White flight — to the city (middle-class, how much, universities)

[AnsleyPark]

Originally Posted by roadtrip75

The fact that BringBackCobain lived responsibly isn't earning him respect, it's earning him scorn?

To live responsibly requires compassion - not callousness - for your fellow human.

[RoslynHolcomb]

Originally Posted by arjay57

I know, Roslyn. I commented on this effect with regard to the car break-in thread here. But knowing that doesn't make the pill go down much easier.

I agree and it angers me as well. I've been working since I was 14, I wish everyone had the same work ethic. However, my neighbor gaming the disability system has far less impact on me than the bankers gaming the system and crashing the economy. Because of their game my husband lost their job, we had to sell our (nearly paid-for) house and move here. Starting over at our age sucks the big one. The disability gamers costs us a little money. The bankers cost us our lives.

[K-SawDude]

Originally Posted by BringBackCobain

Government does not create growth. Only the private sector can do that, period.

This is just patently false. Any non-ideologically driven economics class will tell you that. Are you suggesting a government job isn't real? That if the government uses tax money for an infrastructure investment or education, that that isn't stimulative? Of course it is. Such investment creates jobs in the short term and produces transit or other infrastructure and an improved labor force to promote business growth in the long term.

Now, it is SOMETIMES the case that a dollar put into corporate growth (not via tax dollars) has a higher multiplier effect than a dollar put into government spending (via tax dollars). But that fact doesn't mean that government spending isn't stimulative. It's just less efficient in some cases (not all) than corporate spending. (Most economists say infrastructure, research, and education investments can be really smart uses of tax money.)

[arjay57]

Originally Posted by K-SawDude

This is just patently false. Any non-ideologically driven economics class will tell you that. Are you suggesting a government job isn't real? That if the government uses tax money for an infrastructure investment or education, that that isn't stimulative? Of course it is. Such investment creates jobs in the short term and produces transit or other infrastructure and an improved labor force to promote business growth in the long term.

Not only that, but bear in mind that a vast number of government programs are carried out by private contractors. That would include mega industries such as agribusiness, automobiles, defense contracting, aerospace, water management, highway, tunnel and bridge construction, power generation, research universities and so forth.

Find me a town with a lot of government spending and I'll find you a lot of very, very successful private entrepreneurs.

[researchnerd]

Originally Posted by RoslynHolcomb

I agree and it angers me as well. I've been working since I was 14, I wish everyone had the same work ethic. However, my neighbor gaming the disability system has far less impact on me than the bankers gaming the system and crashing the economy. Because of their game my husband lost their job, we had to sell our (nearly paid-for) house and move here. Starting over at our age sucks the big one. The disability gamers costs us a little money. The bankers cost us our lives.

That happened to us too. Thanks for the job loss, bankruptcy, foreclosure, and devastation of our life savings, bankers.

[BringBackCobain]

Originally Posted by K-SawDude

This is just patently false. Any non-ideologically driven economics class will tell you that.

Oh, really? And where do I find such classes? I can tell you, they are not taught in any American college or university. American Academia is one of the most leftist institutions in this country. My economics professors at UGA used to sing praises of how effective China's planned economy is. I can only imagine what they are teaching at schools in the Northeast.

Are you suggesting a government job isn't real?

Yes. No government job offers services equal to the amount of money it wastes.

That if the government uses tax money for an infrastructure investment or education, that that isn't stimulative? Of course it is. Such investment creates jobs in the short term and produces transit or other infrastructure and an improved labor force to promote business growth in the long term.

Yes, I agree, but the U.S. is way beyond that point. Any massive federal infrastructure investments at this point would be a waste of money.

The 'Stimulus' Actually Raised Unemployment | Alan Reynolds | Cato Institute: Commentary

Now, it is SOMETIMES the case that a dollar put into corporate growth (not via tax dollars) has a higher multiplier effect than a dollar put into government spending (via tax dollars). But that fact doesn't mean that government spending isn't stimulative. It's just less efficient in some cases (not all) than corporate spending. (Most economists say infrastructure, research, and education investments can be really smart uses of tax money.)

Government spending is not stimulative. All it does is add debt and stifle growth. As we will soon see, years of Keynesian economics is about to spark another financial crisis. Do you not see what is happening in Greece? Or Spain? Or Portugal? Or Italy? Or the U.S.?

The coming crises of governments - FT.com

However, the subsequent $800bn American stimulus package was largely a waste of money that sharply enlarged the fiscal hole now facing our economy. President Barack Obama’s administration has consistently overestimated the benefits of stimulus, by using an unrealistically high spending multiplier. According to this Keynesian logic, government expenditure is more than a free lunch. This idea, if correct, would be more brilliant than the creation of triple A paper out of garbage. In any event, the elimination of the temporary spending is now contractionary and, more importantly, the resulting expansion of public debt eventually requires higher taxes, retarding growth...

