1 edit
Originally posted by sh76Okay. What not necessarily obvious things should Obama or the smart people he hired have done that definitely would have created jobs (again, apart from direcly employing people to build things that are far more costly than they're worth like a not-so-high speed rail between Cleveland and Columbus).
I didn't say there were obvious steps. Obama was elected to fix the economy first and foremost. He plainly has not done that. Some things he should have done I can point to. Others its his job to figure out (or hire people who can). He still has a year to go, but at this point he has not done the job that he was elected to do and every excuse in the book (and o ans nominate an electable candidate, No1 may not be collecting that $50 from Uther after all.
1 edit
Originally posted by VoidSpiritStop Dave, I'm Afraid...
there's nothing wrong with technology replacing humans. it's only bad in a capitalist system where you have to struggle to survive both against nature and against the system. in a more rational system, technology replaces humans, humans are free to pursue other interests.
Originally posted by bill718You're missing the point (again). Reagonomics wasn't about companies being magnanimous with their money. It was based on the idea that when rich people and companies have money, they hire people and spend money and help the economy that way.
Sorry to say your conservative buddies have been doing just that for decades. Remember Reganonomics?? When is it going to "trickle down??" It seems like your story is changing here.
The thing about depending on charity and whatnot from companies is a silly red herring.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungDaisy, daisy
Stop Dave, I'm Afraid...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=px0c4Tgg6gg
Give me your answer do
I'm half...crazy...............
All............for......................the......................................love.................................................of.................
.....................you
Originally posted by AThousandYoungIt is by will alone I set my mind in motion. It is by the juice of sapho that thoughts acquire speed, the lips acquire stains, the stains become a warning. It is by will alone I set my mind in motion.
The Dune universe is based on the premise that humanity had to genocide all artificial intelligences because they got too uppity. That's why they have Mentats. They don't trust mechanization any more.
Originally posted by telerionHave you considered externalities in your dismissal of high speed rail projects?
Okay. What not necessarily obvious things should Obama or the smart people he hired have done that definitely would have created jobs (again, apart from direcly employing people to build things that are far more costly than they're worth like a not-so-high speed rail between Cleveland and Columbus).
Anyway, isn't there a lot of public infrastructure that needs repairing? Roads, bridges, canals, etc. etc.?
2 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderFrom what I've read on the issue of high speed rail, high speed rail only makes sense between heavily populated areas that are about 150-200 miles from each other. It's just incredibly expensive to build and maintain. A train that goes 55-60 mph between Cleveland and Columbus wouldn't be sustained without a lot of subsidy. I can't speak for all the other lines however. Some may make sense.
Have you considered externalities in your dismissal of high speed rail projects?
Anyway, isn't there a lot of public infrastructure that needs repairing? Roads, bridges, canals, etc. etc.?
Now there may be externalities that make the social return to the rail lines larger, but they would have to be very large to extend that 150-200 miles figure much farther.
As for other infrastructure work, I'm sure that repairs are needed. I'm just dubious about how much return a huge repair project would bring. After all, if these projects are such high return, why weren't they being done before?
Still, this economy is really in the toilet and nothing conventional seems to be working, so I'm going to be in less of a hurry to scoff at unorthodox ideas. Mainly, I want to stress that all these pundits (and the people who echo them) that keep saying, "Well, you just gotta create more jobs," or "Why hasn't Obama (or the Repub house) made more jobs," tend to have very few concrete ideas themselves.
On another note, did any of you read Alan Blinder's WSJ article laying out his job creation idea?