Apr 5, 2011 -- 12:12PM, Captainmarvel wrote:

No...actually once the bomber is finished...there is MORE! I know you find this hard to grasp but ....it then has 10-15 years of Spare and Replacement PARTS Manufacturing(of course also design and equipment upgrades too) Try just try to grasp this,if possible.

Which is paid for with Taxes!

With a commercial airliner, it is purchased and maintained with profits from the airline's operation!

And you accuse your opponents of wanting bigger government, yet the only example you can think of to argue is bigger government TAXATION!

Apr 5, 2011 -- 12:43PM, Christianlib wrote:

Apr 5, 2011 -- 12:36PM, Jstanl wrote:

There is no way that government spending creates wealth.  It always cost more than it produces.

You are mixing up terms, and talking as if "wealth" was the total aim of a society.  The mass of people are more concerned with daily living security, and with jobs that allow them to support a family.  THOSE things, under the right circumstances government spending can and has done, and can stimulate the economy so the gov. spending can end.

Accumulation of wealth in a few hands is not a legitimate aim of a free and just society.

 

And, BTW, it appears that "government spending", in the form of "bailout money", DID create wealth for a few Wall Streeters.  So, I am not sure you have a valid argument in either direction.

You are misunderstanding terms.  Wealth in this context is not about the few rich, it is about the wealth of society as a whole.  And the Obama stimulus spending did not really stimulate the economy.  In fact most of it was not initially spent at all.

Apr 5, 2011 -- 4:30PM, Father_Oblivion wrote:

Apr 5, 2011 -- 11:25AM, Jstanl wrote:

Apr 4, 2011 -- 10:53AM, Father_Oblivion wrote:

Apr 4, 2011 -- 8:48AM, davelaw40 wrote:

its counter-intuitive

increase competition drive down costs

public employees = less competition

Not really. Among utilities, the expense of proper maintenance isn't sacrificed resulting in lower long term operating costs. Privately run utilities commonly cut corners as much as possible. I know this from first hand experience. Publicly run utilities are directly accountable to the voters, while privately owned ones are not and are trying to turn a profit, while that is not one of the goals of a publicly held utility.

I have no reason to think that there is a large difference in other public/privatized fields.

You are absolutely wrong.  Maintenance is chronically neglected in our management culture, both in public and private sectors.  But the worst by far is in the public sector.  The problem is funding.  Politicians will not fund maintenance because it does not buy votes.  They spend their money on new projects that get them publicity.

OTOH; the private sector is more motivated to protect what they have (keep it operating) because new and replacement cost come straight from the profit margin and government tax laws do not encourage new money spent on infrastructure/investment.

Also private sector employees are more productive.

Further, contractors can be used when needed and sent back to the shop when they are not.  Public employess become a permenent overhead that are there whether they are needed or not.

No, I am not absolutely wrong.

As you mentioned, publicly owned utilities cut maintenance when they are not properly funded but you fail to mention that most publicly owned utilities do not depend on a budget from a political entity, but rather collect income from rate charges which are absolutely far lower than privately owned utilities, who even with their higher rate charges will still cut corners on maintenance. I know this from personal experience with such companies as PG&E, Entergy and Alameda Municipal Power while keeping my finger on the pulse of the industry.

In the private sector, new and replacement costs come from rate hikes, not from profit. Pay attention, you will see them all over the country and that is specifically what rate hikes are for. Never do they cut into their precious profits, and if that means needing a new plant because they didn't keep up the maintenance on the old one, they will let it deteriorate to the point of no return and then cry about needing to replace it and request a rate hike. This is how it is done industry wide, and I have seen it first hand several times.

Maintenance workers are needed on a constant basis, so your remark about sending private contractors 'back to the shop' doesn't make any sense in the context of utility maintenance. And lastly, private sector employees are not more productive. Oh, you may see more physical activity but that means nothing. If you have already finished the project, there is no reason to run around like a whacko looking for something to do to please your overlords. The best maintenance workers look like they are doing nothing, because the maintenance is done and the system is performing flawlessly.

I too have first hand experience with utilities, especially the power industry, and your scenario is a pipe dream.  Most of the maintenence is done during O&R shut downs and contractors who specialize in this activity are brought in to do the work.  Whether the utility is public or private, these are private contractor workers.

And whether public or private, these operations are controlled by public utility commissions who not only regulate their rates but their profits as well.

FDR's programs helped in ways that are not always that measurable.  Remember, the Great Depression started in 1929, but the worst year of the depression was 1933, which also was the first year FDR took office.  When you're in a freefall as we were, what you first have to do is to stop the freefall and not so much worry about growth.  However, FDR had his hand's largely tied because of Congress and a conservative head of the Federal Reserve, who actually pulled money out of the sytem because he thought it would be too inflationary if he left it in.  This action, of course, prevented recovery.

Therefore, not only did FDR's programs get off to a very rocky start, even he got cold feet and began to reduce spending whereas it had the effect of significantly slowing the economic recovery in 1937.  When he returned back to the "priming the pump" after this, growth continued but at a very slow rate until WWII, whereas the massive deficit spending to build war materials and pay the servicemen actually brought us out of the depression much quicker.  After WWII was over, there was a temporary recession because inflation raised its ugly head largely because there was a lot of money chasing fewer items because it took industry a while to get back into domestic production.

Even as we are now seeing, economic recovery from a depression or serious recession is uneven and long term, and most economists that I have been relying on are saying 5-10 years, plus we are not going back to where we were for several reasons.

Apr 6, 2011 -- 11:40AM, Jstanl wrote:

Apr 5, 2011 -- 12:44PM, fodaoson wrote:

Apr 5, 2011 -- 12:36PM, Jstanl wrote:

There is no way that government spending creates wealth.  It always cost more than it produces.

 No spending,public or private, creates wealth.   it creates jobs  that create income  and some use that income to create wealth which is the accumulation of income above that used for maintence of daily life. 

Wealth is accumulated.   

Can you find anyone who believes that FDR's programs actually ended the depression?  Every economic expert that I have heard on the subject says it was not FDR's depression era spending that brought us out of the depression, it was WWII.

 There is a school of thought that FDR wanted to go to war. IF that is the case then a FDR program did end the depression, WWII.  The economy, an interconnected system of production, consumption, exchange, ends recessions.  Government programs help people survive them.

The stimulus money is still working its way down to the consumer/local level .  Reality and application work more slowly than expectation and desire