Obama indicts himself as a failure. In his own words.

Sorry I am not buying the concept unless you are adhereing to the principles set forth in 2006...and if that be the case I say...right on...but Obama did say in his acceptance speech chicago 7 minutes into the speech that he would not get it done in one year or one term,,,,so for those who think Obama has fauiled...he told you thid before he became President that he would fail...at least in his first term.

"YOU CANNOT GET OUT OF DEBT BY BORROWING MORE MONEY!!" - boy are you wrong!

This is how we got out of the depression, the recessions, war debts, and on and on (why do you think businesses often borrow money?)

Seriously, you have no idea of reality with that claim, it has worked time and time again. Why did Ford not have as much trouble as GM or Chrysler - because they had just BORROWED money to improve their equipment and had that money when the recession hit to tide them over as sales sank

Your oversimplification ignores the reality that the way we get out of debt (longer term vision please) is to borrow and grow the economy which increases tax revenues which are used to pay down the debt without destroying the economy

It's not about the borrowing but how you use it; Borrowing to create a stimulus works because it creates jobs - building infrastructure (you know, things like the I-35 bridge that fell down in Minneapolis a few years back) pays dividends in increased productivity

The dumb idea is borrowing to provide tax cuts for the rich - and Bush did that one in spades; hence the recession

Oh that felt good...

Neale, you can twist his words to try and make it look like Obama was calling himself a failure, but you would again be wrong. The failure that he alluded to was on the part of Congress, plus it was a bit of political theatrics (something that you should be used to given the amount of Republican payback lately).

Gil, your comments are inflammatory at best and also ridiculous. Denigrating whole societies of America people is frowned upon.

They obviously do not understand that it is not President Obama's job to draft the spending legislation. It is the job of congress and starts with the House of Representatives. He can only sign or veto what congress sends to him.

Right, and they already passed a budget (something that hasn't been done in the last two years) and a bill to deal with the debt crisis. It is sitting in Dirty Harry's Reid's lap...take it up with him and Obama.

the whole notion of increasing our debt to decrease our debt is just insanity

obama is a failure..and you are right per his words he is a failure....the problem is...I dont think he is failing...I think he hates this country and wants to destroy it.

no sane person would do what he does.....

its either he wants to ruin this country or he is just completly @!$%#ing retarded.

That is my humble opinion.

Congress did their job and passed CC&B but those 56 left-wing lackeys of Obama refused to. They are holding progress hostage, along with their sorry excuse for a POTUS. I hope Boehner and the other patriots stand firm and make history by getting us back on the right track.

Got to love this stupid MEME as if it is the same.

When Obama voted to not raise the debt ceiling we were in middle of an economic bubble.

meaning our economy was SCREAMING, we were making more money than ever and if a government cant pay it;s bills when it is rich, how can it get by when times get rough?

Its not a hard concept to get your head around. But you might have noticed we were just in a mega recession.

But wait there is more.

THERE ALSO WAS ZERO PLAN FROM BUSH TO MAKE SURE THAT WE REDUCE OUR DEBT AND DEFICITS, unlike the current debt ceiling when Obama wants a plan for the future before raising the best ceiling.

But wait their is more, Obama wasnt holding teh country hostage to protect pennies for the richest of us who are seeing their incomes soar right now while demanding everyone else tighten their belt

SO IT IS EXACTLY THE SAME AS IT WAS in 2006........... NOT

Thanks for playing, but the country is still blaming the right wing. See ya in the elections.

It was fun destroying this bit of twaddle.

edit.. more twaddle busting

Congress did their job and passed CC&B but those 56 left-wing lackeys of Obama refused to.

even right wingers knew that thing was bull@!$%#, but what right wingers seem to be willfully ignorant of is that we had something better than CC&B called paygo which is partially responsible for our surpluses of the late 90s. Paygo unlike CC&B requires paying for both new programs AND new tax cuts. The right dont think tax cuts should be paid for. When the right took power, they ignored paygo and then let it expire. Like orin hatch said "we didnt pay for @!$%# under bush" The right let paygo expire which was also the last year of our surpluses. When the dems took power, they tried to pass paygo again, and the right filibustered it.

Blaming the Republicans or Democrats is truly a waste of time and energy.

To me those 2 parties are like the wrestlers on TV that talk a big talk and do their dog and pony show only to be drinking buddies behind closed doors.

The 2 party system has been used as just a tool to keep Americans divided.

Our elected officials ARE millionaires. So how can they relate to the American public.

United We Stand, Divided we fall.

Please follow how your elected official votes. Not what they blather on TV.

rockyroad

WE HAVE A WINNER!!!! DING DING DING

good post.

I'd like to comment that you can get out of debt by borrowing money. But instead of spending the money haphazardly it has to be spent on aspects of our country that will create growth with a viable tax revenue that not only pays off the loan, but it's interest. In other words... and I know this may shock some... you have to run things like a business or an investor.

Spending money on roads and infrastructure does not generate revenue. Giving non-job creators tax breaks and handouts will only generate a spark of energy till they have spent their money. What you spend the money on are industries that actually have an existing need and demand here in the country and even better... a demand in other countries. A country gains wealth by selling more exports than imports, a country stablizes under balanced imports and exports, and a country spirals into poverty when all it does is import... like the United States.

So... if the purpose of raising the debt ceiling is to actually do something productive and to produce targeted investments with real for live potential for revenue when the spending stops... then I'm all for it. You put this in tandem with cutting back on government spending and waste... and you have a deal I'd accept ~ but knowing the current group of politicians pulling the strings, I think I'd rather pack my bags, liquidate my assets and abandon ship.

Eriq and Naughtia,

Great posts by both of you!

RP, Im going to disagree with part of your post here about roads and infrastructure . you say they generate no revenue , i disagree , they generate revenue in construction , and in maint, in a taxable income base , that of course is suppose to be paid by the fuel taxes both state and federal , those workers spend what they are paid thus again taxed at POS , thats generating revenue , those roads , and subsiquent infrastructure are used by business to move their product , which is thus taxed both state and federally , , they do so over safe roads , that allow for quick and efficient movement of products to markets near and far , without the road system , those products would be subject to less markets , thus lowering income thus lowering tax revenue , and maybe due to roughness of roads , be subject to breakage again affecting costs over all. You may not have seen how roads and infrastructure could affect revenue , but it does exist , if you cant get to work because there is no bridge over a river , you have no revenue , with the bridge you can get to work . without the bridge the product stays on one side , with the bridge , the product can be transported to a far greater market area . so yes road and infrastructures do increase revenue , from the transport of product , to the ability of the individual to earn aliving all which generate tax revenue , far greater than the initial cost .it just does it at a slower pace .

Mark - You are confusing stimulus with the generation of actual revenue. Sure, you can stimulate the economy by building a road... the workers spend their paychecks and buy services and goods. But here is the difference Mark... after the road is built and the worker has spent his wad, what money is the road itself specifically generating? What is it selling, what is it making, how is it paying the government back for the money it cost to make?

You don't have to go very far to read a paper by an economist stating that investing stimulus in infrastructure is a waste, and the very reason it is a waste is just that... when it's done being built it doesn't pay for itself, it doesn't generate a profit... in fact it actually burns additional money by the required maintenance.

