Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
US Unemployment Rises To 7.9%  
User currently offlinebjorn14 From Norway, joined Feb 2010, 3622 posts, RR: 2
Posted (2 years 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 2270 times:

Both the unemployment rate (7.9 percent) and the number of unemployed persons (12.3 million) were essentially unchanged in October, following declines in September. (See table A-1.)

Among the major worker groups, the unemployment rate for blacks increased to 14.3 percent in October, while the rates for adult men (7.3 percent), adult women (7.2 percent), teenagers (23.7 percent), whites (7.0 percent), and Hispanics (10.0 percent) showed little or no change. The jobless rate for Asians was 4.9 percent in October (not seasonally adjusted), down from 7.3 percent a year earlier. (See tables A-1, A-2, and A-3.)

In October, the number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks or more) was little changed at 5.0 million. These individuals accounted for 40.6 percent of the unemployed. (See table A-12.)

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm


"I want to know the voice of God the rest is just details" --A. Einstein
139 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21496 posts, RR: 53
Reply 1, posted (2 years 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 2260 times:

So what was it last year? And the year before that?

User currently offlinecasinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4751 posts, RR: 3
Reply 2, posted (2 years 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 2244 times:

The numbers look good. Jobs increased. More peope came back into the work force from the "Not in the workforce" category.

The numbers also go agains the notion that last month's numbers were "fudged" as certain fake news websites railed on about.



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11502 posts, RR: 52
Reply 3, posted (2 years 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 2238 times:

Talk about bias! The very report you just cited begins with:

"Total nonfarm payroll employment increased by 171,000 in October, and the unemployment
rate was essentially unchanged at 7.9 percent
"



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineQuokkas From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (2 years 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 2234 times:

Obviously there have been some job losses and some new jobs created, perhaps nowhere near enough new jobs and nowhere near enough full-time for those that need full-time work. But:
Quote:
Total nonfarm payroll employment increased by 171,000 in October, and the unemployment
rate was essentially unchanged
at 7.9 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
reported today. Employment rose in professional and business services, health care,
and retail trade.

Emphasis added to the source that you quoted. How does "unchanged" and "employment rose" - which is repeated a number of times in your source - lead you to select a headline "rises"? Even your own OP states "essentially unchanged", so why pick a headline that contradicts both the source and your OP?

[Edited 2012-11-02 06:55:47]

User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11502 posts, RR: 52
Reply 5, posted (2 years 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 2227 times:

Quoting Quokkas (Reply 4):
so why pick a headline that contradicts both the source and your OP?

You already know the answer to that question.

The Republican spin machine has to get in gear fast when a report like this comes out. It's hard to reconcile their recent discrediting of the unemployment percentage (stating that we should worry only about the number of jobs added) with this report which says that a whole bunch of jobs were added to the economy.



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineWolbo From Netherlands, joined Mar 2007, 493 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (2 years 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 2227 times:

Much to the undoubted chagrin of Bjorn14 the jobs report came in much better than expected see e.g. MarketWatch's headline "October payrolls surprise: 171,000 new jobs added "

171,000 jobs were added when the consensus expectation was 120,000.

Previous months figures were revised upwards:
"Companies also hired more employees in September and August than previously estimated. The number of new jobs created in September was revised up to 148,000 from a prior estimate of 114,000. And August's figure was revised to 192,000 from 142,000 to mark the best month of hiring since February."

This report also blows out of the water conspiracy theories about Obama's administration supposedly rigging the employment rate figures last month although I doubt those who put forward these theories will admit that.

That Bjorn14 chooses to leave out all the positive aspects only shows his myopic bias and speaks to the credibility of his arguments. No surprise there.

[Edited 2012-11-02 06:58:23]

User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8927 posts, RR: 24
Reply 7, posted (2 years 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 2216 times:

So there you have it - the recovery has peaked out, and we have gotten to this point by maxing out our credit cards. 1.3% net growth, 8% unemployment is now what our economy looks like at the peak (I remember a lot of economists warning of that probability 3.5 years ago when Obama was talking about stimulus but not about actually fixing the mortgage problem or the debt). We are looking at Taxmaggedon on Jan 1st, which will cause a recession if it goes through, and will probably cause a recession if we delay all the tax increases and simply let the debt accumulate.

Basically, we are screwed. I'd hate to be the new president, whichever one he is, because in 4 years, he will certainly be the most hated man in America. Either We do an Argentina, devalue our currency, which would plunge the whole world into another tailspin, or he does the impossible and turns things around - but ends up pissing off everyone who now gets something from the government (the 47%) not to mention future recipients.

To this day, I still cannot fathom how people, who call themselves compassionate who care about others, could possibly support policies that simply racked up the debt that one day would have to be paid.

The piper is here, and he's a-knockin.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11502 posts, RR: 52
Reply 8, posted (2 years 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 2206 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 7):
To this day, I still cannot fathom how people, who call themselves compassionate who care about others, could possibly support policies that simply racked up the debt that one day would have to be paid.

Did you vote for candidates that supported deficit spending?

"I have met the enemy, and he is us!"



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineQuokkas From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (2 years 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 2195 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 7):
So there you have it - the recovery has peaked out,

Has it? Economists normally rely on more than one month's data - usually two consecutive quarters are looked at to determine whether the economy has plateaued, entered a recession or whatever. You may be right but do these figures bear out what you are saying?


User currently offlinealoges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 8735 posts, RR: 42
Reply 10, posted (2 years 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 2195 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 7):
So there you have it - the recovery has peaked out, and we have gotten to this point by maxing out our credit cards.

Previously, you were complaining that too few jobs were being added. Now that 171,000 jobs have been added in one month, you forget to mention that particular statistic... I wonder why that might be.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 7):
Taxmaggedon

Oh no, wait, I don't wonder...   



Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8927 posts, RR: 24
Reply 11, posted (2 years 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 2184 times:

Quoting aloges (Reply 10):
Previously, you were complaining that too few jobs were being added. Now that 171,000 jobs have been added in one month, you forget to mention that particular statistic... I wonder why that might be.

Because it is not a very meaningful statistic. Even if it was, 170K per month is just barely enough to keep up with population increase. What I look at is Total non-farm private employment divided by working age population. That is not looking so rosy.

Quoting Quokkas (Reply 9):
Has it? Economists normally rely on more than one month's data - usually two consecutive quarters are looked at to determine whether the economy has plateaued, entered a recession or whatever. You may be right but do these figures bear out what you are saying?

it's been pretty damned consistant, and remember that deficit spending has added several points to "growth" every quarter - but that is not real growth - that's just borrowed against growth in the future when you have to pay the bill.

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/charts/united-states-gdp-growth.png?s=gdp+cqoq



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlinealoges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 8735 posts, RR: 42
Reply 12, posted (2 years 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 2165 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 11):
Because it is not a very meaningful statistic.

So why were you harping on about it earlier?



Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
User currently offlinebjorn14 From Norway, joined Feb 2010, 3622 posts, RR: 2
Reply 13, posted (2 years 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 2163 times:

Quoting D L X (Reply 3):
Talk about bias! The very report you just cited begins with:
Quoting Quokkas (Reply 4):
Even your own OP states "essentially unchanged", so why pick a headline that contradicts both the source and your OP?

Unemployment was 7.8% in September '12 and now it is 7.9% so according to my public school math that's an increase or rise. Statistically, one could argue that .1% is "essentially unchanged" but since so many on this site love to be technically correct I just wanted to help them out. This isn't even a dead cat bounce.



"I want to know the voice of God the rest is just details" --A. Einstein
User currently offlineQuokkas From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (2 years 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 2158 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 11):

Thanks for providing the graph showing changes in GDP growth over the past few years. While it confirms a slowdown during Q1 and Q2, it shows that some ground has been regained rather than worsening into negative figures.

It is interesting to note that some analysts draw different conclusions. For example, BMO Capital describes the figures as

Quote:
"Job growth improved meaningfully in October, though a jump in labour force participation lifted the unemployment rate slightly.

"This suggests the economy is gathering a little momentum, and that GDP growth will improve further in Q4 from the 2.0 per cent pace of Q3."
Emphasis added.


Now I don't have a crystal ball so perhaps they are engaging in wishful thinking. Then again they may be taking these figures in conjunction with others that lead them to a more positive outlook.


User currently offlineracko From Germany, joined Nov 2001, 4857 posts, RR: 20
Reply 15, posted (2 years 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 2139 times:

Don't you usually compare unemployment numbers to the same month last year to eliminate seasonal effects? At least that's how it is done here.

User currently offlineQuokkas From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (2 years 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 2124 times:

Quoting racko (Reply 15):

Yes and no. Unemployment figures are often quoted as "seasonally adjusted" but for many purposes a twelve month period is considered too long. Hence quarterly figures are often used to indicate a trend.


User currently offlinepu From Sweden, joined Dec 2011, 750 posts, RR: 13
Reply 17, posted (2 years 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 2112 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 7):
could possibly support policies that simply racked up the debt that one day would have to be paid.

US Debt held by the public at ~ 11 trillion or 66% of GDP is lower than most eveywhere in Europe or Japan and Singapore.

Also, America can and does simply monetise its debt on a massive scale without inflation, due in large part to the demand for dollars overseas, which the euro crises is helping nicely.

I don't think debt is anywhere near critical. America and other stable countries have had it higher with no doomsday.





Pu







http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np
US debt held by the public is the correct figure for comparing the USA to other countries since US debt held by the government itself ("intragovernmental debt") is not the type of "debt" reported by other nations.

www.cia.gov/library/publications/the...d-factbook/rankorder/2186rank.html


User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20791 posts, RR: 62
Reply 18, posted (2 years 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 2076 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 7):
To this day, I still cannot fathom how people, who call themselves compassionate who care about others, could possibly support policies that simply racked up the debt that one day would have to be paid.

I was thinking the same thing when we were pouring hundreds of billions into foreign wars post-9/11 that we were supposed to be reimbursed for by thankful nations. Remember those claims? That's where a HUGE amount of the accelerated numbers of our mounting debt is stemming from. What happened to all that money? Do you see any of it? I sure don't.

There's an advert playing on some of the cable networks lately. It was banned by the major networks in 2010 as "too controversial": Why do great nations fail? Personally, I think it's a bit OTT, but an interesting message nonetheless.

While I'm a fiscal conservative for the most part, I do see the need to spend dollars to improve the infrastructure of America to help us stabilize and grow, and that includes for our intellectual assets as well as the traditional brick-and-mortar goods.

There are some tax subsidies that Romney proposes to get rid of, such as for alternative energy. I've not done an in-depth analysis of how much the economy receives back in terms of stimulation and jobs from these subsidies, but I'm seeing news articles appear in my Google Alerts about companies initiating layoffs of up to a quarter of their staff in this sector already due to the uncertainty of whether the Investment Tax Credit will be extended or not. Those unemployed are already showing up in the latest figures, both white and blue collar jobs.

I don't believe one can call out those "compassionate about others" and question their commitment to a thriving economy in the same breath, while ignoring how much money was wasted in prior years that we're now burdened with in terms of debt.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20247 posts, RR: 59
Reply 19, posted (2 years 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 1999 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 7):
So there you have it - the recovery has peaked out,

Yes. That's it. Clearly it will only get worse from here for ever and ever and ever and ever... unless Obama is gone because he is clearly the only factor in this.

Except just last month (and every month before) you have gone on and on about the participation rate and how it is the true measure of job growth.

Well, it went up, didn't it?

But now you ignore that because you don't like the result because it might possibly suggest that Obama is doing a good job. You can't accept that conclusion, so you reject the facts.

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 18):
While I'm a fiscal conservative for the most part, I do see the need to spend dollars to improve the infrastructure of America to help us stabilize and grow, and that includes for our intellectual assets as well as the traditional brick-and-mortar goods.

