WASHINGTON -- Lobbyists descended on Capitol Hill to push for an economic-stimulus bill that could cost as much as $150 billion...Short synopsis: We will borrow money, to be paid back by our children, to fill the pockets of those best connected in DC.
Some of the projects being considered are roads and bridges. Ask yourself this question. "Would my business or the business I work for be able to make more of a profit if the roads and bridges were better?" Remember, profit is the only thing in the world that creates jobs.
10 comments:
Vote yes. Better (and more) roads means quicker delivery of goods and services. Better (and more) roads would also be able to handle a higher volume of goods and services to be brought to market.
Better roads also decreases the amount of transportation time and increases the volume of raw materials from point to point that will add value to your end product.
Less time on the highway makes me a brighter, more chipper and thus, more productive employee.
And the current roads and bridges are unsatisfactory because ... why?
I didn't say that the current conditions of roads and bridges were unsatisfactory.
My vote "yes" comment was merely an affirmation that an efficient and well-maintained hiway system gets goods, services, material and people to where they need to be in a quicker amount of time and at a higher volume so that they can be making a profit for their company.
Wait... if McCain is in favor a well regulated market and payday lending, then why do you as a supporter of McCain take a swipe at the industry that provides short-term credit to millions?
Did you ever read Ben Bova's essay, "Cement"? He claims that where people make their mistake about government is that they completely misunderstand its purpose: the purpose of government is to pour concrete. He puts it something like this, "If something involves pouring concrete, the government will do it. If it does not involve pouring concrete, the government *may* do it, but only by accident."
Bova evidently meant his essay as a joke, but there is more than a grain of truth to it.
As far as the question of whether the government has any role in job creation goes, this is actually something that I sometimes have trouble working my mind around. For example: Let's say I have a piece of land where I start a gravel pit. I buy equipment for the gravel plant (supporting the jobs of the people who made the equipment), I employ about a dozen more directly to run the plant, and I sell my gravel to whoever has a use for it. OK, I have created, or helped to create, a bunch of jobs. My best customer, who buys about half of my gravel and without which I would not be able to stay in business, is the ready-mix concrete plant down the road. He employs about a dozen more people. All well and good. A big fraction of his business, particularly during recessions when the building trade tapers off and he would otherwise be likely to go bankrupt, is . . . road construction, paid for by the government. Whoops! Does this mean that none of us actually created any jobs? That all these jobs are, for want of a better word, fictitious? Or does it mean that the jobs *were* created, and that the stabilizing effect of the government (fulfilling its ultimate role of pouring concrete) makes it possible for us to maintain these jobs during periods when they would otherwise be lost?
Don't get me wrong, the government is doing (or trying to do) a lot of things that are stupid and counterproductive in an attempt to prop up the economy. But, making a serious attempt at catching up on the highway road maintenance backlog is exactly what I think they *should* be doing at this point. And for anybody who things otherwise, and that the roads are just fine the way they are, I have just one thing to say: remember the I-35W bridge.
The roads need to be maintained regardless, a lot of maintenance has been neglected for the last decade or longer, a lot of the construction industry is collapsing and there is surplus capacity for government construction projects - can you think of a *better* time to fix the roads?
Clint, I'm a McCain supporter because he's the best of the choices, not because I support everything he says.
Tim,
The money that the government paid for the cement came from the profits of individuals and businesses. It didn't create any of it, it just took it and, for good or ill, spent it.
I hadn't considered the concept of deferring maintenance waiting for an economic slump to perform the maintenance to act as a stabilizer. I wonder if that actually happens.
On the other hand, if the @&$#* roads need to be fixed, then fix the @*(@&( roads.
I just drove from San Diego to Paso Robles. I used to travel quite a bit. I never had a problem with the roads. As for the bridge in Minnesota, I'd hate to make national policy decisions based on a single event. We did that with 9-11 and ended up with the monstrously bloated Department of Homeland Security.
"I hadn't considered the concept of deferring maintenance waiting for an economic slump to perform the maintenance to act as a stabilizer. I wonder if that actually happens."
Oh, you betcha, at least in Michigan. The Michigan economy has been on the skids for a bit longer than the rest of the country, and we've had elevated levels of road repair and construction as a direct result - it's right out there in plain sight, and the state government has even directly acknowledged that this is what they are doing.
Tim, I think that's an inspired idea and a proper use of government. It uses the borrowing power of government as a stabilizing influence in down times. Unfortunately, we've behaved like we've been in down times for the last 40 years.
So if we're not road-builders, we either need to change jobs or do nothing through the recessions? Maybe Obama will buy me some fiber-optic internet service in an attempt to spur the economy...
This conversation has given my captcha "hiverpe"s...
Post a Comment