Could it be happening?!

[El_Machinae]

Yeah, the issue is not that pork spending goes into space and disappears out of the economy. It doesn't, it's still being spent and generate jobs and etc.

The issue is that governments must make investment choices with limited resources at hand. So every time money is invested in something that will deliver inferior returns than an alternative, money is indeed being wasted from an economic POV, it's indeed being blown to space.

So, I think everyone here is 'more correct' than the person who's debating with them seems to understand. In some ways, you're trying to buy different things. Pork spending that triggers a multiplier effect is a really great way to equalize a local economy. It brings in jobs. People really like jobs. They use the income to improve their lives in ways no bureaucracy could ever predict, from buying clothes to buying education for their kids. This money will pull 'ROI' into an economy in ways oblique to the actual spending, but it will depend upon the wisdom of the local citizenry and the level of the multiplier effect that they can achieve. It's best to think of it as workfare, but it's nice if the pork buys something nice.

Pork spending that generates an ROI is also really great. It doesn't even need to be a direct ROI (like a new tollbridge), but can generate revenues through secondary mechanisms (a new road can increase trade, which would increase taxation revenues). Now LOTS of budget hawks are not alert to that second possibility, and maybe for good reason. It's hard to measure, and it's hard to predict. It also will be successful based on the wisdom of the bureaucrats, less on the local citizenry.

Now, in an ideal world, gov't spending would be able to do both. On this front, I think Stiglitz was more correct than not when giving his prescription for the Great Recession.

The big difference here is the potential timeframes, which is what can get politicians in trouble. A workfare project with a multiplier effect brings very rapid perceived gains to the community. It can even very quickly raise people's quality of life, especially through some really (emotionally) important thresholds. A good ROI project can take a long time to generate returns, and might never generate noticeable returns. They might be invisible to both the local community, and to the populace at large. By the time a good project is clearly generating an ROI, there are a bunch of pocket industries supporting it, building off of it. So, the initial investment looked obvious in retrospect.

Now, my bias is to be an 'ROI'er, easily. But, the older I get, the more I can appreciate the local benefits of the multiplier effect. That multiplier effect can make local 'welfare' spending vastly cheaper than it seems to be on first pass. Incredible bang for the buck.

 

[kochman]

You posit some utopian peaceful dissolution with no attempt whatsoever to support the premise that this totally unprecedented event could happen (the closest thing to an example ever is the dissolution of the USSR which has been remarkably peaceful but is still in progress and hasn't been anywhere near totally bloodless).

Actually, it has happened. The borders of the US weren't always the same.

There wasn't always a New Hampshire/Vermont, there wasn't always a Virginia/W Virgina, and several states were carved from larger Territories.

That jumps immediately to mind, I'm sure there are more examples, but even if their weren't, that doesn't make it "utopian peaceful", it just means there are ways to go about it without violence.

 

[kochman]

Its not bribery, its not corruption, its a simple fact people care about whats most relevant to them. Why should a senator from Alabama care about migrating Moose populations in Alaska that decline from the local hunting economy? This kind of political trading has been done for over the last two centuries in the US alone. Look at Rome, the entire Roman Senate basically worked on the principle of trading the equivalent of pork today. Are you saying that Rome wasn't an inspiration to the world? Or that the method Lincoln used to pass the 13th amendment along with patronage "was not inspiring" either? Because guess, what that "cynical" evil pork was responsible for all of that.

People are motivated by general self interest and a lesser extent to help others in need. Political trading combines both of that, incentivizing politicians to actually invest in their constituents and to help out other sections of the country that don't actually vote for them. Its not evil, its a good that's been responsible for pretty much every successful government in history.

All you are doing here is sugar coating bribery and corruption. It's become such a part of the US system that you are just accepting of it, like learned helplessness.
That's your decision. I seek truth and justice.
BTW, corruption is largely what brought Rome to its knees. If you're going to use historical examples, please be prepared to go deep.
As for Lincoln... and the 13th Amendment. He used pork, and a civil war. Again, please be prepared to go deep if you bring historical examples.
Anyway, this point is moot. I'm not saying pork has never been used to bring about some good, and in a way you could argue that's a ROI.
I'm arguing that I don't accept the premise that we must bribe our representatives in the name of the "greater good".