That is absolutely consistent with fiscal conservatism. Fiscal conservatism should hold that government spending should be restricted to only those services that really cannot be profitably performed by the private sector and infrastructure development is one of those things. There are too many financial, legal, and regulatory barriers to having private, for-profit companies funding, planning, and building road and rail. Or providing disaster relief. Etc. Another central tenet of fiscal conservatism is that your spending should not outstrip your revenue.

What the current GOP is espousing is not fiscal conservatism, but is rather so internally inconsistent that it has absolutely no philosophy attached to it at all. It basically comes down to: "More spending on the stuff I like/stuff that gets me kickbacks from my buddies in the defense and security industries, less spending on the stuff I don't like/stuff that doesn't get me a kickback." And yet, even the GOP has historically been the largest accruers of debt. It is NOT fiscal conservatism to cut taxes while increasing spending. And yet that is exactly what Romney wants to do. Add a TRILLION extra dollars to the defense budget that the Pentagon doesn't even want! And does his budget plan make any provision to pay for it? No.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 7):
To this day, I still cannot fathom how people, who call themselves compassionate who care about others, could possibly support policies that simply racked up the debt that one day would have to be paid.

Nor can I. The budget as it stands could be mostly balanced by eliminating the Bush tax cuts on the wealthiest Americans. It was, after all, balanced before those tax cuts went into effect.

And yet the GOP will not let it happen to the point of bringing us to the point of the fiscal cliff.


User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20791 posts, RR: 62
Reply 20, posted (2 years 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 1979 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 19):
Another central tenet of fiscal conservatism is that your spending should not outstrip your revenue.

That's one reason why I qualified my statement, since I don't believe that debt, if it's for infrastructure, is a bad thing. For instance, I believe that a proper WPA-style program in this day and age could result in both improved infrastructure and put valuable job skills to work, rather than just handing out unemployment checks. If we're going to be spending the money, we might as well get something tangible in return for it.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20247 posts, RR: 59
Reply 21, posted (2 years 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 1969 times:

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 20):
That's one reason why I qualified my statement, since I don't believe that debt, if it's for infrastructure, is a bad thing. For instance, I believe that a proper WPA-style program in this day and age could result in both improved infrastructure and put valuable job skills to work, rather than just handing out unemployment checks. If we're going to be spending the money, we might as well get something tangible in return for it.

Agreed. When you buy a house, you don't really lose money. The house has value and adds value. The same is true of infrastructure.


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15812 posts, RR: 27
Reply 22, posted (2 years 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 1940 times:

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 18):
While I'm a fiscal conservative for the most part, I do see the need to spend dollars to improve the infrastructure of America to help us stabilize and grow,

If it's a project that needs doing, it needs to be done no matter what the economy looks like. Spending for the sake of spending is pointless.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 19):
Fiscal conservatism should hold that government spending should be restricted to only those services that really cannot be profitably performed by the private sector and infrastructure development is one of those things.

...in some cases. Even so, there needs to be a stronger local component of funding for such projects. Having Uncle Sam drop off a sack of cash on everyone's doorstep is a great way to waste a lot of money. You can't build for building's sake, it's too expensive and it doesn't fix the economy anyway. The New Deal proved that much.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 19):
The budget as it stands could be mostly balanced by eliminating the Bush tax cuts on the wealthiest Americans. It was, after all, balanced before those tax cuts went into effect.

Raising taxes during a recession is a good way to stomp on any sign of a recovery.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6651 posts, RR: 6
Reply 23, posted (2 years 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 1930 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 22):
Raising taxes during a recession is a good way to stomp on any sign of a recovery.

And Romney's Loophole closing (do we know which ones yet?) wont result in an effective tax increase?



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20247 posts, RR: 59
Reply 24, posted (2 years 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 1927 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 22):

Raising taxes during a recession is a good way to stomp on any sign of a recovery.

Except raising taxes on the upper bracket has no such effect.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/02/bu...ices-report-on-tax-rates.html?_r=0

Of course, the GOP suppressed the nonpartisan report because, as we have seen from this new GOP, facts and figures are meanignless if they conflict with dogma.

Yet the world still goes around the Sun.


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15812 posts, RR: 27
Reply 25, posted (2 years 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 1967 times:

Quoting mt99 (Reply 23):
And Romney's Loophole closing (do we know which ones yet?) wont result in an effective tax increase?

It will, and it's probably a bad idea. Of course since only the rich use tax loopholes, or so the left tells me...

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 24):
Except raising taxes on the upper bracket has no such effect.

Even if that's true, it's Robin Hood economics. You take from the rich to give to the poor without actually giving the rich anything for it. It's a backwards plan and eventually shaking the trees won't help anymore.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11502 posts, RR: 52
Reply 26, posted (2 years 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 1959 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 22):
Raising taxes during a recession is a good way to stomp on any sign of a recovery.
Quoting BMI727 (Reply 22):
Spending for the sake of spending is pointless.

These two sentences cannot possibly be true at the same time, when you think about it.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 25):
Of course since only the rich use tax loopholes

The "loophole" he has implied he will close (while artfully dodging the question when asked directly) is the mortgage interest deduction. If that goes away, it will be the largest tax increase on the middle class in the history of the nation.

But yeah, it would allow us to pay off the debt. On the backs of the middle class.



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20791 posts, RR: 62
Reply 27, posted (2 years 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 1971 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 22):
If it's a project that needs doing, it needs to be done no matter what the economy looks like.

There's a lot of basic infrastructure that has been let to lapse into disrepair, plus plenty of opportunities to improve worker skills and reinvest in America with a WPA-style program. My point—and I was very clear on this—is that if we're going to be doing deficit spending to support unemployment checks, that it would benefit our nation and workforce to get something tangible in return for those dollars.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 22):
You can't build for building's sake, it's too expensive and it doesn't fix the economy anyway. The New Deal proved that much.

Perhaps you should bone up on history a bit.

"1933 to 1939 witnessed a 60% increase [in GDP]; the amount of consumer products bought increased by 40% while private investment in industry increased by 5 times in just six years."

Source: New Deal Success



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15812 posts, RR: 27
Reply 28, posted (2 years 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 1947 times:

Quoting D L X (Reply 26):
These two sentences cannot possibly be true at the same time, when you think about it.

Yes, they can be. People aren't spending money for the good of the economy, they're spending because they want or need something. That's real demand, rather than a government produced bubble that will need to be paid back.

Quoting D L X (Reply 26):
The "loophole" he has implied he will close (while artfully dodging the question when asked directly) is the mortgage interest deduction.

That would be stupid and suicidal. It won't happen. I do, however, hope that the government cheerleading of home ownership, whether one can afford it or not, will end for good.

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 27):
My point—and I was very clear on this—is that if we're going to be doing deficit spending to support unemployment checks, that it would benefit our nation and workforce to get something tangible in return for those dollars.

Then we better start hacking up social programs so there's money to pay for it.

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 27):
Perhaps you should bone up on history a bit.

"1933 to 1939 witnessed a 60% increase [in GDP]; the amount of consumer products bought increased by 40% while private investment in industry increased by 5 times in just six years."

The New Deal was a failure, and, you should also check out what happened to tax rates during that time. FDR didn't end the Depression, he just spent a lot of money. It took the massive ramp up to WWII for a recovery to really take hold.

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 27):
There's a lot of basic infrastructure that has been let to lapse into disrepair, plus plenty of opportunities to improve worker skills and reinvest in America with a WPA-style program.

There shouldn't be any WPA style program. If something needs doing the government should collect bids and pick the best one. The winning bidder should be the one responsible for hiring whomever they need to hire. More bureaucracy will just lower productivity and increase costs.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11502 posts, RR: 52
Reply 29, posted (2 years 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 1935 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 28):
People aren't spending money for the good of the economy, they're spending because they want or need something.

Right. And when they spend money, they are inherently buying something FROM somebody. That somebody uses the money to buy other things, put a roof over his head, put food in his belly, etc. etc.

That is the good of the economy.



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20791 posts, RR: 62
Reply 30, posted (2 years 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 1926 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 28):
Then we better start hacking up social programs so there's money to pay for it.

This is where your arguments go into The Big Fail. In your posts you're simply not addressing my original point that there should be/have been an opportunity to get a return on our investment in unemployment checks. That money has been paying out in increased/extended benefits—up to 99 weeks—from the outset of the current financial crisis/recession in 2008. The money is continuing to go out and will continue to go out with or without a works project.

Honestly, I don't know how to make it any plainer for you.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21804 posts, RR: 55
Reply 31, posted (2 years 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 1921 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 25):
Even if that's true, it's Robin Hood economics. You take from the rich to give to the poor without actually giving the rich anything for it.

The alternative is to take from the poor to cover the cost of the debt while allowing the rich, who were at least as culpable for getting us into the mess we're in, to go on with life as normal. That's not right.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 25):
It's a backwards plan and eventually shaking the trees won't help anymore.

It's not supposed to go on forever. As soon as we're out of debt hole that we're in, revisit the tax rates and reduce them again.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15812 posts, RR: 27
Reply 32, posted (2 years 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 1918 times:

Quoting D L X (Reply 29):
That is the good of the economy.

It's also real demand, not government stimulus spending for spending's sake.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11502 posts, RR: 52
Reply 33, posted (2 years 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 1918 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 32):
It's also real demand, not government stimulus spending for spending's sake.

You have made a distinction without a difference.



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlinecasinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4751 posts, RR: 3
Reply 34, posted (2 years 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 1917 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 28):
That's real demand, rather than a government produced bubble that will need to be paid back.

But how is it a Government produced bubble? The Government controls money flow through the treasury. By spending on anything, the government is also spending on Private companies to do jobs. Getting federal works in place such as bridges, roads ,and airports very directly affects the "We Built it" contruction companies ,and their suppliers that provide the big equipment and workers.

The fact that the Government has a balancing problem will eventually affect inflation, but the money is being spent to keep the econonmy going when the banks that are supposed to loan money go into shock after a financial crisis.
Without the government money being spent, the recession would have been a depression.



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8927 posts, RR: 24
Reply 35, posted (2 years 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 1912 times:

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 27):
"1933 to 1939 witnessed a 60% increase [in GDP]; the amount of consumer products bought increased by 40% while private investment in industry increased by 5 times in just six years."

33 to 39 indeed witnessed a 60% increase in GDP, but was still no higher in 39 than what it was in 1930. The economy bottomed out in 1933, after having lost half of GDP since 1929 (Nominal dollars GDP of $105 billion in 1929 to about $56 billion in 1933. By 1939 it was back up to about $92 billion - about where the US Economy was in 1924.

It's too easy to say that everything is rosy because it's better than when you are at the bottom of the trough. You have the rebound effect after all recessions - the question is whether the economy is doing better than the rebound effect (if the government had done nothing at all) or worse, due to government intervention. I contend that that briefly it did better, but now it is worse. In other words, we would be better off now if the 6 trillion in stimulus spending had not been spent.

And yes, I said $6 trillion in stimulus. Any deficit spending is effectively stimulus (unless it is foreign aid or something like that).



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15812 posts, RR: 27
Reply 36, posted (2 years 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 1906 times:

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 30):
In your posts you're simply not addressing my original point that there should be/have been an opportunity to get a return on our investment in unemployment checks. That money has been paying out in increased/extended benefits—up to 99 weeks—from the outset of the current financial crisis/recession in 2008.

That's why you can't have a government full of social programs that spend a lot of money on nothing. Which is basically the same as stimulus to bring money for projects nobody really needs.

Quoting Mir (Reply 31):
The alternative is to take from the poor to cover the cost of the debt while allowing the rich, who were at least as culpable for getting us into the mess we're in, to go on with life as normal. That's not right.