This is a short termed stimulus to the economy that quickly spirals down to nothing; thus in reality building roads doesn't generate revenue. What generates revenue?, well the government makes money by taxing things. So we need people to get jobs to tax their income ~ whoa, hold the phone ~ you want to mention that while throwing money at the roads workers had incomes, but recall you were paying them with borrowed money and only getting back a portion of your borrowed money from them in taxes ~ this does not equal a profit nor does it even come close to repaying the amount of money you spent. So... we actually need jobs that are sustained outside of the government's spending. This means basically that the government jump starts an industry or buffs up an industry and then backs away.

As terrible of an example as it is... lets take the bailout of the banks. For all the down points there were, there is one simple fact that people ignore... the money is being repaid and the government actually made money off the deal. Let's take the auto industry though; the government gave them loans, and then graciously did a Cash for Clunkers program that had customers flock to them (a double whammy stimulus), but unfortunately the pay back on the loans has been subpar... meaning that this isn't as easy as simply giving a loan to a business. It requires giving a loan to a business that actually has a viable and competitive product.

Now I know that goes against the hate the evil corporations slogan from one of the political parties... and I'm not too sure I'm so happy go-lucky about the prospect of giving out money to businesses. So let's just take the basic lesson from this and apply it in some fashion that works with our principles ~ the basic lesson... stimulus money only creates true recovery if its put to energize an marketable product that can be sustained after the initial investment. This does not equal roads... it does not equal tax breaks... it does not equal bonus checks in the mail boxes of people.

Of course, I'm not responding to the later part of your paragraph Mark because what you're saying is that there are places and markets in this country so wide, vast, and untapped that additional roads are needed to reach it. That just isn't so... every major city, sub city, town, etc have all been connected by miles and miles of asphault. If you can't get to where you want to go by road in the continental United States, it's because it's an island or surrounded by protected wetlands/environments.

OK RP i see what your saying , but think of this , the interstate system cost how much to put into place , and maintain annually? figure just the annual maint cost for now , those costs are suppose to be paid by fuel taxes and permit fees by the trucking industry . Now , your correct , there are miles upon miles of asphault and concrete roads , some duplicate routes . but if you like a commodity that isnt grown locallly , isnt produced locally , you pay to have it shipped in , and the major shipping method is , those roadways , they do generate revenue and income even after the intitial investment and return more than they actually do cost . like california oranges? they most likely got there on a truck OTR, like vadailia onions? they most likely got there on a truck . the people that sell you those things locally got to the store , unless they live instore , on the roads , a road once built doesnt only help pay for itself , it does generate revenue that keeps the economy moving by allowing people to travel quicker , easier , and more efficiently , the benefit of revenue generation far outweighs the cost of the road itself . The revenue generating capability of building or maintaining a road is not limited to its initial installation , it generates revenue , through allowing material , goods and people to travel , be it for pleasure or business.just about every business , and activity related to travel is related to roads , dont take care of the roads and infrastructure , and you limit your revenue gennerating capabilities , otherwise what would abusiness person say to a customer , buy my product but you have to come get it and figure out how your going to get it home in one piece ? some do that , retailers do , but by doing tht they generate revenue other than just the sale of their product as well. Roads dont generate revenue? that i disagree with .

RatPoison: I haven't read any white paper where an economist put in writing that infrastructure was a 'waste'. Please cite your source.

And maybe you haven't realized that many bridges aren't being maintained as well. That new 'corridors' of interstate need to be built for better faster delivery? Lots of ideas have already been translated into actual plans by states that are asking for the additional and/or replacement infrastructure which is being held up by Congress.

Naughtia, Your lack of knowledge is stunning. I suggest you go back and reread this post very carefully:

Even right wingers knew that thing was bull@!$%#, but what right wingers seem to be willfully ignorant of is that we had something better than CC&B called paygo which is partially responsible for our surpluses of the late 90s. Paygo unlike CC&B requires paying for both new programs AND new tax cuts. The right dont think tax cuts should be paid for. When the right took power, they ignored paygo and then let it expire. The right let paygo expire which was also the last year of our surpluses. When the dems took power, they tried to pass paygo again, and the right filibustered it.

Really Naughtia? You tried this same crap last week and AGAIN here is my SAME response:

Really? Please source where the Rep filibustered PAYGO. Because THEY DID NOT.

You said:

See paygo says you must not only pay for new programs, but you must pay for tax cuts by cutting programs...

LOL, Really, Naughtia? Here:

Under the PAYGO rules a new proposal must either be "budget neutral" or offset with savings derived from existing funds. (NOT TAX CUTS) The goal of this is to require those in control of the budget to engage in the diligence of prioritizing expenses and exercising fiscal restraint.

The initial PAYGO from the 1990's expired in 2002 and almost immediately deficits returned.

The PAYGO system was reestablished as a standing rule of the House of Representatives (Clause 10 of Rule XXI) on January 4, 2007 by the 110th Congress (under the Dems control).

Less than one year later though, facing widespread demand to ease looming tax burdens caused by the Alternative Minimum Tax, Congress abandoned its pay-go pledge. The point of order was also waived for the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 which included revenue reducing provisions and increases in spending that increased the deficit, which paygo was designed to prevent. It was again waived in May 2008, upon the consideration of the 2007 U.S. Farm Bill by the House of Representatives.

At the beginning of the 111th Congress, (2009) PAYGO was modified by including an "emergency" exemption (Oh, of course...now everything is an emergency). This designation was provided for theAmerican Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (H.R. 1), which increased the deficit and increased the public debt limit to $12,104,000,000,000. Both direct spending in the bill and tax cuts, as passed by the Democratic-controlled Congress and signed by President Barack H. Obama, were exempted from the PAYGO rule under clause 5(b). The establishment of the House PAYGO Rule, and a similar Rule in the Senate, did not prevent the deficit from growing to $1.42 trillion for fiscal year 2009.

So, you see the House under Dem control (and Pubs did it too earlier) relaxed PAYGO whenever they wanted to expand the debt. This last time they put in an "emergency" provision...And EVERYTHING was an emergency. That is why we NEED a balanced budget amendment. It is a Constitutional amendment that can't be screwed with, period.

You said:

Once again the right want the poor and middle class to pay for the recession while giving breaks to millionaires and billionaires.

Really? And your source for that...Never mind..MM again...

Just remember the right let paygo expire.. that was also the last year of the surpluses.. isnt it amazing we had surpluses under dems and they were destroyed by so called fiscal conservatives.

Except, Naughtia, as I just pointed out, that under Queen Nancy, we haven't had surpluses every year (Under Queen Nancy alone we added 5 trillion dollars of debt!)and the Dems were equally and more responsible "for the destruction" from 2007 on and certainly from 2009 on, as they are the branch that controls the budgeting and purse strings (There again Queen Nancy failed to do her job in directing the House to provide a budget for 2010 and 2011. The Rep controlled House has already passed a budget in April for FY 2012 and it is sitting in Harry Reid's lap).

Sheeze, next time you might want to research your "facts". (Thoughts in parentheses in quoted text are my thoughts).

http://budget.house.gov/analyses/08paygo_validation.pdf

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=848

http://taxvox.taxpolicycenter.org/blog/_archives/2007/12/7/3397043.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PAYGO

Please stop repeating the same lies. It makes you look silly.

vol fan "Please stop repeating the same lies. It makes you look silly."

You think we don't see this?

