New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

Assume massive Kenyesian Spending

Let's not talk about anything but a blank check here just as an exercise in thinking. Let us ask ourselves a simple question:

If all of a sudden we had 3 trillion dollars a year to spend every year for the next 10 years on the most critical national interests and we simply ignored the debt incurred, what would be the wisest use of this investment for the nation?

Before everyone starts in on whether or not this is practical or even doable, lets just go through some possible ways to spend this money that would provide us with a new nation at the end of this period of time that could somehow pay it all back and not impact our ability to prosper down the road. In the following list, I posit some very needed expenditures that would likely provide benefits for our nation for years to come and would make us stronger financially, competitively and provide a more efficient and useful society for the next generation to inhabit.

1. Massive investments in long haul mass transit along the East Coast, West Coast and along Interstates 10 and 80.
2. Massive investments in urban transportation systems making the use of cars non-essential on a daily basis.
3. Massive investments in smart power, renewable energies, efficiency and in the way we heat and cool buildings.
4. Massive investment in solar technology for every building in the nation exposed to sunlight.
5. Massive investment in space technology.
6. Massive investment in preventive health measures and in a healthy lifestyle.
7. Education for both college bound and trade school bound kids.
8. National standards for intelligent building construction to allow for high speed networking to be the standard model everywhere.
9. Fiber buildout for every home in the USA within 20 miles of an urban center of 5000 people or more.
10. Urban planning standards for maximum quality of life while impacting the land as little as possible.
11. Protection and stewardship of our remaining national parks and forests.
12. Upgrades of all federal, state and local election systems to form one national standard that was impeachable and trustworthy.
13. National database of health information.
14. National database of SS numbers for valid authentication of working status.
15. Upgrades of all bridges, roads, damns and highways.
16. Carbon scrubbing devices on every coal burning system in the nation.
17. Science funding for genetics, batteries, cancer, fuel cells, propulsion systems, computer science and so on.


Those are some ideas which would employ millions and could pay off in the future if we had the funds or desire to borrow to get them done. We don't want to do this anymore it seems. If any of you have been to Europe, imagine if the founders of modern Paris did not make giant investments over hundreds of years to create that glorious city we now enjoy. What if Rome had been built in a day and looked like a typical American city with stucco buildings, strip malls and parking lots. Now, we could do all these things and put millions to work doing it if we actually thought long term. But we don't. And this is why the Chinese are going to kick our asses because they do think long term.
 

degsme

Council Member
I would point out that about a $100 Billion investment in Solar power would create about 34 Gigawatts of solar power http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/stirling-energy-sets-for-2010-mass-production-2.2b-solar-thermal-project/ A Volt takes 16kwh to charge. 34e9/16e3 == 2e6 Ie 2 million Volts or Prius. could be charged with this.

USA consumes roughly 140 Billion gallons of gasoline annually http://americanfuels.blogspot.com/2010/04/2009-gasoline-consumption.html
The daily commute for these 2 million PIH would save about 4 million gallons of fuel, 5 days/wk 52 weeks/yr. Or roughly 0.7% of our annual gasoline consumption.

So multiply this by 5 ($500Bill) and you are now at 3.5% of Gasoline consumption. Roughly 70% of Oil consumption is for transport. Diesel is part so figure we are talking about a 1.8% drop in our oil consumption with such an effort PER YEAR!!!!

Do that for 5 years. and you have a 10% drop in oil consumption. That in turn would drop oil prices by a good 5%...Not trivial.
USA buys roughly 9 million new cars/yr.
 
Well, if you actually had people interested in factual analysis that left politics at the door, you could probably find the right things to invest in...but then you have folks like Carly Fiorina saying facts are academic exercises or some such nonsense...
 