...However, since government spending is warranted only if it passes the usual hurdles of social rates of return, the fiscal deficit should have concentrated on tax reductions, especially those that emphasised falls in marginal tax rates, which encourage investment and growth.

[muxBuppie]

Originally Posted by K-SawDude

This is just patently false. Any non-ideologically driven economics class will tell you that. Are you suggesting a government job isn't real? That if the government uses tax money for an infrastructure investment or education, that that isn't stimulative? Of course it is. Such investment creates jobs in the short term and produces transit or other infrastructure and an improved labor force to promote business growth in the long term.

Now, it is SOMETIMES the case that a dollar put into corporate growth (not via tax dollars) has a higher multiplier effect than a dollar put into government spending (via tax dollars). But that fact doesn't mean that government spending isn't stimulative. It's just less efficient in some cases (not all) than corporate spending. (Most economists say infrastructure, research, and education investments can be really smart uses of tax money.)

Lol, how is taking wealth and moving somewhere creating more wealth or even sustainable jobs for that matter? We might as well take money (tax)from the folks who do have jobs and pay people to dig hole in the desert. By your logic it is all the same anyway.That is all the government can do because it doesn't generate any real wealth.

[BringBackCobain]

Originally Posted by AnsleyPark

To live responsibly requires compassion - not callousness - for your fellow human.

You should be a kindergarten teacher, you'd be great at it.

[K-SawDude]

Originally Posted by muxBuppie

Lol, how is taking wealth and moving somewhere creating more wealth or even sustainable jobs for that matter? We might as well take money (tax)from the folks who do have jobs and pay people to dig hole in the desert. By your logic it is all the same anyway.That is all the government can do because it doesn't generate any real wealth.

Because it isn't simply "wealth redistribution"--i.e., as you say, simply taking wealth and moving it somewhere else. When the government spends money to create jobs, it increases the income of the individual taking that job, who in turn has increased money to spend, which increases demand for other goods, etc.

Here's a SparkNotes explanation on government spending here:

There is also a multiplier for government spending. This multiplier is derived in a different way. When the government increases purchases, it directly increases output, or national income. But, there is a greater effect than just the actual amount of increase in government purchases. When the government spends more, the populace receives more. That is, because the population is the target of increased government spending, personal incomes, and thus consumption, increases. Once again, the size of this increase is based on the MPC. The total change in output as a result of a change in government purchases is equal to (change in government purchases) / (1 - MPC). This number is called the government spending multiplier . . . .


The second example we will work through deals with government spending policy. What is the total change in output from an increase in government spending equal to $20 million if the MPC is 0.8? To solve this, simply plug these numbers into the government spending multiplier: (change in government purchases) / (1 - MPC). This becomes ($20 million) / (1 - 0.8) = $100 million. A $20 million increase in government spending will cause a $100 million increase in output. When government spending increases, the populace, as the recipient of this spending, has more disposable income. When consumers have more disposable income, they spend some and save some. The money that they spend goes back into the economy and is saved and spent by somebody else.
SparkNotes: Tax and Fiscal Policy: Fiscal Policy

Note in that link that tax cuts also have a multiplier effect. The annoying thing is that politicians (especially conservatives) seem to not understand that both spending AND tax cuts are stimulative. If an alien dropped down from another planet and heard our recent political discourse, he would wonder why tax cuts seem to be the only proposed solution to everything.

To your main question: It of course isn't possible to keep spending infinitely. Just as it isn't possible to keep cutting taxes. We're obviously limited by our overall debt as a nation and the burden of our interest payments. Because the uberwealthy tend to horde excess wealth in recessions, I'd personally rather us lean heavier on slight tax increases on richer folks so that we can maintain some levels of government spending (which, again, is stimulative) to climb out of the recession while managing a reasonable level of debt.

[K-SawDude]

Originally Posted by BringBackCobain

Oh, really? And where do I find such classes? I can tell you, they are not taught in any American college or university. American Academia is one of the most leftist institutions in this country. My economics professors at UGA used to sing praises of how effective China's planned economy is. I can only imagine what they are teaching at schools in the Northeast.

My econ prof in undergrad used to pass around faux 3 billion dollar bills with Bill Clinton's face on the front and sing the praises of supply-side (trickle down) economics--i.e., tax cuts for the wealthy make everyone richer!

That's not been working out all that well for anyone except the people already at the top. (Note how wages remain stagnant for those at the bottom after trickle down came into vogue in the early 80s, while the richest get richer over time.)

File:United States Income Distribution 1967-2003.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Anyways, speaking as someone actually in the academic biz, trust me when I say that there are plenty of conservative professors in econ and business departments at universities all over the country. It's commonly known that those departments tend to be the most conservative on most campuses.