To correct a LIE from above - THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A "JOB CREATOR". No such animal

In a supply and demand economy, DEMAND creates jobs

Here is the fallacy - If there were job creators we would not have had a recession because as demand fell for cars (for example) and the importers began renting empty lots to park unsold cars, we would have continued to build cars anyway - we had money

Even now, businesses are sitting on about 2 TRILLION dollars to use in "job creation" yet no jobs are being created - there is no DEMAND

On the other hand (especially for those who have had classes in business or economics) when you have demand people will BORROW or convert assets to buy or build that for which there is demand - this is the essence of markets

The idea that there is such a thing as a "job Creator" is a fiction of the rabid right and as long as people believe in such delusions we will never solve our problems

mstanley ~ I'll do even better, MSNBC's news had several articles written and posted probably about 8 months ago. Plus you can use Google to easily find how and why... you can even go and do some searches on FDR's New Deal to see some comparisons.

Mark, thanks for admitting that roads don't generate revenue by my first explanation. To your counter, again... roads don't generate revenue by your next accounting either given America's current state. Let's say that as you contend our roads don't get people where they want to go and that we need to build and improve so that people can get stuff to places quicker (I disagree as we have roads to everywhere already). But we're putting that disagreement aside because for this point... it doesn't really much matter.

America's economy is in peril for any number of reasons people want to believe. From what I've read and learned the issue with the middle class, the loss of wealth for the producers, and the evaporation of American manufacturing is directly related to our huge trade imbalance from American consumers rabid consumption of foreign goods. I won't get into a long explanation and retelling of history, but let's say we don't agree... the key thing we have to agree on is that the country is in debt, and I don't think there is any way to deny that.

The way that a country pays off debt is by selling something to someone; just like you or I... if we're in debt we sell things to pay it off. It might be a car, our house, or just our labor... we have to sell something. But there is a catch... we can't sell things internal of our own finance system and get out of debt. For example, if you're in debt... you can't sell your car to your wife to get out of debt (assuming that your finances are shared). The United States cannot get out of debt by selling things to ourselves... the solution to getting out of debt is by selling things to an outside source, namely exports.

Roads may seem like a great way to spend stimulus funds, and lord knows we need to get some roads repaired... but unfortunately this sort of stimulus does not generate real recovery. Real recovery would have come in the form of spending these funds on industries that are producing or could produce viable exports.

Unless the road is leading to a new factory that is making sprockets to be sold to Brazil, China, India, etc... then it's a waste of money. This is how we got out of debt from the Great Depression too. It wasn't FDR's New Deal that restored the American economy; in fact it became glaringly evident just how much it was hiding when they backed off spending and raised taxes causing the "Double Dip" recession... so most people accept that it was WWII that saved us. But not many people connect why. Of course as we started getting involved in the war our spending spiked to 800% GDP, and some people think that this is what prompted recovery... but what they miss out on is that before our involvement and then during our involvement the US was selling munitions and supplies to our allies. And then what is even more important is that after the war, America became the exporter of anything and everything manufactured. This is because the industrialized countries of Europe had been damaged, while America's manufacturing was running at full speed. This boom in exports resulted in the creation of the middle class and a boom in our economy.

I'm getting off on tangents so I'm going to stop right there.

Ratpoison hahaha so bogus, then here's one that is really high level economists: see ya in a couple of hours, that's about how long it takes from the general to the specific dollar cost;

I don't Google, I metacrawl....gives you more information

mstanley ~ You are forgetting one thing that proves to be a problem. The reason why infrastructure fails to be a source of recovery for an economy today is because our economy is based on consumption. Spending to encourage additional consumption within an economy that does not have a balanced trade relationship, or the ability to produce and sell exports in greater volume than imports means that all you've done is bought yourself time with debt. If the money is wasted on a sector that does not actually contribute to or generate a product that can be sold, then it does not actually equate to recovery.

One argument for infrastructure's benefit to the economy comes in the form of what they called the "green recovery". In this explanation it is stated that theory is that first, these improvements are needed now regardless and will benefit us later, second, these improvements reduce the amount of energy and by consequence cost involved in businesses especially when they are reliant on transport (green recovery was more than infrastructure). The problem that was noted though was that first, it was going to have to be paid with by borrowed money, second, given our current economic relationship with the world and the lack of export ~ meaning that as previously stated... this was not a long term solution to the issue ~ in regards to infrastructure. Green recovery also wanted to spur the development of eco-friendly power and clean air systems which while it sounds great, it never got far off the ground.

An idea I sent without response was to begin a conversion to hydrogen powered vehicles for transit and short distance delivery. The basic premise was to go to businesses that have a lot of vehicles on the road and used a set of personally owned fueling stations and offer them a portion of money for a stepped conversion of their fleet and stations to hydrogen power. This means things like taxis, or buses, delivery trucks for FedEx or UPS, government vehicles, school buses, police cars, etc would convert to this system creating an immediate demand that would drive the development of hydrogen technology and production here in the states. As long as the economics of the cost of fuel and maintenance of these vehicles was on par with or less than the traditional sources then this would be a worthy change that would save money and induce growth in an area not yet tapped in this country. ~ But even in this scenario and with this suggestion... it doesn't change the relationship between our economy and the trade imbalance and while ideas like this may be useful in creating new markets, any revenue generated would spiral out of the system as it does today.

So mstanley ~ please show me a report that shows how roads built with borrowed money lead to economic recovery when the roads produce nothing or in association with something that is or would be sold as an export. Export is key... because if you're just selling it to Americans you aren't paying off the debt/loan. Saving people money isn't enough, even by reducing the costs associated with their grocery store items due to quicker transport.

Starting last to first: I did link the white paper from the Peter Peterson Institute for International Economics...they look at more than just the US for comparisons on prosperity and what, when and how that prosperity was reached. Always a good idea.

Export is good, but when the Free Market treaties are 1) not approved by Congress 2) the recipricoal country has higher import taxes, than it doesn't work as well.

Hydrogen is well an good as an option, there is also the safety factor even with diesel in a semi tractor trailor fiery collisions have been known to happen. Biofuels are the up and coming area that IMO is more likely.

Of course we're a nation of consumers, every nation is a nation of consumers one way or another, there are very few that can have a sustainable sole individual provider status. Well, except maybe back in the day of Daniel Boone...:)

The target is twofold continued manufacturing of specialized and regular goods, and the delivery of those goods to market. With foodstuffs, delivery is JIT for freshness. Refrigeration led to delivery of meat products to areas that otherwise wouldn't have gotten them. Texas to NY, Iowa to NY etc..

Manufacturing has Just In Time delivery also but since Fukushima that avenue of avoiding inventory taxes has gotten a second look. Good to Excellent interstates and secondary roads are essential to JIT delivery. I know that for a fact because I was in not only the manufacturing industry but also the trucking industry. :)

There was once an essential delivery of test plastic sheets via semi tractor trailor. The manufacturing plant was off of a secondary, two lane road. The semi got held up in traffic due to a vehicle accident. The Plant manager was having puppies over the delivery because his supervisor and his supervisor's supervisor were there to watch the testing and see the results. The test was a one of kind and everything was in place to start except for the plastic sheets. And it meant securing a huge contract.

