Some interesting takeaways:
- The most effective stimulus is food stamps, returning $1.72 for every dollar spent.
- The least effective stimulus? Tax cuts. Returning $1.02 for every dollar spent.
Monday, February 9, 2009
Republican Economic Bull Puckey.
In this Rachel Maddow video, we (finally) hear complete and total debunking of Republican (voodoo) economics. As an aside, it was George H.W. Bush who coined this phrase when running against Reagan in the '80 primaries....
Some interesting takeaways:
Some interesting takeaways:
Sunday, February 8, 2009
All government spending is not bad.
Government spending has been given a (somewhat deserved) bad name. "Bridges to nowhere, Alaska" funding comes to mind. As wasteful as our government can be, this article on Salon.com points out that not all government spending is bad.
I'll take this line of thinking a step further and state that government spending has actually been the spark for several strong economic booms and has had strong influence on the direction of economy...and can have a strong influence on our future, should we allow it to happen. I've listed the ones I know about here:
Currently, our broadband connectivity ranks 15th. Considering that this connectivity will be (already is?) the next big vehicle for commerce and expansion, that's pretty troubling. How could this happen in what conservative idealogues like to call the vibrant, competitive and "infallible" free market? Because the infrasture that telcos control is naturally monopolistic. Market forces oblige the telcos to squeeze profit out of existing infrastructure, not develop new and better infrastructure. The lax FCC regulation of current administrations has only magnified this issue. How to fix the issue and restore our once great broadband connectivity standing? Pursue a national FTTH (fiber to the home) initiative. There are those who would argue that our distances are too great and our population density too low to make this feasible. I counter with...tell that to your underserved and communications impaired children and grandchildren. Both Sweden and Finland have lower population densities and manage to do a much better job than we have, thus far.
Nope. The "wide open spaces" argument is bunk. As are a lot of the arguments on the side that opposing government spending....at all costs. The private sector just doesn't do well investing in anything that is overly expensive or overly "new". It tends to be extremely risk averse, to our detriment. Let's please not forget this as we pass the first of what's sure to be several stimulous bills through Congress!
I'll take this line of thinking a step further and state that government spending has actually been the spark for several strong economic booms and has had strong influence on the direction of economy...and can have a strong influence on our future, should we allow it to happen. I've listed the ones I know about here:
- The "Space Race" fueled the funding necessary to kick off the technology boom.
- The military has spawned many derivative products and industries. CDMA (technology used for cell phone networks) is one that comes to mind.
- Darpanet was the precursor to today's internet.
- The interstate highway system. (Scorned at the time it was developed, though praised for many years since.)
Currently, our broadband connectivity ranks 15th. Considering that this connectivity will be (already is?) the next big vehicle for commerce and expansion, that's pretty troubling. How could this happen in what conservative idealogues like to call the vibrant, competitive and "infallible" free market? Because the infrasture that telcos control is naturally monopolistic. Market forces oblige the telcos to squeeze profit out of existing infrastructure, not develop new and better infrastructure. The lax FCC regulation of current administrations has only magnified this issue. How to fix the issue and restore our once great broadband connectivity standing? Pursue a national FTTH (fiber to the home) initiative. There are those who would argue that our distances are too great and our population density too low to make this feasible. I counter with...tell that to your underserved and communications impaired children and grandchildren. Both Sweden and Finland have lower population densities and manage to do a much better job than we have, thus far.
Nope. The "wide open spaces" argument is bunk. As are a lot of the arguments on the side that opposing government spending....at all costs. The private sector just doesn't do well investing in anything that is overly expensive or overly "new". It tends to be extremely risk averse, to our detriment. Let's please not forget this as we pass the first of what's sure to be several stimulous bills through Congress!
Saturday, February 7, 2009
Obama and the future of capitalism.
I feel that Obama has been dealt a tough hand. One that he must make the most of!
Only time will tell whether or not he (and America) can succeed, but I already see positive change. The moronic policies of the worst administration in our history are being unraveled. The end of Git'mo is in sight, along with the travesties of justice it represented. The Iraq War and the stupidity with which we've approached it will (at the very least) be re-examined, if not ended altogether. Yes, it's very nice to have adults in charge again.
One issue, however, will much more difficult for Obama to tackle. It's the economy....stupid! The cause? Well, it's easy to pin the blame on the out of control government spending or lax regulation. Or, on the risk taking exceedingly irresponsible financial institutions. Or, on those in the general public who have lived (or perhaps still are living) far beyond their means. Regardless of where you decide to pin the blame, here we are. Standing on the edge of a cliff. Wondering how we let things get this bad.
In my opinion, it call comes down to one simple fact. Without a strong middle class, capitalism as a system fails. Period. Policies that attack the middle class or diminish the importance of them, then, are akin to shooting yourself (or the economy) in the foot. The policies of the last 20-30 years have attacked and exploited the middle class (to the benefit of very few) and we, as a whole, are paying the price for this stupidity. These policies need to be reversed if our democracy is to survive.
Here's to hoping that Obama can get this ball rolling in the right direction. He has to. We have to. Any other outcome is just too scary!
Only time will tell whether or not he (and America) can succeed, but I already see positive change. The moronic policies of the worst administration in our history are being unraveled. The end of Git'mo is in sight, along with the travesties of justice it represented. The Iraq War and the stupidity with which we've approached it will (at the very least) be re-examined, if not ended altogether. Yes, it's very nice to have adults in charge again.
One issue, however, will much more difficult for Obama to tackle. It's the economy....stupid! The cause? Well, it's easy to pin the blame on the out of control government spending or lax regulation. Or, on the risk taking exceedingly irresponsible financial institutions. Or, on those in the general public who have lived (or perhaps still are living) far beyond their means. Regardless of where you decide to pin the blame, here we are. Standing on the edge of a cliff. Wondering how we let things get this bad.
In my opinion, it call comes down to one simple fact. Without a strong middle class, capitalism as a system fails. Period. Policies that attack the middle class or diminish the importance of them, then, are akin to shooting yourself (or the economy) in the foot. The policies of the last 20-30 years have attacked and exploited the middle class (to the benefit of very few) and we, as a whole, are paying the price for this stupidity. These policies need to be reversed if our democracy is to survive.
Here's to hoping that Obama can get this ball rolling in the right direction. He has to. We have to. Any other outcome is just too scary!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)