Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Forget about poor retail consumers buying trinkets... Creating a new "infrastructure bank" to fund roads, airports, public buildings, etc. will spur infrastructure/commercial development. This increases corp./govt. buying which leads to job creation. Plus it creates a whole new level of govt. bureaucracy which will require the hiring of more govt. paper pushers.
Maybe okay in concept, but in practice would be about as stupid as building (yet) more housing for an aging population. You follow how that missed the mark? Was great in the 1950s, but turned out really stupid in the 2000's.
The build, build, build that O'bama and (sort of you) are prescribing are just the wrong products for the wrong time.
In this case from your list:
fund roads -- if for (yet) more cars to burn imported fuel, we go broke.
airports -- again . . . if for (yet) more aircraft to burn imported fuel, we go broke.
public buildings -- to heat, cool, and go broke doing so.
etc -- ummm, yeah. Maybe ANYTHING But More Etc.
Really have to get out of the Consumer (get it? Consume, consume, consume, Everything) mindset that has got US here.
If we are going to build, build, build stuff -- at least be smart enough to build stuff that will take US Off Oil, and use less energy, and less imports, in general.
The Ferengi are upset because there is no profit in roads, bridges or schools
I always tend to hang back and wait for that moment in design group meetings.
Usually if I have worked with some of the design team before, we sort of place bets ahead of time on when the geeks and dweebs will come up with the first Star Trek reference.
Ding, ding, we have a winner!
So now that we have broken that bound, do we have a Good Star Trek reference for the overall story line we are on?
Should be one where the theme is that the dopes that got US here want to keep doing more of the same that got US here -- (more tax cuts, build more useless stuff, go deeper into trade losses, more endless growth on a finite planet, and on and on).
Maybe okay in concept, but in practice would be about as stupid as building (yet) more housing for an aging population. You follow how that missed the mark? Was great in the 1950s, but turned out really stupid in the 2000's.
The build, build, build that O'bama and (sort of you) are prescribing are just the wrong products for the wrong time.
In this case from your list:
fund roads -- if for (yet) more cars to burn imported fuel, we go broke.
airports -- again . . . if for (yet) more aircraft to burn imported fuel, we go broke.
public buildings -- to heat, cool, and go broke doing so.
etc -- ummm, yeah. Maybe ANYTHING But More Etc.
Really have to get out of the Consumer (get it? Consume, consume, consume, Everything) mindset that has got US here.
If we are going to build, build, build stuff -- at least be smart enough to build stuff that will take US Off Oil, and use less energy, and less imports, in general.
Yes, this all has to be balanced with the greater common good. And for full disclosure I will admit that all of this would be very good for my particular market niche.... More contracts would allow us to hire more sales reps, then hire more engineers, etc. (though we are not in the oil, transportation, or road business).
Major investments/incentives in the development of new/retrofitted green buildings and updated mass transit systems (e.g. needed in Chicago) are infrastructure investments that would lead to big energy efficiencies/cost savings and make us less dependent on oil.
You don't need consumer demand for your specific product. Why? Because demand can be stimulated by the creation of the product or service. People have choices on where to spend their money. They will spend it on whatever they feel they need. That's why the whole no demand = no jobs argument is kind of flawed. Under that theory it states that if there is no demand for xyz service then no jobs will be created, which is wrong.
Just look at apple. Back in the early 1990s NO ONE said they wanted to buy apps on their phone. Hell, most people didn't even have mobile phones in the first place. Under the demand theory, apple would have never hired anyone to develop an app system for the iphone but they did anyways. Fast forward to today and apps are a billion dollar business.
If you build it they will come.
When I started my business I started it entirely based on what I thought was a good idea. If I did a survey of the demand for my service it would have been 0 demand. But I invested the money and developed the service. When people found out about the service they said, "wow, that's a great idea. I want to buy it."
Under the law of demand = jobs idea, I should have NEVER invested the money to develop the service.
Quote:
It's the "build it and they shall come" mentality.
Pray tell though..who will give the customers money to spend ?
You have to understand the role of money in the first place. Money is a tool used for the exchange of goods and services. That's the entire point. Our entire banking system has been designed to make sure that exchange happens as fast as possible. Money is constantly changing hands, even when you don't know it. Everyone has three options for their money: save it, spend it, invest it.
Save it - Goes into the bank and the bank makes loans with the money.
spend it - Goes to whoever you bought the goods and services from.
Invest it - Goes to whoever is building the investment or whoever you bought the investment from.
Also, consumer demand might be falling for US consumers but it is not for the rest of the world. Many 3rd world countries are having a massive rise in their standard of living. That's where the future demand for goods and services is coming from. Which is why you see so many multinational companies flocking to get a foot hold in those markets.
Meanwhile, in Washington, we have these idiots who are still stuck on the idea that we need to stimulate the american consumer to buy more stuff. The fact of the matter is that you don't need to stimulate the american consumer because we have foreigners who can also provide for additional consumer spending. The income in many 3rd world countries is rising. China is going to be the largest consumer in the world for everything going forward - oil, wheat, rice, cars, steel - you name it. China is going to take over the role as the largest consumer of goods and services in the world.
You don't need consumer demand for your specific product. Why? Because demand can be stimulated by the creation of the product or service. People have choices on where to spend their money.
Yes, people have choices, so how does buying A instead of B change anything?
Quote:
Originally Posted by a34dadsf
China is going to take over the role as the largest consumer of goods and services in the world.
And China can produce everything internally so how exactly does that help the US? It doesn't.... This is not to mention that China is keeping domestic consumption very low right now....
Bingo, user id, many nations the poster counts on for growth limit the percentage of products that can be imported, imposing essentially producing X percentage inside the nation they would be sold in. Hence, many corps that are US based, have enormous percentages of their global headcount elsewhere. 10 years ago, a Fortune 100 admonished us (ex employer) for not having a formal China policy. They did, and they have most of their headcount in Asia now.
Whether you like them in theory or not, employment tax cuts and unemployment funding time and again have proven to be the most effective methods of stimulus in almost every situation. The other stuff like infrastrucure sounds good on paper and is beneficial over the very long term, but you'd think both parties would focus on what works best first with an election coming up and all. Only opposition to this comes from high earning businessowners as they figure to gain the least from either. Don't listen to their claims about waiting for more business to hire or their claims they need less regulation. Either would be about #8 and 9 on their priority lists. Small business owners crave financing and market access and neither are helped by hiring nor tax cuts.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