Big Company, GE. With computer and cellphone, the driver got cleared around the wreck and made it there just 5 minutes short of the test run began time. The sheets exceeded the test, a huge contract was the result and more jobs for the plant. :)

So, the taxes that paid for the road, the responders and the law enforcement paid for that driver to get those sheets to the plant on time. Which resulted in More Jobs. :)

My point: There are lots of components in and of Infrastruture. That particular plant also shipped product by Rail and got components by Rail not just truck

And the point you didn't really address... in a nation of consumers where the consumption is primarily of foreign goods and the consumers are not offsetting the loss by the sale of items to these foreign economies means that no amount of road building will save the economy.

Build all and as many roads as you'd like... but I think common sense is enough to tell you that if your country sells nothing to its own residents or to other countries yet is engaged in the consumption other country's products that you will eventually run amount of money.

It was a lovely story otherwise, and if generated revenue for you all, then great... but it hardly did a thing to offset the billions lost monthly.

Also... hydrogen isn't as dangerous as you make it out to sound. The explosive qualities of hydrogen depend on the form it is, temperature, pressure and reactives present. Of course, back in August of 2010 there was a fueling station that exploded, and a favorite for people to harken back to is the Hindenburg. But lets say that this one explosion came after 16,000 fills at the station from what they think was a static arch not much unlike what has happened before at regular gas stations.

While I won't say I'm all about hydrogen fuels, I think they are more viable than bio-fuels for a couple of reasons. First, bio fuels made here in the states creates more pollution than our current gas which has a lot to do with the amount of crops required to make the additive compared to Brazil's prized ethanol production. Second, the bio fuels uses up land that could have been used for food ~ which for this country isn't a bad thing since we do have some great technology when it comes to farming, as well as a surplus of food, along with one of the world's few bread baskets ~ but these things are subject to change, and I view it a lot like putting all of my eggs in one basket.

I think we're well off the beaten path now... ... ... so uh, have a good afternoon?

a huge contract was the result and more jobs for the plant. :)

And the plant (and the jobs) are now in China. Extraction and manufacturing are the only industries which actually create wealth. Everything else (from paperwork and administration to service jobs) are parasitic to those industries. If you remove those industries from your country and economy, the economy will turn to consumer products made in other countries and will begin to fail. We're seeing the results of removing those industries now; it's taken a while to show the effects since it was a rather large economy to start with but the results are inevitable. Adding all the service and paperwork jobs you can to the economy is simply re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

Oh there's stuff in America that's made in America, Bread, milk, gasoline, yikes on the gasoline, lets see, Georgia Pacific, General Electric, etc.. Dang not Everything is made in China, there's goods from all over the world and America Exports too. $1,270,000,000,000 so obviously, there are items made in America going overseas....and not everything is from a Farm..... America did go through the industrial revolution a good while back.

RatPoison, you might want to consider a two month tour of America...might surprise you at the industriousness of Americans..LOL

In regards to roads

This has been oversimplified to the point of absurdity - yes infrastructure is a good investment, not just for stimulus jobs but (here is the point the overly simple do not get) THAT ROAD GETS USED!!!!!

That's right, you do NOT measure the jobs created by making that road but the use - how it aids in traffic to and from work (which increases worker productivity, reduces pollution - which you PAY for cleaning up - reduces cost-of-goods-sold by reducing shipping costs; etc.

This incredibly childish notion of considering only the direct jobs created as if there were no indirect gains is how we destroy our society, how Rome fell. It is not of the realo world but a complete denial of reality

If we are ever to get our society back functioning we need to end this childish delusional economics; this is like denying that chickens come from eggs and destroying all the eggs because they are non-productive; it is utterly insane

Yes, but without those roads we might actually be in a better position in other ways.

The interstates are designated for military use in case of emergency. That's why they were built. Still are too. The prosperity of America is owed to the Railroads and the Interstate Highway system. IMO that shipping hazmat chemicals in tankers on trains is a lot less hazards to the ordinary citizen then if they were by interstate...:)

. America did go through the industrial revolution a good while back

And then abandoned it in order to save labor and anti pollution costs. Not too many steel mills being designed and built here any more, even American auto makers use parts made in other countries. No heavy construction equipment left. Even the computer I'm typing this on was made overseas; can't find one made in this country. Shipbuilding is pretty much gone, it's cheaper to build them overseas and register them in Liberia or some such flag of convenience. That way the owners don't have to worry about health and safety regulations or environmental regulations.

The law of unintended? consequences..

mstanley2265 ~ Industrious or not... that is a matter of opinion.

The point that you are still not willing to address is that building roads does nothing for true recovery when you have a broken economy. In our case, the economy is broken due to a huge trade imbalance and a lack of support for domestic products by Americans.

Build all the roads you'd like... a great portion of this money will end up spiraling out of the system as a consequence of our consumer habits. Even the Democrats own Warren Buffet has called the trade deficit a greater threat than the federal deficit and consumer debt. The trade deficit for May 2011 alone was 50 billion dollars. The United States has had trade deficits starting in the 1960s, and has not had a surplus since 1975 ~ which ironically is around the point the point Carter gets to step in to deal with inflation and a growing recession. By the 1980s, Reagan began running deficits and dumping federal money into the economy through deregulation, tax breaks, subsidies, etc which is an economic policy conitnued today which to our own demise has hidden the real issue with our trade deficit which has peaked as high as 800 billion dollars for one year.

But please keep laughing, when you finally get done perhaps you'd be willing to explain how building or repairing roads will produce exports to offset for the constant loss of wealth... well at this point, borrowed money, this country enjoys at a rate that will be around 500 billion dollars this year alone.

Socrates1

Yes, but without those roads we might actually be in a better position in other ways.

Can you expand on this?

In what ways would America be in a "better position" without the infrastructure of the Interstate Highway system (or even the secondary State highways)? I mean what would be the upside of a crumbling transportation system?

there they go again: list of Steel Mills in the US 2011 ohhhh somewhere around 700.... List OF shipbuilders US

mstanley2265 ~ And there you go. The key phrase is "TRADE DEFICIT", this does not mean balanced trade, or trade amount that is in our favor... it means a lesser amount is sold than what is bought. That means a loss of money. The statistics are in #1.34, and graphs and tables are readily available across the internet for your own viewing.

Lets say that we use your number and America sold 1.2 trillion dollars in exports (for 2008, I don't know what year you pulled 1.2T from), well around 2008 our trade deficit was 800 billion (the highest trade deficit so far on the books) which means we bought 2 trillion dollars in imports. Guess what, that is a 800 billion dollar loss. That's "red ink"... that is money that has left the country and gone bye bye to foreign economies.

Now... tell me, please tell me, how are roads going to generate or contribute to more exports for this country to sell?, and let's make sure we put this into perspective... it not only has to generate money to pay for itself (which at best can barely be done over a long time period through very extraneous and debatable calculations), but it has to also begin generating 50 billion dollars worth of exports per month to balance the trade relationship.

So... list out American exporters till you run out of space on your screen, it doesn't matter... because no matter what volume they have exported to date... since 1975 there has been a trade deficit and one that has grown exponentially over the past 15 years. If you do not correct this problem by investing in sectors that actually generate exports, and if you do not begin modifying the habits of American consumers, and if you do not begin getting rid of free trade agreements that are not balanced... then dumping money on roads is a wasted cause in respect to creating a real economy and a true recovery in the United States.

jmorris

I mean what would be the upside of a crumbling transportation system?

This assumes its existence in the first place and as we see it today. If it hadn't been built, obviously it wouldn't be crumbling.

If your question goes to my actual meaning....not building them in the first place..my response is:

Alternatives, such as rail, were/are available at lower cost...environmentally, financially, etc.

