Comments on FiveThirtyEight: Politics Done Right: Why Spending Cuts Aren't the Answer

酒店經紀人, 菲梵酒店經紀, 酒店經紀, 禮服酒店上班, 酒店小姐兼職, 便服酒店經紀, ...

2009-10-10T07:12:25.580-04:00

酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店經紀,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店工作,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
菲
梵,

Tony C., thank you very much for the help!

2009-05-21T16:33:21.530-04:00

Tony C., thank you very much for the help!

Bart:Well, I found mine a year ago by various Goog...

2009-05-21T16:31:49.329-04:00

Bart:
Well, I found mine a year ago by various Google searches; but now you can go to Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_efficiency_in_transportation

You just might have to convert liters/kilometers into gallons and miles, but I will let you do the arithmetic on that.

Besides, it is interesting: It says human food energy efficiency is the equivalent of getting 235 miles/gallon!

Tony C.: Thanks for the information. That is exact...

2009-05-21T16:23:37.987-04:00

Tony C.: Thanks for the information. That is exactly what I was looking for. Do you have a source where I can find information on things like this so I won't have to ask about it next time?

Thanks again.

Bart:Trains will move a given load, such as a carg...

2009-05-21T16:21:57.269-04:00

Bart:
Trains will move a given load, such as a cargo container, ten times as far on a gallon of diesel than will an eighteen-wheel truck. The diesel pollutes, but at 1/10th the rate. I think the least-polluting form of heavy cargo transport is by barge, either river or coastal. Barges require about 1/4 the fuel of trains, last I read.

Does the suggestion of shifting cargo transport to...

2009-05-21T15:08:31.811-04:00

Does the suggestion of shifting cargo transport to the renovated rail lines include the impacts on the efficiency of the increased volume of rail transit? That is, will the increased congestion along the rail lines offset, and possibly even entirely negate, the gains made on the roads? The same question applies to the emission levels--will the trains pollute less?

There's other ways to balance a budget too, you kn...

2009-05-21T12:12:41.050-04:00

There's other ways to balance a budget too, you know. Write off debt (no more Social Security). Inflation (effectively cutting the cost of old debt). It's not all just cut current spending or raise taxes.

The government taxes new job creation? That makes ...

2009-05-21T11:05:34.155-04:00

The government taxes new job creation? That makes me want to cry.

Federally funded congressional campaigns is an ide...

2009-05-21T01:50:42.535-04:00

Federally funded congressional campaigns is an idea, but proportional representation is even better. You can have several parties that all run as their own big group and don't need to divert funding here and there. No need for "contributors" because people will be more passionate about the more representative parties and will donate more.

John, got dragged away, so couldn't respond sooner...

2009-05-20T13:00:10.277-04:00

John, got dragged away, so couldn't respond sooner. I posted my comment regarding GDP growth as fastest way to reduce deficits mostly with the thought that because this is so it makes more sense for a government to concentrate on developing a climate that increases GDP growth rather than cutting taxes or massive program cuts.

Cutting taxes as the last bunch of them have shown actually hurts so much on the revenue side that any GDP increase they spur is not realized by sufficiently improved government revenues.

Massive program cuts are simply not politically feasible. Halving the military budget is not going to happen. And, as they say social security is the third rail.

Deficits are always a concern, but governments are not people and not business. Governments, most particularly the federal government does not have the same constraints regarding spending that individuals and businesses do.

You write: "For instance, if the government borrow...

2009-05-20T09:29:19.475-04:00

You write: "For instance, if the government borrowed a trillion dollars at 4 percent and invested the money in projects with an annual return of 7 percent, we’d actually be richer each year by $30 billion than if we hadn’t made those investments."

That's assuming that the money would otherwise have earned nothing.

Your underlying assumption appears unreasonable.

At the moment, the government appears to be specializing investing in the losing end of our economy, e.g., the banks that are poorly run and went broke, suggesting that the return on current investments may be negative.

Regarding the gold standard... it is exactly right...

2009-05-20T09:07:45.187-04:00

Regarding the gold standard... it is exactly right that there isn't enough gold (or enough gold and silver) to feasibly supply the world's economies. We can't cut metal small enough. Economies would deflate and cannot grow.

There are two excellent books, one by MIT economist Peter Temin "Lessons from the Great Depression" and one by I believe Berkeley economist Barry Eichengreen, that convincingly argue that the Great Depression was caused/exacerbated by adherence to a metal standard and bad (deflationary beggar-thy-neighbor) international fed policy.

To give some credit, not all economists believe that WWII was necessary to get us out of the Great Depression... some people believe that a combination of expansionary policies and getting federal reserve policy right would have caused the recovery anyway.

Erik Nillson:Mike in Maryland:Okay, good arguments...

