|
On May 01 2013 06:46 maartendq wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2013 04:12 Kontys wrote:On May 01 2013 02:17 DiamondTear wrote:
"Chocolate is actually good for you because..."
People like good news. Don't think this is a reason to keep spending without care. Because public education, infrastructure and emergency housing projects for example are luxury products. No, seriously, they are, if you aren't dependent on them, which is the case for most well-off people. Keeping them going even when tax revenue goes slack may still be a good idea though. Public sector tax revenue becomes depressed when the economy is depressed, and recovers as the economy recovers. This makes me want to phrase a notion that is not often openly stated, though we should be more concerned about it during public discussion. There are people who don't want the public sector to go into debt, because debt is a bad. Then there are people who don't want the public sector to be there, because the public sector is bad. These two positions become easily colluded as speakers may well masquerade as one and in fact be the other. I'll therefore note that I am honestly in favour of a smaller public sector than the one we currently have in Finland. Pursuing the goal of a smaller public sector through policy implemented now however would be self-destructive, as tearing down existing economic systems during a slump, when there is no strong private sector to pick up the slack (or to put the vacated resources into use elsewhere), would lead to a deeper and more prolonged recession. The last thing you want is a private education system like they have in the US and other anglo-saxon countries. It's downright attrocious that students have to start their professional lives heavily indebted.States have obligations towards their citizens. Affordable education is one of them. A country that considers education a luxury (i.e. something that's not really necessary, something only the well-off should be able to get) is basically destroying its own long-term future. I don't really understand why infrastructure and emergency housing projects should be considered luxury products either. A good transportation system (roads, railroads, cannals) is vital for any economy and no human being should be forced to sleep under the stars. Sure, there are people who lost their homes because of their own mistakes, but there are also those who just had bad luck.
Well, the US has a mix of public and private universities and while student debt is a growing issue, it's not as dire as you make it out to be. An education is far more valuable in the US than Belgium and taxes are lower too so a recent graduate's ability to pay back the debt may be substantially greater than you realize.
|
On May 01 2013 06:17 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Sort of. All that means is that some benefit would be derived from upgrading/fixing. It doesn't tell you how much benefit you'd be getting or let you know if alternatives would provide greater benefits. It also says nothing as to whether nor not the remedy is cost efficient or not. As to your point about my hypothetical second-order answer, why do you assume it would result in less spending? Greater rigor and analysis could very well paint a picture of chronic underinvestment in any interest rate environment. Something to keep in mind if interest rates rise back to that historical average 
If "functionally obsolescent" meant that some benefit would be derived from upgrading or fixing with no regards to the opportunity cost, every bridge in America would be defined as functionally obsolescent. A cost/benefit analysis has been done, though I doubt that the FHA has the money to run a fully-comprehensive analysis.
Obviously, if you have found a more accurate analysis and report, you are free to post it.
As to your second paragraph, let's just say that your posting history is quite...regular.
|
On May 01 2013 12:06 acker wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2013 06:17 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Sort of. All that means is that some benefit would be derived from upgrading/fixing. It doesn't tell you how much benefit you'd be getting or let you know if alternatives would provide greater benefits. It also says nothing as to whether nor not the remedy is cost efficient or not. As to your point about my hypothetical second-order answer, why do you assume it would result in less spending? Greater rigor and analysis could very well paint a picture of chronic underinvestment in any interest rate environment. Something to keep in mind if interest rates rise back to that historical average If "functionally obsolescent" meant that some benefit would be derived from upgrading or fixing with no regards to the opportunity cost, every bridge in America would be defined as functionally obsolescent. A cost/benefit analysis has been done, though I doubt that the FHA has the money to run a fully-comprehensive analysis. Obviously, if you have found a more accurate analysis and report, you are free to post it. As to your second paragraph, let's just say that your posting history is quite...regular.
I don't want to beat a dead horse anymore so I'll just leave you with this:
+ Show Spoiler +
Link
Just try to keep an open mind as you look at it 
|
On May 01 2013 13:28 JonnyBNoHo wrote:I don't want to beat a dead horse anymore so I'll just leave you with this: + Show Spoiler +LinkJust try to keep an open mind as you look at it
The highway trust fund encompasses way more than bridges (actually, from reading more, it doesn't even encompass all bridges, just those part of the highway system). That said, looks like you've found somewhere we should spend thirty billion dollars on, as well as passing congestion fees.