Cities would be much less likely to be in the situation they are in today.

We would be much less likely to be dependent of foreign sources of energy.

The environmental footprint would be much smaller.

The cost of maintainence would be significantly lower.

Just to name a few.

I always use the latest figures available. China even had a trade deficit, mainly raw materials. Happens, there is never a 100% balance in trade. The consumer markets and business markets drive the trade, import and export.

As to Free Trade, when the other countries open their markets all good....Having closed markets Tariffs has already been tried and failed miserably. Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act. Because if the US enacts tariffs on goods, then other countries enact tariffs on goods... a neverending battle, the only option was to have Free Trade. And nothing works 100%, because humans are involved and don't always see that it is beneficial in the Long Run.

You are still ignoring the point mstanley2265, and more importantly you avoided answering the question.

AGAIN - The United States has had trade deficits since 1960, and we haven't had a trade surplus since 1975. That means for 36 years.. straight, our country has bled money out of the economy.

China on the other hand, today sports one of the world's largest trade surpluses. Their economy is booming, and has been directly related to the trade deficits being ran by the United States and several other western nations.

This isn't a subject that requires a fancy college degree and a superlative understanding of mathmatics. An economy grows when it sells more than it buys (post WWII US), an economy stagnates when it spends as much as it earns (1960s US), and an economy shrinks when it has a trade deficit (1980s-present). Or at least our economy should have shrunk, but instead we began propping it up with public and private debt to offset the money lost.

Now... if you would kindly go back to comment #1.37 and explain and answer the questions asked.

uhhh first I was answering There You Go Again comment, And then you commented about Trade Deficit and road building.. I know about road building, my Dad owned a Construction Company that built roads. I know for a fact that US Highway 41 opened up the faster movement of goods. I know for a fact that I-64 did the same. I also know for a Fact the amount of money that was earned by building those roads and the payroll taxes etc that were paid. Now, if you have a like background please explain why you don't think that building roads and having roads is good for a Nation.

From your comments IMO that there would be no roads or just dirt ones, hardly passable in all four seasons of weather. You cannot go to any store that has goods on the shelf that weren't brought there by truck, big or small. Nor the materials to build the store. To get those goods to that store requires Roads, Passable roads, miles of roads.

And no the Economy is not just propped up by Debt. The economy is the production of goods, bought and sold. The electricity that powers your computer is Made In the US and bought by you in the US. So the computer is a knockoff by Asians from the originals. They do that because they weren't into actual innovative designing, though they're working on it. Americans are innovators.

Anyone can focus on a small section of the Big Picture and pick apart but if that section is required to complete the Big Picture, well there you go.

... You want to talk about the big picture?, cool. I'd like you to step back and look at what I'm telling you, confirm the data with your own research, or at least explain to me where your data is so that I can read it.

I don't know why you want to talk about dirt roads considering there isn't a major city that you can't reach in the continental United States by concrete and/or asphault. So explain to me where you need to go that is making things that can't reach a port or an airport or a train for export? If you find a place... then yes!, building a road or a better road to this producer of a viable export helps. I've said this several times now, but you can't seem to tell me who can't get their product out of their factory, or where they are building a factory that will make products but is limited by poor roads.

Next... you state that economy isn't propped up by Debt. Where have you been living mstanley? What do you call an 800 billion dollar stimulus?, what do you call 1.6 trillion dollars in spending?, what do you call about the continued annual deficits being ran by the government since Reagan? That is all debt, and all of that money is being spent on some portion of this country with the exception of what is handed out as foreign aid which is still debt... it just isn't debt being used on us.

Look at some data... notice that the trade deficit and the annual budget deficits for the past 30 years have moved in sync with one another with the exception of recessions. During recessions the trade deficit decreases due to decreased consumption from having tighter consumer budgets. But... even with this well written and explained phenomena we are still running a deficit which means lost money.

Let me jump back to the big picture comment. Now... we are looking at just a couple of things here, roads and how they stimulate the economy (true, you can stimulate the economy by building roads), we're looking at how stimulus funds can or cannot lead to economic recovery when considering the economy in which the funds are being used in. In our particular case... we're talking about the United States. A country with a huge loss of money every month, who subsidies this loss by spending borrowed money, and accumulating debt to keep consumption by its citizens going.

The fact is simple... if you want to recover and grow your economy, you do it by exporting goods in greater value than you import. That's as simple as it gets. Which pushes us back to the first paragraph and the question you've been dodging. How are more roads going to create additional exports? Where do we need to drive that we can't get to... what raw materials can we not reach?... I am not seeing it, and nobody has decided to explain it. And let's say you don't want to answer it or you can't produce any information on a relationship between roads and exports ~ I'll contend that there are better uses for the money and debt we continue to rack up if it is to be spent to stimulate the economy. Much better ways.

I'd like you to spend some time... at the very least looking at the pictures on Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balance_of_trade

First: this is why on roads etc 'your quote: "The reason why infrastructure fails to be a source of recovery for an economy today is because our economy is based on consumption." Wrong Our Economy is also based on continued growth and refinement of the land. Land is always the basic foundation of any Nation. Water resources, land resources, and the uses of same.

What you failed to note is that Infrastructure needs to be Maintained ie the surfaces resurfaced, on and off ramps rebuilt, bridges built or rebuilt. Also, that there are many miles of two lane roads that need expansion to make safer and increase efficiency of same. The expense of an infrastructure is a necessary component of a prosperous country.

What you failed to note is that an economy by definition is the activity of goods produced and goods sold. America does have an economy that does both.

Then you go into Trade Deficits and Debt. So to recap:

Infrastructure is a necessary component of an economy.

Trade deficits occur and trade imbalance is dependent on a Nations imports and exports. America is not a Sole Consumption/Consumer nation, America also produces goods because there would be no trade deficit, ie what we import vs what we export. America also produces goods for American consumption in the billions of dollars.

Debt: Debt is Revenue less expenditures, yearly. American Government is funded by Taxes. All Governments are funded by Taxes or the equivalent. Congress lowered the taxes and lowered the revenues. At the same time Congress increased the Expenditures. Congress incurred deficit. Because Government is not a Profit Incentive Company. Government money is for continued investment in the nation or state for societal needs and requirements.

What some are proposing is a smaller gov't Completely Overlooking the fact that the revenues need to increase and the expenditures cut to pay off the deficit to a sustainable level while meeting the yearly debt. A balance that is rarely met due to many levels of circumstances but managing to have a sustainable balance is way more important.

Of course the economy is propped up by Debt. Governmental expenditures are a huge part of the economy on various levels. Every Level of Gov't in America has expenditures that go to infrastructure, water departments, roads, schools, buildings, the materials for same and those expenditures make for employment and paychecks. Real People become unemployed people when those governments don't make expenditures.

Private companies incur Debt expenditures for various reasons also. Though a private company has to break even and/or make a profit. But only when their product is wanted or needed by people that are employed with a paycheck or other means to purchase the product.

People have a tendency to mix their idea of government and private industry as if the two were mirror images. They are not. One is a societal requirement to enable a large number of people to live together, the other is to produce goods.

And I've already seen the Wikipedia Balance of Trade thingy. There are other resources available that also have better more experienced people writing on same. Peterson IIE for example

Let me try it like this then...