OldGaffer

Governor
Number 15. A lot of the rest are pie in the sky.
Pie in the sky is what every future advancement is going to look like from here. Without investing in future technologies, they will always be pie in the sky. Some wont pan out, but others could become the next internet, the next jet airliner, the next Apollo program, who knows? And if we dont invest in the future we stagnate and fall behind those who do.
 

degsme

Council Member
Number 15. A lot of the rest are pie in the sky.
Microprocessors were Pie In the Sky in 1962

Megabit to the Curb was Pie in the Sky in 1972

Video On Demand via WAN was Pie in The Sky in 1982 (heck it was Pie in the sky in 1989 in the planning meeting I was in).
 

fairsheet

Senator
Part of the problem is that the CATO/Norquist-types have sold all too many on the simplitude that by definition, all guvmint spending is a deadweight loss. Therefore, the only reason the guvmint does or should engage in virtually any spending, is because its forced to by our (d)emocracy. And on the flipside, to the extent that the guvmint can get out of spending a dollar, we're necessarily at least a dollar ahead.

For instance, we know that we indulged in the WWII and Korean War era GI Bills because the politic demanded them AND in expectation of the 7-1 return on investment we eventually realized. But..the CATO-Norquists will ONLY allow that we did it, because the politic demanded it. That's pissant and false "thinking".
 

degsme

Council Member
Part of the problem is that the CATO/Norquist-types have sold all too many on the simplitude that by definition, all guvmint spending is a deadweight loss. Therefore, the only reason the guvmint does or should engage in virtually any spending, is because its forced to by our (d)emocracy. And on the flipside, to the extent that the guvmint can get out of spending a dollar, we're necessarily at least a dollar ahead.

For instance, we know that we indulged in the WWII and Korean War era GI Bills because the politic demanded them AND in expectation of the 7-1 return on investment we eventually realized. But..the CATO-Norquists will ONLY allow that we did it, because the politic demanded it. That's pissant and false "thinking".
Spot on. The whole bit about "deadweight loss" is precisely the myth that keeps getting perpetuated. It takes many forms such as

Government Waste
Government inefficiencey
Private Sector is more efficient
Government can only spend what it takes away from the private sector

etc.

And all of those are economically false claims in the general case. you can find specifica cases where they are true but not the general case.
 

trapdoor

Governor
Pie in the sky is what every future advancement is going to look like from here. Without investing in future technologies, they will always be pie in the sky. Some wont pan out, but others could become the next internet, the next jet airliner, the next Apollo program, who knows? And if we dont invest in the future we stagnate and fall behind those who do.
I think advances like that should come out of private industry, not out of public coffers. The person who creates a hydrogen fuel cell as reliable, portable and convenient as a car battery is going to be rich as Croesus -- he doesn't need government to create a fuel-cell development program. Our national infrastructure is something we can do now, that benefits us now, and about as importantly, is a pursuit sanctioned by the U.S. Constitution.

I grew up in the Space Age and I'm a huge fan of NASA, but I still see no constitutional authorization for government-sponsored space exploration or the development thereof (pass an amendment, please, and then fund the hell out of it -- I want to retire to low earth orbit).

But throwing hard-earned taxpayer dollars at "the next big thing" without either certainty or constitional authority is about as sound as investing in the next perpetual mortion machine.
 

trapdoor

Governor
Spot on. The whole bit about "deadweight loss" is precisely the myth that keeps getting perpetuated. It takes many forms such as

Government Waste
You're saying the government has no waste? Odd. Most of the government agencies have formal waste, fraud and abuse activities simply to identify such waste -- activities that are themselves wasteful if there is no waste for them to track. I suppose the GSA party didn't happen?

Government inefficiencey
It's true.

Private Sector is more efficient
For most things.

Government can only spend what it takes away from the private sector
One hundred percent a true statement.


And all of those are economically false claims in the general case. you can find specifica cases where they are true but not the general case.
The last time I checked, the general case is made up of a lot of specific cases bundled together.
 

degsme

Council Member
You're saying the government has no waste?
want some oats with that straw? No simply that government has LESS WASTE on average than the private sector. For example the GSA party? In the private sector, individuals of that level would have parties lke that sponsored by the company ON AN ANNUAL BASIS

Government inefficiencey
It's true.
Compared to? Compared to the private sector... it is not true. At least not in sectors like infrastructure construction or healthcare services or eductaion.

Private Sector is more efficient
For most things.
No econometric evidence to support such a claim.

