Re: Sorta good
 

Face it. That is a stupid picture point. By that reasoning, no one who ever breathed, drank fluoridated water, or went to public school can ever question the expanse of government.

Hank expects better of you and is shd-ing right now.

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 

Best story ever: Charles Koch tells Hayek how to get government benefits.

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 

One thing I won't need to do much once we're in the new place is drive on congested roads to school or shopping. Job, yes, but the bigger problem in getting one of the kids to school is that the best way is across a dirt road that will be particularly problematic in the winter, but fun other times of year. And sometimes there are a bunch of horses on that road, so that may be the congestion you mean.

But right now, living in the near burbs, the place we most have to drive are parents homes in the exurbs, and that congestion, sometimes fierce on one particular stretch, will be greatly alleviated.

I think your congestion tax is heavier on folks who can't drive two miles in less than ten minutes. Yes, they can always walk.

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 

That's still 2-3 days a week in rush hour traffic than those who live within walking distance to work.

Re: Sorta good
 

As I said, I thought their signs reflected worse on them ("Cut Taxes, Not Defense" like those two choices are alternatives for each other?) than the commentary.

I really don't want to know what the D stands for.

Re: Sorta good
 

Sad thing is, the notes on that picture detract from showing what idiots those people are. "Zero taxes" is a very different notion than "no new taxes". "Cut taxes, not defense" is the rough equivalent of "keep the government's hands off my Medicare" in terms of pure stupidity.

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 

I don't drive during rush hour.

Yeah, a few people can live within walking distance of down town. But you're suggesting they don't suffer from congestion? Are you orthodox and is every day Shabbat?

I don't doubt we all suffer from congestion now and then, but the notion of the idyllic congestion free city dweller doesn't quite jive with my experience. Is this because you never go anywhere but work, and otherwise just sit home, order take out, and masturbate?

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 

I think it's fantastic that you've arranged your life in a way that works for you without lots of driving, but I don't think the numbers of people who can do that are growing significantly and I don't think that such people necessarily prefer suburban living to urban living.

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 

My question was more on exurbanites being more subject to "tax" from "congestion" - it seems based on a whole series of assumptions you made that seem quite foreign. Again, I can't help but feel living in the middle of congestion means you are subject to more of the "tax", whatever it is.

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 

I have feet.

And when I drive, it isn't rush hour.

Yes, congestion still happens, but not in the way it happens regularly for people who commute to and from work on normal schedules.

In fact, I got rather stuck in rush hour traffic yesterday having fled the office early and gone out to look at some cars.

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 

You assumption is that most exurbanites either have the luxury of controlling their own work schedule and/or work in the exurbs? I think it is you making the strange assumptions.

Do you think all exurbs are wealthy or something?

ETA: I also find it really hard to believe that you and your wife drive to your parents' homes more than the two of you drive to work.

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 

Nor mine, which is why I didn't suggest cities are congestion free. Obviously, they're much more crowded. But that's already factored into the prices of urban residential real estate, which is generally more expensive than in the suburbs. My point is that the suburbs are growing relatively less attractive because the costs -- money, time -- of driving are growing.

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 

I thought your "fuel tax" was the driving, but congestion tax is just another part of it?

I suspect those in the country do log more miles total driving, though am still not sure the total expense of a car in the country exceeds that of a car in the city, and, as you point out, there are lots of other nifty expenses in the city. If your "congestion tax" just means cost of driving, well, ok, great, lovely, probably still wrong, but I understand it.

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 

You really don't value your time at all? That is seriously strange for a lawyer.

For me, the cost of the time totally dwarfs the cost of the car.

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 

We drive many more places than work. For us, moving farther outside the city will radically reduce total drive time, even if my commute, on the days I commute, is extended 15-20 minutes each way. The added benefit of being somewhere Adder-free is just a bonus.

Not everyone's life is downtown; you'll understand that if you grow up some time.

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 

Driving in the suburbs becomes less attractive both because the rising cost of fuel makes a trip of the same time and length more expensive, but also because the increasing congestion of suburban roads makes trips take longer and forces drivers to sit in traffic, which they don't like. You don't see this in older suburbs where the population has been stable, but you do see it a ton in newer ones -- people move in and the roads aren't crowded, but then people keep moving in and that changes. It erodes a selling point.

I'm sure cities are more expensive. That's the point. People are willing to pay more to live there. I'm saying that will grow more true over the next many years -- in the aggregate, people will pay even more to live in a city relative to the burbs. If you're an exception to that rule, you win, I suppose, because you'll be able to buy what you want for less, relatively. But given the choice between investing in urban residential real estate and suburban residential real estate right now, as categories, I'd put my money in cities.

eta: Me, I live in a big suburb, and would love to live somewhere denser.

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 

This is an enjoyable excerpt from a 1970s urban planning text, but, uh, I was talking about the farther burbs, where, believe it or not, 3,000 people spread over 15 square miles doesn't produce all that much traffic.

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 

I find it truly strange that you equate "growing up" with "arranging your life so that you're completely dependent on a car." They aren't the same thing.

Maybe you should try telling little GGG to pedal his own ass to soccer practice while you and the missus hoof it to the Slurp 'n Burp for a beer and burger.

If it's only you who commutes, that obviously changes the balance a lot, but having grown up in the suburbs, I find it really hard to believe that you drive 30-40 minutes or more a day in addition to commuting. Do you like to shop on the other side of town or something?

But again, this works for you. That's great. I don't think it works for most people, who spend the bulk of their driving time going to and from work and whose trips to stores, restaurants, entertainment and kids sporting events are made longer by moving farther out. You'd know this if you knew where my family lives.

