Investment in infrastructure isn't Keynesian.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects
Collapse
X
-
Oh wow. Chrissakes.
Froot, you agree with Chait, then? I don't. I recognize that infrastructure spending is very likely to be tilted toward rewarding the contractor rather than getting people back to work or facilitating logistics, etc., but it's often said that the problem with the Obama package is that it was too small, because the people Hanni takes his cues from were opposed to it then, in contrast to now (when they can control the procurement process to line their own pockets, as well as take political credit). BUT, bottom line, you can't eat GDP. Growth isn't accruing to regular people. Latest in a long line of consistent data points out yesterday via the Piketty/Zucman research. So there's the potential for that to happen again, IF this is done above board. James Surowiecki was going on on twitter yesterday on that note. But, again, pick the right projects, and since this is Trump we're talking about, hire Americans and pay the cost, rather than hiring illegals, if we want to max out on increasing the debt for this. There's also the idea out there that we're in a liquidity trap and we need a real shock of spending to jolt us out of it. Dunno about the latter idea.Last edited by hack; December 8, 2016, 03:42 PM.
- Top
Comment
-
Originally posted by hack View PostOh wow. Chrissakes.
Froot, you agree with Chait, then? I don't. I recognize that infrastructure spending is very likely to be tilted toward rewarding the contractor rather than getting people back to work or facilitating logistics, etc., but it's often said that the problem with the Obama package is that it was too small, because the people Hanni takes his cues from were opposed to it then, in contrast to now (when they can control the procurement process to line their own pockets, as well as take political credit). BUT, bottom line, you can't eat GDP. Growth isn't accruing to regular people. Latest in a long line of consistent data points out yesterday via the Piketty/Zucman research. So there's the potential for that to happen again, IF this is done above board. James Surowiecki was going on on twitter yesterday on that note. But, again, pick the right projects, and since this is Trump we're talking about, hire Americans and pay the cost, rather than hiring illegals, if we want to max out on increasing the debt for this.
Sure the infrastructure needs to be upgraded, I read that Chait article awhile ago, I'm not sure if I agree with him or not. Like Hannibal said, let's wait and see what's played out, they own the whole government, it is up to them fix everything. They don't need bipartisan cover. You certainly aren't going to get much bipartisan help from the Democrats if they ram the repeal through on reconciliation.
If Trump is the deal maker he claimed he is, he will replace the ACA with something better, it is up to him to come through on that promise because the Ryan plan certainly doesn't.
- Top
Comment
-
Originally posted by Wild Hoss View PostMick Jagger's 8th child was born today, to his 29 year old girlfriend.
His oldest child is 45, and he has a great-grandchild who is older than the son born today.
this just has to piss wiz off..Grammar... The difference between feeling your nuts and feeling you're nuts.
- Top
Comment
-
I'm not convinced on the multiplier on that tank example. People who use food stamps spend all their money, so you're boosting demand. Spending money on a tank just means you now have a tank. Dead end for value flowing through the economy.
If you send the same $ 10k to a mother on food stamps, she starts the spending that ultimately results in $ 100k. But there is no tank in the barn. You either get a "quicker" return or a "larger" return (or both) when you buy the tank. This all assumes that the workers on the tank have the same MPS as the woman, which, as you indicate is probably not true. Then you get into "what" is purchased and that is never-never land.
Keynes said that saving is a social evil. Can you see why he said that? He was correct in the context of the Great Depression.
Also, I suppose the sale of marijuana in CO and OR adds to the GDP, but the same sale in other parts of the country does not.Last edited by Da Geezer; December 8, 2016, 08:24 PM.
- Top
Comment
-
Originally posted by Da Geezer View PostDSL:
Which cabinet appointees donated to the Trump Foundation?
But it's also far more than 'access'
- Top
Comment
Comment