Part 2. I know about nanotech. My brother's doing a project up at Stanford nanofab. He's also holder of the first (ever) Casimir-effect patent granted in the US. I help him brainstorm some of his design issues, and I'm supposed to edit the paper he's working on, if we can pry the underlying data loose from the guy he's co-writing with.
As to pork... no, it doesn't all come down to pork. It comes down to economics.
Here's the thing. All the money borrowed eventually, theoretically, has to be paid back - and interest has to be paid while it's out. So, if you're going to borrow the money, you need to use it in places that will generate positive returns. Preferably, you need to use it on things that generate positive returns that are one-time charges (aka capital expenditures). You need to NOT use it on things that don't generate positive returns. And you REALLY need to not use it on programs that don't generate positive returns, but that also have continuing, multi-year (or endless) draws. Because the deficit spending is a one-time infusion of funds. As such, it needs to be spent in a one-time manner. Educational grants? Building stuff? That's all one-time. Infrastructure is really good, because it's (a) a one-time expense, and (b) something that improves productivity, increasing overall systemic returns.
Think of it this way: if someone hands you a one-time payment of $5000, are you going to use it to pay for a thing, or are you going to use it to pay for a $200/month service? In either case, what do you do in year 3?
As to 2001-02...We had, at the same time: - a recession - a war - and an unnatural disaster. Take a look at a chart of the Dow from 2000-2002. We had a big drop in late 2000 another in early 2001, the post-9/11 slam, then another in mid-2002, leading into a triple bottom, with the third round of that in early 2003. http://thepatternsite.com/dj2000.html
The dot-bust, and the end of _that_ bull market? Yeah, that's entirely inherited... and it would have necessarily meant the end of budget surpluses, without significant cutbacks across the board (and yes, that includes social programs).
no subject
I know about nanotech. My brother's doing a project up at Stanford nanofab. He's also holder of the first (ever) Casimir-effect patent granted in the US. I help him brainstorm some of his design issues, and I'm supposed to edit the paper he's working on, if we can pry the underlying data loose from the guy he's co-writing with.
As to pork... no, it doesn't all come down to pork. It comes down to economics.
Here's the thing. All the money borrowed eventually, theoretically, has to be paid back - and interest has to be paid while it's out. So, if you're going to borrow the money, you need to use it in places that will generate positive returns. Preferably, you need to use it on things that generate positive returns that are one-time charges (aka capital expenditures). You need to NOT use it on things that don't generate positive returns. And you REALLY need to not use it on programs that don't generate positive returns, but that also have continuing, multi-year (or endless) draws. Because the deficit spending is a one-time infusion of funds. As such, it needs to be spent in a one-time manner. Educational grants? Building stuff? That's all one-time. Infrastructure is really good, because it's (a) a one-time expense, and (b) something that improves productivity, increasing overall systemic returns.
Think of it this way: if someone hands you a one-time payment of $5000, are you going to use it to pay for a thing, or are you going to use it to pay for a $200/month service? In either case, what do you do in year 3?
As to 2001-02...We had, at the same time:
- a recession
- a war
- and an unnatural disaster.
Take a look at a chart of the Dow from 2000-2002. We had a big drop in late 2000 another in early 2001, the post-9/11 slam, then another in mid-2002, leading into a triple bottom, with the third round of that in early 2003.
http://thepatternsite.com/dj2000.html
The dot-bust, and the end of _that_ bull market? Yeah, that's entirely inherited... and it would have necessarily meant the end of budget surpluses, without significant cutbacks across the board (and yes, that includes social programs).