Ever wonder why the Tea Party hates building green?

[mhaze]

So, are you asserting that, had there not been these cost overruns, the Tea Party would have supported the light rail project?

How would I know? If they opposed something that did not show ridiculous cost overruns and schedule slippage, it would be for some reason other than ridiculous cost overruns and schedule slippage.

Question: Why would private industry want a moon base?

Are you serious?

The immediate answer is obvious, because it was conceived of in such a way to yield profits. Next you ask "in what endeavors" and so forth and so on.

Might ask these guys.
http://www.cnngo.com/explorations/life/russians-unveil-space-hotel-678591

No...wait....there is those American guys with Budget Suites.
http://www.bigelowaerospace.com/

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Funny that economic conservatives need to be reminded what an investment is, especially one as safe a bet as infrastructure improvement.

The problem is, what qualifies as an "investment"? Would another Hoover Dam in the middle of some dry wash in Death Valley qualify as an investment? The idea that every application of ferro-cement pays off is either obviously mistaken or an instance of the less-obviously mistaken Keynesian notion that government creation of money stimulates economic activity. If this is the case, why does the government prosecute counterfeiters? Just deputize them and save the cost of courts and prisons.

 

[Mike!]

Can't be that.

Money is made from paper. Paper is made from trees. Ergo, money literally does grown on trees.

It's silly to suggest that there are limits to how much of it the government can print and spend.

The Golgafrinchan School of Economics.

The Golgafrinchans' management consultant tried to arrange the meetings of the colonization committee along the lines of a traditional committee structure, complete with a chair and an agenda. He was also in charge of fiscal policy, and decided to adopt the leaf as legal tender, making everyone immensely rich. In order to solve the inflation problem this caused, he planned a major deforestation campaign to effectively revalue the leaf by burning down all the forests.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_minor_The_Hitchhiker's_Guide_to_the_Galaxy_characters

 

[Trakar]

The problem is, what qualifies as an "investment"? Would another Hoover Dam in the middle of some dry wash in Death Valley qualify as an investment? The idea that every application of ferro-cement pays off is either obviously mistaken or an instance of the less-obviously mistaken Keynesian notion that government creation of money stimulates economic activity. If this is the case, why does the government prosecute counterfeiters? Just deputize them and save the cost of courts and prisons.

only if the dry wash was a rouge (not to be confused with "rogue") herring breeding ground,... dichotomic hyperbole much?

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Funny that economic conservatives need to be reminded what an investment is, especially one as safe a bet as infrastructure improvement.

The problem is, what qualifies as an "investment"? Would another Hoover Dam in the middle of some dry wash in Death Valley qualify as an investment? The idea that every application of ferro-cement pays off is either obviously mistaken or an instance of the less-obviously mistaken Keynesian notion that government creation of money stimulates economic activity. If this is the case, why does the government prosecute counterfeiters? Just deputize them and save the cost of courts and prisons.

only if the dry wash was a rouge (not to be confused with "rogue") herring breeding ground,... dichotomic hyperbole much?

Okay, if the example of a Hoover Dam project on a dry wash is "dichotomic hyperbole", then let's consider less extreme points on a continuum:
(bad idea) -1_______.______+1 (good idea).
Once advocates for tax-funded infrastructure projects grant such a continuum, they grant that returns to infrastructure investment depend on material facts, such as projected traffic on roads, farm income from irrigation, etc., and the generalization that investments in infrastructure improvement yield positive returns, in general, falls apart.

 

[WildCat]

IOW he's promising that other peoples money is going to be spent making his election campaign promises come true.

The real issue here is mis-allocation of capital. Given what we know about how future transportation networks are going to have to work high speed rail is not a mis-allocation of capital, while a moon base is about as ridiculous an example imaginable.

I strongly disagree. I see transportation networks in the future being dominated by the electric car, not HSR.

 

[Trakar]

Okay, if the example of a Hoover Dam project on a dry wash is "dichotomic hyperbole", then let's consider less extreme points on a continuum:
(bad idea) -1_______.______+1 (good idea).
Once advocates for tax-funded infrastructure projects grant such a continuum, they grant that returns to infrastructure investment depend on material facts, such as projected traffic on roads, farm income from irrigation, etc., and the generalization that investments in infrastructure improvement yield positive returns, in general, falls apart.

