount of money to pay bills doesn't mean it will not suffer the same effects of being bankrupt. When they cannot legitimately pay the bills and start just printing extra money it devalues it, then no one is going to loan money to the government. Who pays for this devaluing of money, first those who save and those on fixed incomes, their money becomes devalued and eventually becomes basically worthless.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?