From the Economist: Buy local

[Lafayette]

Excerpt:

America increasingly relies on state governments to fund public investment

America’s government invests much too little in infrastructure. A study in 2013 by the American Society of Civil Engineers claimed that additional spending of $1.6 trillion, in 2010 dollars, is needed by 2020 to bring the quality of the country’s infrastructure up from “poor” to “good”. Roads are a particular problem: over the past decade, America’s roads have fallen from seventh to fourteenth in the World Economic Forum’s rankings of the quality of infrastructure. Part of the problem is that the federal tax on petrol (gasoline), which provides most of the funding for federal spending on roads, has been stuck at 18.4 cents per gallon since 1993. Over that period the price of construction materials and the wages of construction workers have both risen by more than 75%.

Happily, the federal government is responsible only for about a quarter of spending on highways. States are keener to raise local taxes on petrol: 12 did so in the year to January. Iowa’s rise was the sharpest. Since last year Iowans have paid 31 cents per gallon to the state, up from 21 cents per gallon—a rate set in 1989. Most states tax by the gallon and so have also benefited from the falling oil price, which has boosted petrol sales. Nationally, they are up by 3% on a year ago.

Since 2013 state and local governments’ net investment (ie, after depreciation) is up by about a quarter. In contrast, federal net investment, which was barely positive in 2013, is now negative, meaning that Congress is not even spending enough to maintain what it has.* In the aftermath of the financial crisis, states cut investment to balance their budgets, while the federal government upped its spending as part of a stimulus program. Now the reverse is true: state and local investment adds to growth, while falling federal investment is a drag on it ...

Back in the saddle again for state spending? That little bounce upward on the infographic below (for 2015) could indeed be the forerunner of more to come ...

*The Replicants control both chambers of Congress, and they still cannot summon the courage to do anything that might remotely be called by those "dirty words", Stimulus Spending. Perhaps they are waiting from signals from the Koch Brothers ... ?
__________________________________

 

[joG]

Excerpt:

Back in the saddle again for state spending? That little bounce upward on the infographic below (for 2015) could indeed be the forerunner of more to come ...

*The Replicants control both chambers of Congress, and they still cannot summon the courage to do anything that might remotely be called by those "dirty words", Stimulus Spending. Perhaps they are waiting from signals from the Koch Brothers ... ?
__________________________________

I would have thought that most infrastructure could be handled by private investors.

 

[Joe Steel]

I would have thought that most infrastructure could be handled by private investors.

What would make you think that?

 

[joG]

What would make you think that?

Why shouldn't it be? It's easy in most cases.

 

[Lafayette]

I would have thought that most infrastructure could be handled by private investors.

I'll buy that notion. Under a bidding process for the contract-work overseen by the local, state officials. With a watchdog office snooping around to guaranty that the process was fair and impartial. (No, not just the FBI, let them handle other matters of crime. Contract bidding is a very special kind of fraud. It takes collaboration with the "inside", ie., public officials).

Entire cities can be corrupted over long periods of time - for example, Chicago under the Daley Family that, some say, still has great sway in the city. That family has given a new dimension to BigCity political corruption.

There is nothing wrong with free-enterprise as an 'idea", as long as its kept honest. That's the hard part. In Uncle Sam's madcap rush-to-riches, too many shortcuts are being taken to rake in the millions. Why? Because that is "the name of the game". Muney, muney, muney - show me da muney.

And the US is no better at that process than any other country. Especially, when it comes to BigBusiness that throws its weight around to get special-consideration by corrupting local politicians with sway.

We've still not mastered that process. We put a lot of delinquents behind bars but not enough of the upper-class, executive-level kind. The massive Bankster Toxic-Waste fraud for which no one went to jail is proof-positive of that contention ...
_____________________________________

 

[joG]

I'll buy that notion. Under a bidding process for the contract-work overseen by the local, state officials. With a watchdog office snooping around to guaranty that the process was fair and impartial.

There is nothing wrong with free-enterprise, as long as its kept honest. That's the hard part.

And the US is no better at that process than any other country. Especially, when it comes to BigBusiness that throws its weight around to get special-consideration by corrupting local politicians with sway.

We've still not mastered that process. We put a lot of delinquents behind bars but not enough of the executive kind. The massive Bankster fraud for which no one went to jail is proof-positive of that contention ...