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 

Hey, look: It's a free lunch.

Delong

Would be curious to hear club or Hank respond to the substance (as opposed to the politics) of this.

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 

I'm really having a hard time figuring out where you do all this driving to if it's just in idyllic, sparsely populated, exurbs. You just go around to each other's houses, without ever venturing near the entrance to the parking lot for a big box store?

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 

I believe that. But most people who are in the position to move to the farther burbs would have to drive quite a distance to get to work, and that has been getting less attractive for the reasons I said. Which is why, as I said, prices came down farther in the far burbs or exurbs or whatever you want to call them, at least in the markets I know best.

If you're in a position to live where there is lots of land and little work, it won't cost you very much.

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 

GGG can avoid rush hour. Obviously, an awful lot of people can't.

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 

And then the stores, restaurants, and entertainment all suck.

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 

The kids sporting events do too, but the parents like them. So just like the Slurp 'n Burp.

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 

The reason they suck is that the population of potential customers they can serve is much smaller, so you only get the sort of places that serve the lowest common denominator. With more population density, you get more variety and differentiation and you are more likely to find something that goes to your particular tastes.

Or you can be independently wealthy and live in a rural college town where everyone else has your taste. More than one way to skin a cat.

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 

The biggest are parents' homes and schools. I cannot remember the last time I went into a big box store. E-Bay delivers and there are good local liquor stores and restaurants.

This seems to be getting away from what was meant by the "congestion tax" to "I like cities or rural areas better". I hope most people like cities better.

Messiness
 

For Hank, I think the news that we have successfully assassinated an American citizen based, so far as the public knows, only on his political speech is beyond troubling.

Maybe now that he is dead we will learn more about his role and this will become less troubling, but I haven't seen much yet. The Times quotes a "senior administration official" as saying they were "looking into" his operational involvement, which is pretty weak sauce. Rep. Peter King says he was more important operationally than OBL, but I think he has absolutely zero credibility.

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 

I could swear that said Amazon when I read it earlier.

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 

Good to see my posts being studied with care. Amazon delivers, too.

Re: Messiness
 

yep. if an American citizen is bad enough we just kill them- John Gacy, Jeffrey Daumer, etc. No trial necessary.

Re: Messiness
 

Well, actively engaging in war against the United States is a bit different from just being really bad. The question, of course, is whether that's what he was doing and whether the executive alone gets to make that decision.

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 

Well, it made more sense the first time as eBay definitely doesn't deliver.

Re: Messiness
 

We're at war in Yemen? Btw if we're at war with aq doesn't that mean the indefinite detainees are simply prisioners?

Re: Messiness
 

You saw where I used the word "question," right? What does that word mean to you?

The administrations position has been no, they are not prisoners of war. I don't fully understand all of the implications, but personally, that status would seems to make a lot more sense to me.

Re: Messiness
 

But if "we are at war" so Obama can kill them it seems like "we were at war so bush could detain them." sidd will make the cogent point that torture isn't justofied. But you all gotta back peddle on the bush detainees were wrong thing

Re: Messiness
 

If we are at war so Obama can kill them, which I did not say, then Bush could detain them as prisoners of war, to whom the Geneva Conventions would apply, which would grant them certain rights that were not afforded to them.

The position of both administrations seem to be that we are at war in some circumstances but not others, and I'm criticizing both for that inconsistency.

Why must you try to force everything into a Obama good/Bush bad dichotomy?

Re: Messiness
 

For 8 years Ty posted about impeachable offenses bush did 4 times a week. I'm trying to show he's a hypocrit plus I'm setting up to defend the next r president in case he also does impeachable things, because if w had blown up a us citizen Ty would have been burning up the Internet with outrage today.

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 

This comment:

"In sum, on the benefits side of the equation: more jobs now, $500 billion of additional consumption of goods and services over the next two years, and then a $40 billion a year flow of higher incomes and production each year thereafter."

Sounds intentionally vague to me. Once the infrastructure is built, the gains from it will fade. It is a one shot deal - not unlike our original stimulus. We're not going to see that $40bil year in year out indefinitely, which is why Summers avoids offering any projection on its sunset (NPI).

Sounds like he's advocating paying $200 billion over thirty years to knock a point off the unemployment rate. That's not a bad idea. But it's not a game changer, or anywhere near the fix we need, either.

If his logic holds, why not a borrow a trillion and knock the rate back to 5%? Oh, that's right... We did that once already, and the positive effects were, predictably, temporary.

You realize Summers accidentally points out the problem with stimulus with this idea. It admits that artificially-created consumption can only provide a temporary solution because, by its necessarily temporary nature, the multiplier effects left in its wake tend to also be temporary.

...Which brings us back to Cowen, and the crux of the issue at hand: Where's the new private sector advance to bring us out of this mess for real? That's the only question that matters.

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 

It's not vague at all. He says it's $40 billion/year in higher incomes and production each year thereafter. Three sentences later, through the magic of lawyerly rhetoric, you change this to $0 billion/year thereafter. Nicely done!

eta: You've cut the two prior paragraphs, where Delong explains where the $40 billion comes from:

I think you're being chary. We all get that if private industry -- say, Chinese middle-class investors, suddenly empowered to invest in the US -- were to spend $500 billion in infrastructure, it would create jobs, which lead to more income here. The same is true if the government makes that investment.

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 

a lot of us are afraid to criticize obama here, what with his new policy of blowing up US citizens just because he feels they encourage dissent