You say the economy is based on more than just exports, very correct. However, let me appeal to you to imagine that there are no other countries in the world and it's just us. We make everything we need, sell, buy, etc... nothing leaves the country, nothing comes in. There is only us. Now... tell me mstanley... with this closed system how does one grow the economy?

Some people have tried to correlate population growth with economic growth, sometimes they have positive trends and sometimes they have negative trends on economic growth. It really depends on the rate of population increase versus the availability of materials and products to fill that demand without stressing the system. Notice how China had to get its rapid population growth under control before its economy started booming. So we can infer that in our scenario that population growth may give us a positive growth, however, because the demand is only what we have in the country (no exports) it has to be a very very slow population curve, otherwise it'll throw the system into poverty. Or at least that's what I gather from reading those papers. Thomas Malthus was probably the first person who tried to make this correlation, and his work is 200 years old. There is a lot to read on this subject.

Anyway, my point is... here is our closed system and we either have no growth or very very slow growth from population. Do you agree?

If you do not, please state why, where, and how.

Now... the point of this hypothetical is to show you and to have you consider the one simple fact regarding economies in the open setting we have today. Your economy grows in parallel to the amount of exports you sell over the amount of imports you buy.

You keep getting hung up on the small picture looking at only the United States and saying that we have an economy that happens separate of imports/exports... and this is true, but this economy is losing money due to ... and here it is... a Trade Deficit.

Common sense tells us that if private and public businesses bought 500 billion worth of goods more than they sold... that 500 billion dollars has left the economy. How else would you interpret it because that's how everybody else takes a 500 billion trade deficit.

And common sense tells us that because this trade deficit began occuring in the 1960s that based on our hypothetical, based on plain reasoning, and by following the money that our economy began to stagnate. Of course you can look at GDP and gain that we still had growth... but you're a liberal... lets take a look at what really matters... the rate of increase of middle class income. During this time period their income growth plateaued... where they had been enjoying great raises in their standards of living, suddenly things begin to flatten.

Common sense should tell you that your internal economy and gain of wealth has slowed when this occurs. By the time of Carter, our trade imbalance has persisted and while the cost of living has increased the bulk of Americans are still living by 1960 wages... and the solution that was given to them?, deregulation, tax reduction, and annual federal deficits.

Our internal economy still moved so the change to our system was not radical until Clinton and Bush Jr. With the production of NAFTA and the solid development of other economies (namely Chinas) businesses began leaving the United States slowing our internal economy further. This entire time... we're running a trade deficit bleeding out 100s of billions of dollars which skyrocket to as much as 800 billion for just one year, and in the meantime our internal economy is falling apart and being shipped overseas changing many of our production/manufacturing jobs into service jobs. The only thing that is keeping the wheels on the bus is the increasing size of our government ~ by being the largest employer in the United States a great majority of people can continue on buying and consuming, but this economy is based on debt. Common sense again says that it is based on debt because the government is in debt, and still running deficits.

The whole big argument in Congress right now and the fear that people are expressing is that if the government cuts spending their lives will be affected.

Which brings us back to the big picture mstanley ~ Whatever you do internal of your country is fine and good, you can create a balanced system that works (it's actually one of the solutions being floated around today), but your actual growth in the economy is minimal because the wealth in your system can neither increase or decrease significantly. Economies that are truly growing are ones that are trading and doing so with a surplus. That's why China is becoming the economic super power of the world... that is how the United States' economy boomed following WWII... etc.

Of course, had our government not ran deficits and maintained a balanced budget, we can begin speculating where we would be today... economically speaking. I'll put it to you like this, I am a contractor and we only do commercial and industrial work. If the government did not spend the amount of money it did then our company would be substantially smaller... I would guestimate that at least 40% of our volume is government related, and in these days I'd say its up to 60 maybe even 70%. That's how the government running a debt can help keep an economy afloat.

So mstanley ~ Roads... "IF" they are not going to create an increase in exports "THEN" they are not the best investment for a recovery in the economy. Exports are the way to recovery... dumping money on our current system may get the wheels turning but that money will exit the system as it has for the past 50 years. You can't pay off debt by simply cycling a system that doesn't generate a profit.

hahaha IMO that "what if's" are great for a lazy, rainy day, which this is not, however, been there done that with several over the years....sorrrryyyyy Like my Grandfather use to say, Reality is a harsh mistress.

People cannot compare Government fulfilling the needs and requirements of a society to that of a private company manufacturing a product. Government and private companies are Not Mirror Images. :) Government enables private companies to prosper and taxes from the private companies enable Government to fulfill more needs and requirements. They are symbrionic but never twins.

Yeah, and the Trade Deficit number is inclusive of private and public mstanley. If your trade is a red ink number, and you are running your budgets in a red ink number... you don't suddenly end up with a black ink economy.

You keep wanting to separate the two bodies... which is fine, but the trade deficit is for the country as a whole. We consume more foreign goods than we sell... that's a fact. And if you're buying more than you're selling you're going broke. And to make matters worse, we have been doing this buying with more and more credit that we haven't even considered paying off.

My "what if" was an attempt to help simplify a situation you thought generated growth, which it doesn't. Find me a refereed paper that shows how a closed system can grow substantially to cover 10% unemployed, and trillions in debt. What you need to focus more on is the "If/Then" and consider whether or not you believe roads are the best place to spend borrowed money in a system you won't admit (despite the plain facts) is losing, bleeding money, in excess of 50 billion dollars a month in trade alone, with billions more being lost due to interest on accumulated debt.

Simplify a complicated subject? Why should I find a white paper on a closed system? that was your suggestion. I don't need that information because it is totally theoretical and not applicable to the US commerical/capitalistic way of doing business. Acutally, maybe the Amish might but since even they couldn't maintain a 'closed' system, shruggggg

Here is the methods used to purchase imported goods. Which is way more complicated then the generalizations offered in your comment.

Definition of symbriosis/smybrionic:

You know this conversation isn't going anywhere because you won't answer the questions I ask, and you keep ignoring the points I'm making. If all you intend to do is deflect and run tangents then we're both wasting our time.

Question 1: How does an economy grow? There are many complex answers and many measures between the potential of an economy to produce versus the amount of capital it has to access versus what it actually has for revenues in trade and taxes. But out of all the complexity there is one simple and undeniable fact that must be met to generate real economic growth ~ a trade surplus.

Question 2: Fact: America has a budget deficit, and has been running deficits at an increasing rate for the past 10 years. Fact: Reagan improved the economy by increasing federal spending in the forms of tax breaks, subsidies, deregulation, and private contracts for government support. Thus the question is, if the trade imbalance in the country is a negative, red ink number, and the budget is being ran based on what is needed to support the government's size, programs, employees, entitlements, etc how does this spending not relate directly to the sustained levels of economic growth and rating of the United States? Remembering that measures of economy include the potential for production as well as the volume that has been produced - both of which are shrinking numbers, it is measured by tax revenue - which is also shrinking... etc.

Question 3: Fact: America has a huge trade deficit. Fact: America has had trade deficits since the 60s and has not had a surplus since 1975. Fact: America lost in excess of 800 billion dollars from imbalanced trade in just one year. Fact: America is positioned to lose 500 billion dollars this year from trade imbalance. Fact: An economy with a deficit in trade is losing money and by consequence shrinking. Thus the question is... how will improving already existing and/or building new roads generate a change in America's trade imbalance?