It is true that money buys better lawyers. What is worse, is the known crime that is ignored like in the cases of FIFA or Greece entering fraudulent balance sheets to enter the Euro or Germany's breaking the stability pact or allowing a tax loophole to continue, while the management of a company part owned by the state exploited it to the tune of hundreds of millions of euros.
There is no question that crime exists. That is not the question. But I have already said that.

 

[Mycroft]

Excerpt:

Back in the saddle again for state spending? That little bounce upward on the infographic below (for 2015) could indeed be the forerunner of more to come ...



*The Replicants control both chambers of Congress, and they still cannot summon the courage to do anything that might remotely be called by those "dirty words", Stimulus Spending. Perhaps they are waiting from signals from the Koch Brothers ... ?
__________________________________

Anytime someone talks about "spending" and won't use that word...but, instead, insists on using the word, "investing", I tend to turn my attention away from them because I feel they are not being honest.

I am all for more state spending and less federal spending. I agree with your thread title: Buy local. (even though you, Lafayette, haven't seemed to talk much about buying local)

I've seen you use that term before; Replicants. I have no idea what it means. I've done a Bing search and all I get is a reference to androids in a sci-fi movie that came out more than 30 years ago. Lafayette, perhaps you can tell me what you mean when you use that term?

In any case, there are plenty in Congress who are all for Stimulus Spending (or...should that be "Investment"?).


btw, your OP (and your thread title) refer to some article from The Economist. You even provide an excerpt that appears to be from this article. I'm sure it's just an oversight on your part, but perhaps you can provide a link to this mysterious article.

 

[Joe Steel]

Why shouldn't it be? It's easy in most cases.

You think private investors would build highways across the desert?

 

[EMNofSeattle]

You think private investors would build highways across the desert?

Depends on where to where.

From LA to Las Vegas? Absolutely. LA to Phoenix? Without question.

However if you live in a little town that's not on a direct route between major metropolises where money can be made providing highways, you may be outta luck

 

[Lafayette]

WORDS PEOPLE USE

Anytime someone talks about "spending" and won't use that word...but, instead, insists on using the word, "investing", I tend to turn my attention away from them because I feel they are not being honest.

Semantic difference between the two words: Government Spending (state or Federal) generates Consumer Income, and in a market-economy Income stimulates Consumer Spending, which brings forth Investment in production (of goods/services) to meet additional Consumer Demand.

The logic is circular, but in a declining-economy it starts with State/Federal Spending to enhance the propensity for Consumer purchasing.

Btw, "propensity" is a key-word used in describing Economic Demand. It means "an inclination or tendency for .." It does not mean an "automatic consequence".

I am all for more state spending and less federal spending. I agree with your thread title: Buy local. (even though you, Lafayette, haven't seemed to talk much about buying local)

For me, spending is spending regardless of its provenance. I thought the infographic showed clearly where it came from - State Spending; Federal Spending having been reduced to negative proportions by the Replicants who refused any increase in the HofR. How much of that influences Consumer Spending is a benefit if Unemployment declines further. Only time will tell if that actually happens.

(But I actually think we are reaching bottom of the Unemployment Rate. The US has what economists call a "Built-in Unemployment Rate Minimum - and the US "B-U-R-M" is somewhere between 4 and 5% - methinks.)

The Replicants shot Obama out of the water when they refused his request for more Stimulus Spending in 2011. His ARRA Spending Bill in 2009 had been enough to stop-dead at 10% an exploding Unemployment Rate (from 2008 to 2010).

But, that done, more was needed to reduce more quickly High Unemployment. Which is why I have said that without the additional Stimulus Spending in 2011, putting people back to work took Four More Years than was necessary. The Replicants refused all such Spending with the obtuse-reasoning that what the country needed was Austerity Budgeting - the exact opposite!

So, Americans got what they had voted for in 2010. Four more years of stagnant Unemployment from 2010 to 2014. (See that with the BLS Employment-to-population Ratio history.)

Replicants. I have no idea what it means ... perhaps you can tell me what you mean when you use that term?

Word games: Replicants - Republicans

Meaning non-human control-programming and no heart; and I retract the "non-human" part if the Donald gets elected. :roll:

In any case, there are plenty in Congress who are all for Stimulus Spending (or...should that be "Investment"?).