The right way is to cut social programs and increase funding for education and making sure that defense and infrastructure are taken care of, while holding the line on taxes. No economy ever grew because of a tax hike.

Quoting Mir (Reply 31):
t's not supposed to go on forever. As soon as we're out of debt hole that we're in, revisit the tax rates and reduce them again.

Why would any poor people vote for that? It's free money to them. They'll just keep going back to the well and get the rich people to pay for whatever social program they want. And the debt hole isn't going to get any smaller if the government insists on going down the failed stimulus route.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6651 posts, RR: 6
Reply 37, posted (2 years 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 1907 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 35):
Any deficit spending is effectively stimulus

FEMA included?



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20791 posts, RR: 62
Reply 38, posted (2 years 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 1903 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 36):
That's why you can't have a government full of social programs that spend a lot of money on nothing.

Since you continue to avoid addressing my point, and are simply going off on your own tangents, I've got to conclude that you believe that spending dollars while receiving nothing in return is what you advocate.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15812 posts, RR: 27
Reply 39, posted (2 years 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 1899 times:

Quoting casinterest (Reply 34):
But how is it a Government produced bubble?

Because it's robbing Peter to pay Paul. The government can pump a bunch of money into the economy by building a bridge, but it's going to have to suck all that money back out to pay for it. Now that's okay if you actually need the bridge, but that means it should be built whether you're in a depression or a boom. If you need a bridge, you need a bridge, which is fine since the government needs to spend on some things. But spending just to stimulate the economy is a poor idea because those bills don't evaporate.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8927 posts, RR: 24
Reply 40, posted (2 years 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 1894 times:

Quoting mt99 (Reply 37):
FEMA included?

Yes, FEMA is stimulus (if it is paid for by addig to the debt). Strictly speaking, since money is fungible, the entire deficit (difference between revenue and outlays) is stimulus spending, regardless what it is spent for, UNLESS the buyers of the issued T-Bills are all private investors within the US.

Put in another way: Stimulus spending = Federal Outlays - Federal reciepts - Private US-based purchases of T-Bills.

Until we started monetizing the debt (Fed buying T-Bills), you could say that deficit spending was not stimulus, as most T-Bills were purchased in the US by private investors, pension funds etc. Money was being removed from the economy (T-bill purchases) and then returned via government spending. But that is no longer so much the case, as the Fed is buying the biggest chunk of those T-Bills.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15812 posts, RR: 27
Reply 41, posted (2 years 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 1885 times:

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 38):
Since you continue to avoid addressing my point, and are simply going off on your own tangents, I've got to conclude that you believe that spending dollars while receiving nothing in return is what you advocate.

Not at all. You have to cut those social safety net programs to avoid paying out money for no return and also cut stimuli to avoid paying out money for unneeded programs. If the government is writing a check, they should be providing something necessary and useful for it. (So not artwork)



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinebjorn14 From Norway, joined Feb 2010, 3622 posts, RR: 2
Reply 42, posted (2 years 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 1879 times:

What I find amazing is that black unemployment is 14.3% and black teen employment is over 40% but yet they will go to the polls to keep themselves in chains (aka Joe Biden gaffe)


"I want to know the voice of God the rest is just details" --A. Einstein
User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20791 posts, RR: 62
Reply 43, posted (2 years 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 1875 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 41):
You have to cut those social safety net programs to avoid paying out money for no return and also cut stimuli to avoid paying out money for unneeded programs.

Monday-morning quarterbacking. The bulk of the money has already been spent. If you're not interested in addressing the point that it could have been better spent by receiving something tangible in return, I don't understand why you're wasting time typing.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6651 posts, RR: 6
Reply 44, posted (2 years 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 1876 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 40):
Yes, FEMA is stimulus (if it is paid for by addig to the debt). Strictly speaking, since money is fungible, the entire deficit (difference between revenue and outlays) is stimulus spending

So, spending on FEMA is immoral?

"We cannot — we cannot afford to do those things without jeopardizing the future for our kids. It is simply immoral, in my view, for us to continue to rack up larger and larger debts and pass them on to our kids, knowing full well that we'll all be dead and gone before it's paid off. It makes no sense at all."" -

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/hurr...rikes-east-coast-gallery-1.1194577


Step into my office, baby
User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11502 posts, RR: 52
Reply 45, posted (2 years 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 1877 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 35):
Any deficit spending is effectively stimulus

So, I'll ask again: have you advocated for or voted for candidates that supported or executed deficit spending?



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7972 posts, RR: 51
Reply 46, posted (2 years 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 1865 times:

Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 42):
What I find amazing is that black unemployment is 14.3% and black teen employment is over 40% but yet they will go to the polls to keep themselves in chains (aka Joe Biden gaffe)

It is simple, as long as they feel that the President can do a better job than Romney then they vote for the President.

Add that many believe the President is doing a good job and Bush of the past or Republicans of the present have thwarted the economy and bam, the President gets votes.

^^this is not something that needs a debate, it is simple human decision making. You may disagree with these arguments, and that's quite all right! But it's easy to see why someone would vote that way, even if you disagree



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8927 posts, RR: 24
Reply 47, posted (2 years 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 1851 times:

Quoting mt99 (Reply 44):
So, spending on FEMA is immoral?

I never said or meant any such thing. I just said that it is essentially stimulus - even by definition. What may be a moral imperative (helping the poor) may also be fiscally irresponsible. If your family makes $50,000 per year, and you have 2 kids, would you be upset if your wife wrote a check to the salvation army (or name your charity) for $20,000?

Quoting D L X (Reply 45):
So, I'll ask again: have you advocated for or voted for candidates that supported or executed deficit spending?

Yes, but none to the current level. A little deficit is manageable (even though it's still stupid). But when you are habitually spending 30-40% more than you bring in, you deserve to be beaten with a 9-iron.

[Edited 2012-11-02 15:32:48]


Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20791 posts, RR: 62
Reply 48, posted (2 years 3 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 1831 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 47):
But when you are habitually spending 30-40% more than you bring in, you deserve to be beaten with a 9-iron.

So may we safely assume you've voted for Democrats then for President traditionally? You know, voting by your principles?

Despite what you heard, GOP doesn't reduce deficits

"The belief that Republicans are more fiscally conservative than Democrats is an old one. It's so deeply ingrained in the American myth that it's hard to know where it started. But it's completely, factually, undeniably wrong — and has been so for awhile.

In their book "Presimetrics: What the Facts Tell Us About How the Presidents Measure Up On the Issues We Care About", economist Mike Kimel and journalist Michael E. Kanell calculate the change in government spending under every president from Dwight Eisenhower to George W. Bush.

They found that government spending, relative to the size of the economy, increased much faster under Republican administrations than under Democratic ones. George W. Bush presided over a greater increase in government spending than any president since Lyndon Johnson, and George H.W. Bush wasn't far behind. Bill Clinton, in contrast, was the only president since Eisenhower to actually reduce government spending. Even Reagan didn't do that."



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15812 posts, RR: 27
Reply 49, posted (2 years 3 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 1831 times:

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 43):
Monday-morning quarterbacking.

We've known that the New Deal was a failure for seven decades. We've seen the national debt headed north since the Great Society programs from the 1960s. We've known that Keynesian economic policies don't work.

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 43):
If you're not interested in addressing the point that it could have been better spent by receiving something tangible in return,

It's not better spending at all. Either you're funding projects that are actually needed, which should be happening anyway rather than just part of some stimulus package, or you're funding projects that aren't needed, in which case you're just spending money.

Whether you're just writing unemployment checks or paying people to build useless projects doesn't matter: it's still waste. "Something tangible" is not the same as "something useful." Paying someone to sit on their ass is the same as paying them to build something useless.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20791 posts, RR: 62
Reply 50, posted (2 years 3 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 1827 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 49):
We've known that the New Deal was a failure for seven decades.

Purely your opinion. Let's make that clear. You've offered up nothing statistical to back up your opinion.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 49):
Paying someone to sit on their ass is the same as paying them to build something useless.

Except, even if you pay someone to build something useless—not what I've advocated, clearly so by my posts—still develops skills and keeps skills active, both a benefit to society, the workforce, and thus, the economy, which benefits all in the end.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15812 posts, RR: 27
Reply 51, posted (2 years 3 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 1786 times:

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 50):
You've offered up nothing statistical to back up your opinion.

The New Deal was a short term plan that only could be said to have had any success in the short term but failed to end the Depression. Only the massive increase in industry thanks to WWII ended the malaise.

The numbers are in the link you yourself posted: in 1939 private investment was 2/3 of what it was in 1928 while unemployment barely budged between 1937 and 1940. And of course, by that time, those who did have jobs were paying considerably higher taxes to support the programs that didn't really do much of anything. It just doesn't work, especially when you remember that whatever short term gains you might get have to be paid for later, but by that time the politicians that espoused those policies are probably writing their memoirs.

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 50):
Except, even if you pay someone to build something useless—not what I've advocated, clearly so by my posts

I've never said the government should cut the projects that aren't useless. But if you need a road, you need a road whether there's a recession or not. Bridges don't start rusting faster when the Dow Jones drops. All of the deficit stimulus spending people think should be cascading into the economy whenever the market goes bad has to be one of two things: unnecessary and wasteful projects or projects that should have been funded before. Either is a bad way of governing.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20791 posts, RR: 62
Reply 52, posted (2 years 3 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 1769 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 51):
Bridges don't start rusting faster when the Dow Jones drops.

Once again, you're going off on your own little tangent.

Here's a graph for you:

U.S. Infrastructure Spending

Infrastructure spending has been going down. We need to spend this money on public works anyway, but we aren't.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15812 posts, RR: 27
Reply 53, posted (2 years 3 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 1761 times:

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 52):
Once again, you're going off on your own little tangent.

Not at all. When you look at government projects like infrastructure or defense, things are either needed or they aren't. The necessity of a given infrastructure or defense project is not really dependent on what the market looks like.

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 52):
Infrastructure spending has been going down. We need to spend this money on public works anyway, but we aren't.

That's what it looks like at the end of a spike caused by the stimulus.

http://www.businessinsider.com/infra...-urban-land-institute-2011-10?op=1

Infrastructure spending has varied by about .7% of GDP since the 1960s. There's a lot of fluctuations, but it's not as though funding fell off a cliff. More money could be used, but it's going to have to come from somewhere and that will have to be social program cutbacks.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20791 posts, RR: 62
Reply 54, posted (2 years 3 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 1759 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 53):
The necessity of a given infrastructure or defense project is not really dependent on what the market looks like.

You're the only one who's arguing that point. Since you're replying to my posts on this subject, please, quote me where I've stated what you claim I did. Trust me, you won't find it.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 53):
More money could be used, but it's going to have to come from somewhere and that will have to be social program cutbacks.

Again, the money's already been spent and there's more earmarked to be spent on unemployment benefits. I've been advocating—and not just in this thread—that a good use for public welfare funds would be on infrastructure spending. You've yet to come up with a cohesive reply to that argument.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineFlyPNS1 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 6694 posts, RR: 24
Reply 55, posted (2 years 3 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 1759 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 51):
The New Deal was a short term plan that only could be said to have had any success in the short term but failed to end the Depression.

You can believe that all you want, but the facts say otherwise.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 49):
We've known that Keynesian economic policies don't work.

Yet, total U.S. wealth has grown substantially over the same period of time. If Keynesian policies were such a failure and dragging the country down, why has wealth in the U.S. increased by so much over the decades?


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15812 posts, RR: 27
Reply 56, posted (2 years 3 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 1729 times:

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 54):
You're the only one who's arguing that point.

Up until now I thought it was pretty obvious. I guess not.

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 54):
Since you're replying to my posts on this subject, please, quote me where I've stated what you claim I did. Trust me, you won't find it.