I have no problems whatsoever with increased congestion fees, they're probably generally too low now as is.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
jonny's from boston so maybe his idea of highway project is the big dig.
|
On May 01 2013 13:46 oneofthem wrote:
jonny's from boston so maybe his idea of highway project is the big dig.
I'm from the western half of the state. The Big Dig was a boondoggle that drained precious resources from my beloved homeland.
Remember the Quabbin! Never forget! Rawr!
|
On May 01 2013 01:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2013 18:53 paralleluniverse wrote:On April 30 2013 13:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 30 2013 12:31 acker wrote:On April 30 2013 11:18 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Well I can't do a NPV analysis because I do not have all the data. I have just one data point - different financing rates. Sorry, but no complete data no analysis  All things being equal a lower financing rate will increase the NPV of the project. The problem with a hypothetical is that a negative NPV at a lower financing rate may simply become less negative (but still negative!). Or it may turn positive (depending on how important financing is). There's simply no way to tell just by looking at the financing rate whether or not the project is viable or not. One last thing, what I'm advocating is not something that's radical. It's a standard part of project analysis that everyone learns while serving time in b-school. The DOT also advocates using it. It's ok Jonny, we know you do your best. That said, didn't you say that you could do the calculations just two posts ago, using Excel? I'm quite aware that the author's analysis is incomplete, but it still remains true that that it's the best approximation currently available to us. If you say that NPV is more accurate (and it certainly is!) but can't use it, we might as well shoot the moon and say we should ask Ernst and Young or the CBO for a writeup. I could do the calculations if I had the data... which I don't, so I can't I any case if someone wants money spent it's their job to provide data and show that the project is worthwhile. "Financing is cheap" just doesn't cut it. Edit: I have no problem with spending more on infrastructure or taking advantage of cheap financing in general. I just don't want that to be an excuse for more million dollar bus stops in Virginia or whatever. I want real, meaningful shit. One of many productive ways to spend the money would be trying to reverse this: + Show Spoiler +More info: http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2013/04/public-and-private-sector-payroll-jobs-bush-and-obama.htmlThere was also a civil engineer report a while back finding that a lot of bridges in American are structurally deficient. Money could be spent fixing those up. On this project, NPV calculations aren't needed, because the choice isn't whether to do the project or not. The bridge will eventually need to be patched up or it will collapse one day. The question is not "if" to do the project, the only question is "when" to do the project. And given the historically low rates at which the US government can borrow today, now is the best time for the investment. Why would reversing a decline in public sector jobs be productive? Other than an assumption that a decline is bad you haven't given an argument. And you're over simplifying the infrastructure issues. You still need priorities. Just because a bridge is "structurally deficient" or "functionally obsolete" doesn't automatically mean you want to restore it to original specs (the current reduced load capacity may be fine). Traffic patterns change, populations change, etc. The infrastructure may need to change with it.
Well, part of the decline in public employment is attributable to teachers. And given that they started getting fired after 2008, it's obvious it's due to tight budgets, and not because teachers suddenly became unnecessary and out of fashion in 2008.
As for the structurally deficient bridges, as the report says these bridges get millions of trips, so it's not like no one is using these bridges. While it's an option to wait a little bit longer, it's not acceptable to simply choose not to fix these bridges. Because then they'll eventually collapse.