Yes, they are one in the same. Each Stimulus-dollar "Spent" typically provokes some percentage of Investment Dollar as well to meet enhanced Demand.

It depends upon how it spent. If spent on bridges to nowhere as in Alaska, then the total after-effect of spending is nil. I'm dead serious - not all spending is done with the intent of creating further Consumer Demand. (Some of it is employed as political "favors to my Party-friends who funded my reelection and are in need".)

... your OP (and your thread title) refer to some article from The Economist. You even provide an excerpt that appears to be from this article. I'm sure it's just an oversight on your part, but perhaps you can provide a link to this mysterious article.

I'm learning bit-by-bit what the forum software can do. So far, it's the best I've seen on the Internet.

But, you are right. I linked the Economist article in the forum's Thread-header and that wont work.

So, here it is: Buy Local

Please confirm whether the link works or not to access the article.

 

[Joe Steel]

Depends on where to where.

From LA to Las Vegas? Absolutely. LA to Phoenix? Without question.

However if you live in a little town that's not on a direct route between major metropolises where money can be made providing highways, you may be outta luck

Exactly. That's why we need Big Government. We can't trust capitalists.

 

[Henrin]

Exactly. That's why we need Big Government. We can't trust capitalists.

To build stretches of road that wouldn't get much traffic in the first place?

 

[Joe Steel]

To build stretches of road that wouldn't get much traffic in the first place?

Yes. Roads are necessary to the general welfare. The government must provide for the general welfare.

 

[Mycroft]

WORDS PEOPLE USE



Semantic difference between the two words: Government Spending (state or Federal) generates Consumer Income, and in a market-economy Income stimulates Consumer Spending, which brings forth Investment in production (of goods/services) to meet additional Consumer Demand.

The logic is circular, but in a declining-economy it starts with State/Federal Spending to enhance the propensity for Consumer purchasing.

Btw, "propensity" is a key-word used in describing Economic Demand. It means "an inclination or tendency for .." It does not mean an "automatic consequence".



For me, spending is spending regardless of its provenance. I thought the infographic showed clearly where it came from - State Spending; Federal Spending having been reduced to negative proportions by the Replicants who refused any increase in the HofR. How much of that influences Consumer Spending is a benefit if Unemployment declines further. Only time will tell if that actually happens.

(But I actually think we are reaching bottom of the Unemployment Rate. The US has what economists call a "Built-in Unemployment Rate Minimum - and the US "B-U-R-M" is somewhere between 4 and 5% - methinks.)

The Replicants shot Obama out of the water when they refused his request for more Stimulus Spending in 2011. His ARRA Spending Bill in 2009 had been enough to stop-dead at 10% an exploding Unemployment Rate (from 2008 to 2010).

But, that done, more was needed to reduce more quickly High Unemployment. Which is why I have said that without the additional Stimulus Spending in 2011, putting people back to work took Four More Years than was necessary. The Replicants refused all such Spending with the obtuse-reasoning that what the country needed was Austerity Budgeting - the exact opposite!

So, Americans got what they had voted for in 2010. Four more years of stagnant Unemployment from 2010 to 2014. (See that with the BLS Employment-to-population Ratio history.)



Word games: Replicants - Republicans

Meaning non-human control-programming and no heart; and I retract the "non-human" part if the Donald gets elected. :roll:



Yes, they are one in the same. Each Stimulus-dollar "Spent" typically provokes some percentage of Investment Dollar as well to meet enhanced Demand.

It depends upon how it spent. If spent on bridges to nowhere as in Alaska, then the total after-effect of spending is nil. I'm dead serious - not all spending is done with the intent of creating further Consumer Demand. (Some of it is employed as political "favors to my Party-friends who funded my reelection and are in need".)



I'm learning bit-by-bit what the forum software can do. So far, it's the best I've seen on the Internet.

But, you are right. I linked the Economist article in the forum's Thread-header and that wont work.

So, here it is: Buy Local

Please confirm whether the link works or not to access the article.

The link works...thanks.

I don't think the difference between spending and investment is semantic. I see spending as paying out money for a particular product or service...such as a bridge or improved infrastructure. I see investment as providing money to earn more money...such as investing in stocks. The problem, though, is that those two words have been used interchangeably for so long that the actual differences are ignored. And they've been used that way for one purpose only...to spin spending into something that is worthwhile. For example, it's much easier to characterize that bridge to nowhere as "investment in infrastructure" than spending. Everyone thinks infrastructure is worth the money while spending is going to get more attention to determine if it's worthwhile.