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Actually, it has happened. The borders of the US weren't always the same.

There wasn't always a New Hampshire/Vermont, there wasn't always a Virginia/W Virgina, and several states were carved from larger Territories.

That jumps immediately to mind, I'm sure there are more examples, but even if their weren't, that doesn't make it "utopian peaceful", it just means there are ways to go about it without violence.

I've tried really hard to be respectful here, but if you are actually suggesting that redrawing a few state lines within a country is somehow comparable to creating new international borders between sovereign nations there is only one possible response.

 

[kochman]

I've tried really hard to be respectful here, but if you are actually suggesting that redrawing a few state lines within a country is somehow comparable to creating new international borders between sovereign nations there is only one possible response.

I guess being disrespectful about it is all you have left?

You've received other examples too, some in progress, some completed (Czeck/Slovakia, Veneto, Catalan, Scotland, etc), but you keep beating this dead horse because you're just plain wrong.

Your entire premise is wrong as well, that being that because something that hasn't happened (which it has) it is therefore impossible that it can. Summarily dismiss this as short-sighted. It's 2014, and new things will happen. In 2020, new things will happen too. That's what we call progress.

So, enjoy your smiley faces as you walk off this thread disrespectfully.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I guess being disrespectful about it is all you have left?

You've received other examples too, some in progress, some completed (Czeck/Slovakia, Veneto, Catalan, Scotland, etc), but you keep beating this dead horse because you're just plain wrong.

Your entire premise is wrong as well, that being that because something that hasn't happened (which it has) it is therefore impossible that it can. Summarily dismiss this as short-sighted. It's 2014, and new things will happen. In 2020, new things will happen too. That's what we call progress.

So, enjoy your smiley faces as you walk off this thread disrespectfully.

Actually the disrespect finally broke through because even after providing your private definition of 'strawman' and being advised to look it up you continued to shamelessly misuse the term.

Meanwhile you have provided a good example of an actual strawman argument, in that I have never claimed that it is impossible for the descendent nations of the Soviet Union to peacefully work out their borders. I have said that for people to claim some sort of moral high ground based on an expectation that they should is disgusting, since history indicates that is extremely hard to do and therefore very unlikely, and none of us come from nations who would be likely to succeed at it under similar circumstances either.

So thanks for the example. Yes, assigning me a position I never claimed, specifically because that position would be easy to demolish, is in fact a strawman argument. As you would know if you bothered to look up terms you misuse when you are called on it rather than continuing to prove you don't understand them.

I've also noted that you will specifically quote a plain simple statement and say 'that isn't true', then when clear proof is supplied move blithely on to 'oh the statement doesn't matter' without acknowledging that your initial claim that the statement was false was plainly wrong. You seem to have no capacity to conceive that you may be in error, which no doubt makes it easy to hold the moral high ground upon which you think you stand regarding the Russians.


In the face of that, yes, disrespect is all that is left, much as I would prefer otherwise. In future I will have trouble taking anything you say seriously, though I will still try to assess it on its merits because even a blind squirrel finds an occasional nut, so you may be right now and then, or even more often than not.

 

[kochman]

Sorry that you can't maintain respect after you were repeatedly shown to be incorrect, but I get your frustration.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Sorry that you can't maintain respect after you were repeatedly shown to be incorrect, but I get your frustration.

Funny thing is, right in this thread I was shown to be incorrect, though not by you, and took it in stride without any frustration at all. I say lots of things. Some of those things are wrong and get pointed out. If they are the core of the argument I learn, express gratitude, and move on. If they are a peripheral point like the origin of filibusters I acknowledge my error and move on. Sometimes things I say are apparently unclear because someone didn't understand them, and in this thread you yourself pointed out such a situation. I attempt to work through to clarity, as I did with you, and try not to blame the misunderstanding on the reader.

Had you repeatedly shown me to be incorrect in the core argument here I'd have taken it in stride and moved on. I'd like to believe that you would only have had to do it once. Moralistic pontificating, however, is not proof.