|
On May 01 2013 19:09 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2013 01:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 30 2013 18:53 paralleluniverse wrote:On April 30 2013 13:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 30 2013 12:31 acker wrote:On April 30 2013 11:18 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Well I can't do a NPV analysis because I do not have all the data. I have just one data point - different financing rates. Sorry, but no complete data no analysis All things being equal a lower financing rate will increase the NPV of the project. The problem with a hypothetical is that a negative NPV at a lower financing rate may simply become less negative (but still negative!). Or it may turn positive (depending on how important financing is). There's simply no way to tell just by looking at the financing rate whether or not the project is viable or not. One last thing, what I'm advocating is not something that's radical. It's a standard part of project analysis that everyone learns while serving time in b-school. The DOT also advocates using it. It's ok Jonny, we know you do your best. That said, didn't you say that you could do the calculations just two posts ago, using Excel? I'm quite aware that the author's analysis is incomplete, but it still remains true that that it's the best approximation currently available to us. If you say that NPV is more accurate (and it certainly is!) but can't use it, we might as well shoot the moon and say we should ask Ernst and Young or the CBO for a writeup. I could do the calculations if I had the data... which I don't, so I can't I any case if someone wants money spent it's their job to provide data and show that the project is worthwhile. "Financing is cheap" just doesn't cut it. Edit: I have no problem with spending more on infrastructure or taking advantage of cheap financing in general. I just don't want that to be an excuse for more million dollar bus stops in Virginia or whatever. I want real, meaningful shit. One of many productive ways to spend the money would be trying to reverse this: + Show Spoiler +More info: http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2013/04/public-and-private-sector-payroll-jobs-bush-and-obama.htmlThere was also a civil engineer report a while back finding that a lot of bridges in American are structurally deficient. Money could be spent fixing those up. On this project, NPV calculations aren't needed, because the choice isn't whether to do the project or not. The bridge will eventually need to be patched up or it will collapse one day. The question is not "if" to do the project, the only question is "when" to do the project. And given the historically low rates at which the US government can borrow today, now is the best time for the investment. Why would reversing a decline in public sector jobs be productive? Other than an assumption that a decline is bad you haven't given an argument. And you're over simplifying the infrastructure issues. You still need priorities. Just because a bridge is "structurally deficient" or "functionally obsolete" doesn't automatically mean you want to restore it to original specs (the current reduced load capacity may be fine). Traffic patterns change, populations change, etc. The infrastructure may need to change with it. Well, part of the decline in public employment is attributable to teachers. And given that they started getting fired after 2008, it's obvious it's due to tight budgets, and not because teachers suddenly became unnecessary and out of fashion in 2008. As for the structurally deficient bridges, as the report says these bridges get millions of trips, so it's not like no one is using these bridges. While it's an option to wait a little bit longer, it's not acceptable to simply choose not to fix these bridges. Because then they'll eventually collapse.
It's perfectly acceptable. Just wait until a bridge collapses and gains media coverage. Then comes the condolences from politicians. A flurry of discussions will happen and legislation will be proposed but the process drags. When the process takes long enough that the emotional trauma passes by, there will not be enough attention paid and the can can safely be kicked by politicians until the next tragedy occurs.
Happens with global warming issues, happens with terrorist attacks, happens with human rights violations, happens with massacres, etc. It works.
If on the other hand it is profitable or in the interest of the politicians, it will take a couple of days and perhaps with minimal media coverage.
|
On May 01 2013 19:09 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2013 01:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 30 2013 18:53 paralleluniverse wrote:On April 30 2013 13:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 30 2013 12:31 acker wrote:On April 30 2013 11:18 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Well I can't do a NPV analysis because I do not have all the data. I have just one data point - different financing rates. Sorry, but no complete data no analysis All things being equal a lower financing rate will increase the NPV of the project. The problem with a hypothetical is that a negative NPV at a lower financing rate may simply become less negative (but still negative!). Or it may turn positive (depending on how important financing is). There's simply no way to tell just by looking at the financing rate whether or not the project is viable or not. One last thing, what I'm advocating is not something that's radical. It's a standard part of project analysis that everyone learns while serving time in b-school. The DOT also advocates using it. It's ok Jonny, we know you do your best. That said, didn't you say that you could do the calculations just two posts ago, using Excel? I'm quite aware that the author's analysis is incomplete, but it still remains true that that it's the best approximation currently available to us. If you say that NPV is more accurate (and it certainly is!) but can't use it, we might as well shoot the moon and say we should ask Ernst and Young or the CBO for a writeup. I could do the calculations if I had the data... which I don't, so I can't I any case if someone wants money spent it's their job to provide data and show that the project is worthwhile. "Financing is cheap" just doesn't cut it. Edit: I have no problem with spending more on infrastructure or taking advantage of cheap financing in general. I just don't want that to be an excuse for more million dollar bus stops in Virginia or whatever. I want real, meaningful shit. One of many productive ways to spend the money would be trying to reverse this: + Show Spoiler +More info: http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2013/04/public-and-private-sector-payroll-jobs-bush-and-obama.htmlThere was also a civil engineer report a while back finding that a lot of bridges in American are structurally deficient. Money could be spent fixing those up. On this project, NPV calculations aren't needed, because the choice isn't whether to do the project or not. The bridge will eventually need to be patched up or it will collapse one day. The question is not "if" to do the project, the only question is "when" to do the project. And given the historically low rates at which the US government can borrow today, now is the best time for the investment. Why would reversing a decline in public sector jobs be productive? Other than an assumption that a decline is bad you haven't given an argument. And you're over simplifying the infrastructure issues. You still need priorities. Just because a bridge is "structurally deficient" or "functionally obsolete" doesn't automatically mean you want to restore it to original specs (the current reduced load capacity may be fine). Traffic patterns change, populations change, etc. The infrastructure may need to change with it. Well, part of the decline in public employment is attributable to teachers. And given that they started getting fired after 2008, it's obvious it's due to tight budgets, and not because teachers suddenly became unnecessary and out of fashion in 2008. As for the structurally deficient bridges, as the report says these bridges get millions of trips, so it's not like no one is using these bridges. While it's an option to wait a little bit longer, it's not acceptable to simply choose not to fix these bridges. Because then they'll eventually collapse.
