| About Us | Contact | Donate | User Blogs | Login |
1958 vs 2008 Stimulus
Crossposted at The Rockefeller Republican
500 billion. That is the number being bandied about by the Obama transition team for a new stimulus package. That is a lot of money. And to his credit, President-Elect Obama is not planning on writing a blank check either; he has some plans for all this money. The plan is for a massive infrastructure project- the biggest since Eisenhower’s interstate highway system. Specifically, Obama wants to spend 500 billion dollars to build roads, modernize schools, expand Internet access, improve buildings' energy efficiency, and put better technology in hospitals. Unfortunately, this plan is hopelessly stuck in 1958, not 2008.
This proposed stimulus plan lacks any real social vision for the country’s future- in fact it could actually slow growth rather than foster it. Take one example: roads. While Eisenhower was being revolutionary in imagining an interlocking highway system that would allow drivers access all over the country, can the same be said today? Wouldn’t an investment in maglev technology for public transit be a more forward-looking idea? Or what about completely re-envisioning the metro system to better accommodate today’s population clusters that no longer depend on the large cities the original public transit system was created for? Spending billions of dollars to prop up old infrastructures will do little for us in the short term and even less in the long term.
Innovation is not only required when it comes to old infrastructure but old companies as well. So we come to the auto bailout. It looks as though a temporary fix will be in place and it will be up to the new administration to decide on a long-term plan. Instead of spending another $50-100 billion dollars to hold together 20th century companies, why not force real change. With that amount of investment Detroit could be mandated to create incredibly fuel-efficient hybrids. Bold thinking is going to be required of Americans as they embrace the next century.
One of the biggest challenges facing the world is energy production. We send 300 billion of our dollars into foreign coffers every year. What if part of the stimulus package were to work towards a solution to the energy crisis? We already have a plan that seems to make sense: the Pickens’s Plan. The government could fund the installation of thousands of wind turbines in the Great Plains, the potential wind corridor of the United States due to favorable wind resources and geographic location. It is estimated that these turbines could generate enough power to provide 20 percent or more of the country's electricity supply. With wind energy providing a large portion of the nation's electricity, the natural gas that is currently used to fuel power plants could be used instead as a fuel for thousands of vehicles. This investment in the future could cost as much as $1 trillion, but could be offset by private investment. Regardless, if taxpayers are being asked to foot the bill for billions in stimulus, they should be able to look forward to a real substantial benefit in the long term, and $300 billion kept in-country annually sounds pretty good, not to mention the environmental benefits it would create.
Obama promised real change, a new day in America. It is time to prove it.


Comments
Do you understand what stimulus is?
Stimulus has to happen fast. Your ideas are generally fine. Would that the Bush Administration had invested more money in the US than in Iraq.
But today, the economy requires stimulus. Maglev technology development is not going to create lots of jobs in the short-term and get money into the real economy. Obama's stimulus probably won't either but that's a different discussion.
Sure, many of us could come up with all sorts of visionary stuff if we were asked how to spend $500BN
Try to stay on point.
can we lobby to make sure that the roads get built where they're
needed?
There are states where 20% of someone's income is likely to go to gas in the near future. These States Need Help. Let's fix the roads so that pickups aren't a requirement (and then let's implement a better rental system so that you can just use a pickup and don't need to own one).
I'm sure some money will get spent on maglev, high speed trains, etc. But a better use of money is to restructure our economy so that it is less dependent on driving (that means local ma and pop supermarkets, etc).
Tech research creates jobs for technical people. That's a good thing, but it doesn't employ construction workers (who have basically no jobs, and it will only get worse). Stimulus is to employ them just as much ;-)
Um, no
the whole POINT of the Pelosi Congress broken promise on earmarks and the continued pork barrel, earmarks and wasteful spending mentality of the Democrat Congress is to fund projects that benefit THEM and their vested lobbying interests. They wont build it where they are needed, they will build it where it helps them.
You want to change it? Lets get ex-Senator Peter Fitzgerald appointed as the new Senator from Illinois. He left Washington because he wouldnt play that game. Blago was indicted because he does.
