Pence backs trillion-dollar infrastructure bill, says America 'elected a CEO'

[LMAO]

If there are roads and bridges that the federal gov't is responsible to maintain, and they need to be maintained, it should be done.  But if we do it under the guise of stimulus, you're going to see a whole bunch of perfectly good road signs replaced by new, prettier ones, because, well, we've got money we NEED to spend (to "stimulate the economy", aka "buy the peoples' votes with their own money").  Spending money just to spend money is only good for the people who spend the money, not the people whose money is spent.

Early in econ classes, probably macro, you learn about the government money multiplier.  When the gov't spends money on roads, the road workers go out and spend the additional money on haircuts, and then the barbers spend that money on steaks, and then the butcher...etc.  The initial govenment spending is then multiplied as it ripples through the economy.  Yeah!

Most students get suckered into buying this.  Fortunately, a very few will think to ask where that money came from to begin with.  The answer is that it was taken out of the economy.  The doctor who was taxed to pay the road worker will now not spend that money on haircuts...etc.  In the end, there is no magic money multiplier, because the supposed wonderful effects are offset by the negative effects no one ever wants to mention (not to mention gov't waste, corruption, and fraud).  But on the bright side, instead of the spending decisions being dictated by the invisible hand of a free people, they are dictated by the iron fist of gov't.

Fortunately, we have Republicans who can stimulate the economy with a free market approach by giving money ("back") to the people to spend as they choose.  Sounds good.  They did this under Bush at least once.  Remember those $300 tax "rebate" checks?  Well, I don't.  My income was too high (or as I prefer to refer to it, I paid too much in taxes) to qualify.  People who paid nothing in got "rebates", those who paid too much got nothing.  This was done for a reason.  Give my money back to me, and I will save it, not spend it.  Give it to someone who can't or won't save it, and it will be spent (see wonders of money multiplier above).  Great, free market redistibution of wealth.  Totally unfair, but at least it allows the government to "stimulate" the economy by taking the money I wasn't going to spend and giving it to someone who will.

Of course, once again we're ignoring half of the equation.  When you give me back my money and I put it in the bank, it doesn't just sit there.  It gets leant out, wait for it, stimulating the economy [comparison of the relation between the government money multiplier and the wonders of fractional reserve lending omitted, as my stomach has had about enough of this Keynesian aggregate demand nonsense for today].  Or it doesn't, because it was taken away and given to someone else.  Once again, the government can't just create free money to stimulate the economy [technically, I should use the word "wealth" and not "money", that's another discussion].  What it gives, it also has to take.

No matter how many times Paul Krugman completely and utterly presents only one half of the discussion, TANSTAAFL.

Don't get me wrong.  I'm not saying that the government can't take actions that will stimulate the economy (preferably just getting the bleep out of the way), I'm saying that there is no magic.  Lowering taxes would stimulate the economy by letting the people spend more of their own money, but is that really stimulus or is it just doing less to impede economic output in the first place?

It appears, like BHO, Trump plans on using Infrastructure Spending as nothing more than a make jobs program

[roamer_1]

It's like John Maynard Keynes came by and pulled a quarter out from behind your ear.
[...]
From an Austrian point of view [...]

Well look at you, bein all financial conservative and such - Take care son... You said 'Austrian'... Most of em are gonna go 'splodey-headed' over that.

Not that I expected different outta you - not one little bit. Carry on.

 

[Chosen Daughter]

Unfortunately Trump supporters didn't pay attention.  This is something Trump had stated throughout his campaign; his mention of utilizing public and private partnerships, enlisting private capital, private tolls roads, etc., shouldn't come as a surprise. I saw this one coming awhile ago. I have no doubt that he will renegotiate NAFTA, and when he rebuilds and adds to the infrastructure; highways, bridges, toll roads, etc.,  (NAFTA Superhighway, Trans Texas Corridor ring a bell?) moving goods and services between Mexico, and Canada with the U.S. being the center hub he and his buddies like Giuliani and Christie (toll roads, bridges  and partnerships) stand to make millions if not billions ... they will form and be part of the partnerships that own the toll roads, highways, etc., etc. 

I have always stated that Trump didn't venture into becoming president because of his patriotism. He will rebuild America and he will become even wealthier and even more powerful.  As Pence stated, America elected a CEO...why would his supporters expect a different outcome?  Sure he'll build the wall, but not for the reason his supporters thought ... and yes,  Mexico is going to pay for it. He's going to 'expand' this country and create jobs  and bring jobs back to this country but not in the way his supporters had thought.

Yep and at the same time employing illegals.

[Frank Cannon]

Yep and at the same time employing illegals.

You can't call them "illegals" anymore. The new Regime doesn't like that. They are to be referred to as "Future Trump Voters" from now on.

[Chosen Daughter]

You can't call them "illegals" anymore. The new Regime doesn't like that. They are to be referred to as "Future Trump Voters" from now on.

Will Trump supporters allow him to cave on this one?  Make excuses?



Donald Trump Thinks American Workers Aren’t Good Enough for the Trump Organization

 Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/431933/

Obama was about fixing infrastructure but they didn't want to put a provision in the bill to make sure that it was Americans being put to work.

[Jazzhead]

It appears, like BHO, Trump plans on using Infrastructure Spending as nothing more than a make jobs program

Sure - but that's what his supporters want - jobs.   

Of course, the best way to create jobs - good, permanent jobs -  is to create the conditions for ECONOMIC GROWTH.   

[Hoodat]

"There’s a lot of ways to get to that trillion dollars," Pence told Fox News' Sean Hannity on "Hannity." "Utilizing public and private partnerships, utilizing bonding authority and enlisting private capital, there’s ways that you can do this that are gonna be fiscally responsible, but also give us the resources that we need to rebuild America."

And it is clear that Pence has no business experience at all.

Utilizing bonding authority? And who pays those bonds back?  Doh!

Enlisting private capital?  Is he advocating private ownership of public roads?  Will they charge tolls to pay back investors?

Here's a clue, Pence.  America doesn't have the resources to pay its current bills, much less rebuild America.  Let's fix the budget first before trying to fix our infrastructure.

[Hoodat]

Early in econ classes, probably macro, you learn about the government money multiplier.

Are they still teaching that BS?  It's a government subtracter - not a government multiplier.  If that money is left in the hands of those the government took it from (at the point of a gun), then there would be a far greater degree of economic activity than there is from government spending.

[Cripplecreek]

Are they still teaching that BS?  It's a government subtracter - not a government multiplier.  If that money is left in the hands of those the government took it from (at the point of a gun), then there would be a far greater degree of economic activity than there is from government spending.

Leave the money in the hands of local people and they'll find uses for it that meet local needs.