ideas that led to disaster

[Tuomio]

Corporations don't spend money on highways, schools, police, defense, judicial, military, parks, and public assistance. Businesses spend money on 1 thing: business. I wouldn't count on things good for business necessarily being things good for We The People.

WRONG! Only reason why highways are now built by government, is because the govt has monopolized that for himself. You seriously suggest, that without government there wouldnt be any highways, schools or other infrastructure?

Hint: Everything that is wanted equals business.

[Udie]

HMMM companies don't pay for freeways or roads?  Tell that to 1/2 my clients who squeak about having to extend or widen such roads when they impact the area.  The ammount of money companies spend on roadway construction bogles my mind.  A project that would cost 1 or 2 hunred thousand dollars ends up costing 2 million because of the improvements required to roads and utilities.


 Guys you can argue with gofaster all day long and at the end of the day he would still be wrong and you guys might be angry, why ruine a good day

[gofaster]

Originally posted by Tuomio
WRONG! Only reason why highways are now built by government, is because the govt has monopolized that for himself. You seriously suggest, that without government there wouldnt be any highways, schools or other infrastructure?

Hint: Everything that is wanted equals business.

So, nobody wants a military then, right?  Or are you suggesting that instead of the 3rd Armoured, it should be the Ford Mobile Division and the Boeing Air Force?  And how would such commercial armies turn a profit?  Go mercenary, or worse, turn pirate?  Businesses exist to turn a profit, and there's not much profit in defending the country.

Its not illegal to build a road so long as you get the permits and furnish impact reports, same as building a factory.  Housing developments do it all the time, as a way to sell the homes adjoining the road.

Disney built its own roads, but only from the interstate to Disney.  Disney didn't build I-4 from Tampa and Daytona and they sure aren't paying for the widening of I-4 now.

Show me a business whose goal is to provide charity and I'll show you a business that relies on donations.  Anybody here an investor in the United Way?  What was their profit this quarter?  What was your stock dividend this year?

I'm not suggesting that there wouldn't be private schools - there certainly are those around - but there would be fewer schools in general and fewer people with a high school education.  And, a whole lot fewer people with a university degree, particularly if they had to pay for the whole tuition expense themselves.

Believe it or not, there was a time when private companies did build roads with the goal of turning profits off of them.  They were called toll roads and toll bridges.  Nothing illegal with that.  Might even be a few still out there.  I think Palm Beach still has a privately-owned bridge (mostly as a tool to keep out the riff-raff).  Most of the toll roads and bridges were bought out by - ta da - the government by voter referendum!

[gofaster]

Originally posted by Udie
HMMM companies don't pay for freeways or roads?  Tell that to 1/2 my clients who squeak about having to extend or widen such roads when they impact the area.  The ammount of money companies spend on roadway construction bogles my mind.  A project that would cost 1 or 2 hunred thousand dollars ends up costing 2 million because of the improvements required to roads and utilities.
 

Let me guess - those roads lead into their businesses, right?  So who paid for the road leading from the airport to the interstate that leads to the road that leads to their businesses?

A road that leads from a business to a public thoroughfare is called - a driveway.  Multilane driveways, but still a driveway.  If it has no termination point, then its a road.  What business then, is building a road?  I can think of one: Disney, which looped its driveway into a road.  You can try to drive from one end of Disney's road to the other, but you'll still end up paying the gate admission price.  The only privately-funded roads that you can drive on for free are the ones running through the new housing developments, in which case those homeowners paid for those roads.

[ra]

And isn't Texas largely controlled by the pro-business Republicans at the moment? Maybe 1/2 your clients should take their complaints to government.

It would be if the Democrat legislators were still in the state.

[Martlet]

Originally posted by gofaster
Let me guess - those roads lead into their businesses, right?  So who paid for the road leading from the airport to the interstate that leads to the road that leads to their businesses?

A road that leads from a business to a public thoroughfare is called - a driveway.  Multilane driveways, but still a driveway.  If it has no termination point, then its a road.  What business then, is building a road?  I can think of one: Disney, which looped its driveway into a road.  You can try to drive from one end of Disney's road to the other, but you'll still end up paying the gate admission price.  The only privately-funded roads that you can drive on for free are the ones running through the new housing developments, in which case those homeowners paid for those roads.

Go take an economics class and THEN come back and speak your mind.  You can argue all day that tax cuts isn't going to help, that's a legitimate, albeit wrong, argument.  Saying that increasing gov't spending is a better solution is just nuts.

