Economics for liberals. What Obama should have done.

[untermensche]

Being a Nobel Laureate in economics is about as serious an economist can be.

Really? And what about President Obama's "peace" prize? He's now bombed seven countries which is certainly an all-time record for any president not fighting a declared war. The Nobel prize is as political as Krugman's columns in the NY Times.

To not know the difference in standards applied to a political prize and a prize in economics is astounding.

Kissinger also won the peace prize. Right after he conducted genocide in Cambodia and Vietnam.

The peace prize is sometimes given for moving away from war, or in the case of Obama, away from the thuggish proclamations and world master-like tones of the Bush administrations.

 

[untermensche]

To the OP.

This guy defines macroeconomics as the study of those policies by which the government can both stabilize the business cycle and also promote growth.

He never says what growth means.

Does it mean the rich get richer? Is that growth in his opinion?

 

[boneyard bill]

I see that the title for that interview is "U.S. Needs to Invest in Infrastructure Projects With Positive Rates of Return". Isn't that what Krugman has been saying all along?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

When did Krugman specify a positive rate of return? I don't think he did. The lead-time for infrastructure with a likely positive rate of return would probably be too high for Krugman. I suspect that's a big problem with Brock's idea as well. He more or less glosses over that problem. But note that Brock also wants de-regulation and pointed out that Obama has promulgated 15,000 new regulations through executive orders. I haven't heard Krugman say anything positive about de-regulation.

 

[boneyard bill]

To the OP.

This guy defines macroeconomics as the study of those policies by which the government can both stabilize the business cycle and also promote growth.

He never says what growth means.

Does it mean the rich get richer? Is that growth in his opinion?

I don't know that anymore than you do assuming you read the piece. I certainly would disagree with Brock's definition of macro-economics however, and I don't see where his proposals spell the end of it even by his definition.

 

[boneyard bill]

Really? And what about President Obama's "peace" prize? He's now bombed seven countries which is certainly an all-time record for any president not fighting a declared war. The Nobel prize is as political as Krugman's columns in the NY Times.

To not know the difference in standards applied to a political prize and a prize in economics is astounding.

Kissinger also won the peace prize. Right after he conducted genocide in Cambodia and Vietnam.

The peace prize is sometimes given for moving away from war, or in the case of Obama, away from the thuggish proclamations and world master-like tones of the Bush administrations.

How did Kissinger conduct genocide in Cambodia and Vietnam? He wasn't in charge of any troops at all. Kissinger did some awful nasty things, but I don't see where he did anything that other Secretaries of State didn't do. The bombing in Vietnam and Cambodia began at least under the Johnson administration but no one accuses Dean Rusk of genocide. The Johnson Administration also bombed North Vietnam for years while the Nixon Administration only bombed the North for a few weeks after they invaded the South across the de-militarized zone.

 

[laughing dog]

When did Krugman specify a positive rate of return? I don't think he did. .

There are few, if any, professionally trained economists would advocate investing in anything with a negative or zero rate of return. A real economist would advocate investing in projects with positive net present values, which typically means projects with rates of return which equal or exceed the social rate of discount.

The lead-time for infrastructure with a likely positive rate of return would probably be too high for Krugman.

I seriously doubt that.

 

[untermensche]

To not know the difference in standards applied to a political prize and a prize in economics is astounding.

Kissinger also won the peace prize. Right after he conducted genocide in Cambodia and Vietnam.

The peace prize is sometimes given for moving away from war, or in the case of Obama, away from the thuggish proclamations and world master-like tones of the Bush administrations.

How did Kissinger conduct genocide in Cambodia and Vietnam? He wasn't in charge of any troops at all. Kissinger did some awful nasty things, but I don't see where he did anything that other Secretaries of State didn't do. The bombing in Vietnam and Cambodia began at least under the Johnson administration but no one accuses Dean Rusk of genocide. The Johnson Administration also bombed North Vietnam for years while the Nixon Administration only bombed the North for a few weeks after they invaded the South across the de-militarized zone.

The idea to carpet bomb Cambodia was Kissinger's, even though as you say other US attacks did occur before that.

In his diary on 17 March 1969, Haldemann wrote:

Historic day. K[issinger]’s “Operation Breakfast” finally came off at 2:00 pm our time. K really excited, as is P[resident].