Simple logic. You're advocating economic stimulus in the form of increased government spending on infrastructure as a response to an economic downturn, not unlike the New Deal and the Obama stimulus. Of course, the need for such things is not tied to the market which implies one of two cases: either 1) the increased spending will all go to projects that are needed, meaning that the government was previously neglecting projects that should have been undertaken or 2) the projects being paid for by the increase in spending are not really needed, meaning that it's just extra spending for little or no benefit.

The necessity of government spending is not strongly tied to the market. A booming market doesn't mean that the Air Force needs to expand and a recession doesn't mean that the infrastructure needs an overhaul. Government spending, if done properly, should remain fairly flat throughout the business cycle.

Whichever it is, it still raises a not insignificant problem in that all that money the government pumped into the economy is also going to have to be sucked out of it at some point. That's how you find yourself in the unenviable position of either deficit spending or raising taxes in a weak market.

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 55):
You can believe that all you want, but the facts say otherwise.

The New Deal didn't work. It set the stage for another recession in 1937 and the economy as a whole never really recovered until WWII, which was a sort of bubble on its own, but one that also created wealth and set the stage for prosperity, even if in a brutal way.

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 55):
If Keynesian policies were such a failure and dragging the country down, why has wealth in the U.S. increased by so much over the decades?

Because there's genuine growth and prosperity in there that isn't due to the government, which I know may be hard for liberals to believe, but it's true.

There is some truth in Keynesian economics, but it's an exceptionally poor way to make policy. For the most part, it's an expensive and transient way of doing business. And it works both ways too. Sure the government can cause a spike in the numbers by throwing money into a bad market, but there's also the pattern of end a war, start a recession. The problem with the government throwing money out there all the time is that the money has to come from somewhere too, either taxes or just tacked onto the national debt.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20791 posts, RR: 62
Reply 57, posted (2 years 3 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 1720 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 56):
Whichever it is, it still raises a not insignificant problem in that all that money the government pumped into the economy is also going to have to be sucked out of it at some point. That's how you find yourself in the unenviable position of either deficit spending or raising taxes in a weak market.

Obviously, you're just going to continue to quote my posts, then debate yourself, so there's really no reason for me to continue replying, correcting the subject matter as I go along.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5742 posts, RR: 10
Reply 58, posted (2 years 3 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 1684 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 7):
The piper is here, and he's a-knockin.

And on your door as well. Where is your normally fine analysis of the "other" numbers? Say U6? Which you noted better reflected things? You spent last month telling everyone how the stats were being manipulated and we were looking at the wrong ones, so what about those numbers?

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 11):
, and remember that deficit spending has added several points to "growth" every quarter - but that is not real growth - that's just borrowed against growth in the future when you have to pay the bill.

So you also disagree with companies that take out loans and burden themselves with debt to build for the future? Or taking out a mortgage that is many times your income in order to have a place to live? I don't disagree with you the the deficit spending is too great and must be brought under control and ended and the debt paid down. Congress is out of control. But to say that deficit based growth is not, cannot be real is silly.

The US economy can recover, even from this debt, all that needs to be done is for Congress to get it's act together and decrease spending and increase the revenues (and you have agreed with me before that part of that is to return taxes to where they were pre-Bush II tax cuts).

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 46):
^^this is not something that needs a debate, it is simple human decision making. You may disagree with these arguments, and that's quite all right! But it's easy to see why someone would vote that way, even if you disagree

Good response. Everyone tries to invalidate or discredit the reasons why people vote the way they do but the truth is it is a very personal thing and

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 47):
Yes, but none to the current level. A little deficit is manageable (even though it's still stupid). But when you are habitually spending 30-40% more than you bring in, you deserve to be beaten with a 9-iron.

You did not vote for the current Republicans that are in Congress? Because they kept voting for the current spending as well as the Democrats.

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21804 posts, RR: 55
Reply 59, posted (2 years 3 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 1682 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 36):
The right way is to cut social programs and increase funding for education and making sure that defense and infrastructure are taken care of, while holding the line on taxes.

So the poor get their programs cut and the rich get to keep their tax rate. There's no shared sacrifice there.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 36):
Why would any poor people vote for that? It's free money to them. They'll just keep going back to the well and get the rich people to pay for whatever social program they want.

By that logic, tax rates should never be raised because it's impossible to lower them again. Yet we know that isn't true.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 51):
Only the massive increase in industry thanks to WWII ended the malaise.

In other words, government spending (on the military) ended the malaise.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20791 posts, RR: 62
Reply 60, posted (2 years 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 1680 times:

Quoting tugger (Reply 58):
You did not vote for the current Republicans that are in Congress?

I think that's "tax cut for the highest 1%, deficit-spending Republicans."  



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15812 posts, RR: 27
Reply 61, posted (2 years 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 1657 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 59):
So the poor get their programs cut and the rich get to keep their tax rate. There's no shared sacrifice there.

We've seen that raising taxes during a weak economy isn't a smart thing to do. And, if you're talking about income taxes, many of the poor aren't sacrificing much of anything to begin with.

Quoting Mir (Reply 59):
By that logic, tax rates should never be raised because it's impossible to lower them again. Yet we know that isn't true.

Considering how much people love to take the wealthy's money, I wish I were more confident in the historical precedent.

Quoting Mir (Reply 59):
In other words, government spending (on the military) ended the malaise.

Yes, but look what it took: insanely high taxes, a huge spike in the national debt, and the economy went straight into a recession when the war ended.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21804 posts, RR: 55
Reply 62, posted (2 years 3 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 1573 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 61):
And, if you're talking about income taxes, many of the poor aren't sacrificing much of anything to begin with.

I'm talking about paying more for the services that they use. You can argue about whether that's a back-door tax or not, but it's certainly an economic hit.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 61):
Yes, but look what it took: insanely high taxes, a huge spike in the national debt, and the economy went straight into a recession when the war ended.

Fortunately, you can time a roll-back in non-military government spending to coincide with a strong economy, instead of an abrupt drop-off whenever you're done fighting whoever you're fighting.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20247 posts, RR: 59
Reply 63, posted (2 years 3 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 1574 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 25):
Even if that's true, it's Robin Hood economics. You take from the rich to give to the poor without actually giving the rich anything for it.

And it works because it forces the rich to stop hoarding money and actually spend it on business, which stimulates the economy.

It's worked in the vast majority of countries in which it has been used.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 35):
I contend that that briefly it did better, but now it is worse.

And you are incorrect. Next?

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 55):
You can believe that all you want, but the facts say otherwise.

But what are facts to a die-hard?

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 61):
We've seen that raising taxes during a weak economy isn't a smart thing to do.

You're right. Except for about 2% of Americans, the economy is very strong. And those people are making obscene amounts of money and they are shoving it all in the bank, rather than spending it.

MAKE them spend it and they will not only spread the wealth, but they will spread the economy.


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15812 posts, RR: 27
Reply 64, posted (2 years 3 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 1522 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 62):
Fortunately, you can time a roll-back in non-military government spending to coincide with a strong economy, instead of an abrupt drop-off whenever you're done fighting whoever you're fighting.

That's not really practical. Current issues, like the intervention in Libya, aren't hugely expensive and those exceptionally expensive measures that will have a considerable economic effect shouldn't be extended unnecessarily because they're so expensive. It's better for the government to spend what they need to spend, whatever the markets look like.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 63):
And it works because it forces the rich to stop hoarding money and actually spend it on business, which stimulates the economy.

It's their money which we have no right to. They can hoard it if they want. Now you're starting to get into tyranny of the majority and forced conformity, which is a very bad place to go.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 63):
But what are facts to a die-hard?

Look at the facts. The New Deal failed: it cost a lot, didn't help much, and what it did help was only temporary. Chalk it up as a failed experiment.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineMaverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 5716 posts, RR: 6
Reply 65, posted (2 years 3 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 1429 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 64):
It's their money which we have no right to. They can hoard it if they want.

"Congress shall have the power to .... levy taxes".

Listen to yourself. You claim to want to put an end to the ever increasing gap between the rich and the poor, and yet you're okay with the rich getting richer by hoarding their money.

Guess what: money is NOT, nor should it be, an unlimited resource. It is the representation of scarcity that used to be defined by.....

No. You know what, I'm not giving you a free Economics 096 lesson. You had one of those in high school, except it wasn't free. It was paid for by the money which you claim we have "no right to".


And the partisan dumbing down of the populace continues...



"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15812 posts, RR: 27
Reply 66, posted (2 years 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 1431 times:

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 65):
"Congress shall have the power to .... levy taxes".

You should make the distinction between taxes that fund valuable government services like the military or schools and then there's taxes that are just redistributed to other citizens that accomplish nothing.

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 65):
You claim to want to put an end to the ever increasing gap between the rich and the poor,

I actually don't care about the rich getting richer. Unless I get robbed by a millionaire, it isn't my problem.

If you make money, good for you. It's your money, which I have no legitimate claim to. It doesn't matter how much you have or how little I have: it's still not my money and I have no right to it. Use taxes to pay for government services, but there's no place for making the wealthy America's piggybank to fund themselves or whatever garbage social programs they feel like creating.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20247 posts, RR: 59
Reply 67, posted (2 years 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 1430 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 64):
It's their money which we have no right to.

The Constitution says otherwise. Perhaps you should move to Monte Carlo?

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 66):
You should make the distinction between taxes that fund valuable government services like the military or schools and then there's taxes that are just redistributed to other citizens that accomplish nothing.

The military and schools ARE wealth redistribution. All taxation is wealth redistribution. That's why it's a tax.

Wealth redistribution is not a categorically bad thing.


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15812 posts, RR: 27
Reply 68, posted (2 years 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 1428 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 67):
Perhaps you should move to Monte Carlo?

Do you think wealthy people and their money aren't already doing that?

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 67):
The military and schools ARE wealth redistribution

The military is a service which we all receive and all pay for. Unfortunately, it's just not practical for the share of the cost to be distributed equally. Schools are at least a quality investment and potentially a much more productive substitute for welfare. Forcing people to pay for their own education would be overly cruel in a world where not everyone is born rich.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 67):
All taxation is wealth redistribution.

Again, there's a difference between taxes that go to fund a new fire engine and taxes that go to fund bags of Doritos for trailer dwellers. One provides a benefit for the person paying, one does not.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 67):
Wealth redistribution is not a categorically bad thing.

It is if you're talking about redistributing my wealth.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20247 posts, RR: 59
Reply 69, posted (2 years 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 1426 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 68):
Again, there's a difference between taxes that go to fund a new fire engine and taxes that go to fund bags of Doritos for trailer dwellers. One provides a benefit for the person paying, one does not.

Do you oppose raising taxes to build bridges, roads, rail, runways, electrical wires, sewers, etc?

You are talking about welfare and I am talking about taxes. They are two different things. I agree with you (gasp!) that my tax dollars should not purchase junk food for poor people. I agree that the welfare system needs some serious anti-abuse work.

I also will point out that the vast majority of your tax money does NOT buy Doritos and Coke for LaQueefa and her four kids all with different last names. Yes, we need to reduce the number of LaQueefas with four kids born out of wedlock who collect welfare checks for a living. Believe me, she and her clones come into my clinic every day and they drive me crazy with their entitled behavior.

But the vast majority of the people who I see who are on WIC and Medicare are actually hard-working poor people. I would much rather see my tax dollars going to employing these people building bridges and roads and rail and all that stuff. For some reason, the GOP seems categorically opposed to projects like infrastructure spending. And so instead, people get unemployment checks.


User currently offlineMaverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 5716 posts, RR: 6
Reply 70, posted (2 years 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 1427 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 66):
You should make the distinction between taxes that fund valuable government services like the military or schools and then there's taxes that are just redistributed to other citizens that accomplish nothing.

THAT'S what you took from it????!!?!!

