Missouri to use Stimulus Money to Cut Taxes

[Franzl]

Good. This is a better use of the money. Let the American people have the money, what's wrong with that?

because the people aren't as likely to spend it during this economic crisis, which results in a lower eonomic stimulus than targeted investments by the government (in theory at least).

[Franzl]

Good. This is a better use of the money. Let the American people have the money, what's wrong with that?

because the people aren't as likely to spend it during this economic crisis, which results in a lower eonomic stimulus than targeted investments by the government (in theory at least).

Ya, except when the government actually tries to do stuff itself, well some money for some reason just tends to get "lost" somewhere. It is kind of like a tax. It is "cheaper" to just send the money straight into the wallets of the local denizens, don't you think?

Now I certainly don't claim to be an economist or anything.....and I know you are practically an expert , but even if tax cuts are "cheaper" in that sense...what does that ultimately have to do with the stimulating effect? If people are likely to save the extra money they get (although I don't know if that's entirely the case.....I think it has a lot to do with psychology....whether they believe they can afford to spend money), wouldn't it then take a greater amount of time to stimulate the economy?

Don't government expidentures (obviously ones that are conducted properly) have the advantage of immediate effects? As opposed to a small tax increase of 0.5% (as proposed in Missouri) that a majority of people might either save....or use to pay off debt, or whatever?

That's not to say I oppose tax breaks...some middle ground probably has to be found, but is it wise to just put money back in pockets without having any idea about whether it'll ultimately help the economy?


Concerning the federal stimulus package in total....I personally think it could have been conducted much better than it actually was, and that there was quite a bit more potential to make it more stimulating (you'll probably agree and you certainly know more about it ).

[Franzl]

I think all that stimulus  money should go to the forumites here myself. Most of you are basically impecunious at this juncture , and would spend the money in a flash, no?    And think how much happier all those women BRTD patronizes would be to boot!

The question, though, is whether the type of establishments BRTD regularly spends money on are the type of business we want to be stimulating

[Franzl]

Which will be more beneficial to a struggling family? Sending them a $500 check, or by building a new bridge? Hmmm.

Will individuals ever collude together and build a bridge though?  Supposing a bridge needs to be built?

The libertarian argument would be that a private company or person could invest in building a bridge in order to make money out of tolls.

[Franzl]

Which will be more beneficial to a struggling family? Sending them a $500 check, or by building a new bridge? Hmmm.

Will individuals ever collude together and build a bridge though?  Supposing a bridge needs to be built?

The libertarian argument would be that a private company or person could invest in building a bridge in order to make money out of tolls.

Except that this means nothing not economically viable on the small scale will ever be accomplished. If the bridge isn't ever going to make money (that is, if in order to make money the bridge's toll would have to be so high that people wouldn't bother using it), no one will build it. But there are plenty of instances where it's a far greater public good for a bridge to be built that is not economically viable on its own but provides a connection between markets.

Such is the chief argument around rail in the United States. Rail is not designed to make money for the operating organization. A lot of people want the US to build a rail system and then privatize it. But no one will buy the rail system because it's not going to be profitable--or, if they do buy it, they'll raise prices until no one wants to ride the rail system and then will slowly dismantle it. (This is what happens with Amtrak--Congress demands that Amtrak be profitable, so prices are exorbitant, but that discourages ridership and encourages Congress to move away from funding Amtrak.) But it would definitely be to the benefit of the people to have a rail system, and so the money that the government has to invest annually on a publicly owned rail system's maintenance is well-spent.

That is not to say that there is not waste, and strict oversight would need to be maintained to ensure that a public rail system is not wasting money. But oversight should be no barrier to publicly owned railroads.

In some cases, it may be possible to privatize rail lines which are, in fact, profitable. I'm not opposed to privatization in principle there, only to the privatization and subsequent scrapping of marginally profitable or non-profitable public services.

I agree entirely.

A question about Amtrak, though....is it that much more expensive on the East Coast than it is in the Midwest?

I can take a train from Alton to Chicago for $22.