And the next day:

K’s “Operation Breakfast” a great success. He came beaming in with the report, very productive. A lot more secondaries than had been expected. Confirmed early intelligence. Probably no reaction for a few days, if ever.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Menu

 

[Valjean]

Vietnam and Cambodia aren't the half of it. Don't forget Chile, Argentina and East Timor.

 

[untermensche]

To the OP.

This guy defines macroeconomics as the study of those policies by which the government can both stabilize the business cycle and also promote growth.

He never says what growth means.

Does it mean the rich get richer? Is that growth in his opinion?

I don't know that anymore than you do assuming you read the piece. I certainly would disagree with Brock's definition of macro-economics however, and I don't see where his proposals spell the end of it even by his definition.

It was audio, so I listened, I didn't read.

If all the incredible growth in wealth that has gone on in the last 45 years goes into a very few hands and the rest actually see a decline, as is the current situation, how do we say this isn't fantastic growth, if all we care about is growth?

 

[boneyard bill]

How did Kissinger conduct genocide in Cambodia and Vietnam? He wasn't in charge of any troops at all. Kissinger did some awful nasty things, but I don't see where he did anything that other Secretaries of State didn't do. The bombing in Vietnam and Cambodia began at least under the Johnson administration but no one accuses Dean Rusk of genocide. The Johnson Administration also bombed North Vietnam for years while the Nixon Administration only bombed the North for a few weeks after they invaded the South across the de-militarized zone.

The idea to carpet bomb Cambodia was Kissinger's, even though as you say other US attacks did occur before that.

In his diary on 17 March 1969, Haldemann wrote:

Historic day. K[issinger]’s “Operation Breakfast” finally came off at 2:00 pm our time. K really excited, as is P[resident].

And the next day:

K’s “Operation Breakfast” a great success. He came beaming in with the report, very productive. A lot more secondaries than had been expected. Confirmed early intelligence. Probably no reaction for a few days, if ever.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Menu

Idon't see any reference here to either Vietnam or Cambodia.

 

[boneyard bill]

Vietnam and Cambodia aren't the half of it. Don't forget Chile, Argentina and East Timor.

What did Kissinger do in Chile? Yes, the CIA, possibly at Kissinger's behest, tried to get the military to overthrow Allende after he was elected in 1970, but they failed. The military remained normal. When the military did overthrow Allende in 1973 it was because armed leftist guerrillas loyal to Allende fired on demonstrators in front of the Presidential Palace and killed many protestors which included the wives of many military officers. It was Allende, not Kissinger, who turned the Chilean military around.

I don't know which of the frequent coups in Argentina that you may be referring to.

As memory serves, the crackdown in East Timor came well after Kissinger had left office.

 

[boneyard bill]

I don't know that anymore than you do assuming you read the piece. I certainly would disagree with Brock's definition of macro-economics however, and I don't see where his proposals spell the end of it even by his definition.

It was audio, so I listened, I didn't read.

If all the incredible growth in wealth that has gone on in the last 45 years goes into a very few hands and the rest actually see a decline, as is the current situation, how do we say this isn't fantastic growth, if all we care about is growth?

I don't think that is the actual situation for the entire last 45 years, but it is true for significant parts of it and especially for the last decade or so. I also should emphasize that I don't agree with Brock. I merely have suggested that the kind of policies that he has recommended would be preferable to what Obama has actually done, and that what he proposes is the kind of thing I would have expected from Obama. You do not help the common man with policies that are deliberately designed to keep prices up. The common people benefit when products that were once only available to the rich become affordable for nearly everyone.

 

[solutions]