Again: "Congress shall have the power to .... levy Taxes". Nothing in there about a qualifier like "for valuable government services like the military or schools". In fact, there's NOTHING in there about schools to begin with.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 68):
are at least a quality investment

Sorry, you are not King, you do not get to unilaterally decide what is a "quality investment" and what isn't.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 68):
It is if you're talking about redistributing my wealth.

If you don't like it, move to Monte Carlo or the Cayman Islands.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 66):

I actually don't care about the rich getting richer. Unless I get robbed by a millionaire, it isn't my problem.

The problem is, we ARE getting robbed. Fortune 500 companies are having record profits, while the middle class disappears. It's great that you're okay with that (since you seem to be a millionaire yourself), but the rest of us aren't.

To quote a certain Special Counsel, "Have you no sense of decency sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency? "



"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5742 posts, RR: 10
Reply 71, posted (2 years 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 1427 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 68):
Do you think wealthy people and their money aren't already doing that?

They are not actually. More wealth moves into the USA each year than moves out as do more "wealthy people" move to the USA than away from it. That is because it has some of the greatest benefits available for wealth and the wealthy of any nation in the world. The wealthy benefit far more from the taxes they pay in the USA than any other group of people because of the society it creates. Why do you think the USA has the wealth it has and why do you think that more people from every strata want to come here than any other country on earth (sure go ahead and throw out a couple of high profile news story names who have moved away but do some more research and you will see)?

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15812 posts, RR: 27
Reply 72, posted (2 years 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 1429 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 69):
Do you oppose raising taxes to build bridges, roads, rail, runways, electrical wires, sewers, etc?

No. But rail should be a private venture and many roads and airports should be public-private partnerships. Many airports around the world are privatized and work just fine, as do the roads that are managed by Cintra for example. That said, a lot of infrastructure will have to be government owned and supported.

Sewers and electric lines are the responsibility of the utilities, which should be private businesses, albeit rather heavily regulated ones by necessity.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 69):
I would much rather see my tax dollars going to employing these people building bridges and roads and rail and all that stuff. For some reason, the GOP seems categorically opposed to projects like infrastructure spending.

All these things should be built because they are needed, and not as a jobs program. Otherwise it's just wasting money. Either you need the infrastructure, in which case it should be built, with contributions from those who will actually benefit from it, or you don't need the infrastructure in which case the government should save its money.

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 70):
Again: "Congress shall have the power to .... levy Taxes". Nothing in there about a qualifier like "for valuable government services like the military or schools".

Well, there's only so much foresight you can expect guys to have.

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 70):
If you don't like it, move to Monte Carlo or the Cayman Islands.

You think I wouldn't send my money wherever it needs to go to minimize taxes?

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 70):
The problem is, we ARE getting robbed.

What money of yours has a billionaire stolen or swindled you out of? Or are you just unhappy with them not giving you what you think is your slice of the pie, although it's actually all their pie?

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 70):
Fortune 500 companies are having record profits, while the middle class disappears.

The whole point is to make a profit.

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 70):
It's great that you're okay with that (since you seem to be a millionaire yourself), but the rest of us aren't.

Oh I'm not a millionaire, not even close. But the social programs weighing down the budget put me further away rather than closer to being a millionaire.

But I'm not dumb enough to support policies that might not hurt me today but could cost me a ton over the next few decades. Nor do I buy into the idea that I should get a slice of anyone else's success. Someone making money isn't the same as taking money from me, so there's no reason I should be entitled to a piece of it.

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 70):
To quote a certain Special Counsel, "Have you no sense of decency sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency? "

You should ask that of the people who want to shake down the wealthy to subsidize others.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinecws818 From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 1176 posts, RR: 2
Reply 73, posted (2 years 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 1427 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 72):
But rail should be a private venture

Why?

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 72):
and many roads and airports should be public-private partnerships.

Why?

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 72):
and many roads and airports should be public-private partnerships.

Which ones?



volgende halte...Station Hollands Spoor
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15812 posts, RR: 27
Reply 74, posted (2 years 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 1431 times:

Quoting tugger (Reply 71):
They are not actually.

Then why all the hand wringing about closing loopholes if money is still flowing here and the wealthy aren't hiding or moving their money to avoid taxation?

Quoting tugger (Reply 71):
The wealthy benefit far more from the taxes they pay in the USA than any other group of people because of the society it creates.

Taxes come from the society, the society doesn't come from the taxes. (Even though I hate the idea of "society" it's a load of crap and usually code for tyranny of the majority) And American taxes are less onerous than those in many other places, but that doesn't mean there isn't room for improvement.

And how do they benefit more? The Army works just as hard to protect me as it does to protect a billionaire, and I've yet to see a Zil lane on an American highway. Of course the wealthy are already paying far more, even if it's a lower percentage than I do, so they should benefit more.

Quoting tugger (Reply 71):
Why do you think the USA has the wealth it has and why do you think that more people from every strata want to come here than any other country on earth

There are practical issues like being the only free, developed, and modern nation not blown to bits seventy years ago. But also the fact that America offered the resources and leeway with low enough barriers to entry that allow for success. Now, unfortunately, the US seems to be sliding to the left towards higher taxes and more wealth redistribution and the growth is poised to shift to other parts of the world.

Quoting cws818 (Reply 73):
Why?

Rail is a business. The only reason the government would need to be involved is if private companies are unwilling to make the investment, and if it's not good enough for them, it's not good enough for taxpayers. And rail only has benefit for a fairly small group of people, so if they want it they can pay for it.

Quoting cws818 (Reply 73):
Which ones?

Most of the heavily used roads and airports could be candidates for privatization. Europe and India have had airports privatized (AdP is 52% owned by the French government), and probably other places that escape me at the moment.

The US already has had some roads privatized, including the Chicago Skyway and the new Texas highway. Obviously some rural road isn't going to be able to work under such an arrangement, but many other thoroughfares will.

The truth is that it works, and if private companies are going to offer some or all of the cost for infrastructure improvements, take it.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5742 posts, RR: 10
Reply 75, posted (2 years 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 1427 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 74):
Then why all the hand wringing about closing loopholes if money is still flowing here and the wealthy aren't hiding or moving their money to avoid taxation?

I'm not "wringing hands". Following the rules provided in tax law is what anyone should do. And it doesn't say anything about whether the tax policy is effective and appropriate.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 74):
Taxes come from the society, the society doesn't come from the taxes. (Even though I hate the idea of "society" it's a load of crap and usually code for tyranny of the majority) And American taxes are less onerous than those in many other places, but that doesn't mean there isn't room for improvement.

It has already been determined that money is speech, and it is our free speech which helps produce the society we live in. Majority, minority, and everything in between. And I agree that there is always room for improvement, however I am curious what you consider improvement because for some it only means "less" and yet for me it means "effective".

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 74):
And how do they benefit more? The Army works just as hard to protect me as it does to protect a billionaire, and I've yet to see a Zil lane on an American highway. Of course the wealthy are already paying far more, even if it's a lower percentage than I do, so they should benefit more.

Have you seen the nation and how the wealthy live within in? No one has a better life in the entire world. You can close your eyes to it but yes, not only should they benefit more: they do. The wealthy benefit more than anyone else in the USA. Not a bad situation.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 74):
There are practical issues like being the only free, developed, and modern nation not blown to bits seventy years ago. But also the fact that America offered the resources and leeway with low enough barriers to entry that allow for success. Now, unfortunately, the US seems to be sliding to the left towards higher taxes and more wealth redistribution and the growth is poised to shift to other parts of the world.

And which other country in the world has a better situation and has more wealthy people desiring to live there? It's not China as the wealthy there is coming here as much as possible (within the limits of their government). The USA is still a leading nation in the world wealth creation and freedom and individual success.

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15812 posts, RR: 27
Reply 76, posted (2 years 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 1427 times:

Quoting tugger (Reply 75):
And it doesn't say anything about whether the tax policy is effective and appropriate.

For far too many people "effective and appropriate" means more taxes on the wealthy. It's much too easy to spend someone else's money.

Quoting tugger (Reply 75):
And I agree that there is always room for improvement, however I am curious what you consider improvement because for some it only means "less" and yet for me it means "effective".

Improvement is less. The highest use of an asset is that which its owner determines. If any person has a sum of money, the government should intrude upon that as little as possible and leave as much of that sum as possible in the hands of the person to whom it belongs so they can determine its use.

Quoting tugger (Reply 75):
You can close your eyes to it but yes, not only should they benefit more: they do. The wealthy benefit more than anyone else in the USA. Not a bad situation.

I'd put forth that if you want to play with their money, you play by their rules. I'm not sure people would like that, but it's only fair.

Quoting tugger (Reply 75):
The USA is still a leading nation in the world wealth creation and freedom and individual success.

Just keep jacking up taxes and see how long that lasts. All those foreign students who study in the US are starting to return to their homes rather than stay in the US.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5742 posts, RR: 10
Reply 77, posted (2 years 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 1430 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 76):
For far too many people "effective and appropriate" means more taxes on the wealthy. It's much too easy to spend someone else's money.

Really? How so? Tax changes require a lot of people to get implemented and then those wanting the money have to get it and benefit from it. That doesn't happen very often. I know you probably think the "welfare" etc. are examples of real gain by those people that get it however those people do not have a very good lot in life, they really don't benefit much at all beyond subsistence. That doesn't mean I think there should be more but that that the benefit is not that great.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 76):
Improvement is less. The highest use of an asset is that which its owner determines. If any person has a sum of money, the government should intrude upon that as little as possible and leave as much of that sum as possible in the hands of the person to whom it belongs so they can determine its use.

And I agree with you, we just disagree on what "as little as possible is.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 76):
I'd put forth that if you want to play with their money, you play by their rules. I'm not sure people would like that, but it's only fair.

Who's money is the money of the USA? It is backed by the full faith and credit of the USA and its people. I am not saying it's not "your money" but in many ways it is "our money" as well and the citizens of these United States get to set the rues for how it is used.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 76):
Just keep jacking up taxes and see how long that lasts. All those foreign students who study in the US are starting to return to their homes rather than stay in the US.

What jacking? What the heck are you talking about? The USA has not been been raising taxes nor is there a real chance of a significant increase in the near future.

Tugg

[Edited 2012-11-05 23:47:20]


I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15812 posts, RR: 27
Reply 78, posted (2 years 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 1430 times:

Quoting tugger (Reply 77):
Really? How so?

It's always easy to vote for expanding this program and that program when it isn't going to impact your taxes. A few billion to bail out a car company? Not a problem if you get your income taxes refunded each year.

Quoting tugger (Reply 77):
Who's money is the money of the USA?

Well, the taxes come from somewhere. But there's a problem when a few of the people pay most of the taxes but everybody gets to decide how it's spent, or at least decide on the people who decide how it's spent.

Quoting tugger (Reply 77):
What jacking? What the heck are you talking about?

You didn't notice roughly half the country trying to raise taxes, mostly on people who aren't themselves?



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinebjorn14 From Norway, joined Feb 2010, 3622 posts, RR: 2
Reply 79, posted (2 years 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 1427 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 72):
Sewers

Sewers usually are the responsibilty of the local Public Works Department funded by Municipal Bonds



"I want to know the voice of God the rest is just details" --A. Einstein
User currently offlineflipdewaf From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2006, 1578 posts, RR: 0
Reply 80, posted (2 years 3 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 1427 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 72):
No. But rail should be a private venture and many roads and airports should be public-private partnerships.

Why is rail different from roads and airports?

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 74):
And rail only has benefit for a fairly small group of people, so if they want it they can pay for it.

So if only a small amount of people benefit it should be private?

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 74):
Obviously some rural road isn't going to be able to work under such an arrangement, but many other thoroughfares will.

So if only a small amount of people benefit it should be public?

Round and round we go!