Everyone agrees that it would be really great if border disputes were settled with an exchange of lollipops and rainbows. Historically, they usually aren't, so demonizing Russia for failing to do so is at best hypocritical given that our country is at least partly responsible for creating the unpleasant circumstance they find themselves in.

When called on for your hypocritical demonizing, rather than consider the issue you resort to a series of dubious debating tricks, like shouting the buzzword 'strawman' without even knowing what it means. I am more than happy to have handed you your head for that, and was amused to see you handed your head in other threads, by other people, for similar displays.

Have fun.

 

[kochman]

Yeah, ok buddy. I wonder what forum you're reading in and who else is posting under my name there?
Moving on to meaningful posts.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Don't know that I've seen you in any forum but this one, though I could be wrong. Have fun!

 

[Gucumatz]

All you are doing here is sugar coating bribery and corruption. It's become such a part of the US system that you are just accepting of it, like learned helplessness.
That's your decision. I seek truth and justice.
BTW, corruption is largely what brought Rome to its knees. If you're going to use historical examples, please be prepared to go deep.
As for Lincoln... and the 13th Amendment. He used pork, and a civil war. Again, please be prepared to go deep if you bring historical examples.
Anyway, this point is moot. I'm not saying pork has never been used to bring about some good, and in a way you could argue that's a ROI.
I'm arguing that I don't accept the premise that we must bribe our representatives in the name of the "greater good".

Don't mention to Masada our local Roman history buff that "corruption" brought Rome to its knees. You'd probably get a lengthy treatise on the dynastic and internal power politics of various factions trying to seat their emperor disproving the old claim [of corruption and barbarians as the old myth goes for Rome].

I don't accept the premise that its "bribing" or corrupting. The alternative is people only service their particular region of the country, because their best response would be to only serve their constituents. You need binding factors. Let me ask you again - has a succesful government in the western world EVER existed without pork and political trading? Even outside the western world you find the same result. Its what a union is, compromising for the good of others in the union - from an economic standpoint this is like the coase theorem within definable boundaries.

 

[kochman]

Don't mention to Masada our local Roman history buff that "corruption" brought Rome to its knees. You'd probably get a lengthy treatise on the dynastic and internal power politics of various factions trying to seat their emperor disproving the old claim [of corruption and barbarians as the old myth goes for Rome.

History grad student here... and I didn't mean to say it was ONLY due to corruption, but corruption played a part. Once the interests of special groups are stronger for arbitrary reasons, problems start to crop up.

I don't accept the premise that its "bribing" or corrupting.

Please defend this in real terms, without boxing it into what the alternative is as you did in the rest of your reply.

The alternative is people only service their particular region of the country, because their best response would be to only serve their constituents. You need binding factors. Let me ask you again - has a succesful government in the western world EVER existed without pork and political trading?

This is a poor argument. I honestly don't know if it has existed, but whether it had or hadn't is irrelevant. There was a time when nations used slavery, and a nation banning slavery was unheard of... didn't make it right.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Dropping the previous argument to get back into this one.

Specifics for example...

We are convinced we need this weapon system (whether I personally think we do notwithstanding, congress is convinced). It can be built in Georgia, California, Missouri, or Virgina using existing facilities requiring upgrades of X millions of dollars, or we can construct new facilities in another state at an increased cost of blah blah blah. Georgia, California, Missouri, and Virginia are going to fight over this. Maybe a couple other states think they have some way to justify going the extra cost for a new facility. But for 44 states out of fifty the honest answer is 'makes no difference'.

Maybe they can spend a hundred thousand on studies to determine that one of the choices is three thousand dollars cheaper to upgrade. Maybe a state that borders on one of the states can legitimately expect some spill over benefit if the location is close to the border. But ultimately this decision is in the hands of people who don't have any good reason to care...so deals are made. That's how the system works because that is how it was designed to work. It isn't bribery of corruption, it's just the only way a republic can be governed...unless you are willing to just go with 'let's draw straws for it'.

 

[kochman]

Dropping the previous argument to get back into this one.

Specifics for example...

We are convinced we need this weapon system (whether I personally think we do notwithstanding, congress is convinced). It can be built in Georgia, California, Missouri, or Virgina using existing facilities requiring upgrades of X millions of dollars, or we can construct new facilities in another state at an increased cost of blah blah blah. Georgia, California, Missouri, and Virginia are going to fight over this. Maybe a couple other states think they have some way to justify going the extra cost for a new facility. But for 44 states out of fifty the honest answer is 'makes no difference'.