Have any of you on here even read Dr. Brock's book American Gridlock? I can see that nobody here has because everyone pics at pieces of Dr Brock's words and cherry pics them to fit their own left or right belief. You solve nothing and only create more confusion by not having a foundation to your response.
Dr Brock works with heavy "DEDUCTIVE LOGIC" thinking to come to his final thoughts, theorems, and mathematical conclusions. These are not right wing or left wing conclusions because they are solutions that help both the left and right and are mathematically correct. Econ 101 sets the foundation of the theorems and Dr Brock shows that we have strayed away from some of the basics. True capitalism from Adam Smith and what it's brought, True supply and demand, True democracies and not fake ones. These are not right or left wing at all.
Macroeconomics as Dr Brock says is failing because to much focus is being spent on only the Fed and not fiscal policy at the same time. These are two independent issues that need to be worked on AT THE SAME TIME. THIS IS MATHEMATICAL COMMON SENSE if you bother to look up Tinbergen (nobel prize in economics) and study it.
Now....to understand why this isn't being done. The FED (monetary policy) is a person who can change the rates and things. Example Low interest rates for a few years now. This entices businesses to get loans and build their business for cheap. This is done and thats it. Then there is Fiscal Policy- Congress has to agree to pass things to better build our economy. Example- Putting money toward infrastructure. Project finance. With these two things (fiscal and Monetary policy) working at the same time we WOULD have the correct kind of growth as seen in the past. This is what Dr Brock is saying. This is not right or left but common sense and the people in congress are to blame along with the president. Also his economic advisors should all understand this but unfortunately politics are involved and that is why we have a weak recovery. Not a single politician is bright enough to talk about facts and mathematics in economics. If they did they would would just have to point out these few things and solve the issues. We have nobody looking smart on TV right now. When we do we ill have a true winner.
This is what that radio conversation is all about. Pointing out what isn't being done and what should be to arrive at a solution.
You can look up many videos on Youtube about Dr Brock and you will come to a conclusion that he uses deductive logic to come to his conclusions because he was trained to think that way by the brightest Nobel Prize winning minds.
Read his book and understand that complaining about the problems won't work and that you need to have solutions to actually change things.

Other Dr Woody Brock Videos.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBtWhkhddqk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3E5yZQzT8o

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EgMi2nx_Oek

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTgy4G53n98

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RsKZ7EHKztg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VB79G-MbAL8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPSMLckoCvc

 

[solutions]

Dr Brock is not a democrat. He has both conservative and liberal ideas based on heavy deductive thinking. You point out that he's a Keynesian and supporter of big government. Seriously? I guess you didn't read his book! Pumping more money into the economy with POSITIVE RATE OF RETURN INVESTMENTS. These types of projects investments can be found by using the Mordecai Kurz and kenneth Arrow (both nobel prize winners) papers. Look it up! Nothing right or left wing about it! This is common sense investment to bring a positive return. Woody is stating that at times the government needs to do this and at times it needs to do the opposite. This is not big government and waaaaayyy beyond keynesian. Keynesian says it doesn't matter what you spend it on. Kurz and arrow says it does matter. Example as Dr Brock says is the interstate highway, Erie Canal, internet, Lousiana Purchase. These were all huge returns on investment. This is needed because America has not put a new roof on in a long long time and the rate of return is huge! Project finance. Fiscal Policy.
Where did you get that he is a "liberal"? If you say it's because he supports more spending, then I think you need to stop pointing out small pieces of his words to fit your thoughts. You seriously mix things up and confuse people.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't agree with everything this guy has to say, but then again, I'm not a liberal. Woody Brock is a Keynesian economist and a big supporter of big government. But if you have to be liberal, he's the kind of guy who at least makes economic sense.

It's a half-hour long interview but well worth the time. Every liberal should listen to it. Brock points out what you should expect from liberal policies and the kind of thing we've gotten from Obama isn't it. And although he's a liberal, he actually likes Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher because they at least knew what they wanted to do and got it done.

http://www.financialsense.com/finan...ody-brock-phd/collapse-macroeconomics-reprise

Dr Brock is not a democrat. He has both conservative and liberal ideas based on heavy deductive thinking. You point out that he's a Keynesian and supporter of big government. Seriously? I guess you didn't read his book! Pumping more money into the economy with POSITIVE RATE OF RETURN INVESTMENTS. These types of projects investments can be found by using the Mordecai Kurz and kenneth Arrow (both nobel prize winners) papers. Look it up! Nothing right or left wing about it! This is common sense investment to bring a positive return. Woody is stating that at times the government needs to do this and at times it needs to do the opposite. This is not big government and waaaaayyy beyond keynesian. Keynesian says it doesn't matter what you spend it on. Kurz and arrow says it does matter. Example as Dr Brock says is the interstate highway, Erie Canal, internet, Lousiana Purchase. These were all huge returns on investment. This is needed because America has not put a new roof on in a long long time and the rate of return is huge! Project finance. Fiscal Policy.
Where did you get that he is a "liberal"? If you say it's because he supports more spending, then I think you need to stop pointing out small pieces of his words to fit your thoughts. You seriously mix things up and confuse people.