Not according to my survey of the historic data available, but please, do feel free to offer supporting evidence that investments in infrastructure, in general, do not yeild positive returns.

 

[TimCallahan]

How would I know? If they opposed something that did not show ridiculous cost overruns and schedule slippage, it would be for some reason other than ridiculous cost overruns and schedule slippage.

In the link Travis gave in his OP, the Tea Party activists opposed such things as mass transit projects because they thought they were devious plots by the UN to control America

Are you serious?

The immediate answer is obvious, because it was conceived of in such a way to yield profits. Next you ask "in what endeavors" and so forth and so on.

Might ask these guys.
http://www.cnngo.com/explorations/life/russians-unveil-space-hotel-678591

No...wait....there is those American guys with Budget Suites.
http://www.bigelowaerospace.com/

Actually, I was thinking more in terms of resources. The moon has deposits of titanium, in the form of ilmenite. The question would be whether it would be practical with the technology available to mine such resources. Usually, private industry won't do the required R & D for such projects.

 

[mhaze]

In the link Travis gave in his OP, the Tea Party activists opposed such things as mass transit projects because they thought they were devious plots by the UN to control America

Actually, I was thinking more in terms of resources. The moon has deposits of titanium, in the form of ilmenite. The question would be whether it would be practical with the technology available to mine such resources. Usually, private industry won't do the required R & D for such projects.

I'm familiar with the documents promulgated by the UN to the mayors,thank you. I don't need your, or some exaggeration of the facts, by a journalist, or any actual mis interpretation of the facts by a Tea partier, to help me understand the issue. What Travis did was create an argument in generality of ridicule, to help provide cover for the specific problems the Tea Party has with the CA rail project. Looks to me like they are pretty much right on concerning that project.

As for resources on the moon, yes, there are a lot of them. What's needed is extensive surveying. We know their are several interesting craters on the N Pole with areas of constant sunlight, such as would be preferred for industry. We know also, there are areas with constant darkness. These, also, have uses. But how are easily retrieved mineral deposits located relative to these locations?

There is quite a bit of work to be done before the best siting of one or several moonbases should be done, if they are to yield profits commercially. I'd rather see this work done properly, than a rushed project. That'd be well, sort of like hurrying to dig a gold mine. The exploration, sample drilling, and surveying come first. Arguably a moonbase would do this as it's primary and initial job, but these should be largely done by robotics.

 

[mhaze]

Not according to my survey of the historic data available, but please, do feel free to offer supporting evidence that investments in infrastructure, in general, do not yeild positive returns.

Numerous projects during the last Great Depression were intentionally contrived to put the largest number of people to work for the longest period of time, instead of getting the job done in the most cost effective manner. In many cases, positive returns is not a factor in the decision making regarding public expenditures for "infrastructure".

A classic modern problem is that of a city, or a university, funding the building of a football stadium. Art museums are another case.

The CA rail project qualifies as a "bad deal" right now. Then there is the Massachusetts "Big Dig". Then there's Governer Cuomo of NY drilling holes in the Shorham reactor vessel, destroying it, but sticking the taxpayers for the project's costs nonetheless. Right now, there are idle wind farms, largely government subsidized, that can't even make money with the subsidies. There's Solantra, and likely a dozen more like it.

Granted some projects start out looking good, later become sour. But that calls for a rational re examination, not doubling down insistently on doing the project. In a public infrastructure project, politics enters in right away, and this distorts the decision making.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Not according to my survey of the historic data available, but please, do feel free to offer supporting evidence that investments in infrastructure, in general, do not yeild positive returns.

Do feel free to supply this "survey of historic data". Remember, we discuss tax-funded infrastructure, not for-profit projects undertaken by non-State actors. To name a few examples of public white elephants: sports arenas (e.g., Aloha Stadium), convention centers, AMTRAK, the White Sea/Baltic canal.

