Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > New Jersey
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-28-2011, 11:31 AM
 
Location: West Orange, NJ
12,546 posts, read 21,353,711 times
Reputation: 3730

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainNJ View Post
the problem is that it doesnt really stimulate anything. it just kicks the can down the road in the hopes something else will solve the problem by the time the money runs out. instead, they are better off not using the money and being more careful about what really needs to be done.
bringing economic activity to the present that otherwise would occur in the future does stimulate. but, it also takes away future economic activity. the hope is that by then, consumer confidence will be solid, people will have less debt and be spending again, companies will be spending, etc. etc. the important thing is that "stimulus" dollars go towards something they would have spent money on in the future anyways, like infrastructure. that's the idea at least.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-28-2011, 12:12 PM
 
Location: NJ
31,771 posts, read 40,541,828 times
Reputation: 24590
Quote:
Originally Posted by bradykp View Post
bringing economic activity to the present that otherwise would occur in the future does stimulate. but, it also takes away future economic activity. the hope is that by then, consumer confidence will be solid, people will have less debt and be spending again, companies will be spending, etc. etc. the important thing is that "stimulus" dollars go towards something they would have spent money on in the future anyways, like infrastructure. that's the idea at least.
i dont think "stimulate" is the right word. that would indicate that it has a greater impact than simply the direct impact of the spending. but in reality, its just spending x dollars, has x dollars worth of impact (quicker than if the x was spent over years) but thats all the activity that happens. it doesnt magically trigger other activity. but in the end, you are in a deeper hole than before doing it. we really need that balanced budget amendment and we need to take away the government's power to spend our money. people are cutting back on their spending and reducing their debt, while our geniuses in washington are doing the opposite. its really a form of evil. people are trying to be more responsible but everyone is being loaded up with debt thanks to the government. i know you say we are the government, well in 2012 we will vote in a different government.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-28-2011, 12:22 PM
 
Location: Randolph, NJ
4,073 posts, read 8,954,996 times
Reputation: 3262
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainNJ View Post
i dont think "stimulate" is the right word. that would indicate that it has a greater impact than simply the direct impact of the spending. but in reality, its just spending x dollars, has x dollars worth of impact (quicker than if the x was spent over years) but thats all the activity that happens. it doesnt magically trigger other activity. but in the end, you are in a deeper hole than before doing it. we really need that balanced budget amendment and we need to take away the government's power to spend our money. people are cutting back on their spending and reducing their debt, while our geniuses in washington are doing the opposite. its really a form of evil. people are trying to be more responsible but everyone is being loaded up with debt thanks to the government. i know you say we are the government, well in 2012 we will vote in a different government.
Spending and stimulating can be very different. Simply paying for something can just be spending. But something like infrastructure can spur additional spending. For a bridge or other infrastrucure, you are buying steel or other materials which spurs that producer/seller, or equipment manufacturer. You are paying salaries which get spent on goods & services and housing, all of which can stimulate. It can have a multiplier effect -- this is why real estate has been such an important part of the economy, and it is why the real estate crash has had such a deep and lingering impact on the economy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-28-2011, 12:37 PM
 
Location: Ridgewood NJ
592 posts, read 2,184,164 times
Reputation: 316
I didnt follow the whole thread but i think it comes down to giving goya $80 million in tax breaks or risk them moving the whole operation out of NJ. I am sure the calculation for the tax loss if goya moves out of NJ is much higher than $80 million for the state.

I dont fault the officials who made the decision, they are basically playing high stake poker: 1) dont give in to the tax break and call goya's bluff but risking losing it all 2) fold and give goya the tax breaks but guarantee to keep them in NJ.

NJ played safe and chose 2). The 8 whatever new jobs created is irrelevant in the decision, it's about keeping an existing large employer in NJ vs risk losing them.

Unfortunately the way the system works in this country that pits state vs state and even within each state cities/county vs each other, the large corporations got the government by the balls. At the end of each contract term, even if those large companies dont plan to relocate, they will always act like they do for a free check from the state to keep them and continue to overpay the top management. Meanwhile the small business that desperately need this tax break / incentive to keep the lights on never get them because they are not deemed important.