 

[boneyard bill]

Dr Brock is not a democrat. He has both conservative and liberal ideas based on heavy deductive thinking. You point out that he's a Keynesian and supporter of big government. Seriously? I guess you didn't read his book! Pumping more money into the economy with POSITIVE RATE OF RETURN INVESTMENTS. These types of projects investments can be found by using the Mordecai Kurz and kenneth Arrow (both nobel prize winners) papers. Look it up! Nothing right or left wing about it! This is common sense investment to bring a positive return. Woody is stating that at times the government needs to do this and at times it needs to do the opposite. This is not big government and waaaaayyy beyond keynesian. Keynesian says it doesn't matter what you spend it on. Kurz and arrow says it does matter. Example as Dr Brock says is the interstate highway, Erie Canal, internet, Lousiana Purchase. These were all huge returns on investment. This is needed because America has not put a new roof on in a long long time and the rate of return is huge! Project finance. Fiscal Policy.
Where did you get that he is a "liberal"? If you say it's because he supports more spending, then I think you need to stop pointing out small pieces of his words to fit your thoughts. You seriously mix things up and confuse people.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't agree with everything this guy has to say, but then again, I'm not a liberal. Woody Brock is a Keynesian economist and a big supporter of big government. But if you have to be liberal, he's the kind of guy who at least makes economic sense.

It's a half-hour long interview but well worth the time. Every liberal should listen to it. Brock points out what you should expect from liberal policies and the kind of thing we've gotten from Obama isn't it. And although he's a liberal, he actually likes Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher because they at least knew what they wanted to do and got it done.

http://www.financialsense.com/finan...ody-brock-phd/collapse-macroeconomics-reprise

Dr Brock is not a democrat. He has both conservative and liberal ideas based on heavy deductive thinking. You point out that he's a Keynesian and supporter of big government. Seriously? I guess you didn't read his book! Pumping more money into the economy with POSITIVE RATE OF RETURN INVESTMENTS. These types of projects investments can be found by using the Mordecai Kurz and kenneth Arrow (both nobel prize winners) papers. Look it up! Nothing right or left wing about it! This is common sense investment to bring a positive return. Woody is stating that at times the government needs to do this and at times it needs to do the opposite. This is not big government and waaaaayyy beyond keynesian. Keynesian says it doesn't matter what you spend it on. Kurz and arrow says it does matter. Example as Dr Brock says is the interstate highway, Erie Canal, internet, Lousiana Purchase. These were all huge returns on investment. This is needed because America has not put a new roof on in a long long time and the rate of return is huge! Project finance. Fiscal Policy.
Where did you get that he is a "liberal"? If you say it's because he supports more spending, then I think you need to stop pointing out small pieces of his words to fit your thoughts. You seriously mix things up and confuse people.

He's the one who said he's a Keynesian or at least implied it. What he said is that the people running the show now are NOT Keynesian. I disagree with much of what he says but as much for political as for economic reasons. It might be reasonable for the Fed to keep interest low, for example, but it is not reasonable for it to keep them as low as they are. Current 10-year Treasury yields are about 2.5%. Average 10-year yield is 6.8%. So maybe 4% would not be a bad idea. But Brock does not criticize the Fed at all. (Of course, the Fed shouldn't be manipulating interest rates at all, but that's a discussion for another context).

He thinks we should have spent $5 trillion on infrastructure. We don't have that kind of money. Yes we ran up $5 trillion in deficits anyway, but that's just the point. Infrastructure spending would have required spending cuts elsewhere in the budget at the very least. How on earth could the Fed keep interest rates low if we had to borrow yet another $5 trillion? But I agree that he is right about infrastructure that produces a high rate of return, but how do you do that when you are addressing a cyclical problem? The Erie Canal wasn't built in a few years. The interstate highway project spanned several business cycles. It takes a lot of preparation and planning for these projects even before you start to build them. I just don't see how this principle can be applied to deal with a cyclical problem. That's why JFK (and Reagan for that matter) turned to tax cuts. They work quickly.

On regulation, I agree with him completely. But on the rest he is clearly in the liberal camp. He doesn't call for spending cuts to match infrastructure spending or even partially offset it. He doesn't ask for any restraint on the part of the Federal Reserve and has no problem with them manipulating interest rates. He wants government to get bigger.