I have to disagree
Johnson-
I have to resepctfully disagree. I understand your point about stimuls needing to be fast, but I think movement on larger vision projects could be quite quick. We have the technology to create large scale wind farms now and it would employ huge amounts of construction workers to build them along with the infrastructure to support it all. As for the maglev trains- a whole new system of ralis would need to be constructed, which could also employ thousands quickly.
And don't forget, by restructuring Detriot to produce the next generation of cars we would be saving those jobs as well.
I know people want to go with what they know...but times like this I think can be great opportunities if approached right.
we will see windfarms
but we will also see an updating of our power grid. We've got an engineer in chief right now, and that hasn't been the case since Carter! So celebrate, because our infrastructure WILL be updated.
Yes, a lot of it will go into things that we will want to move out of later.
While we're on the idea of "let's do something crazy" -- i want that fusion reactor built NOW!
(do we have specs for maglev? if so, there has got to be someone to lobby for it... go donate time and effort to them, as it really sounds like a good idea that might get forgotten otherwise)
The mind boggles
at how dumb, out of touch with reality, and naive you are with these wide-eyed comments.
- Obama's a lawyer and clueless on engineering, like most in DC
- Carter was an awful president
- Our infrastructure is getting updated all the time, we spend and have spent billions each month on it in our $13T economy; geeez, what a lie you've bought into
- fusion is not even a reality. yes, you are nuts to ask for it
- Private companies not govt should pay for wind farms, just like with nuclear, nat gas or other power plants
- If you want govt to do some good, get the NIMBYs out of the way and let private companies build: refineries, LNG processing facilities, nuclear power plants, oil shale exploration, ANWR drilling, etc. we dont need govt investment, we just need govt to NOT GET IN THE WAY
Gimme this, gimme that. Sigh - A gob-smacking HUGE waste of money, and you are treating it like Christmas... Another reminder to me of how awful it is to live under Liberal policies. Moronic feelgoodism that will rob from the productive to feed the stupid and venal, make us poorer and harm our economy. And they'll add insult to injury by claiming they did good. Ugggg.
we've plans for fusion, courtesy of the navy
(god save the US Navy!)
Next step is a prototype. No, this is not your ten week energy solution. But it might work better than those hoary old fission reactors.
Ike was a general, he also did a lot of national security work that happened to be engineering work. Obama's hired competent people, as did Carter, and this will be the first real investment in infrastructure from the gov't (clinton's investments came from private capital, but they ALSO created a shitload of productivity and jobs).
Carter was a mixed bag. I may like Nixon better than Carter, for his good side, but I'd put them about at the same level of schizo.
I'm glad you hate the Army corps of engineers as much as I do.
Mrr. I just wish conservatives would actually CARE about conserving the environment. Man we could make TRiLLIONS out of our oil reserves, if we don't drill now.
he's right - govt construction spending to slow to stimulate
Maglev - great idea. but any plans started now would be in planning for a decade before construction. It's pitifully naive to think workers start next monday. Look at Trans texas corridor - idea 10 years ago, build up 5 years ago ... now dead due to opposition from people now wnating land taken due to eminent domain, money spent, etc.
The recession will hit bottom this quarter or next - IN 90 DAYS.
The concept of 'stimulus spending' as a countercyclical just DOESNT WORK for the simple reason that GOVERNMENT IS TOO SLOW. Projects take time. The people capable of doing the work are in an industry that only employs a fraction of peopel. Dont think you can build without buying land, engineering, etc. so by the time you do these things, it will be 2011 to 2013.
We need to quit pretending that government works projects will cure a recession. THEY DONT. We need to quit pretending that government spending on non-economical activities is a good idea just because we are in a slowdown. IT ISNT.
Govt spending just crowds out private investment. That means a govt road will raise input costs and that private factory wont get built that might have employed people and made money. If the road is an uneconomic 'make work' project it will do more harm than good to spend that money, since it crowds out more productive use of that investment money.