Government can only spend what it takes away from the private sector
One hundred percent a true statement.
Not even remotely close. Even if we ignore the fact that the government owns the printing presses, Fiscal Multipliers in excess of the tax rate refute this. And in various sectors the Government Fiscal Multipliers ARE in excess of the tax rates. Not in all sectors but all it takes is for it to be true in one for your claim to be proven the bogousity it is.

And all of those are economically false claims in the general case. you can find specifica cases where they are true but not the general case
The last time I checked, the general case is made up of a lot of specific cases bundled together.
True... and that means that you can only validly extract those statements that are CONSISTENTLY ACCURATE.

So far you have not done that.
 

OldGaffer

Governor
I think advances like that should come out of private industry, not out of public coffers. The person who creates a hydrogen fuel cell as reliable, portable and convenient as a car battery is going to be rich as Croesus -- he doesn't need government to create a fuel-cell development program. Our national infrastructure is something we can do now, that benefits us now, and about as importantly, is a pursuit sanctioned by the U.S. Constitution.

I grew up in the Space Age and I'm a huge fan of NASA, but I still see no constitutional authorization for government-sponsored space exploration or the development thereof (pass an amendment, please, and then fund the hell out of it -- I want to retire to low earth orbit).

But throwing hard-earned taxpayer dollars at "the next big thing" without either certainty or constitional authority is about as sound as investing in the next perpetual mortion machine.
Private industry is not going to invest in cuttiing edge research that has a a low chance of a profitable return, plus they do not have the resources that the research universites have in scientists and engineers.

What private companies would be researching any of these technologies?

Active projectsACTUV - A project to build an unmanned Anti-submarine warfare vessel.
ArcLight (missile) - Ship based weapon system that is capable of striking targets nearly anywhere on the globe. It is based on the Standard Missile 3.
Battlefield Illusion[16]
Boeing X-37
Integrated Sensor is Structure
Boomerang (mobile shooter detection system) - an acoustic Gunshot Location Detection System developed by BBN Technologies for detecting snipers on military combat vehicles.
CALO or "Cognitive Assistant that Learns and Organizes" - software
Cheetah robot - legged robot protoytpe, "gallops" 18 mph on a treadmill
It gets its power from external hydraulics and is controlled by a boom. Contrary to impression given headline hype, the robot cannot "run faster than you" - it only works on its treadmill. [1] [2]
Combat Zones That See - "track everything that moves" in a city by linking up a massive network of surveillance cameras
DARPA XG - technology for Dynamic Spectrum Access for assured military communications
EATR An autonomous tactical robotic system
FALCON
High Energy Liquid Laser Area Defense System
High Productivity Computing Systems
Human Universal Load Carrier battery-powered human exoskeleton
MAHEM Molten penetrating munition
MEMS Exchange MEMS Implementation Environment
Mind's Eye - A visual intelligence system capable of detecting and analysing activity from video feeds.[17]
Persistent Close Air Support
Protein Design Processes
Proto 2 - a thought-controlled prosthetic arm
Remote-controlled insects[18]
DARPA Silent Talk - A planned program attempting to identify EEG patterns for words and transmit these for covert communications.[19]
SyNAPSE - Systems of Neuromorphic Adaptive Plastic Scalable Electronics
System F6 - Fractionated Spacecraft demonstrator
XOS - powered military exoskeleton
Transformer - flying armoured car[20]
UAVForge[21]
Vulture
WolfPack[22]
[edit] Past ProjectsProject AGILE
ARPANET, the predecessor of the Internet
Aspen Movie Map
ASTOVL, precursor of the Joint Strike Fighter Program[23]
Boeing X-45
CPOF - the command post of the future - networked information system for Command control.
DAML
DARPA Grand Challenge - driverless car competition
DARPA Network Challenge[24]
DEFENDER
High Performance Knowledge Bases
HISSS
Hypersonic Research Program
I3 (Intelligent Integration of Information),[25] supported the Digital Library research effort through NSF
Internet
Project MAC
Luke Arm, a DEKA creation
MOSIS
MQ-1 Predator
Multics
NLS/Augment, the origin of the canonical contemporary computer user interface
Northrop Grumman Switchblade - an unmanned oblique-wing flying aircraft for high speed, long range and long endurance flight
Onion routing
Passive radar
Policy Analysis Market
POSSE
Rapid Knowledge Formation
Sea Shadow
DARPA Shredder Challenge 2011[26] - Reconstruction of shredded documents
Strategic Computing Program
Synthetic Aperture Ladar for Tactical Applications (SALTI)
SURAN (1983–87)
Project Vela (1963)
 

trapdoor

Governor
want some oats with that straw?
No simply that government has LESS WASTE on average than the private sector.
Evidence?