That's the reality of corporate america and no matter how long you occupy wall street, it will never change.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-28-2011, 12:39 PM
 
Location: NJ
31,771 posts, read 40,541,828 times
Reputation: 24590
Quote:
Originally Posted by HalfFull View Post
Spending and stimulating can be very different. Simply paying for something can just be spending. But something like infrastructure can spur additional spending. For a bridge or other infrastrucure, you are buying steel or other materials which spurs that producer/seller, or equipment manufacturer. You are paying salaries which get spent on goods & services and housing, all of which can stimulate. It can have a multiplier effect -- this is why real estate has been such an important part of the economy, and it is why the real estate crash has had such a deep and lingering impact on the economy.
your first part is better than the second part. if you want to suggest that building bridges, mass transit, widening roads create opportunities for more commerce, ok. i think thats a fine idea if done properly, but not fine to try to rush that in one big "stimulus" project. its probably more of a long term solution than short term. which is a good thing, but you shouldnt 1. present it as any kind of short term solution and 2. it shouldnt be done as in a short term rush way if its really a long term solution.

but the second part with regard to those salaries being spend on products which pays other salaries, etc. goes exactly with the idea of x dollars being spent will create x dollars of activity but no more. i understand that money flows down the line a bit to other areas, but its only x dollars of activity still. no stimulating. i think brady agreed with this point by saying the idea is to keep economic activity up and hope in the meantime other parts of the economy will pick up.

government cant stimulate economic activity in the short term any greater than the amount it spends. the government needs to get out of the way of the private sector, not try to spend its way to success.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-28-2011, 12:54 PM
 
Location: Randolph, NJ
4,073 posts, read 8,954,996 times
Reputation: 3262
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainNJ View Post
your first part is better than the second part. if you want to suggest that building bridges, mass transit, widening roads create opportunities for more commerce, ok. i think thats a fine idea if done properly, but not fine to try to rush that in one big "stimulus" project. its probably more of a long term solution than short term. which is a good thing, but you shouldnt 1. present it as any kind of short term solution and 2. it shouldnt be done as in a short term rush way if its really a long term solution.

but the second part with regard to those salaries being spend on products which pays other salaries, etc. goes exactly with the idea of x dollars being spent will create x dollars of activity but no more. i understand that money flows down the line a bit to other areas, but its only x dollars of activity still. no stimulating. i think brady agreed with this point by saying the idea is to keep economic activity up and hope in the meantime other parts of the economy will pick up.

government cant stimulate economic activity in the short term any greater than the amount it spends. the government needs to get out of the way of the private sector, not try to spend its way to success.
We're not that far off. Spending doesn't go far, but investing can have a longer effect. Just like any provate business that decides to expand, starts a new location, etc., that can have a huge impact. IF government spending does something like that, it CAN stimulate. But it's not easy, and it can't be rushed or forced.

Wouldn't you agree that NASA had a stimulating effect on the country through spending that creatred innovations in many areas? I'm not suggesting that NASA is/was a stimulus tool, but it shows that government spending can have impact beyond the immediate dollars.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-28-2011, 01:03 PM
 
Location: NJ
31,771 posts, read 40,541,828 times
Reputation: 24590
Quote:
Originally Posted by HalfFull View Post
We're not that far off. Spending doesn't go far, but investing can have a longer effect. Just like any provate business that decides to expand, starts a new location, etc., that can have a huge impact. IF government spending does something like that, it CAN stimulate. But it's not easy, and it can't be rushed or forced.

Wouldn't you agree that NASA had a stimulating effect on the country through spending that creatred innovations in many areas? I'm not suggesting that NASA is/was a stimulus tool, but it shows that government spending can have impact beyond the immediate dollars.
im not sure how far off we are, but the reality is that we will get there. people always talk about not doing x because you wont see the results in 10 years or so. but 10 years goes by pretty fast in the scheme of things so if something is worth doing, it should be done. however, given the financial situation of the government (both federal and state) we cant do everything and need to think of better ways to do it (which i see the government is trying to do by involving private invesment more in public projects). i heard on the radio the other day about the replacement of the tappan zee bridge and how they decided not to include mass transit. that seems pointless to spend $5+ billion on replacing a bridge on not include public transportation in the final product.