Fred


User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20247 posts, RR: 59
Reply 81, posted (2 years 3 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 1428 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 72):
All these things should be built because they are needed, and not as a jobs program.

Well guess what? 50% of the bridges in this country are structurally obsolete. We are in desperate need of more mass transit. We need vast investments in water distribution, road repair, sewage management, and we need to build systems to deal with the increasing number of Sandy-style storms that we will be seeing in the next century.

So we're in luck!


User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 82, posted (2 years 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 1426 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 72):
Sewers and electric lines are the responsibility of the utilities, which should be private businesses, albeit rather heavily regulated ones by necessity.

Why should society allow itself to be in a position where a few individuals can hold everyone else hostage by cutting of the service. Not to mention paying more.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 72):
All these things should be built because they are needed, and not as a jobs program.

Everything should be built because it is needed, correct. But we are not able to build everything at the same time, especially not when there are shortages of labor and other resources. But it makes perfect sense for society to move up those projects at times when work is low, i.e. a jobs program.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 72):
The whole point is to make a profit.

Sustainable profit. It is easy to make a large one time profit. It is much harder to keep making profit day out and day in. To do the later you must make sure deals are wins to all sides or they will not be there tomorrow.


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15812 posts, RR: 27
Reply 83, posted (2 years 3 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 1426 times:

Quoting flipdewaf (Reply 80):
So if only a small amount of people benefit it should be private?

So if the state of California wants a rail line between LA and the Bay Area, they can pay for it.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 81):
50% of the bridges in this country are structurally obsolete.

Then fix it.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 81):
We are in desperate need of more mass transit.

If the need is so desperate, I'm sure some group of investors can scrape together enough cash to buy a bus or two. Mass transit should generally be built and operate similarly to utilities.

Quoting cmf (Reply 82):
Why should society allow itself to be in a position where a few individuals can hold everyone else hostage by cutting of the service. Not to mention paying more.

I'm pretty sure they can't do that. Utility companies also don't get to charge whatever they wish.

Quoting cmf (Reply 82):
But it makes perfect sense for society to move up those projects at times when work is low, i.e. a jobs program.

Start cutting social programs to pay for it.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20247 posts, RR: 59
Reply 84, posted (2 years 3 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 1425 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 83):
Then fix it.

Love to. The GOP says it's socialism. You fix that, we'll fix the infrastructure.


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15812 posts, RR: 27
Reply 85, posted (2 years 3 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 1424 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 84):
The GOP says it's socialism.

Which Republicans say that fixing or replacing bridges is socialism?



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 86, posted (2 years 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 1422 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 83):
If the need is so desperate, I'm sure some group of investors can scrape together enough cash to buy a bus or two. Mass transit should generally be built and operate similarly to utilities.

A bus or two?

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 83):
I'm pretty sure they can't do that. Utility companies also don't get to charge whatever they wish.

So you're for regulation of utilities. The governments tasks you endorse are expanding.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 83):
Start cutting social programs to pay for it.

It automatically reduces other social programs.


User currently offlineMaverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 5716 posts, RR: 6
Reply 87, posted (2 years 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 1419 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 72):

What money of yours has a billionaire stolen or swindled you out of? Or are you just unhappy with them not giving you what you think is your slice of the pie, although it's actually all their pie?

Yes, we should all be so lucky that the rich and powerful are kind enough to let us eek out a meager existence. Tell you what, let's just all forget about it and let them keep their pie, and the rest of us just die out. After all, we're not worthy of any pie.

Or maybe we can have cake instead...



"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15812 posts, RR: 27
Reply 88, posted (2 years 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 1420 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 86):
So you're for regulation of utilities. The governments tasks you endorse are expanding.

I've always been for regulation of utilities. It's just not practical to have ten different electrical substations and a dozen phone companies running wires around town.

Quoting cmf (Reply 86):
It automatically reduces other social programs.

But what happens when the useful projects are finished? The smart thing would be to cut it off, but with the government I'm afraid they'll just find more to do, whether it needs doing or not.

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 87):
Yes, we should all be so lucky that the rich and powerful are kind enough to let us eek out a meager existence.

The wealthy don't lord over us or own us. Whatever they have is not because they took it from us. Their making money does not in any way take money out of my pocket or keep me from prospering myself.

This narrative that the wealthy got that way by abusing the little people and because of that somehow owe us something is just ridiculous.

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 87):
After all, we're not worthy of any pie.

Not when it's someone else's pie. We should find our own damn pie and get our hands off theirs.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20791 posts, RR: 62
Reply 89, posted (2 years 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 1420 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 88):
It's just not practical to have ten different electrical substations and a dozen phone companies running wires around town.
Quoting BMI727 (Reply 83):
I'm sure some group of investors can scrape together enough cash to buy a bus or two. Mass transit should generally be built and operate similarly to utilities.

How do these two statements jive?



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15812 posts, RR: 27
Reply 90, posted (2 years 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 1419 times:

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 89):
How do these two statements jive?

  They're exactly the same. Utilities and mass transit should be provided by private, for profit, companies that are regulated by the government. Mass transit, however, likely needs less regulation since more competition (within reason) can be allowed. In both cases, the government has to sanction the companies in the market and keep their prices reasonable.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20791 posts, RR: 62
Reply 91, posted (2 years 3 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 1421 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 90):
Mass transit, however, likely needs less regulation since more competition (within reason) can be allowed.

The problem is that mass transit costs more to provide than can be logically charged. The balance is made up from tax revenue. Here in Portland, there's a separate payroll tax to support mass transit that is charged on the employer's side, not as a deduction from the employee's paycheck.

There's a reason why mass transit is run by governments. It's a need that is too expensive to run on a for-profit basis. More competition in mass transit would make it even more expensive, to fund overlapping routes, subsidizing less frequented routes, plus the infrastructure required.

In real world experience, your example would make mass transit prohibitively expensive for the public to use, not even accounting for the added bureaucracy necessary to regulate multiple providers.

Citing an example of a successful urban mass transit system that is privately-owed would be interesting to take a look at. Do you know of one?



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlinecasinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4751 posts, RR: 3
Reply 92, posted (2 years 3 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 1420 times:

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 91):
The problem is that mass transit costs more to provide than can be logically charged. The balance is made up from tax revenue.

And those roads you use just pay for themselves, no gas taxes needed?



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15812 posts, RR: 27
Reply 93, posted (2 years 3 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 1423 times:

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 91):
The problem is that mass transit costs more to provide than can be logically charged.

If people aren't willing to pay what it costs, it obviously is not that important to people and is therefore unnecessary.

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 91):
There's a reason why mass transit is run by governments.

Namely that is sucks money. All it does for me is get in the way, why would I pay for a bus I never ride?

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 91):
In real world experience, your example would make mass transit prohibitively expensive for the public to use,

If the only way you can afford something is to have it subsidized, then you can't afford it. There's already roads and airports that we all pay for, and that's enough, I don't see any need for paying for people to use them too. Keeping that in good shape is going to be expensive enough.

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 91):
Do you know of one?

Not offhand. If it's such a financial black hole, then there shouldn't be money continually flowing into it.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6651 posts, RR: 6
Reply 94, posted (2 years 3 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 1422 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 93):

If people aren't willing to pay what it costs, it obviously is not that important to people and is therefore unnecessary.

Like a war?



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20791 posts, RR: 62
Reply 95, posted (2 years 3 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 1422 times:

Quoting casinterest (Reply 92):
And those roads you use just pay for themselves, no gas taxes needed?

I pay gas taxes without complaint. I do understand the importance for tax revenue to support infrastructure, and am on the record supporting it.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 93):
If people aren't willing to pay what it costs, it obviously is not that important to people and is therefore unnecessary.

It's my belief that you far underestimate the negative impact that removing affordable mass transit from the public at large would have on the economy.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15812 posts, RR: 27
Reply 96, posted (2 years 3 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 1424 times:

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 95):
It's my belief that you far underestimate the negative impact that removing affordable mass transit from the public at large would have on the economy.

If the impact is so massive, people (or the businesses that they patronize or are employed by) should be willing to pay for it.

That's why I want to see basically all infrastructure projects have a strong local funding component. When your money is on the line you'll think long and hard about what gets built and how. If Uncle Sam is dropping stacks of cash on your doorstep, you won't care as much.

Of course this sort of problem is a blight on government: programs and agencies use up all of their budget even if they don't need to in order to avoid seeing it cut. That is a systemic problem that needs to be addressed.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20791 posts, RR: 62
Reply 97, posted (2 years 3 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 1422 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 96):
That's why I want to see basically all infrastructure projects have a strong local funding component.

That's exactly what I outlined in my previous post in regards to mass transit, then you pooh-poohed the idea of providing same unless it came directly from the farebox. Thankfully, governments around the world, whether free market, socialist or communist, disagree with your primary assessment in this regard.

Anyway, I'm off to cast my vote, see you all later!



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 98, posted (2 years 3 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 1422 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 88):
I've always been for regulation of utilities.

I remembered when you stated government mandated right of way was a nice to have.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 88):
It's just not practical to have ten different electrical substations and a dozen phone companies running wires around town.

Why do you constantly propose the most horrible solution to each problem? I'm sure there are places with multiple parallel systems but the typical solution is to share those parts even when there are competing companies.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 88):
But what happens when the useful projects are finished?

There will be a little elf walking up to you and tell you to stop staring at him and instead look up and see that investing in the future is a never ending task. Sometimes you need more and sometimes you can get away with less but there is always a need.

Timing public investments to run opposite to normal market fluctuation is a great way to flatten the valleys.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 93):
If people aren't willing to pay what it costs, it obviously is not that important to people and is therefore unnecessary.

The irony of how private business and their owners are subsidised by public spending.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 96):
If Uncle Sam is dropping stacks of cash on your doorstep, you won't care as much.

Why we need to allow efficient government. Not small government, efficient.


User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20247 posts, RR: 59
Reply 99, posted (2 years 3 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 1422 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 93):
If people aren't willing to pay what it costs, it obviously is not that important to people and is therefore unnecessary.

So I assume that you pay a fee every time you use a road? Because guess how those are built? Not by private corporations. Oh, the actual building is by private contractor, yes, but that's not who funds them.


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15812 posts, RR: 27
Reply 100, posted (2 years 3 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 1422 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 98):
I'm sure there are places with multiple parallel systems but the typical solution is to share those parts even when there are competing companies.

Some, and I'm all for competition, but in many places it's just not going to happen. A monopoly is going to have to be regulated.

Quoting cmf (Reply 98):
Timing public investments to run opposite to normal market fluctuation is a great way to flatten the valleys.

Government spending doesn't work that way. Bridges don't rust faster during recessions. Tanks and warships don't need more maintenance when the Dow Jones drops. That's why Keynesian economics is a piss poor way to make policy. You're taking more than you need when times are good to either pay off the last stimulus or build a war chest for the next one or running around trying to find projects to spend on when times are bad. It's either wasteful or neglectful, depending on how it's done.

Quoting cmf (Reply 98):
The irony of how private business and their owners are subsidised by public spending.

They pay taxes, and for that receive services from the government. There's also the portion that gets redistributed or otherwise wasted, but they do receive services.

Quoting cmf (Reply 98):
Why we need to allow efficient government. Not small government, efficient.

A program or agency that doesn't exist wastes no money.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 99):
So I assume that you pay a fee every time you use a road?

Quite a few places do exactly that, and it works. It won't fly everywhere, but for many roads it would be workable. And roads are also funded by gas taxes, which are effectively the same thing.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 99):
Not by private corporations.

Actually some are. The Chicago Skyway and the new high speed highway in Texas are run by Cintra. I think the model could be expanded to other highways.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offline3DoorsDown From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 376 posts, RR: 0
Reply 101, posted (2 years 3 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 1422 times:

Wait until the week after the election. The government will announce they read their charts and graphs wrong and all of a sudden it will be double digits.