2009-05-20T08:36:29.640-04:00

Erik Nillson:
Mike in Maryland:
Okay, good arguments, and I am in favor of spending trillions on infrastructure, so I am sure that on balance I am a proponent of this upgrade. The IH system has paid for itself hundreds of times over in general benefit to the USA, including to every citizen in the form of reduced transportation costs that get passed on as savings. So this isn't that much different.

However, The IH system required government to be created, it required eminent domain for land and rights of way, not to mention a trillion dollars in construction costs.

Now certainly the IH system benefits some companies more than others; but no one company enjoys even 1% of the total benefit.

To focus on the case MiM presents, doesn't Amtrak enjoy an outsized chunk of the profit, by charging for increased passenger traffic and doubling their cargo capacity?

Infrastructure helps everybody. Seriously. But let me provide an analogy that might clarify the argument: Say I own a hundred acres of raw land, well outside the city, worth $1M. I am a believer in geothermal energy, it is clean, 100% emission free, and cheaper than hydroelectric, solar, wind and ocean power.

Now on this land I could start a geothermal electric generation plant and hook it up to the grid for about $40M. Which I do not have and cannot borrow.

Should the government give it to me? Not a loan! Just pay for the construction on my land, and let me enjoy the profit from it?

Just like the railroad, everybody benefits. The energy is clean and about 15% cheaper than what people pay for it now, and it provides competition for current alternatives ("current," heh, pun intended). Like the railroad, this is an infrastructure project, and green, and will provide lots of hardhat jobs and permanent jobs. I will pay my taxes, local and federal.

According to your arguments for the railroad bridges, I don't see any difference between me and Amtrak. But I don't think it would be appropriate for the taxpayers to just build and give me a geothermal power plant, and I don't think it would be appropriate for us to just give Amtrak a $500M (or whatever) route upgrade to bypass or overpass or underpass or replace Mike's bridge. A loan, perhaps, even a 60 year mortgage.

I do not mind if a company gets rich off taxpayer money by providing the government fair return in products or services, but our government should not be in the business of bestowing direct gifts upon individual companies.

Harold I think we basically agree Tony C made som...

2009-05-20T08:08:55.103-04:00

Harold I think we basically agree

Tony C made some excellent points as well.

However the original post presents a much different scenario which frankly scares me

Thats the problem with these ivory tower types of not understanding the real world. Also, if he feels so strongly about this he (and many of the other liberal intelligencia) should have no problem paying more in taxes than they currently own. For some reason almost noone decides to voluntarily do that.

In your latest comment you point to the United Sta...

2009-05-20T06:31:27.041-04:00

In your latest comment you point to the United States as a shining example of a mix between free market and government regulation as being best.Actually, Avi, Harold said the US was the most imperfect example of such a system.

Avi, you also failed to answer Pragmatus' question about how you propose to maintain the world's gargantuan economy with the monetary supply implied by the gold standard you advocate. Even if all the gold ever produced (estimated at about 5.5 billion ounces) could be gathered together in gold reserves (as it clearly cannot), the value of all the gold in the world at gold-standard rates ($20/oz) would be about $110B, compared to a total world M1 of about $20T. That's a cut to the money supply by a factor of about 180; in other words, you are talking about deflating the dollar 99.45%!

But let's assume that rather than deflate the currency by a factor of 180 you are willing to forego the venerable tradition of $20 gold and freeze gold's value at today's (I think speculatively inflated) prices. At about $900/oz, the total gold in all the world amounts to about $5T, still a factor of four off, but implying a deflation of only 75%. And each $10 gold eagle coin could still be about .01 oz of gold!

Do you honestly think such a deflation could possibly be a good thing for our economy?

Avi: when you support the economic equivalent of c...

2009-05-20T04:41:55.920-04:00

Avi: when you support the economic equivalent of creationism, it doesn't really matter how nice you are to people and how much you encourage them to voice their own opinions.

Hi Mike, That's the difference between you and I....

2009-05-20T01:36:31.501-04:00

Hi Mike,

That's the difference between you and I. I encourage other people to voice their opinions rather than telling them to "keep quiet." If you believe everything is well and good with the government running a 2 trillion dollar deficit more power to you.

Avi Kahan, When you state Small changes have occu...

2009-05-20T00:47:06.203-04:00

Avi Kahan,

When you state Small changes have occurred throughout time that have contributed to its demise, the demise of what?

The US?

I haven't seen the obit of the US in anything but a fantasy publication.

The federal government?

Isn't President Obama the head of the federal government, or at least the Executive Branch, 1/3 of the federal government, and the branch with the most employees? And just four months ago, wasn't little shrub the President of the US?

Or maybe you're discussing something else when you say 'demise'. If so, then please let us know what it is you are discussing. Maybe it is the Mises Institute and Austrian Economists you are stating are 'demised'?

Or maybe it's just best that you keep quiet and let us speculate about your intellect, rather than you speaking up and confirming our suspicions about it.

Mike in Maryland

My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/02848893412251095965

Pragmatus The Federal Reserve regulates credit. ...

