LawTalkers  

Go Back   LawTalkers > General Discussion > Politics

» Site Navigation
 > FAQ
» Online Users: 219
0 members and 219 guests
No Members online
Most users ever online was 9,654, 05-18-2025 at 04:16 AM.
 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
Old 09-30-2011, 05:39 PM   #11
Tyrone Slothrop
Moderasaurus Rex
 
Tyrone Slothrop's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 33,080
Re: My God, you are an idiot.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield View Post
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).
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:

Quote:
the $500 billion of extra federal infrastructure spending over the next two years would produce $1 trillion of extra output of goods and services, generate approximately seven million person-years of extra employment, and push down the unemployment rate by two percentage points in each of those years. And, with tighter labor-force attachment on the part of those who have jobs, the unemployment rate thereafter would likely be about 0.1 percentage points lower in the indefinite future.

The impressive gains don’t stop there. Better infrastructure would mean an extra $20 billion a year of income and social welfare. A lower unemployment rate into the future would mean another $20 billion a year in higher production. And half of the extra $1 trillion of goods and services would show up as consumption goods and services for American households.

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. So, what are the likely costs of an extra $500 billion in infrastructure spending over the next two years?
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.
__________________
“It was fortunate that so few men acted according to moral principle, because it was so easy to get principles wrong, and a determined person acting on mistaken principles could really do some damage." - Larissa MacFarquhar

Last edited by Tyrone Slothrop; 09-30-2011 at 05:44 PM..
Tyrone Slothrop is offline  
 


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.0.1

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:29 PM.