Maybe they can spend a hundred thousand on studies to determine that one of the choices is three thousand dollars cheaper to upgrade. Maybe a state that borders on one of the states can legitimately expect some spill over benefit if the location is close to the border. But ultimately this decision is in the hands of people who don't have any good reason to care...so deals are made. That's how the system works because that is how it was designed to work. It isn't bribery of corruption, it's just the only way a republic can be governed...unless you are willing to just go with 'let's draw straws for it'.

I would call that a targeted spend, though. There is a specific need.

I'm more talking about doing BS studies on how ants mate in S. Carolina in March... or the Dallas Cowgirls Museum. Does it help the locals? Sure, but couldn't there have been much better uses of the money that could also help them? Assuming they needed help.
Targeted spending in areas that have need for economic stimulus is totally acceptable.
It's when it starts being used as the carrot that I get irked.

 

[bhsup]

I used to think like you do about studying the mating habits of insects and whatnot on the federal dime. I think, IIRC, it was El_Mac who turned me around on the merits of federal spending on stuff like that and undirected research and so forth.

Well, assuming you get past the whole "but the Constitution doesn't allow for it" thing. But as that goes for almost everything the feds do.... *shrug*

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I would call that a targeted spend, though. There is a specific need.

I'm more talking about doing BS studies on how ants mate in S. Carolina in March... or the Dallas Cowgirls Museum. Does it help the locals? Sure, but couldn't there have been much better uses of the money that could also help them? Assuming they needed help.
Targeted spending in areas that have need for economic stimulus is totally acceptable.
It's when it starts being used as the carrot that I get irked.

Generally speaking the ant mating investigation and the cheerleader museum (c'mon, who can really be against a cheerleader museum?) get thrown in to produce the votes from among the don't really care one way or the other crowd. While I agree in principle that they don't accomplish much other than the basic function of putting out money to be spent and respent they are usually pretty small (say compared to the price of this hypothetical weapon system that we hypothetically need) and harmless.

Again, I do agree in principle the money could be better spent...maybe. What kind of exhibits do they have in the cheerleader museum?

 

[JollyRoger]

Cheerleader museums really irk me . . . I am expected to donate from my collection.

 

[ParkCungHee]

I used to think like you do about studying the mating habits of insects and whatnot on the federal dime. I think, IIRC, it was El_Mac who turned me around on the merits of federal spending on stuff like that and undirected research and so forth.

Well, assuming you get past the whole "but the Constitution doesn't allow for it" thing. But as that goes for almost everything the feds do.... *shrug*

Not saying this critically, but what are your thoughts on the Louis and Clark expedition?

 

[bhsup]

In what respect? The federalies spending money to perform a survey of the land? I am okay with that. It was a military expedition ordered by the Commander in Chief (El Presidente Jefferson) to find the best routes for trade.

So one, we have a military matter being dealt with by our CinC. Additionally, the purpse was to benefit trade, and Congress is allowed "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;" so spending monies allocated to the military for the purposes of facilitating trade is a double win.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Huh. So, I got a pipe dream for you:

Say congress ties scientific and humanistic spending to a portion of funds received by Patents and Copyrighted work. I bring this up because I'm interested if you share a similar strict reading of clause 8:

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

This would seem to undermine the entire concept that congress has the power to defend something like "intellectual property." It's power to secure exclusive rights to products, as I ready it, is only to promote the Progress of Science and Usefull Arts. So it seems to me there would be no problem with creating patents and copyrights in the future that split the financial rights between themselves and some sort of fund to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts. If the creators don't like it, they can simply not apply to congress for the exclusive rights.

This I think would spur innovation twofold: Because on the one hand, it would create a virtuous cycle of the receipts of money from patents would spur new scientific inquiry, which would create more patents, and second, because it would offer a financial incentive to companies to behave like Tesla. If they decide that the financial weight of their agreement with Congress is not worth the agreement, they can always reject or cancel the exclusive rights agreement at their leisure.