We had a huge transportation spending bill a few years back, piling on more pork is not beneficial.
We have the technology to create large scale wind farms now
We have the technology to build nuclear power plants, refineries, houses, and cars. We have lots of technology. That doesnt mean we can turn on a dime to do these things.
It also is questionable why govt spending should displace private spending and end up distorting the economy. Wind farms cost money - what about the power plants already built and the energy they make? Are you going to shut them down and cost those workers their jobs, destroying economic value in the process? Why subsidize wind and not nuclear?
"And don't forget, by restructuring Detriot to produce the next generation of cars we would be saving those jobs as well."
We should leave it to private sector to do these things. Govt destroys economic value when it meddles in industrial policy.
The best way to be truly countercyclical would be Fed policy (done already) and - POLICIES THAT INCREASE PRIVATE INVESTMENT - as it is well known the way we climb out of recessions is via increased investment. That translates into supply-side policies. A tax reduction and regulatory relief would help:
- Announce that no CO2 regs would be imposed between now and 2012
- Announce a tax holiday (equal to the stimulus spending) for 2009, a la Rep Gohmert's proposal
- Announce a reduction in corporate tax rate and increase R&D tax credits to spur investment, including a tax break on repatriating investment into the US
- Repeal sarbanes oxley and/or reform it
Doing the above would be more effective as a countercyclical coutermeasure.
The 'stimulus' should be limited to accelerating projects already underway and/or supporting spending that would have been cut back.
we are in a deflationary period
it's better for investors to keep their money on the sidelines, seeing as coutnries have seen fit to guarantee deposits, than to invest in the stock market.
gov't spending increases private investment because it gives more money to people, more jobs too. If we look at all the factories shutting down, it's because they are unprofitable. But because our economy runs on consumer spending, the more that shut down, the more of a vicious cycle happens.
You need some sort of vision, some sort of engine to recharge the economy.
NOBODY knows what that engine will be, but some cog of it will be government.
Stock market really likes Obama's "I'm going to pour money your way."
Econ 101 flunked by libs
You keep believing this. I on the other hand, was able to get into GLP at 8, PLD under 4, and EXM at 4 (now at 8). Having a stock up 60% in 2 weeks, not bad, makes up for the stuff that went down 50% earlier. Great buying opportunity when companies are going for single digit PEs. Last 2 weeks was a good time to enter the markets IMHO.
Uggg. No. Govt spending COSTS MONEY, and thus the money comes from taxpayers and/or from debt or inflating the currencty. All 3 options have negative effects on private investment. Taxes steal from private economy, debt crowds out private investment, currenct inflation ruins the monetary unit and destroys investment returns for creditors.
You are besically singing the song of "Free Lunch" a perverse over-simplified Keynesianism (that even Keynes would debunk). Get thee to a text by Milton Friedman - THERE IS NO FREE LUNCH.
If we look at all the factories shutting down, it's because they are unprofitable. But because our economy runs on consumer spending, the more that shut down, the more of a vicious cycle happens
sigh. .. consumer/producers - two sides of the economic coin, you obviously need both and simply pushing up consumption by spending money you dont have will NOT WORK LONGTERM. you cannot magically inflate out of that without negative consequences. And if the issue is with factories shutting down, jobs etc. FOCUS ON THE PRODUCTION SIDE TOO. That means figuring out policies that increases US production - taxes, regulations etc.
You need some sort of vision, some sort of engine to recharge the economy.
Over 100 years of experience with the dynamic natural free economy and the many repeated failures of socialism tells that this 'vision' is in the minds of thousands of entrepreneurs and self-starting free enterprisers. Liberate them and the economy will get back on track.
The engine will be freedom. The Govt component would be to keep the money supply stable, enforce regulations against fraud, reduce the 'moral hazard' of subsidizing losses, keep tax rates low, fair and simple; defend US sovereignty and get the heck out of the way.
Even bad decisions reduce uncertainty (which markets hate), so the market will rise next year even if Obama pursues bad policies. The claims of horrible things happening in the economy are a part of the games being played to get people to buy into the bailouts. They are overstated IMHO. The bailout will have no big impact on the economy, which will recover in due course anyway.