If all you can do is say that Americans are still producing things, then great, but that doesn't change that what they are producing and selling domestically or as exports is still less than what we are buying from other countries. That means that for all the productivity you want to point at... we are still losing money. Building a road, or making a road better is certainly a way to give people pay checks, but you keep ignoring some simple facts, one... the money used to build or improve the road was borrowed money and while you can definitely say that as this money is spent by these consumers that you'll recoop a portion of this money as taxes, but you must remember the trade imbalance. A portion of this borrowed money isn't staying in the country, it is leaving it. So when the money all runs out, you'll only have a portion of that money make it back to you to pay off the debt of the borrowed money, and worse yet, now you owe interest on the money you originally borrowed meaning that the debt you created has just been exasperated because you didn't address the trade imbalance first.

The bottom line, until the trade deficit is corrected, any stimulus or money spent by the government will ultimately do more harm than good. Build roads, build all the roads you want mstanley ~ but there are many better ways to use that money to create true growth.

Ratpoison, this is NewsVine not a BA thesis: however, I'd read your article if you wrote it answering all your questions. And you could submit same for a thesis if you are in college.

sorryyyyy, I'm not going to take the time to write a thesis to answer your questions with footnotes, bibliography and addendums. :)

Roads are already built so are bridges, but most are as much as 40 years old plus they need maintenance and upgrading....if not outright replacement.

Then why are you even bothering to respond at all? By McSpocky's account you'd now be considered a troll. And on a side note, what I've written isn't thesis worthy, it's common sense, it's known facts, it's confirmed statistics, it's even been demonstrated in history... but since you think an economy can be proposperous while losing billions of dollars monthly I'll take my time and put it to somebody who actually will talk apples to apples.

Have a good weekend otherwise mstanley, perhaps on some other topic.

Because I'm polite when I'm having a discussion. As McSpocky is one of my long time friends, IMO that he would have mention about the troll deal a long long time ago. but since you are new to the Vine and missed some of the back and forth that goes on during comments about issues, you're understanding has missed the target. :)

All subjects are thesis material especially Trade Imbalance etc,. quite a few white papers on the why's and wherefore's have been written. And actually no on other topics....

Seventeen months is new?, compared to only twelve more?... Oooookay.

mstanley ~ You've already stated that you're not here to read what I write, you refuse to answer to the points I make or address the questions I ask. Instead you run off with tangents... your current one being a critique on what constitutes a thesis. It's off-topic and you have already shown you are keenly aware of this.

If you want to tell me how an economy grows with such a huge loss of income every month, and even better, how building some roads are going to create a trade balance or surplus... then I am all eyes. You won't admit or substantiate any of your claims regarding the unimportance of trade, or how the government's debt isn't directly related to our persistent growth. At this point I doubt that you can otherwise you would have by now... the best you can muster is showing that we do make and export things, well yeah, obviously, but it doesn't change the fact that we don't export anywhere near the amount we buy ~ hence the Trade Deficit ~ and with an economy sustained by debt you won't connect the dots on how roads change these relationships.

Because you want to take a component and balance that against the whole. You have a BS degree, can you take a component out of the pond and have no effect on the ecology of the pond in the long run? Attempting to align an economy more in your prespective is much the same as the Tree of Life Science. Both have many branches.

That is the Main point I've been trying to make to you which you consistently focus on the narrower view and dismiss the complete aspect how the economy works. Roads are just a sub category of an economy. Trade imbalances are a category of an economy. Government is a category of an economy. Business is a category of an economy. etc etc

Also, you fail to take into account The human and natural disaster effects on economies and trade imbalances....

mstanley ~ Yes, and I've said as much... the economy has many factors that play on it. A stronger infrastructure can lead to a bigger and more productive economy... this is true.

But here is what you are ignoring. No matter how good our economy has been over the past thirty years... no matter how much we have produced... no matter how much infrastructure and borrowed money and debt the government has generated our economy has been losing money due to a trade deficit.

The only thing that has kept our economy growing in the face of this economy destorying trade deficit is the government's spending. Its annual deficits have subsidized and replaced the money lost from the economy from this trade relationship. If the government had not ran deficits then our economy would have not grown, but continued to have a shrinking trend from Carter to present (unless the trade relationship shifted back to a surplus).

You keep thinking that I'm taking some narrow approach to this but Trade is a major major part to an economy's ability to grow. Trade is what makes a nation prosperous.

What is mind numbing about your refusal to accept the lack luster performance of roads as a viable way to repair our economy is that the proof of our broken system is easily seen with just the past two years of events. The stimulus package dumped 800 billion dollars haphazardly onto the economy... tax breaks, spending projects (including roads), money to the states for education, etc.

But guess what... the best that this spending of borrowed money accomplished was to stop the fall into a full blown depression. The story's you see now are about how school systems, state governments, governmental departments at all levels are going to make up budget short falls without another round of government spending. It clearly shows that something is broken within the system. Of course I won't have to probe much to find a liberal saying its because evil corporations aren't hiring... but won't they refuse to acknowledge is that demand for domestic goods hasn't risen.

It's the stupidity of the people and a politician to believe that if you give a business a tax break that they'll hire. It's well known that demand drives the hiring and firing of employees.

During this same time period our economy has lost over a trillion dollars over the past two years from the perpetual trade deficit. So let's do some simple math. If the government puts 800 billion borrowed dollars into the economy for people to use and spend... and over the same time period over a trillion dollars leaves the system... then you've essentially lost 1.8 trillion+ dollars. Was the 9.3% unemployment, the increased debt, increased interest payment size worth the two years of denial?

I'm figuring you don't like the number 1.8 trillion... but the key reason it is 1.8 trillion is because the 800 billion you borrowed... was borrowed. If that 800 billion had been surplus in the nation's bank... then obviously you'd have only lost a trillion. But in our case... we've spent a trillion that has gone to other countries, plus we borrowed 800 billion which we'll still have to pay back. Its no wonder China keeps lending us money. We give it to the masses, who then buy Chinese junk... meaning that China gets back a portion of that loaned money in the form of stimulus to its economy, and then on top of it... it'll still get paid back on the loan +interest.

So please, please, please tell me how building a road is going to change the trade relationship? How is building a road going to make people buy domestic goods, and lead to the creation of factories to export things?

For a guy who wants to talk about the big picture, you keep zeroing in on one hell of a small part of the economy... and while Trade isn't everything, it is much more significant than roads (even you should be able to admit that), it does have measurable losses and profits and a direct affect on the economy.

You are really fixated on road building as being the only effective component of current trade balance or imbalance. The roads have already been built, when that occurred especially after WWII with the Eisenhower Interstate incentive, trade increased. Factories have already been built and do export product (not things)... What is left is Maintenance and Replacement....sighhhhh

Mexico after NAFTA had increased road builing and factories built but IMO that the drug cartels wars kinda slowed that down.

The money supply is always in motion, more often than not a circular one..:)

ahhh trade deficit minus war would be trade balance, trade deficit without natural disasters, Tornadoes, would be trade balance....and the supplies needed for same...Just about the time that someone thinks that one component is more important than the whole, then something like Fukushima occurs...or the 2008 US financial debacle, which Affected Japan's Trade Balance which was in the Positive.

