Quote: Original post by ZahlmanQuote: Original post by trzyQuote: How so? Investment in infrastructure and the higher wages that come with unions sounds like a path that will generate far greater revenue than the failed strategies of the Bush years that you seem to favor.
Union jobs? Like factory workers for the Big 3? Spare us.
"Oh, noes, 3 companies fucked up, so we better not invest in trying to help them or anyone else. It's clearly a losing proposition to build these things when we could be using it to blow up a desert."
Why should the government be taking sides? Let the people sort it out. The unions are out for themselves and are not necessarily interested in promoting policies that reward efficiency and economic productivity, which is what the government must take an interest in if it wants to "stimulate" the economy. Why grant them the backing of the government in accomplishing their goals? That's sounds like petty cronyism to me. "Hey, you voted for us, now we're going to steer the big bucks your way."
You think this is appropriate?
Quote: Um, unemployment, perhaps?
Duh.
If I were starting a company or opening a factory, remind me of why I ought to locate it in the United States again? I would do everything in my power to keep unions out.
Quote:
"Oh, noes, the state governments are bloated and inefficient, so we'd better not delegate any of the work to them. Never mind that they're the ones who have jurisdiction to implement some of the things that we want to implement to make this thing work." And besides, to hear you talk, the federal government is just as bad, so why should it make a difference?
The state governments can't support themselves. Why don't they just downsize? Isn't that smarter? Look at California, once the jewel of the US economy, now on a dangerous path to collapse and stagnation. "Oh but it has tech companies!" you might say. Well, we'll see for how long. Betting that Silicon Valley and Hollywood are going to bear the brunt of government costs forever is stupid. More and more companies will set up shop outside the state, and those within the state are slowly going to move out. It's already happening.
Quote: "Oh, noes, heaven forbid we should invest in any of THOSE things. Keeping people fit to work? Teaching people what they need to know in order to work when they get old enough? Can't have that!"
Government schools don't teach kids what they need to know. Obviously you've never attended a US public school. Education budgets keep growing, but standards of education keep falling. The powerful teachers unions exist only to protect incompetent teachers and the system that prevents talented competition from entering their labor pool. The argument that schools are underfunded can no longer be accepted as valid, given that this is the argument always put forth. How many times do you have to be wrong before I stop listening?
I used to be for government-funded education. I still think it's a good idea in principle, but I've seen enough already. In the United States at least, we would be better off to disband the entire education system. Let's set a date, 4 years in the future, when all public schools will be closed and their assets auctioned off. Perhaps allow teenagers easier access to apprenticeships and employment. Shocking as it sounds, the result would probably be better than what we have now. We'd end up with better educated kids and a more skilled labor force.
Quote:
1) You're the one who's arguing against supporting the Big 3 auto makers, not to mention investments in "infrastructure". Unless you only skimmed that first quote, picked up on the word "union", and decided to respond with a canned talking point.
What do the Big 3 have to do with improved highway and freight capacity for moving goods around?
Quote:
2) FSDFLKJSFKLJSDFJKLD IT SAYS RIGHT THERE WITH A PRETTY BLUE CIRCLE, 30 BILLION FOR HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION. Almost 2/3 of the money allocated to "construction" as opposed to "other programs", and Mr. Stalk still sees fit to claim this "will produce newly painted bridges and newly paved roads but is unlikely to address the capacity problem"? WTF?
That could simply mean highway repair. If I'm not mistaken, Caltrans alone uses $6-$8 billion annually for servicing California's highway system. We'll see whether this leads to widened freeways.
Quote:
3) The article is arguing that you "need" this highway capacity so that you can continue manufacturing things where it's cheap and distributing it all over without offsetting the savings. This ignores that "where it's cheap" is typically outside the country (so if anything, you'd be looking at building more ships and airplanes). It also ignores the hidden economic costs of pollution.
Goods have to make their way inland. Likewise, commute times are insane in some parts of the country due to suburban sprawl. Sometimes it's not even sprawl so much as geography being against you. Seattle has numerous bottlenecks that are hard to fix. The government here is finally looking into widening the SR-520 bridge (Seattle to Redmond) but as all they're doing is adding a carpool lane, it will be too little too late, I'm afraid.
Quote: Do I dare ask you to show your reasoning for this?
There's no evidence that these climate change models are going to hold for the next 100 years. Additionally, nobody is considering the negating factors of technological improvements and higher crop yields. The much-vaunted climate change models failed to predict the halting of temperature increases over the last decade. I'm surprised you think some crude numerical simulations are going to hold for the next 100 years. I'm sure they're just one tweak away from making them work...