 

[solutions]

Dr Brock is not a democrat. He has both conservative and liberal ideas based on heavy deductive thinking. You point out that he's a Keynesian and supporter of big government. Seriously? I guess you didn't read his book! Pumping more money into the economy with POSITIVE RATE OF RETURN INVESTMENTS. These types of projects investments can be found by using the Mordecai Kurz and kenneth Arrow (both nobel prize winners) papers. Look it up! Nothing right or left wing about it! This is common sense investment to bring a positive return. Woody is stating that at times the government needs to do this and at times it needs to do the opposite. This is not big government and waaaaayyy beyond keynesian. Keynesian says it doesn't matter what you spend it on. Kurz and arrow says it does matter. Example as Dr Brock says is the interstate highway, Erie Canal, internet, Lousiana Purchase. These were all huge returns on investment. This is needed because America has not put a new roof on in a long long time and the rate of return is huge! Project finance. Fiscal Policy.
Where did you get that he is a "liberal"? If you say it's because he supports more spending, then I think you need to stop pointing out small pieces of his words to fit your thoughts. You seriously mix things up and confuse people.

- - - Updated - - -



Dr Brock is not a democrat. He has both conservative and liberal ideas based on heavy deductive thinking. You point out that he's a Keynesian and supporter of big government. Seriously? I guess you didn't read his book! Pumping more money into the economy with POSITIVE RATE OF RETURN INVESTMENTS. These types of projects investments can be found by using the Mordecai Kurz and kenneth Arrow (both nobel prize winners) papers. Look it up! Nothing right or left wing about it! This is common sense investment to bring a positive return. Woody is stating that at times the government needs to do this and at times it needs to do the opposite. This is not big government and waaaaayyy beyond keynesian. Keynesian says it doesn't matter what you spend it on. Kurz and arrow says it does matter. Example as Dr Brock says is the interstate highway, Erie Canal, internet, Lousiana Purchase. These were all huge returns on investment. This is needed because America has not put a new roof on in a long long time and the rate of return is huge! Project finance. Fiscal Policy.
Where did you get that he is a "liberal"? If you say it's because he supports more spending, then I think you need to stop pointing out small pieces of his words to fit your thoughts. You seriously mix things up and confuse people.

He's the one who said he's a Keynesian or at least implied it. What he said is that the people running the show now are NOT Keynesian. I disagree with much of what he says but as much for political as for economic reasons. It might be reasonable for the Fed to keep interest low, for example, but it is not reasonable for it to keep them as low as they are. Current 10-year Treasury yields are about 2.5%. Average 10-year yield is 6.8%. So maybe 4% would not be a bad idea. But Brock does not criticize the Fed at all. (Of course, the Fed shouldn't be manipulating interest rates at all, but that's a discussion for another context).

He thinks we should have spent $5 trillion on infrastructure. We don't have that kind of money. Yes we ran up $5 trillion in deficits anyway, but that's just the point. Infrastructure spending would have required spending cuts elsewhere in the budget at the very least. How on earth could the Fed keep interest rates low if we had to borrow yet another $5 trillion? But I agree that he is right about infrastructure that produces a high rate of return, but how do you do that when you are addressing a cyclical problem? The Erie Canal wasn't built in a few years. The interstate highway project spanned several business cycles. It takes a lot of preparation and planning for these projects even before you start to build them. I just don't see how this principle can be applied to deal with a cyclical problem. That's why JFK (and Reagan for that matter) turned to tax cuts. They work quickly.

On regulation, I agree with him completely. But on the rest he is clearly in the liberal camp. He doesn't call for spending cuts to match infrastructure spending or even partially offset it. He doesn't ask for any restraint on the part of the Federal Reserve and has no problem with them manipulating interest rates. He wants government to get bigger.

Yes the longer this goes on the more trouble down the road we will have if the interest rates are kept low. Dr Brock is pointing out that the economy hasn't been fixed because the government has left out the other side of the solution. Fiscal Policy. If these are done in tandem then we get a good result. Positive rate of return means the bills can be paid back when things are good. No growth in debt. Don't look at the next five years like everyone does, look at the next 30-50 years. Just like a business. Yes these projects take a little time to get going but that is why he talks about specific reforms and other ways to get things moving along.
There are good deficits and bad deficits. We want good deficits that can be paid off from the borrowing because it generated a positive rate of return.
The interstate highway project created thousands of jobs over many years. Then it created major growth in the US.
How can you say it's a liberal camp when it's mathematically the correct thing to do. How about it's the American thing to do. There are many more things DR brock points out to spend on other than roads.
We need to continue to borrow as long as the money is put towards the correct projects. The public should know because they think all deficits are bad.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Modernizing our rail system would be a good start. Many companies want to ship by rail, but it is not dependable.