User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 102, posted (2 years 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 1427 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 100):
Bridges don't rust faster during recessions.

If that was an issue it would be a problem. Fortunately it isn't. What matters is that we are behind on infrastructure.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 100):
You're taking more than you need when times are good to either pay off the last stimulus or build a war chest for the next one or running around trying to find projects to spend on when times are bad. It's either wasteful or neglectful, depending on how it's done.

Again you create a dystopian situation but neglect reality. This is no different than running a private company. You need to invest to make things work tomorrow. You need to have a war chest to carry you over rainy days and often it isn't enough so you need to borrow which then gets repaid once things get better. It is strange why society should not use the same methods companies use.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 100):
They pay taxes, and for that receive services from the government. There's also the portion that gets redistributed or otherwise wasted, but they do receive services.

And when the taxes don't cover the costs they are not paying enough in taxes.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 100):
A program or agency that doesn't exist wastes no money.

Nothing is more wasteful than neglect.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 100):
Cintra. I think the model could be expanded to other highways.

Why pay a "Cintra tax" for the use of those highways?


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15812 posts, RR: 27
Reply 103, posted (2 years 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 1433 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 102):
What matters is that we are behind on infrastructure.

Then the government needs to stop writing welfare checks and start spending on infrastructure.

Quoting cmf (Reply 102):
It is strange why society should not use the same methods companies use.

Because Keynesian economic policies don't work. There isn't some great list of things to invest in that need to be done every time the market drops, and if there is, you should be doing it when it needs to be done rather than waiting for a chance to put people to work. Either you do things that don't really need to be done, or you didn't do things you should have done.

Quoting cmf (Reply 102):
And when the taxes don't cover the costs they are not paying enough in taxes.

Not in the context of the federal budget. That's a spending problem.

Quoting cmf (Reply 102):
Why pay a "Cintra tax" for the use of those highways?

Because those highways don't build themselves and potholes don't fill themselves.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineflipdewaf From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2006, 1578 posts, RR: 0
Reply 104, posted (2 years 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 1432 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 93):
If people aren't willing to pay what it costs, it obviously is not that important to people and is therefore unnecessary.

The whole is more than the sum of the parts, ever heard that before? If a mass transit system costs $100bn to implement and the companies within the area will gain by $80bn from this mass transit system then it seems that by your standards it uis not worth doing but if the increase in tax revenue from operating that mass transit system is worth $40bn (not talking about the tax of the people who run it but of those companies who make 80bn extra) then all of a sudden it is worth doing.

Fred


User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 105, posted (2 years 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 1427 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 103):
Then the government needs to stop writing welfare checks and start spending on infrastructure.

We already went through this. Spending on infrastructure reduces welfare spending.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 103):
Because Keynesian economic policies don't work.

So companies use Keynesian economics.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 103):
Either you do things that don't really need to be done, or you didn't do things you should have done.

No, it is the third option you fail to list. You do things when there is an opening.

It is similar to when there is a stop on the factory floor. We don't waste time by sitting around waiting. We use the time to do things originally scheduled to be done later.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 103):
Because those highways don't build themselves and potholes don't fill themselves.

Paying $11 for what could be had for $10 is stupid.


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15812 posts, RR: 27
Reply 106, posted (2 years 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 1427 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 105):
We use the time to do things originally scheduled to be done later.

Which would be waste in many cases.

Quoting cmf (Reply 105):
Paying $11 for what could be had for $10 is stupid.

Not if a nice chunk of that $11 is someone else's money.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 107, posted (2 years 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 1422 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 106):
Which would be waste in many cases.

It is never a waste. There are always things that needs to be done.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 106):
Not if a nice chunk of that $11 is someone else's money.

   How do you figure this? And who is going to pay the toll for you?


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15812 posts, RR: 27
Reply 108, posted (2 years 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 1424 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 107):
It is never a waste. There are always things that needs to be done.

Then they should be done whatever the economy looks like. That's why Keynesian policies don't work.

Quoting cmf (Reply 107):
How do you figure this?

Because when a private company builds and maintains the road, it takes no (or at least significantly less) taxpayer funds. Why should taxpayers be willing to build a road or expand an airport when a company like Cintra is willing to do it for them? If you only want an occasional bowl of cereal there's no sense in buying a whole cow.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineflipdewaf From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2006, 1578 posts, RR: 0
Reply 109, posted (2 years 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 1422 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 108):

Do you think cmf is suggesting that actual government workers do the jobs? pretty sure that it would just be put out to tender.

Fred


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15812 posts, RR: 27
Reply 110, posted (2 years 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 1422 times:

Quoting flipdewaf (Reply 109):
Do you think cmf is suggesting that actual government workers do the jobs? pretty sure that it would just be put out to tender.

The distinction is pretty academic. It's still money out of the government budget which is money out of taxpayers' hands which is a zero sum game.

The simple fact is that the spending the government has to do is not really dependent on the market. Cutting spending in strong markets and increasing it during downturns is going to either be wasteful or neglectful.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineflipdewaf From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2006, 1578 posts, RR: 0
Reply 111, posted (2 years 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 1425 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 110):
The distinction is pretty academic. It's still money out of the government budget which is money out of taxpayers' hands which is a zero sum game.

Unless the economic output of the region increases such that the tax income increases above a threshold deemed to give a positive NPV.

And no, its not a zero sum game, sorry.

Fred


User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5742 posts, RR: 10
Reply 112, posted (2 years 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 1423 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 110):
The distinction is pretty academic. It's still money out of the government budget which is money out of taxpayers' hands which is a zero sum game.

Actually you are wrong, it is not a "zero sum game". The basis is that, for example, a new bridge will bring in more business and opportunity to a community, so a tax is levied and a bridge is built and new monies come into the community increasing the wealth of the community and its people which increases and supports the increased taxes that are added to fund the bridge.

That is not "zero sum", that is investment. It doesn't always work out that way but then that is true for any investment.

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15812 posts, RR: 27
Reply 113, posted (2 years 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 1422 times:

Quoting tugger (Reply 112):
Actually you are wrong, it is not a "zero sum game".

The stimulus portion of it is. If you need a bridge, you need a bridge whether the market is booming or in a downturn. The market is all but irrelevant to infrastructure. But, if the government is pushing more money into the economy in an attempt to prime the pump, all that money is going to have to be sucked out again. Remember that Keynesian economics says that it doesn't matter if the spending gets you anything useful or not, it's the spending that matters. Hopefully everyone knows better by now, but sometimes I wonder.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5742 posts, RR: 10
Reply 114, posted (2 years 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 1422 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 113):
The stimulus portion of it is. If you need a bridge, you need a bridge whether the market is booming or in a downturn. The market is all but irrelevant to infrastructure. But, if the government is pushing more money into the economy in an attempt to prime the pump, all that money is going to have to be sucked out again. Remember that Keynesian economics says that it doesn't matter if the spending gets you anything useful or not, it's the spending that matters. Hopefully everyone knows better by now, but sometimes I wonder.

Again you are wrong, and you even interpret Keynesian economics incorrectly. Wealth creates more wealth, just because you take money from one place does not mean mean that more money will not be created and replace the "lost" money.

And your bridge comment is wrong to. The bridge should not be built unless there is a benefit to investing in and building it. Booming or downturn the infrastructure should not be created if there is not net benefit. Now often there is a benefit to basic infrastructure which is why society forms in the first place but beyond that it is added only as it benefits the community. The market is very relevant to infrastructure.

And finally, "future money" has less value than "present money". It is why velocity of cash is so important. It is almost always better to have money "now" than in the future. Depreciation, inflation and simple unknowns about the future all factor into why this is so. "Present money" is real, "future money" is not.

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15812 posts, RR: 27
Reply 115, posted (2 years 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 1423 times:

Quoting tugger (Reply 114):
The bridge should not be built unless there is a benefit to investing in and building it. Booming or downturn the infrastructure should not be created if there is not net benefit.

Good then we're on the same page. But, a given piece of infrastructure does not become more or less beneficial based on the market unless its cost changes or something like that.

Quoting tugger (Reply 114):
And finally, "future money" has less value than "present money".

Just make sure you don't tell the Chinese that.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5742 posts, RR: 10
Reply 116, posted (2 years 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 1423 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 115):
Just make sure you don't tell the Chinese that.

They very much know that already. They are partially making an "investment" with their decisions to buy dollars but they also keep the "present value" higher by making those investments, which allows them to then use those dollars elsewhere. China is actually actively diversifying their foreign reserves and are divesting their high level of dollars as much as they can (without impacting the "present value" of the dollar to maximize their benefit) in order to better manage their "future dollars" (or the renminbi in this case)

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineflipdewaf From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2006, 1578 posts, RR: 0
Reply 117, posted (2 years 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 1426 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 115):
Good then we're on the same page. But, a given piece of infrastructure does not become more or less beneficial based on the market unless its cost changes or something like that.

The demographics of the population around which the infrastructure will be built will be constantly in flux, these could significantly impact cost and payback. E.g. During a downturn there could be a larger supply of cheap labour to build the infrastructure cheaper.

Fred


User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 118, posted (2 years 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 1424 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 108):
Because when a private company builds and maintains the road, it takes no (or at least significantly less) taxpayer funds.

So you rather pay $11 in toll to cross a bridge than $10? Some pretty interesting economics there.


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15812 posts, RR: 27
Reply 119, posted (2 years 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 1424 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 118):
So you rather pay $11 in toll to cross a bridge than $10? Some pretty interesting economics there.

You can't separate out the toll and the building costs. I'm sorry I didn't pick up on that earlier, but no, I don't have a problem with toll roads.

If you can have a private company pay the billion to build the road and then charge a $10 toll to pay for that and maintain the road, I think that's a better deal than having the public have to find the billion in tax revenue and also have to find funds for maintenance in the gas tax revenue. Especially it the private company running the road has to kick back part of their toll revenue to the state or country.

I should add that this isn't really hypothetical, there are roads that actually work this way. And privatized airports are not that uncommon around the world and include some airports that are regularly highly rated. (Singapore and Istanbul are both run by private companies, if I'm not mistaken)

[Edited 2012-11-07 19:56:10]


Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 120, posted (2 years 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 1422 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 119):
I don't have a problem with toll roads.

That's an answer to a question not asked. Again, do you rather pay $11 and $10 in toll?

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 119):
f you can have a private company pay the billion to build the road and then charge a $10 toll to pay for that and maintain the road, I think that's a better deal than having the public have to find the billion in tax revenue and also have to find funds for maintenance in the gas tax revenue. Especially it the private company running the road has to kick back part of their toll revenue to the state or country.

You're failing to do the math. Building the road is the same in both cases. Cost of the billion is the same in both cases. maintenance is the same in both cases.

The only difference is that the private company will add a profit margin. Thus $10 if built by the public and $11 if built by a private company.

A road is the kind of infrastructure that makes much more sense to do with public money. It is cheaper for the users.


User currently offlineMaverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 5716 posts, RR: 6
Reply 121, posted (2 years 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 1419 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 120):

The only difference is that the private company will add a profit margin. Thus $10 if built by the public and $11 if built by a private company.

A road is the kind of infrastructure that makes much more sense to do with public money. It is cheaper for the users.

Just because the company adds a profit margin, doesn't mean it will wind up costing more. Private companies have a tendency to cut expenses to add to their margin. So it's entirely possible that the charge to the user would be the same, if not cheaper than a publicly-funded project.

But what BMI is doing is failing to realize that either way you slice it, it is far cheaper to continue to use publicly funded highways. Firstly, the taxes are already in place and aren't ever going away. Secondly, it winds up being way cheaper for everyone that way. You might pay a dollar per mile for a toll road, but you're only paying pennies per mile in taxes on a publicly funded highway.