Stimulus is something altogether different...except that the money going out can be for spending OR investment. But those words are used to spin the stimulus program to look worthwhile.


Your use of that word, "Replicants"...now that you have explained it...clarify your dislike for Republicans and clarify your childish use of derogatory terms to identify Republicans. The result, since I'm not impressed in the slightest by such things, is dismissal of anything you say when you use that term.

 

[joG]

You think private investors would build highways across the desert?

There very probably are some investments that are uneconomical and would not happily be privatised, if done poorly. That does not make every such stretch a public good, however. Why would you want to produce something nobody wants enough to pay for?

 

[Lafayette]

I see investment as providing money to earn more money...such as investing in stocks. The problem, though, is that those two words have been used interchangeably for so long that the actual differences are ignored. And they've been used that way for one purpose only...to spin spending into something that is worthwhile.

Buying stocks may seem like an investment to you, but in fact, you are only buying ownership. You hope the stock-shareout will return a profit. Investment is risking money typically for the expansion of business in the hopes of a return.

Frankly, you will say that there's no difference. And you would not be wrong ...

Stimulus is something altogether different...except that the money going out can be for spending OR investment. But those words are used to spin the stimulus program to look worthwhile.

The word is commonly used in Economics. You may find it curious. But I've seen it used so often in the context of Recession Exiting it is common. To me.

The result, since I'm not impressed in the slightest by such things, is dismissal of anything you say when you use that term.

Ho hum. Diff'rent strokes for diff'rent folks.

We'll see if my use of the word "Replicant" has any real context, or not, in the candidacy of Replicant Donald for the White House. Your party is in really deep, deep ... uh, sneakers ...
___________________________________

 

[Mycroft]

Buying stocks may seem like an investment to you, but in fact, you are only buying ownership. You hope the stock-shareout will return a profit. Investment is risking money typically for the expansion of business in the hopes of a return.

Frankly, you will say that there's no difference. And you would not be wrong ...



The word is commonly used in Economics. You may find it curious. But I've seen it used so often in the context of Recession Exiting it is common. To me.



Ho hum. Diff'rent strokes for diff'rent folks.

We'll see if my use of the word "Replicant" has any real context, or not, in the candidacy of Replicant Donald for the White House. Your party is in really deep, deep ... uh, sneakers ...
___________________________________

LOL!!

What makes you think I have a Party? Have I ever told you I was a Republican? I'm pretty sure I haven't...since I'm not and never have been a member of a political party. Oh, well...given you have a tendency, it seems, to assign a label to those you don't like or agree with - even if such a label is ridiculous, laughable and just a bit pathetic - I'm not surprised you would apply the label of Republican Party member to me.

 

[Joe Steel]

There very probably are some investments that are uneconomical and would not happily be privatised, if done poorly. That does not make every such stretch a public good, however. Why would you want to produce something nobody wants enough to pay for?

No one said nobody wants it. Some do and that's enough.

 

[joG]

No one said nobody wants it. Some do and that's enough.

You missed the qualifier. Wanting is not enough to justify production. Desire is not demand. Paying the price is the clincher.

 

[Lafayette]

Why would you want to produce something nobody wants enough to pay for?

You are describing aptly the nature of HealthCare. We cannot afford it, but neither can we do without it.

So, it must become a National Publicly Subsidized Service available to all. And the only way to do so is a National Health Service, which ObamaCare is not.

ObamaCare is a nationally subsidized service run by private insurance-companies. It is NOT what Obama wanted - it was what he could get. Obama wanted something more along the lines of what Hillary had proposed many years before; that is, a National Health System (NHS).

The national preference for ObamaCare is still far from being acquired. See here.

The larger percentage of the population do not yet approve ObamaCare. Yes, there also appears a large contingent of the "Let's wait-'n-see" group. Maybe, with time, that group will come on-board - but only if the inexorable great-rise in costs is not arrested by the Insurance Companies hell-bent on maintaining their profits. And, of course, your friendly doctor does want to see his remuneration diminished. (A GP in the US earns, on average, $189K a year and a surgeon $247K, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.)

The approval ratings of the NHSs in Europe was decided a long, long time ago. It is a BigWinner here. So, why the BigDifference from the US?

