http://techliberation.com/2009/02/05/the-winners-of-the-big-economic-stimulus-contest/ Keeping politicians' hands off the Net & everything else related to technology Tue, 14 Feb 2012 12:51:08 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 http://techliberation.com/2009/02/05/the-winners-of-the-big-economic-stimulus-contest/comment-page-1/#comment-65843 Steve R. Fri, 06 Feb 2009 19:11:40 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=16407#comment-65843 <p>As I watch the "stimulus" bill story unfold, I have to agree with many economists that this is not a real stimulus bill but eight years of pent-up pork.<br><br>In taking a look at the winners/losers, I have a somewhat different take.<br><br>Graham Dufault stated: <i>"However, I want to argue in favor of a subsection in Title IX appropriating increased funds for green job training."</i> While I am not against job training per se, what I am against is subsidizing the the "green industry". The "correct" free-market approach would be to raise taxes on fossil fuel consumption as the incentive for private industry to "invest" in the "green industry". In a sense one can say this is a "winner" since you are getting a free handout. The fact that it does not make economic sense, I suppose is irrelevant.<br><br>Kristina Rasmussen wrote: <i>"If we look at which transportation mode people actually use, it is clear that Congress is heavily favoring the proportionately small number of rail/transit users."</i> I find this statement short-sighted. It is an example of not thinking the issue through. We have a pro-automobile mentality, so a proposal that favors rail would naturally be considered "bad". We need a better rail system to reduce road and airway congestion. (Yes airway, rail would be a good option for short-haul air travel.) So, in a sense, transportation can still be viewed as the "loser".</p> As I watch the “stimulus” bill story unfold, I have to agree with many economists that this is not a real stimulus bill but eight years of pent-up pork.

In taking a look at the winners/losers, I have a somewhat different take.

Graham Dufault stated: “However, I want to argue in favor of a subsection in Title IX appropriating increased funds for green job training.” While I am not against job training per se, what I am against is subsidizing the the “green industry”. The “correct” free-market approach would be to raise taxes on fossil fuel consumption as the incentive for private industry to “invest” in the “green industry”. In a sense one can say this is a “winner” since you are getting a free handout. The fact that it does not make economic sense, I suppose is irrelevant.

Kristina Rasmussen wrote: “If we look at which transportation mode people actually use, it is clear that Congress is heavily favoring the proportionately small number of rail/transit users.” I find this statement short-sighted. It is an example of not thinking the issue through. We have a pro-automobile mentality, so a proposal that favors rail would naturally be considered “bad”. We need a better rail system to reduce road and airway congestion. (Yes airway, rail would be a good option for short-haul air travel.) So, in a sense, transportation can still be viewed as the “loser”.

]]> http://techliberation.com/2009/02/05/the-winners-of-the-big-economic-stimulus-contest/comment-page-1/#comment-61923 Steve R. Fri, 06 Feb 2009 15:11:40 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=16407#comment-61923 <p>As I watch the "stimulus" bill story unfold, I have to agree with many economists that this is not a real stimulus bill but eight years of pent-up pork.<br><br>In taking a look at the winners/losers, I have a somewhat different take.<br><br>Graham Dufault stated: <i>"However, I want to argue in favor of a subsection in Title IX appropriating increased funds for green job training."</i> While I am not against job training per se, what I am against is subsidizing the the "green industry". The "correct" free-market approach would be to raise taxes on fossil fuel consumption as the incentive for private industry to "invest" in the "green industry". In a sense one can say this is a "winner" since you are getting a free handout. The fact that it does not make economic sense, I suppose is irrelevant.<br><br>Kristina Rasmussen wrote: <i>"If we look at which transportation mode people actually use, it is clear that Congress is heavily favoring the proportionately small number of rail/transit users."</i> I find this statement short-sighted. It is an example of not thinking the issue through. We have a pro-automobile mentality, so a proposal that favors rail would naturally be considered "bad". We need a better rail system to reduce road and airway congestion. (Yes airway, rail would be a good option for short-haul air travel.) So, in a sense, transportation can still be viewed as the "loser".</p> As I watch the “stimulus” bill story unfold, I have to agree with many economists that this is not a real stimulus bill but eight years of pent-up pork.

In taking a look at the winners/losers, I have a somewhat different take.

Graham Dufault stated: “However, I want to argue in favor of a subsection in Title IX appropriating increased funds for green job training.” While I am not against job training per se, what I am against is subsidizing the the “green industry”. The “correct” free-market approach would be to raise taxes on fossil fuel consumption as the incentive for private industry to “invest” in the “green industry”. In a sense one can say this is a “winner” since you are getting a free handout. The fact that it does not make economic sense, I suppose is irrelevant.

Kristina Rasmussen wrote: “If we look at which transportation mode people actually use, it is clear that Congress is heavily favoring the proportionately small number of rail/transit users.” I find this statement short-sighted. It is an example of not thinking the issue through. We have a pro-automobile mentality, so a proposal that favors rail would naturally be considered “bad”. We need a better rail system to reduce road and airway congestion. (Yes airway, rail would be a good option for short-haul air travel.) So, in a sense, transportation can still be viewed as the “loser”.

]]> http://techliberation.com/2009/02/05/the-winners-of-the-big-economic-stimulus-contest/comment-page-1/#comment-57942 Steve R. Fri, 06 Feb 2009 14:11:40 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=16407#comment-57942 <p>As I watch the "stimulus" bill story unfold, I have to agree with many economists that this is not a real stimulus bill but eight years of pent-up pork.<br><br>In taking a look at the winners/losers, I have a somewhat different take.<br><br>Graham Dufault stated: <i>"However, I want to argue in favor of a subsection in Title IX appropriating increased funds for green job training."<i> While I am not against job training per se, what I am against is subsidizing the the "green industry". The "correct" free-market approach would be to raise taxes on fossil fuel consumption as the incentive for private industry to "invest" in the "green industry". In a sense one can say this is a "winner" since you are getting a free handout. The fact that it does not make economic sense, I suppose is irrelevant.<br><br>Kristina Rasmussen wrote: <i>"If we look at which transportation mode people actually use, it is clear that Congress is heavily favoring the proportionately small number of rail/transit users."</i> I find this statement short-sighted. It is an example of not thinking the issue through. We have a pro-automobile mentality, so a proposal that favors rail would naturally be considered "bad". We need a better rail system to reduce road and airway congestion. (Yes airway, rail would be a good option for short-haul air travel.) So, in a sense, transportation can still be viewed as the "loser".</i></i></p> As I watch the “stimulus” bill story unfold, I have to agree with many economists that this is not a real stimulus bill but eight years of pent-up pork.

In taking a look at the winners/losers, I have a somewhat different take.

Graham Dufault stated: “However, I want to argue in favor of a subsection in Title IX appropriating increased funds for green job training.” While I am not against job training per se, what I am against is subsidizing the the “green industry”. The “correct” free-market approach would be to raise taxes on fossil fuel consumption as the incentive for private industry to “invest” in the “green industry”. In a sense one can say this is a “winner” since you are getting a free handout. The fact that it does not make economic sense, I suppose is irrelevant.

Kristina Rasmussen wrote: “If we look at which transportation mode people actually use, it is clear that Congress is heavily favoring the proportionately small number of rail/transit users.” I find this statement short-sighted. It is an example of not thinking the issue through. We have a pro-automobile mentality, so a proposal that favors rail would naturally be considered “bad”. We need a better rail system to reduce road and airway congestion. (Yes airway, rail would be a good option for short-haul air travel.) So, in a sense, transportation can still be viewed as the “loser”.

]]>