From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: A Supply Side Call to Arms
Date: 20 Nov 92 10:56:17 EST
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <1egjoaINNcdl@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, bo275@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Larry R Beam) writes:
> 
>     Many  Americans feel  as James  W. Howe  does--that public
> spending is some how  inherently wasteful (see article 13671).
> They and he are wrong.
>     He writes that "There are  countless examples of roads and
> bridges that  have been built  for which there  is no rational
> reason." I can't think  of even one such  example; here in the
> Cleveland  metropolitan region,  and  the other  parts  of the
> country, public roads and bridges  are heavily used, and their
> contribution    economic   welfare    and    productivity   is
> immeasurable.

	We in Ohio have been blessed by not having any Reps on the
appropriations committee that win votes by building highways that no one wants. 
I believe Boston's been cursed with the Tip O'Neal highway?  There is one in
California tha leads nowhere (except to a little old lady's house), etc.

>     The existence of adequate  infrastructure, in good repair,
> is absolutely essential to  economic success. And our nation's
> economic success is essential to every facet of our lives.

	Sure it is, but "infrastructure" has merely become an election-year
buzzword that is content-free.
	After all, if building roads was always a good thing, the we need only
sit back, build roads, and watch prosperity come our way :).

>     After admitting that some  public projects are beneficial,
> Mr. Howe writes, "The question is what is the opportunity cost
> of public works projects.  Could  the money have been spent on
> other things  which *also*  would have  benefited the American
> people, and possibly benefited them more."
>     Mr.  Howe  should note  that,  to the  extent  that public
> projects  are  built   by  workers  who   would  otherwise  be
> unemployed, their  opportunity cost  is zero.  The question of

	But take this example:  the gov't hires unemployed people to build a
bridge.
	Then a manufacturer comes along wanting to build a plant to make cars. 
However, the local work pool has been sucked up by the bridge project.
	Which one is better for the long term health of the area?

> which proposed  projects will  yield the  most benefit  to the
> American  people is  very  difficult. Because  public projects
> yield  different degrees  of  benefit to  different  groups of
> people, reaching thorough consensus as to which ones should be
> built  is  always  difficult,  and  never  is  everyone  fully
> satisfied. C'est la vie.
>     America  must--and  under  Bill   Clinton,  I  believe  it
> will--increase  immensely its  social spending  on maintenance
> and construction  of public  works. As  everyone who  has ever
> owned  a  car  or home  knows,  deferring  maintain frequently
> elevates  costs.  The  failure of  Reagan  and  Bush  to spend
> adequately on  such things as  roads and bridges  is among the
> worst crimes of their leadership.

	Reagan and Bush had no power to allocate funds for such things, only
congress can do that.  It can be proposed, as some will say in an attempt to
divert blame, but only congress writes the checks.
	Where were the road project bills?  And, of course, which programs 
would you have cut in the 1980s so you could build roads instead?

Brett
===============================================================================
80s: 18 million new jobs, deficits down (%GNP), tax rates down, tax revenues up
GNP up, inflation down, unemployment down, interest rates down, cold war won
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: sci.econ