2009-05-20T00:39:50.262-04:00

Pragmatus

The Federal Reserve regulates credit. What happens is some times they provide too much credit and some times they provide too little. Because the free market isn't providing the credit the amount of credit floating around is always erroneous. Let's look at the mission statement of the Federal Reserve which is to prevent booms and busts in the economy. Without resorting to personal attacks that make you look like a child how would you say the Federal Reserve has done at this?

Avi Kahan... Your apparently serious suggestion ...

2009-05-19T23:32:31.028-04:00

Avi Kahan...

Your apparently serious suggestion that we return to the gold standard suggests you don't think about things very long or very hard.

We have the great economy we have becuase of the existence of credit, which is what the Federal Reserve does—create and regulate credit.

The aggregate of all the economies of the world adds up to a multiple of perhaps billions of times the value of all the gold that exists on earth.

How do you suggest paring the economies of the world back to fit into your fantasy of returning to the gold standard?

It was this very realization that caused the world to go off the gold standard in the 1930s.

I wish that everyone had to take a public finance ...

2009-05-19T23:26:22.711-04:00

I wish that everyone had to take a public finance class in high school (or even college). A lot of these discussions would be more informed with some basic theoretical knowledge.

When the market works, we have no need for government. In cases of market failure, the government has a role, and can make everybody better off. Times when there is a role for government include:
1. Moral Hazard
2. Adverse Selection
3. Monopoly
4. Externalities
5. Public goods problems

We may also believe in a paternalistic or redistributive role of government, though these are more subject to philosophical believes outside of rational economics.

With actual policy it is difficult to tell when there is a market failure that needs to be corrected or when the improvement of one group is worth the detriment of another. Policy is not as easy as theory.

However, the point is: You cannot flat out say that government should be bigger or smaller without considering the underlying economics at work.

And I want to thank Professor Frank for contributing to this blog with his vast knowledge of economic theory and his ability to put it in terms that anyone can understand. fivethirtyeight is lucky to have him.

Avi Kahan, There are still people who state that ...

2009-05-19T23:09:31.373-04:00

Avi Kahan,

There are still people who state that the world would be much better off if Adolf Hitler had won the second World War.

There are still people who state that the world would be much better off if Stalin's political philosophy had been the victor in the post World War II era.

So you can take your singular example of an extremist economic philosophy and drop it in the toilet, remembering to flush immediately after dropping it in the toilet.

Mike in Maryland

My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/02848893412251095965

Pragmatus -- When you say every economist in the ...

2009-05-19T22:58:28.846-04:00

Pragmatus -- When you say every economist in the solar system believes WWII got us out of the depression you are wrong. Check out the Mises Institute and Austrian Economists.

Harold - It would be nice to have you view. It makes the soul feel better. Unfortunately, it is not correct. In your latest comment you point to the United States as a shining example of a mix between free market and government regulation as being best. The history of the United States suggests differently. This country was founded with an incredibly small Federal Government. Small changes have occurred throughout time that have contributed to its demise including but not limited to the removal of the gold standard, the creation of the Federal Reserve, and the disregard for the commerce clause of the Constitution.

a) the Bush tax cuts need to be allowed to expire ...

2009-05-19T22:38:40.879-04:00

a) the Bush tax cuts need to be allowed to expire

b) the massive expansion in military spending has to stop one way or another

c) the government has to stop bailing out Wall Street

Nova_middle_man said - Wow just wow Question is...

2009-05-19T22:16:51.894-04:00

Nova_middle_man said -

Wow just wow

Question is there anything government shouldn't be involved intext

Of course there is, and no-one said otherwise.

I seriously can't argue with your logic if you think government is the best to invest in and fix our problemstext

The logic that has been expressed is that a representative, democratic government can play a positive role in bringing about an economic recovery.

And I agree that you seriously can't argue with that logic.

In most cases its up to the individual and private enterprise.Thank you so much for completely agreeing with me. You said "most", not "all". Therefore you reject and are rejected by the right wing ideology that currently controls the Republican party.

Personal choice and responsibility not government to the rescue on everything.text

I'm strongly in favor of personal responsibility, and I don't see much evidence that Republicans as a group exhibit it.

Avi Kahan said

In the aggregate government spending is always a destroyer of wealth. If you don't believe that then you believe controlled economies can worktext

Incorrect, you create a false dichotomy.

I completely oppose undemocratic command economies, in fact, one of the few things I would oppose more than some crazy laissez faire economic program would be Soviet style communism.

History has done the experiment, and the results are obvious. Countries which combine a free market and respect for human rights with an active representative government which can regulate for the common good, and care for the most vulnerable, achieve the best results. Examples of such countries include the United States, which may be the most imperfect but which pioneered such a system, the UK, Canada, Australia, Western European democracies, Japan, South Korea, and many smaller nations.

That's the way it is, and living in such a country is probably why you have a computer, access to the internet, and freedom to express yourself.