[Mickey1992]

Originally posted by ra
Most states were able to maintain balanced budgets during the Federal deficit years of the 80's, but in the go-go 90's they lost all fiscal discipline an allowed their spending to grow with the bubble.  Now, many states (and local governments) are in deep poop, with huge budgets and declining revenue.  There is no way to tax your way out of that situation.

I agree totally.  Most (all?) States/Local governments can not run deficits either, whereas the feds can borrow as much as they wish, apparently.  The Ohio Governor and Legislature has spent money the last 5 years like a drunken sailor, now they are in deep **** and cutting everything.

[Tuomio]

Let me guess - those roads lead into their businesses, right?  

Why, of course. Do you understand the consept of a road being the business itself? If road = wanted, then road = business. Its very simple.

There is however some need for government in planning the road network. Its purpose would be only to look the big picture of functionality, since when the road is built, it stays there for a long time. Same goes for all static long lasting structures.

So, nobody wants a military then, right?

You just dodged my point. Where i said military is not wanted?

Without government involvement there would be highways and street lights, but in many cases not in the places and forms that they are currently. Many roads out there could be simply taught as a charity roads, as their users would never be able to uphold road maintainance costs by themselfs.

[Montezuma]

Originally posted by Martlet
Saying that increasing gov't spending is a better solution is just nuts.

Not really, it worked for Reagan.  Basic Keynesianism.

[gofaster]

Originally posted by Martlet
Go take an economics class and THEN come back and speak your mind.  You can argue all day that tax cuts isn't going to help, that's a legitimate, albeit wrong, argument.  Saying that increasing gov't spending is a better solution is just nuts.

Been there, done that.  Got a degree in it and everything.  And I studied history.  FDR had it right.  Tax cuts help, but getting money in people's pockets via jobs and government spending helps more.  Tax cuts only help those that already have jobs.

[ra]

Tax cuts only help those that already have jobs.

So where did you get this degree in economics?

[gofaster]

Originally posted by Tuomio
Why, of course. Do you understand the consept of a road being the business itself? If road = wanted, then road = business. Its very simple.

There is however some need for government in planning the road network. Its purpose would be only to look the big picture of functionality, since when the road is built, it stays there for a long time. Same goes for all static long lasting structures.

Without government involvement there would be highways and street lights, but in many cases not in the places and forms that they are currently. Many roads out there could be simply taught as a charity roads, as their users would never be able to uphold road maintainance costs by themselfs.

Ok, I misunderstood your point.  I thought you were saying that business justifies the existence of something - "everything that is wanted equals business."  I.e. - if its not commercially feasible, then its existence isn't justified.

[gofaster]

Originally posted by ra
So where did you get this degree in economics?

Public education, public college, public university, and no way I could've afforded it if government hadn't paid for the overhead.  Tuition doesn't even begin to cover the costs of a university education.

So explain to me how a tax cut will help the unemployed.  I'm always looking to expand my education.

[Udie]

Originally posted by gofaster
Let me guess - those roads lead into their businesses, right?  So who paid for the road leading from the airport to the interstate that leads to the road that leads to their businesses?

A road that leads from a business to a public thoroughfare is called - a driveway.  Multilane driveways, but still a driveway.  If it has no termination point, then its a road.  What business then, is building a road?  I can think of one: Disney, which looped its driveway into a road.  You can try to drive from one end of Disney's road to the other, but you'll still end up paying the gate admission price.  The only privately-funded roads that you can drive on for free are the ones running through the new housing developments, in which case those homeowners paid for those roads.

 LOL,  I can see now that you know as much about civil engineering as you do about economics,  squat.  If you call a 6 lane, 70mph,  highway a "driveway" that's news to me.  I always called them "highways"

 And about tax cuts only benefiting those who already have jobs,  that's the whole point isn't it?

[ra]

So explain to me how a tax cut will help the unemployed. I'm always looking to expand my education.

You must have slept through a few semesters.

1) taxes are a burden to the private sector
2) the private sector generates the economic energy which creates ALL jobs, including government jobs (which leach off the private sector)
3) cutting taxes allows more private sector activity, so the unemployed can find jobs.  

But, assuming your view of government's benificient effects is accurrate, tell me why we shouldn't send 100% of our income to the government and let them pay all of our bills?

ra