The government of a locality is the largest dealer in interpersonal violence in that locality (definition, after Weber). People do not become more altruistic, more intelligent, better-informed, or more capable (except in their enhanced access to the tools of organized violence) when they enter the State's employ. Nor does State employment preferentially select for these traits. Quite the opposite; guns attract power-hungry control freaks.

Eduardo Zambrano
Formal Models of Authority: Introduction and Political Economy Applications
Rationality and Society

Aside from the important issue of how it is that a ruler may economize on communication, contracting and coercion costs, this leads to an interpretation of the state that cannot be contractarian in nature: citizens would not empower a ruler to solve collective action problems in any of the models discussed, for the ruler would always be redundant and costly. The results support a view of the state that is eminently predatory, (the ? MK.) case in which whether the collective actions problems are solved by the state or not depends on upon whether this is consistent with the objectives and opportunities of those with the (natural) monopoly of violence in society. This conclusion is also reached in a model of a predatory state by Moselle and Polak (1997). How the theory of economic policy changes in light of this interpretation is an important question left for further work.

Joel Fried
Pots and Kettles: Governance Practices of the Ontario Securities Commission

2. The Government’s Principal – Agent Problem
The principal-agent problem for the private sector is well known: the owner/principal delegates to a manager/agent the responsibility to provide some services for the principal. The problem is one of structuring contracts and institutions to insure that, in carrying out her duties, the agent acts in the principal’s interest rather than her own.
Citizens of a country also face a principal – agent problem. Citizens “own” the machinery of government and employ bureaucrats to act as their agents in running this machinery. To reduce the costs of monitoring, the principals choose a legislature/board of directors to oversee the agents. Monitoring mechanisms are similar to those in the private sector: there are financial accounting standards that are met for each budgetary unit, and an external auditor checks these internal accounts. Transparency is maintained, in part, through freedom of information regulations. Compliance with procedures and other regulations are met both through internal monitoring and checks by units external to the bureau. Finally, contracts are structured, at least in a limited manner, to align the incentives for agents with those of the principals.
There is, however, an additional problem in the public sector that does not exist for private firms. The firm has a well defined objective function – the maximization of profits – whereas the apparent objective for the government is the maximization of some index of a (weighted) level of welfare of the electorate. An unambiguous index of social welfare has been impossible to construct and, in its absence, monitoring the public sector is further complicated because data is generally lacking on whether or not the objective was actually approached and/or achieved and what the costs are that are linked to any specific objective. In effect, because of distribution issues and public goods, the cash flows measured with traditional accounting procedures will be, at best, only superficially correlated with that objective. Thus, looking at cash flows will provide the principals an extremely poor method of monitoring their public sector agents.

 

[tyr_13]

High-speed rail is a safe investment?

How on earth do you figure?

There's nothing magic about infrastructure investments. They aren't guaranteed to have positive returns. Especially on projects with massive cost overruns and delays, which we've already seen. And probably not the last of either if this continues to go forward.

Oh, and economic conservatives are quite well aware that it's possible to lose money on an investment. Have economic liberals figured out that truth yet?

I could have sworn I said infrastructure investment, and not HSR.

So how many military projects should be cut under this criteria? Most of them?

 

[lomiller]

I strongly disagree. I see transportation networks in the future being dominated by the electric car, not HSR.

They will be the as well, but I can't see the type of long range commuter behavior we see now persisting.

 

[Ziggurat]

So how many military projects should be cut under this criteria? Most of them?

Yes, most of them. But the thing is, that's not the right criteria for judging military expenditures, and it's absurd to even suggest that it should be. Military expenditures are a form of insurance. And insurance always has a negative expected return. That doesn't make it a bad idea. But it's not an investment. I'm sure you knew that, but I'm left wondering why you thought anyone else might not know that.

 

[Ladewig]

I think reasonable people can disagree (even vehemently) on HSR. I will agree that one's biases may distort the way that one looks at specific figures or estimates. But once someone says encouraging bicycle use "is part of a greater strategy to rein in American cities under a United Nations treaty," then that person has stepped away from reasonableness.

 

[Ladewig]

Right, since this thread is about taxpayers being forced to continue paying for a public project that is 4x cost overrun, and Newt's moon base proposal is strictly private funding.

