« No on Caroline Kennedy for New York Senate seat | Main | Brain Droppings December 14, 2008 »

December 12, 2008

Comments

TGGP

I think stimulus spending is snake-oil. We've known of the broken window since Bastiat and now it appears there's no multiplier effect from spending, though there is one for tax-cuts:
http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2008/12/crowding_out_or.html
I don't take seriously any "investment" made by non-profit entities. Politicians like to spend money on infrastructure like the bridge to nowhere even if there's no return.

I think the fact-value distinction is very important, so I hope it's just the string of letters making up these words you're concerned with rather than the concepts themselves.

Off-topic notes:

This is an oldie from Robin Hanson, but it mentions the extra years of life resulting from rural vs city living:
http://www.geocities.com/HotSprings/Sauna/3748/lr72.htm#Why%20Cryonics%20Isn%27t%20Popular
It reminded me of your remark at my blog about how your ideal was a megacity. That struck me as odd at the time because cities have always been population sinks and your concerned enough with your mortality to wear a helmet all the time.

I also saw a video from Gregory Petsko on the coming neurological epidemic:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=9o8rd3Hx1NI
He gives a few tips on what extends your healthy lifespan.

Hopefully Anonymous

"I don't take seriously any "investment" made by non-profit entities. Politicians like to spend money on infrastructure like the bridge to nowhere even if there's no return."

any investment at all? Are you going beyond empiricism here? Is this an ideological or technocratic assessment, because given some of your past statements, it seems to me like you're putting ideology first here.

TGGP

Are they putting tolls on the infrastructure they're building? If they were, they could somewhat plausibly make the case that they were going to see a return, although even then I wouldn't have much confidence in their incentive. Without such a return I see no reason to call it an "investment". It's as silly as the unfortunately widespread belief that Henry Ford raised wages so his workers would purchase his cars. You've likely heard of the "pork" that people hate in the abstract, but it's mostly infrastructure spending quite popular with constituents. Ted Stevens was merely more successful at bringing home the bacon, which is why he was popular enough that he just barely lost re-election after being convicted.

The comments to this entry are closed.