 

[solutions]

Modernizing our rail system would be a good start. Many companies want to ship by rail, but it is not dependable.

Yes, bullet trains! NY to boston or SanFrancisco to LA. NY to DC. Whatever their location they use the Arrow Kurz formula to see who gets the funds. The rate of returns are huge. How about SanFrancisco to Seattle? No...because the formula says the rate of return is nowhere near what the others may create. This creates. Jobs, productivity, growth, and much more.

How about new electric grids? cyberproof.
Carbon fiber bridges? they last many many years longer than todays bridges.

 

[boneyard bill]

He's the one who said he's a Keynesian or at least implied it. What he said is that the people running the show now are NOT Keynesian. I disagree with much of what he says but as much for political as for economic reasons. It might be reasonable for the Fed to keep interest low, for example, but it is not reasonable for it to keep them as low as they are. Current 10-year Treasury yields are about 2.5%. Average 10-year yield is 6.8%. So maybe 4% would not be a bad idea. But Brock does not criticize the Fed at all. (Of course, the Fed shouldn't be manipulating interest rates at all, but that's a discussion for another context).

He thinks we should have spent $5 trillion on infrastructure. We don't have that kind of money. Yes we ran up $5 trillion in deficits anyway, but that's just the point. Infrastructure spending would have required spending cuts elsewhere in the budget at the very least. How on earth could the Fed keep interest rates low if we had to borrow yet another $5 trillion? But I agree that he is right about infrastructure that produces a high rate of return, but how do you do that when you are addressing a cyclical problem? The Erie Canal wasn't built in a few years. The interstate highway project spanned several business cycles. It takes a lot of preparation and planning for these projects even before you start to build them. I just don't see how this principle can be applied to deal with a cyclical problem. That's why JFK (and Reagan for that matter) turned to tax cuts. They work quickly.

On regulation, I agree with him completely. But on the rest he is clearly in the liberal camp. He doesn't call for spending cuts to match infrastructure spending or even partially offset it. He doesn't ask for any restraint on the part of the Federal Reserve and has no problem with them manipulating interest rates. He wants government to get bigger.

Yes the longer this goes on the more trouble down the road we will have if the interest rates are kept low. Dr Brock is pointing out that the economy hasn't been fixed because the government has left out the other side of the solution. Fiscal Policy. If these are done in tandem then we get a good result. Positive rate of return means the bills can be paid back when things are good. No growth in debt. Don't look at the next five years like everyone does, look at the next 30-50 years. Just like a business. Yes these projects take a little time to get going but that is why he talks about specific reforms and other ways to get things moving along.
There are good deficits and bad deficits. We want good deficits that can be paid off from the borrowing because it generated a positive rate of return.
The interstate highway project created thousands of jobs over many years. Then it created major growth in the US.
How can you say it's a liberal camp when it's mathematically the correct thing to do. How about it's the American thing to do. There are many more things DR brock points out to spend on other than roads.
We need to continue to borrow as long as the money is put towards the correct projects. The public should know because they think all deficits are bad.

I agree with your last point. State government don't typically have that problem. (although apparently some do, and they're in financial trouble). Essentially, they have capital budgets that are financed by bond issues against taxes specified for the debt service on those projects. They are not included in the normal operating budget.

But I think your post makes the point I was stressing. 30-50 years projects are not going to be much help in combatting a cyclical downturn which usually occurs every 5 to 10 years. How many "shovel-ready" jobs did Obama's stimulus plan create? I think half the money simply went to state governments which used it to avoid lay-offs. That satisfied the Public Employees Union, but it didn't do much of anything to stimulate the economy. The rest went mostly to pork.

The other point is, if these projects have such a high yield, why isn't the private sector doing them? I can think of a few reasons why the private sector wouldn't do some projects that are understood to be in the public sphere (including the possibility that they aren't allowed to), but I would like to hear what Brock has to say about it. I'd also like to hear what he thinks about monetary policy beyond the apologetical observation that the Fed is being asked to do too much.

 

[Rhea]

Quite a stretch in your thinking I'd say. Reagan had to work with a Democrat House for his entire administration and with a Democrat Senate for the last two years. What "prisoners" did he not take? He got what he wanted by rallying the public behind his programs.

Your history is confused. The "Democrat House" was an invention of Rove, long after Reagan was dead.
Reagan had a Democratic House and Democratic Senate to deal with. The stupid snide "Democrat House" thing is so juvenile.