Despite the negatives of the dot-com crash, the one thing that the bubble DID give us was a huge infrastructure investment: The massive amounts of fiber optic cable laid down during the bubble (that then went unused for a couple of years after the crash) helped spur our ongoing broadband revolution.
One could hope that a government-funded infrastructure investment could similarly help.
I think its all backwards. We’re still working on a Reagan model of trickle-down economics. Instead of figuring out contrived ways to pass federal dollars from the government, through the bank, to the employer, and finally to the consumer; why don’t we just pay the consumer directly? It would be nice for the federal government to peel a $40,000 check to every working American. It’d allow people to pay down their debts and urge people to start spending a little more than they are. People aren’t foreclosing on their mortgage because they think its cute, they are doing it because they can’t afford it.
The paragraph you posted could have been posted in all the threads about federal policy on this board. It is a totally generic critique based on libertarian principles, with which everyone who spends time in GD is familiar. It is a good idea to challenge long-standing and widely-shared conclusions, but it is “pure orneriness” to do it in every single thread that touches on politics or poverty.
The idea that Libertarianism is necessarily raised by every question of non-military federal policy in a way that is different from the way in which such questions raise Anarchism is just false. The two are identically (ir)relevant. Both are tangents challenging an assumption of the question of which the speaker was almost certainly aware.
I disagree with this–I don’t think most people or most GD participants are aware of these issues, which is why I bring them up.
And you haven’t made an argument yet on the issue of why this question is different than the brain in a vat question, you’ve just contradicted my argument with the bare assertion that it is wrong.
I’m not so sure that we have to do anything. Yeah, the economy is in the crapper, but I don’t think we can establish the expectation that the Govt. will ride to the rescue every time the economy turns south. It gets us deeper into debt, for a benefit that I don’t think is worth it. If it were the case that we ran a surplus in good times, and then went into a deficit in bad times, that would be fine. However, we consistently run giant deficits. A 400 billion deficit should be viewed as a big counter-cycle budget, but in reality that’s the normal. We have to return reality to the finances of the U.S.
You want the government to cut a check for $3 trillion dollars?
You realize the current bailout money is generally in the form of loans don’t you? It’s not just handed out to businesses as a gift.
You really should find out what “trickle-down” economics really is, or you know, read something about economics before you post something you clearly know nothing about. While I have argued that efficient distribution of wealth is, at its most efficient, a direct payment to the people, I think it’s obvious that those who do receive payment are those who clearly demonstrate a need. Otherwise, what you are stating is the start of hyper-inflation.
I’d assumed that it was loosely tied. I know that design professionals are paid based on their production; the rates charged by the firm are based on the employee’s hourly rate plus overhead. Custodians, bookkeepers etc. are 100% overhead.
Technical as in … ?
Communities and agencies across the U.S. have responded to a request for “ready-to-go” projects for this proposed stimulus. You can see some of the projects listed on the Conference of Mayors website (thanks for the link, Yllaria).
As to the OP, I’ll cross-post something I had said in IMHO. I would like to see infrastructure funding take the form of increased funding of already established programs:
How does creating jobs around alternative energy lead to a net increase in jobs? This is a serious question, because we have a fairly finite energy demand. Suppose alt energy sources suddenly supply us with 75% of our energy needs - what happens to people employed by traditional energy suppliers? They lose their jobs. If they’re lucky, they pick up jobs with the alt energy companies, but that’s not creating more jobs, just shifting workers around.
(1) It’s going to take a LONG time to get alt. energy up to 75%; that’s not going to put the traditional folks out of a job anytime soon
(2) we have a FINITE energy demand, but not a FIXED energy demand; it’s constantly increasing, both in the US and abroad (China, India esp.)
(3) if we can create a strong alt. energy industry in the USA, then we can SELL THAT technology to other countries, much as they now sell us oil, manufactured products, etc. Why should we NOT try to become a world leader in an emerging tech/manufacturing sector?
I’m not talking about that Pets.com shit. What I’m talking about is the thousand of new, very real products, services and jobs that were created in the technology boom of the mid 90s. Email, networking, web development, corporate systems, cell phones, online banking, MP3, Amazon.com, Google, Yahoo!, EMC, and so on. Most of these things did not exist in anything but a very nacent form prior to around 1995.
What caused the speculative bubble, IMHO, was the emergance of online trading. Thanks to E*trade, etc, now every jerk and his brother can jump on the internet, open a brokerage account, and bid up the price of any tech stock they could get their hands on. Venture capitalists see these stocks skyrocketing and they want in. So they greenlight any IPO that has anything to do with tech without ever doing a proper valuation. And of course by 2001 it all came crashing back to earth.
That doesn’t change the fact that there was huge job creation during the 90s, thanks to investment in tech.
The choices isn’t between lowering taxes and increasing spending. John Maynard Keynes, the world famous economist recommends deficit spending to mitigate recessions. By investing in infrastructure and the private sector, the theory is that it will stimulate the economy and produce greater long-term output. Of course, the downside is the potential to increase inflation. So you can’t just go crazy spending whatever you want.