"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15812 posts, RR: 27
Reply 122, posted (2 years 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 1418 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 120):
The only difference is that the private company will add a profit margin. Thus $10 if built by the public and $11 if built by a private company.

...only if you use the road. Those who do not use the road pay nothing. If you use the road you should be willing to pay for it, and ideally those who never use a given piece of infrastructure shouldn't be paying for it.

Obviously this would never work for all roads, but for a number of them it would and it does. If you can have enough traffic that tolls could be low enough, there's little reason to not try and limit the cost to those who actually incur it and benefit from the spending.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineAKiss20 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 649 posts, RR: 5
Reply 123, posted (2 years 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 1418 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 122):
Quoting cmf (Reply 120):
The only difference is that the private company will add a profit margin. Thus $10 if built by the public and $11 if built by a private company.

...only if you use the road. Those who do not use the road pay nothing. If you use the road you should be willing to pay for it, and ideally those who never use a given piece of infrastructure shouldn't be paying for it.

Obviously this would never work for all roads, but for a number of them it would and it does. If you can have enough traffic that tolls could be low enough, there's little reason to not try and limit the cost to those who actually incur it and benefit from the spending.

You continually seem to fail to grasp the concept that just because you aren't actually driving on it doesn't mean you don't benefit from it. Have you ever bought food from a grocery store? You benefited from that road. Have you ever bought something on Amazon? Also benefited from that road. That supplier that is providing the widget for your small business? It was shipped to you on that road, not to mention the supplier got his materials and his employees to his business via a road, which is potentially across the country and you might never go near it. The same argument can be made for rail and airports.

Just because you don't physically use a resource, does not in any way mean that you do not benefit from it. I challenge you to find a person who lives in this society that does not benefit from these resources. The only potential people I can think of are the off-the-grid hermits that hunt for their own food, make their own clothes etc. Chances are, most of them still do buy things occasionally which needed shipping.



Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15812 posts, RR: 27
Reply 124, posted (2 years 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 1418 times:

Quoting AKiss20 (Reply 123):
You continually seem to fail to grasp the concept that just because you aren't actually driving on it doesn't mean you don't benefit from it. Have you ever bought food from a grocery store? You benefited from that road. Have you ever bought something on Amazon? Also benefited from that road. That supplier that is providing the widget for your small business? It was shipped to you on that road, not to mention the supplier got his materials and his employees to his business via a road, which is potentially across the country and you might never go near it.

Those costs should be rolled into the cost of the item. If you get something shipped by FedEx, the cost covers landing fees.

Quoting AKiss20 (Reply 123):
The same argument can be made for rail and airports.

Except that there are privatized airports running successfully around the world.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 125, posted (2 years 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 1418 times:

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 121):
Just because the company adds a profit margin, doesn't mean it will wind up costing more. Private companies have a tendency to cut expenses to add to their margin. So it's entirely possible that the charge to the user would be the same, if not cheaper than a publicly-funded project.

Let the public funded organisation run efficiently and there is no reason it will cost more. Then the only difference is the profit margin.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 122):
..only if you use the road. Those who do not use the road pay nothing. If you use the road you should be willing to pay for it, and ideally those who never use a given piece of infrastructure shouldn't be paying for it.

Not an issue. We already said it is a toll road so it is the people driving on it who pay either way. Only difference is the profit margin that will make it more expensive if it is a private company.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 124):
Those costs should be rolled into the cost of the item. If you get something shipped by FedEx, the cost covers landing fees.

This is simple economics. Roll more costs into the product and the price goes up. Rolling up doesn't make them disappear.


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15812 posts, RR: 27
Reply 126, posted (2 years 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 1416 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 125):
Let the public funded organisation run efficiently and there is no reason it will cost more.

When has that ever happened?

Quoting cmf (Reply 125):
Not an issue. We already said it is a toll road so it is the people driving on it who pay either way. Only difference is the profit margin that will make it more expensive if it is a private company.

You also get a private company to put up the initial investment, which may be substantial.

Quoting cmf (Reply 125):
Roll more costs into the product and the price goes up. Rolling up doesn't make them disappear.

So you're no worse off. You might pay a little more to ship a package or buy fruit but there will be less money that needs to be collected from the public for road construction and maintenance.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 127, posted (2 years 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 1421 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 126):
When has that ever happened?

Hasn't it?

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 126):
You also get a private company to put up the initial investment, which may be substantial.

So what? The tolls must still pay that money. Main difference is that government usually have access to cheaper money.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 126):
So you're no worse off.

Wrong. If you don't understand that costs get added up in the chain then you need to study some more.


So the question remain. Why should everyone have to pay an extra tax to the private company?


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15812 posts, RR: 27
Reply 128, posted (2 years 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 1420 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 127):
So what? The tolls must still pay that money. Main difference is that government usually have access to cheaper money.

Only if they want to pay it. Or, for existing infrastructure, privatization can provide a nice windfall of cash. Chicago got over a billion dollars for the Skyway.

For the most part, state and city budgets are already being stretched, so getting someone else's money to build their infrastructure is a pretty good idea.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 129, posted (2 years 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 1421 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 128):
For the most part, state and city budgets are already being stretched, so getting someone else's money to build their infrastructure is a pretty good idea.

At higher cost. Why is it so hard for you to admit that?


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15812 posts, RR: 27
Reply 130, posted (2 years 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 1421 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 129):
At higher cost. Why is it so hard for you to admit that?

Paying a higher interest rate for money is not a problem when it's someone else getting the loan. It doesn't matter if a government can do it for half the price, if they don't have the money, they can't do it.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 131, posted (2 years 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 1421 times:

You're just providing corporate welfare. Stealing money from the people using the road.

User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15812 posts, RR: 27
Reply 132, posted (2 years 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 1422 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 131):
You're just providing corporate welfare. Stealing money from the people using the road.

They're paying to use the road. I wouldn't call that theft.

This isn't a new idea, it's in use for roads and airports right now. If you need some infrastructure and there's no room in the budget, build it with someone else's money.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinebjorn14 From Norway, joined Feb 2010, 3622 posts, RR: 2
Reply 133, posted (2 years 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 1421 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 98):
The irony of how private business and their owners are subsidised by public spending.

Sounds like Obama's "You didn't build that"



"I want to know the voice of God the rest is just details" --A. Einstein
User currently offlineMaverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 5716 posts, RR: 6
Reply 134, posted (2 years 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 1418 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 126):
but there will be less money that needs to be collected from the public for road construction and maintenance.

How do you figure?

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 130):
It doesn't matter if a government can do it for half the price, if they don't have the money, they can't do it.

Again, you don't quite grasp basic economic principles. The government can always raise taxes (or even implement a user-fee system themselves), or just plain print more money.

Also, do you honestly think that any company has a billion dollars just lying around to fund such a project? No, they hedge it against their other investments. Kind of like a public project would.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 132):
They're paying to use the road. I wouldn't call that theft.

But you basically call it theft when the payment goes to the government in the form of taxes. Interesting...



"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15812 posts, RR: 27
Reply 135, posted (2 years 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 1420 times:

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 134):
How do you figure?

The government doesn't have to pay for the road, the money comes from users rather than taxpayers. Saying "public" is probably a poor way of putting it.

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 134):
The government can always raise taxes (or even implement a user-fee system themselves), or just plain print more money.

Raising taxes is not often a good idea. Passing the cost on to the people who use something is better than to everyone, if it's practical, and for things like highly traveled highways or airports, if often is.

And only the federal government can print money. And not even them if you're talking about Europeans.

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 134):
But you basically call it theft when the payment goes to the government in the form of taxes. Interesting...

I wouldn't call taxes for building roads theft, unless it's a death tax.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineMaverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 5716 posts, RR: 6
Reply 136, posted (2 years 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 1421 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 135):
The government doesn't have to pay for the road, the money comes from users rather than taxpayers.

You're still not getting that they're the SAME PEOPLE. Everyone who drives uses the highways that are funded by the taxes they pay. If you don't drive, you don't use the highway, you don't pay the taxes.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 135):
Raising taxes is not often a good idea

Doesn't mean it's never a good idea.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 135):
Passing the cost on to the people who use something is better than to everyone, if it's practical, and for things like highly traveled highways or airports, if often is.

Again, only people who use those services pay for them.


And you still have yet to reconcile this gem:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 126):
You might pay a little more to ship a package or buy fruit but there will be less money that needs to be collected from the public for road construction and maintenance.

So if everyone pays a little more for their stuff, how is that any different than .... paying a little more for their stuff? You either pay in taxes or pay in fees. Same. Thing.



"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15812 posts, RR: 27
Reply 137, posted (2 years 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 1424 times:

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 136):
You're still not getting that they're the SAME PEOPLE.

Maybe. Or maybe not. Of course, if they're the same people then there's no problem anyway.

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 136):
You either pay in taxes or pay in fees. Same. Thing.

Unless, of course, you don't use it. If you never fly out of the private airport, then you never pay for a ticket that pays for the landing fee. If you order something that is flown into the airport, you do.

Now instead of all of the citizens of Illinois or Chicago paying for the Skyway, only those who use it do, although it was a tollway before. Chicago got a windfall from selling the concession and isn't responsible for maintaining it anymore. I'm not making this up as some theoretical model, it's been done and it works pretty well.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineMaverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 5716 posts, RR: 6
Reply 138, posted (2 years 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 1420 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 137):
Maybe. Or maybe not.

No. They are the same people. No maybe.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 137):
Of course, if they're the same people then there's no problem anyway.

So why change then?

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 137):
Unless, of course, you don't use it.

So what's the issue then?

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 137):
it's been done and it works pretty well.

On a small scale.



"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 139, posted (2 years 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 1421 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 132):
This isn't a new idea, it's in use for roads and airports right now. If you need some infrastructure and there's no room in the budget, build it with someone else's money.

Can we move past the ideology and use some common sense? This has nothing to do with budgets.

- Clearly we are talking about something where there is a cost to use it. No company would be interested if they don't get paid.

- If the revenue numbers are good enough for a company to cover investment, operations and profit then they are clearly good enough for a government to loan against that revenue.

The main difference is that the numbers will be better for the public option as they can charge less, the $10 instead of $11 given as example above. The difference is the profit needed by the company, everything else is identical.

The lower cost of course also mean that more people will use the road and that of course means the aggregate benfit to the area is higher.

What your suggesting is corporate welfare. It is taking money from everyone in the area and give it to the owners of the company. In this case the owners are the welfare queen eating chips all day. The one you're objecting to so much.

This doesn't mean everything should be done as public projects. Private companies are better for most things, but not every thing.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
US Unemployment Rate Up To 6.1% posted Fri Sep 5 2008 06:12:23 by Sv7887
Hooray! US Unemployment Down To 7.8% posted Fri Oct 5 2012 07:14:58 by comorin
US Rep Wants To Pattern Schools After Madrasses posted Fri Jul 6 2012 14:13:41 by slider
US State Dept To Issue Europe Wide Terror Alert posted Sat Oct 2 2010 14:20:05 by oa260
US Air Force To Test Hyper Sonic Cruise Missile posted Tue Dec 15 2009 09:07:05 by Falcon84
Economy Recovers, But Unemployment Rises posted Mon Aug 17 2009 18:58:24 by StasisLAX
US SSNs Easy To Guess: Carnegie-Mellon Researchers posted Tue Jul 7 2009 05:54:52 by PNQIAD
US Tortured Detainees To Prove Iraq-Al Qaeda Link posted Thu Apr 23 2009 11:30:12 by Yellowstone
US Citizen Going To North Korea? posted Fri Apr 10 2009 00:28:40 by AA7295
US Dollar Plunges To Record Lows Across Globe posted Mon Mar 3 2008 09:27:52 by Derico