Is it? I thought Mr. Gingrich was proposing that taxpayer money be used to create a prize that would be given to the first company to build a base on the moon.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Funny that economic conservatives need to be reminded what an investment is, especially one as safe a bet as infrastructure improvement.

High-speed rail is a safe investment? How on earth do you figure? There's nothing magic about infrastructure investments. They aren't guaranteed to have positive returns. Especially on projects with massive cost overruns and delays, which we've already seen. And probably not the last of either if this continues to go forward. Oh, and economic conservatives are quite well aware that it's possible to lose money on an investment. Have economic liberals figured out that truth yet?

I could have sworn I said infrastructure investment, and not HSR.

If high speed rail is not a category of infrastructure, how was "Funny that economic conservatives need to be reminded what an investment is, especially one as safe a bet as infrastructure improvement" relevant to this discussion? If high speed rail is variety of infrastructure that is exempt from the general principle that infrastructure is a "safe bet" as an investment, perhaps you could explain this exemption to Travis and Trakar.

Red-on-red is so much fun to watch.

 

[mhaze]

Is it? I thought Mr. Gingrich was proposing that taxpayer money be used to create a prize that would be given to the first company to build a base on the moon.

True. The major differences are:

• The CA rail taxpayers pay whether it fails in practice, or is abandoned before completion
• Aerospace prizes are only given out in the case of success

I'll accept your correction of my phrase "strictly private funding", though.

 

[Trakar]

Do feel free to supply this "survey of historic data". Remember, we discuss tax-funded infrastructure, not for-profit projects undertaken by non-State actors. To name a few examples of public white elephants: sports arenas (e.g., Aloha Stadium), convention centers, AMTRAK, the White Sea/Baltic canal.

I asked you first, and remember, outlier exceptions do not disproof generally applied and widely supported basic principles of economics.

http://www.aednet.org/government/pdf-2012/infrastructure_report.pdf

http://www.businessweek.com/investor/content/oct2010/pi20101014_543655.htm

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/business/july-dec08/infrastructure_12-22.html

CBO Report on Trends in Public Spending on Transportation and Water Infrastructure - http://www.bafuture.org/news/transp...nding-transportation-and-water-infrastructure

INFRASTRUCTURE AND THE ECONOMY - http://opensiuc.lib.siu.edu/cgi/vie...ics government expense public infrastructure"

In the interest of reciprocity, however, where do the examples of the US Interstate highway system, various road and highway projects, bridges, dams, parks, federal/state/local law enforcement agencies, Clean air and water regulations, -many more-, fall within your considerations?

You said we were to discuss "tax-funded infrastructure, not for-profit projects undertaken by non-state actors," and then you begin listing a few examples of public-private corporate ventures (professional sports arenas and convention centers) and quasi-governmental corporations (AMTRAK) none of which would, at first blush, even seem to qualify as infrastructure, yet alone tax-funded infrastructure.

In the choice of the White Sea/Baltic canal I sense a leap once more to hyperbole and distortion in an appeal to pathos more than logos. If you want to discuss the economic facts of the project we can do that, if you are simply wanting to belabor an attempted equation of all infrastructure projects with forced gulag labor construction projects of the pre-WWII Soviets, I must admit to not being terribly interested. You might find much more fertile analogies in the prison work farms and brush-clearing chain gangs that are still employed in many southern states of the Union.

 

[Trakar]

Yes, most of them. But the thing is, that's not the right criteria for judging military expenditures, and it's absurd to even suggest that it should be. Military expenditures are a form of insurance. And insurance always has a negative expected return. That doesn't make it a bad idea. But it's not an investment. I'm sure you knew that, but I'm left wondering why you thought anyone else might not know that.

A properly managed and applied military is indeed an insurance against the need for its actual use. One should never allow conditions to reach the point of "last resort" where military action is the only course left open to prevent the destruction of home and hearth. This insurance requires investment not only in the equipment and training of the military, but also in the education and training of the complimentary diplomatic staffs and in the appropriate aid, trade and investments that give diplomacy its leverage.