Do you have any idea why the banks needed bailouts?
Do you disagree with banning short selling?
Stiglitz had a great, fair treatment of who caused this mess in Vanity Fair. If you disagree with it, can you please do me the favor of pointing to a conservative commentator who predicted this bubble would collapse catastrophically? I'm interested in hearing what someone credible from the right has to say.
Glad to hear you're putting your money where your mouth is. Over the past year, I have stolen much money on the stock market from stupid companies and blind investors (stolen in the sense that my bets were freaking obvious).
I hope you do well with your investments, and I trust you have stops in place (unless you can afford to lose all the money, which I think would be unlikely).
It's sure as hell a better time now to get in than it was in January, unless you like trying to catch a falling knife. I don't think that Wall Street has quite absorbed how badly this is going to go, or might go.
Those stocks you've chosen seem... ideologically motivated? I don't think I'd touch anything in commercial real estate right now, unless I was shorting. I know someone who owns a strip mall, and they're in serious trouble. Do you expect global shipping to boom again in the near term? (I devoutly hope so, but I haven't kept much watch on it). (Global partners was the company in Iraq, wasn't it? if not, I retract my comment about ideologically motivated).
Bottom feeding is a tricky business. You're betting on how quickly these will recover. What's your expected rate of return on your investment?
Investment stuff
Do you disagree with banning short selling?
Banning short selling is stupid. will they abolish options? But eliminating the uptick rule was also stupid.
If you disagree with it, can you please do me the favor of pointing to a conservative commentator who predicted this bubble would collapse catastrophically?
Hang out with the RonPaul/Austrian-Credit-cycle/Greenspans bubbles/Fleckenstein crowd, and you find more than a few conservatives who saw it coming. I didnt, I thought it was manageable (Or I would have sold my LEH). They were smarter and paying more attention than me. All I saw was the patently obvious risk of tax increases from the Democrats, so I though it would hit in 2009-2010. It hit early.
I don't think I'd touch anything in commercial real estate right now, unless I was shorting.
Go ahead, short away. I bought PLD at 0.15 book value and PLD has a clear plan for liquidity preservation. They will survive and in the interim give $1/sh div. When you have companies going for a fraction of asset values like that, all you are really betting on is that it wont be the great depression. And it wont go BK. Which it wont.
Bottom feeding is a tricky business.
Sure is. I bought pilgrims pride too. ouch.
Do you expect global shipping to boom again in the near term?
Not at all. BDI number is dreadful right now. But basically these stocks will triple in 2 years if they can escape bankruptcy. Risks are way overpriced. I have made a mistake with EXM due to its debt load, but I think not. Same btw with RRI. At $5, you can get 14,000 MW for $300/kw. Takeover target, cheap.
You're betting on how quickly these will recover. What's your expected rate of return on your investment?
WIth 5 PE and 10+% yielding stocks, you've got a 10-20% return even without ratio expansion. So I'm not betting on timeframe but I'm not worried. I will write puts at 8,000 on the Dow, its bottom territory. But on the upside, stocks like PLD could be a 10 bagger in 5 years, just by getting back to half of its former highs. This is the best time to invest since 2002-2003. Alot of the best increases will come from such 'fallen angels'.
The real place to be is in junk bonds. Risk asset yields have gone crazy. Many of those are far higher than they need to be.
GLP is an oil wholesaler partnership btw.
Point taken...but
Freedoms truth-
I appreciate the time and thought people put into the comments here, and I do understand your point. Government is best which governs least, the private sector is always a better investor...but:
With a democratic congress and president, a huge government spending program is going to happen whether we want it or not. I would at least like to steer the conversation towards forward looking investments and not simply paving roads or buying boat loads of pc's for school (I am a teacher...trust me that is a dubious investment at best).
yeah, targeted computer training
with an eye to teaching students about strategic allocation is a GOOD idea. But just throwing PCs at an english teacher is bound to produce not much of anything.