For example the GSA party? In the private sector, individuals of that level would have parties lke that sponsored by the company ON AN ANNUAL BASIS
The difference being that they're doing it with their own/the company's money, and not money forcibly extracted from other people (taxpayers).

Compared to? Compared to the private sector... it is not true. At least not in sectors like infrastructure construction or healthcare services or eductaion.
Oh please. Infrastructure construction? Visit an Air Force Base some time. Healthcare services? Visit a VA hospital -- the place where veterans go to die (they've improved somewhat in the last decade, but given a choice between the Mayo Clinic and Walter Reed, which line would you be in? I know which line I'd be in -- the long one in Rochester). Education? America's best schools are all private sector schools.

No econometric evidence to support such a claim.
Private sector has to be efficient enough to make a profit -- not a requirement for a government endeavor. This isn't a matter of "economietric evidence," simply one of common sense.

Not even remotely close. Even if we ignore the fact that the government owns the printing presses, Fiscal Multipliers in excess of the tax rate refute this. And in various sectors the Government Fiscal Multipliers ARE in excess of the tax rates. Not in all sectors but all it takes is for it to be true in one for your claim to be proven the bogousity it is.
Every single dime the government legitimately spends is a comes from tax revenue -- it has no other legitimate source for funding ("just printing" money as you seem to suggest here is not a legitimate source for funding). As for fiscal multipliers, even your statement indicates that they only exceed tax rates in some areas -- and they do not do this in a way that offsets all taxes. Every dime spent on government is a dime removed from a taxpayer's pocket. We have no other source for governmental revenue.
 

trapdoor

Governor
Private industry is not going to invest in cuttiing edge research that has a a low chance of a profitable return, plus they do not have the resources that the research universites have in scientists and engineers.
Tell that to Bell Labs.

What private companies would be researching any of these technologies?
I don't have time to go through your entire list, but I note that a lot of them are military projects. There was a time when such projects were financed by the private sector in hopes that the military would sign on board -- this led to the development of the Colt revolver, several different repeating rifles, the Gatling gun, the first viable submarines, the first aircraft (the first public demonstrations of the Wright Flyer were to representatives of the Dept. of War with the goal of selling them airplanes. The first death in an airplane crash, Army Lt. Tom Selfridge, happened during one of these flights). If a given technological goal has such military merit, the private sector will fund it in the name of profits.
 
Bell Labs is not going to be repeated again. I just saw a cspan interview with a man who just came out with a book about BellLabs. It was on yesterday, you should try to find it online. ATT was a monopoly, it had the opportunity to look long term. I don't see any modern corporation even caring about those issues anymore let alone creating a new version of it.
 
Is making a profit a goal of any government? Is getting the most bang for the buck a better way of evaluating government spending? Success for government is not a profit margin, an IPO, a market share calculation. So your entire premise comparing one with the other is based upon totally different ideas of what success is. This is what conservatives get wrong.

Tell me again. What is success in Government? How do you measure it? Your simple answer will be that you cannot because they will never succeed at anything. Tell me the intelligent answer though....
 

trapdoor

Governor
Bell Labs is not going to be repeated again. I just saw a cspan interview with a man who just came out with a book about BellLabs. It was on yesterday, you should try to find it online. ATT was a monopoly, it had the opportunity to look long term. I don't see any modern corporation even caring about those issues anymore let alone creating a new version of it.

Bell Labs is still in existence and still innovating (something pointed out in that book). It is smaller than when ATT&T had its monopoly, but it has not ceased to exist.
 
Top