Are Americans so very different (about a National Service) as they are about the latest technological-gadgetry?

I cannot understand why the huge difference ...
_______________________________

 

[Mycroft]

You are describing aptly the nature of HealthCare. We cannot afford it, but neither can we do without it.

So, it must become a National Publicly Subsidized Service available to all. And the only way to do so is a National Health Service, which ObamaCare is not.

ObamaCare is a nationally subsidized service run by private insurance-companies. It is NOT what Obama wanted - it was what he could get.

And this is the way the left does things: They cannot get what someone (Obama) on the left "wanted", so...seizing the enormous power of the government...they impose something that nobody wants and that is worse than what we had in the first place. Then, they try to use the failings of THAT boondoggle to convince people to accept what they wanted to force upon us originally.

The result of all that???

1. People getting used to being under the controlling thumb of the federal government.

2. Everyone suffering the consequences of a crappy system that nobody...not even the person who shoved it down the people's throats...wanted.

3. The prospect of new health care systems being forced upon us by one small segment of our population.

All because someone like you says, "We've gotta have NHS."

 

[Lafayette]

They cannot get what someone (Obama) on the left "wanted", so...seizing the enormous power of the government...they impose something that nobody wants and that is worse than what we had in the first place.

Obama was compelled by the Replicants to settle for the privatized-version, which is the most expensive healthcare system of any developed nation. (Life expectancy and total HealthCare spending - OECD countries)

And for what? To maintain inordinately high costs that go to paying the fatcat-GP salaries and their ripoff cohorts-in-crime, the Private Insurance companies.

All because someone like you says, "We've gotta have NHS."

Thankfully, I am not the only one. We must control swindle-costs by mandating prices for consultations, operations and pharmaceuticals. As the EU NHSs does to contain extravagant costs, which is the reason the infographic above shows the more moderate overall HC-costs in other comparable countries.

Herefollows a convincing article from Consumer Reports: Why is health care so expensive?

Excerpt:

If you have health insurance, you may think it doesn’t matter because someone else is paying the bill. You’d be wrong. This country’s exorbitant medical costs mean that we all pay too much for health insurance. Overpriced care also translates into fewer raises for American workers. And to top it off, we’re not even getting the best care for our money.

First, be aware that even if you have insurance, it doesn’t always fully protect you. Four years ago, Joclyn Krevat, a 32-year-old occupational therapist from New York City, collapsed with a rare heart condition and ended up needing an emergency heart transplant. She had it done at a hospital in her health plan’s network, but no one bothered to tell her that her transplant surgeons didn’t take her insurance. They billed her $70,000 and sent collection agencies and lawyers after her while she was still home recuperating. In studying the problem, Consumer Reports has heard dozens of similar tales about surprise out-of-network bills. (If you have one, consider sharing it with us).

Second, higher health care costs mean higher health insurance premiums for everyone. It’s Health Insurance 101: Insurance is about pooling risk. That’s a good thing because it protects you against unexpected costs—but companies have to collect enough in premiums to pay for members’ health expenses. The higher the expenses for the risk pool, the higher the premiums for everyone—even if you received little or none of that care.

And if you’re wondering why you can’t get ahead financially, blame it on the fact that health care is eating your raises. Since 2000, incomes have barely kept up with inflation and insurance premiums have more than doubled. The average employer family health plan that cost companies $6,438 per staffer in 2000 shot up to $16,351 by 2013. That’s money that could have gone into your paycheck but didn’t because your employer had to spend it on your health insurance instead.

'Nuff said ... ?
________________________

 

[Joe Steel]

You missed the qualifier. Wanting is not enough to justify production. Desire is not demand. Paying the price is the clincher.

The qualifier wasn't relevant. Roads are very expensive. Few individuals or small groups of individuals can pay for therm. They must rely on some larger entity.

 

[Mycroft]

Obama was compelled by the Replicants to settle for the privatized-version...

LOL!!

Yeah...if you truly believe this. Something that flies in the face of reality. Then all I can do is agree: "'Nuff said ..."

 

[joG]

The qualifier wasn't relevant. Roads are very expensive. Few individuals or small groups of individuals can pay for therm. They must rely on some larger entity.

If a production factor cannot be paid for from the revenue, why would you want to pay for it? What is the sense of a road that is almost never used?