NASA is an issue i am in opposition to some of my favorite political talking heads. i dont believe in supporting NASA and i dont particularly care that some innovations have come from that program. yes, i agree some useful innovations have come from there and we may as well take advantage of them but i dont think thats the way it should be done. it amazes me to see conservative talking heads talking about cutting spending and yet they have their own sacred cows that seem like they should fall under that same umbrella of money government doesnt need to be spending.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-28-2011, 01:54 PM
 
Location: West Orange, NJ
12,546 posts, read 21,353,711 times
Reputation: 3730
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainNJ View Post
i dont think "stimulate" is the right word. that would indicate that it has a greater impact than simply the direct impact of the spending. but in reality, its just spending x dollars, has x dollars worth of impact (quicker than if the x was spent over years) but thats all the activity that happens. it doesnt magically trigger other activity. but in the end, you are in a deeper hole than before doing it. we really need that balanced budget amendment and we need to take away the government's power to spend our money. people are cutting back on their spending and reducing their debt, while our geniuses in washington are doing the opposite. its really a form of evil. people are trying to be more responsible but everyone is being loaded up with debt thanks to the government. i know you say we are the government, well in 2012 we will vote in a different government.
i guess it's just semantics then. bottom line, if i was going to replace a bridge in 2015, but my town is suffering from unemployment in 2011 and i can logistically move up replacement to 2011/12 to help reduce unemployment NOW, that's "stimulating" the economy with money I would spend anyways in a few years. So i'm not in a deeper hole, and the jobs created will support people going and buying lunch and other economic activity now. The hope is that by 2015, everything else has come around, and the lack of bridge replacement in that year is no big deal.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-28-2011, 01:58 PM
 
Location: West Orange, NJ
12,546 posts, read 21,353,711 times
Reputation: 3730
Quote:
Originally Posted by HalfFull View Post
We're not that far off. Spending doesn't go far, but investing can have a longer effect. Just like any provate business that decides to expand, starts a new location, etc., that can have a huge impact. IF government spending does something like that, it CAN stimulate. But it's not easy, and it can't be rushed or forced.

Wouldn't you agree that NASA had a stimulating effect on the country through spending that creatred innovations in many areas? I'm not suggesting that NASA is/was a stimulus tool, but it shows that government spending can have impact beyond the immediate dollars.
that's exactly what NASA is/was. NASA is government spending on science, which has sparked multiple innovations that the private sectar has then used to create more economic activity. same can be said about the NIH and the healthcare industry, along with other government spending that has helped the commercial airline industry as well. when the government spends in the right areas, it is no different than if a private company spent in those areas, except that it's unlikely that a private company would have invested heavily in linking computer systems together for better communications like the government did for their intelligence and military operations. just like the Navy is investing heavily in green technology right now not for environmental reasons, but for strategic and logistical reasons. they have a goal of using 50% renewable energy by 2050...that government investment is going to help bring down the costs of those renewable options for the private industry to use.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-28-2011, 02:00 PM
 
Location: West Orange, NJ
12,546 posts, read 21,353,711 times
Reputation: 3730
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainNJ View Post
im not sure how far off we are, but the reality is that we will get there. people always talk about not doing x because you wont see the results in 10 years or so. but 10 years goes by pretty fast in the scheme of things so if something is worth doing, it should be done. however, given the financial situation of the government (both federal and state) we cant do everything and need to think of better ways to do it (which i see the government is trying to do by involving private invesment more in public projects). i heard on the radio the other day about the replacement of the tappan zee bridge and how they decided not to include mass transit. that seems pointless to spend $5+ billion on replacing a bridge on not include public transportation in the final product.

NASA is an issue i am in opposition to some of my favorite political talking heads. i dont believe in supporting NASA and i dont particularly care that some innovations have come from that program. yes, i agree some useful innovations have come from there and we may as well take advantage of them but i dont think thats the way it should be done. it amazes me to see conservative talking heads talking about cutting spending and yet they have their own sacred cows that seem like they should fall under that same umbrella of money government doesnt need to be spending.
some? wow.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:



Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > New Jersey

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:47 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top