On May 01 2013 19:09 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2013 01:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 30 2013 18:53 paralleluniverse wrote:On April 30 2013 13:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 30 2013 12:31 acker wrote:On April 30 2013 11:18 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Well I can't do a NPV analysis because I do not have all the data. I have just one data point - different financing rates. Sorry, but no complete data no analysis All things being equal a lower financing rate will increase the NPV of the project. The problem with a hypothetical is that a negative NPV at a lower financing rate may simply become less negative (but still negative!). Or it may turn positive (depending on how important financing is). There's simply no way to tell just by looking at the financing rate whether or not the project is viable or not. One last thing, what I'm advocating is not something that's radical. It's a standard part of project analysis that everyone learns while serving time in b-school. The DOT also advocates using it. It's ok Jonny, we know you do your best. That said, didn't you say that you could do the calculations just two posts ago, using Excel? I'm quite aware that the author's analysis is incomplete, but it still remains true that that it's the best approximation currently available to us. If you say that NPV is more accurate (and it certainly is!) but can't use it, we might as well shoot the moon and say we should ask Ernst and Young or the CBO for a writeup. I could do the calculations if I had the data... which I don't, so I can't I any case if someone wants money spent it's their job to provide data and show that the project is worthwhile. "Financing is cheap" just doesn't cut it. Edit: I have no problem with spending more on infrastructure or taking advantage of cheap financing in general. I just don't want that to be an excuse for more million dollar bus stops in Virginia or whatever. I want real, meaningful shit. One of many productive ways to spend the money would be trying to reverse this: + Show Spoiler +More info: http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2013/04/public-and-private-sector-payroll-jobs-bush-and-obama.htmlThere was also a civil engineer report a while back finding that a lot of bridges in American are structurally deficient. Money could be spent fixing those up. On this project, NPV calculations aren't needed, because the choice isn't whether to do the project or not. The bridge will eventually need to be patched up or it will collapse one day. The question is not "if" to do the project, the only question is "when" to do the project. And given the historically low rates at which the US government can borrow today, now is the best time for the investment. Why would reversing a decline in public sector jobs be productive? Other than an assumption that a decline is bad you haven't given an argument. And you're over simplifying the infrastructure issues. You still need priorities. Just because a bridge is "structurally deficient" or "functionally obsolete" doesn't automatically mean you want to restore it to original specs (the current reduced load capacity may be fine). Traffic patterns change, populations change, etc. The infrastructure may need to change with it. Well, part of the decline in public employment is attributable to teachers. And given that they started getting fired after 2008, it's obvious it's due to tight budgets, and not because teachers suddenly became unnecessary and out of fashion in 2008. As for the structurally deficient bridges, as the report says these bridges get millions of trips, so it's not like no one is using these bridges. While it's an option to wait a little bit longer, it's not acceptable to simply choose not to fix these bridges. Because then they'll eventually collapse.
Sure we could spend a bit more on teachers in some areas. The student teacher ratio seems to be holding up though.
See here (stable),
or here (small uptick).
So it seems like at least some of those losses were in non-teacher positions in education settings (not that they necessarily don't matter).
As for the bridges, generally they're still doing some repair and maintenance work on them. They're not being completely neglected and they're not on a doomsday path to collapse. Some would benefit from accelerated repair, others perhaps not.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
education resource is pretty unequally distributed. without some kind of top heavy distribution for budget cuts, it'll have disproportional effect on already resource strained schools. but hey, kids can do without arts classes. just watch more tv.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/72070179/Hwys.JPG)
![[image loading]](https://lh3.ggpht.com/-Pi3q7K4IP9E/UX0t-p6dYYI/AAAAAAAAZ-w/MWTiv628FZk/s1600/PulbicBushObama.jpg)