There are variables in all economies, if you take one component and compare it to one other component then you are left with a false assumption. Because you do not include the variables which are not predictable, they can only be assumed, on a future basis. The US economy based on the Assumption that the Yellowstone Caldera would blow, would seize up for at minimum, by economists assumptions for 8 to 10 years and that's just an assumption of how long the recovery on land based infrastruture could recover. A broad based assumption...:)

Assuming that all components were in a positive place, ie China was buying more from the US than vice-a-versa or an equal number of countries would import, than the US would have a positive trade balance. How to attain that is Open Markets with other countries. Also, the products that their people want to purchase.

And that is Mrs. Stanley to you...didn't ck my bio did you?

Nope, I haven't checked your bio.

But here we are, and I think you have just proven my point. Before I get started, one point of clarification ~ we are talking roads because that's what you have contended is a good place to spend money to stimulate the economy. I have stated many times over that building and/or repairing/improving roads is not... my statements are not limited to just building roads. And I have also stated that more roads can lead to greater economic productivity, but what I've been failing to get you to see is that building or improving roads in a depressed economy does not change the demand for products or the trade relationship of an economy.

And here's how you've proven my point. Your point about Mexico and NAFTA should clearly show you that building or improving roads occurs and boosts an economy when the demand for them is there. NAFTA created a demand for Mexico to build roads to accomodate the flood of businesses wanting to move factories. Had Mexico not built roads then a portion of the businesses moving there may have not gone... or the amount of productivity would have been restricted decreasing the tax revenue Mexico could gain. The roads at that point were an investment with a known outcome to come of that investment.

What I have asked of you time and time and time again is to show me how our economy which has a low demand for products made here as well as for abroad will benefit from better roads, more roads, fixed roads, etc? The trade imbalance clearly shows that Americans buy foreign goods over our own. The trend of the imbalance is one that is decreasing, meaning that we're not gaining steam in our exports, but that our products are falling in demand. So... as I have been contending, how does investing in roads change this?

Lets say the roads are 10 year or even 20 year investment, but we have proof that it doesn't work from the Great Depression without a =demand= for products. In other words, we built a lot of infrastructure from the New Deal, but this work did not restore our economy. In fact when the spending was decreased the country sunk into depression again (a fact we're facing today with the threat of spending cuts). However, when WWII came and there was a demand for munitions by allies... the infrastructure we had built did enable us to create a war machine quicker had we had not had it. And following WWII with the other major industrial economies in ruin... we were able to fulfill the demand for manufactured goods and as a consequence our economy boomed. The key factor to it all was =demand=.

Had WWII never had happened, we'd have had an exceedingly slow recovery out of the Depression if at all.

So even from history we can see that infrastructure spending is not a way to induce a recovery. An economy must have balanced trade (at the very least) and until this imbalance is addressed any money put into the hands of consumers that is not spent for domestic products will not improve our situation and only add to our debt.

I don't know why you want to look at natural disasters mstanley. It's not like our country has had our industrial sectors wiped out by a flood, or by a tornado, or a volcano etc. While a disaster will affect an economy (ie Japan) in the immediate term of the disaster and potentially for several years after... we're talking about the United States. We don't have all of our eggs in one basket... our industries are very diverse and spread out which are all pluses. More important though, and more to the point as to why natural disasters have no significant bearing for my point is that the United States hasn't fallen to this economic plight because of a disaster or subsequent disasters and you know this.

There is a decreasing demand for American made products not only in this country but in other countries. Without an increase in demand, businesses aren't going to build or hire people... and that's a simple truth. The lack of demand is reflected in our trade imbalance. So we need to encourage Americans to buy American made products, and we must choke out foreign products to force a balance, and again, I'm not saying Americans make nothing... I'm saying that we make and sell 500-800 billion less than we buy.

your comment: The trend of the imbalance is one that is decreasing, meaning that we're not gaining steam in our exports, but that our products are falling in demand. So... as I have been contending, how does investing in roads change this?"

And I keep saying that investing in roads is not the Only Component in changing a trade imbalance.

This conversation began with Mark and a debate that roads do or do not generate revenue. I explained that roads built with borrowed money in an economy where there is no demand for access to new areas for production of materials for export or otherwise is a wasted venture.

The point that has been written about that roads in and of themself were a poor choice for stimulus spending.

When you entered into the fray your initially wanted to contest this point.

My point has always been as it is stated, roads built, or improved are a poor place to spend the money and I cite the Trade Deficit as being the primary part of our economy that needs to be addressed as well as the fact that any spending that is not set on increasing the demand for domestic goods or our goods as exports is counterproductive.

These are the things I've been explaining and re-explaining. I have not claimed that roads are not important to an economy, just that today in our current state... they are nowhere near the top of the list. Maintenance and replacement of the roads should have been an ongoing cost paid for by years of taxes, but even that money was mismanaged. Watching my own DOT build road after road over budget, behind schedule, with the road needing repair not even a year or two after use is a good showing of just how wasteful this spending can be too. Though that is a bit of a tangent.

The reason this has focused on roads is because politically, Obama sported the idea of infrastructure spending and has even continued to do so despite the lack of sense and potential pay off for the investment. The money is better spent elsewhere, and when the demand for more roads or better roads exists due to the increase of business... you can then spend (even as a deficit) to create this change because now you have a known source of use and tax revenue to pay for the road.

This whole thing has been about roads because that's what was being contested.

Thing is , the roads are not built or maintained with "borrowed " funds , they are paid for by taxes and user fees as well as vehicle registrations , the revenue generated in those fees , and taxes on fuels , pay for those roads there is already aknown source of funding . Now using those funds collected for "other " projects or uses , can happen , and most likely has happened , which would partially explain the present condition of the infrastructure . roads generate their own funds , its those that take those funds to fund other things that have put the infrastructure into the condition it is . just like when LBJ took the Social security funds out of an individual account that , by law could not be touched for any reason other than paying benefits , into the general account where the funds could then be switched for t bonds and government securities , and the actual hard funds then usable for any project that needed funding . bet alot of folks today are contemplating repealing that action and demanding that the SS fund , not be able to be touched in such a manner again , especially in light of the fact that no one knows yet if raising the debt ceiling will affect bonds yet , if the credit appraisers down grade , those bonds loose value , and alot of folks will be pleanty pissed off that SS is funded by government bonds not worth the paper they are printed on .

You're splitting hairs over funding now. When you push as large as a deficit as the federal government is... it doesn't really matter if you say the roads are covered by tax revenue and everything else is being paid by borrowed money or not.

And since a lot of roads are maintained by states, you can also see that the debt issue isn't just at the federal level. It's also a known fact the DOTs in many states are corrupt and exceedingly wasteful. Some states have been so stricken with waste that major road projects are nolonger publicly funded but are funded by tolls based on contracts with private contractors. Illinois is a good example of this.

Even in my own state... you can tell the difference between a road that is privately maintained versus one by the DOT. It is a night and day difference between the two and for many people who have watched roads be built off budget, late on schedule, and designed for a traffic flow five years old as to why we think letting the private industry do these things is so bad. Unlike the government they have a higher authority to answer to, and as long as it is the government that is determining what they need and having these people figure out how to make it pay for itself and maintain itself... well, I think you end up with a win-win on the major road projects.

But... I've gotten waaaaay off on a tangent. With the President specifically saying that a portion of stimulus was for infrastructure and looking to potentially do the whole routine over again... all of which is borrowed money. The argument still remains, spending that money on an item that does not rectify the actual issues of our economy, that will generate a return profit is wasteful and will not induce any real recovery.