Advertisement
by Bombadil » Mon Aug 02, 2021 4:34 pm
Conservative Republic Of Huang wrote:I never really got the economic logic of direct stimulus as opposed to government investment. $25 to a restaurant and $25 to a school has the same effect on aggregate demand (assuming the differences in MPC between the chains of spending are irrelevant), but the second has a much greater effect on GDP in the long run, since (certain) government investments like education or physical infrastructure tend to have massive returns to GDP compared to private investment. The HK government really ought to be spending this money on improving economic infrastructure, whether that be transportation, education or whatever.
by Infected Mushroom » Mon Aug 02, 2021 5:21 pm
Conservative Republic Of Huang wrote:I never really got the economic logic of direct stimulus as opposed to government investment. $25 to a restaurant and $25 to a school has the same effect on aggregate demand (assuming the differences in MPC between the chains of spending are irrelevant), but the second has a much greater effect on GDP in the long run, since (certain) government investments like education or physical infrastructure tend to have massive returns to GDP compared to private investment. The HK government really ought to be spending this money on improving economic infrastructure, whether that be transportation, education or whatever.
by Bombadil » Mon Aug 02, 2021 5:23 pm
Infected Mushroom wrote:Conservative Republic Of Huang wrote:I never really got the economic logic of direct stimulus as opposed to government investment. $25 to a restaurant and $25 to a school has the same effect on aggregate demand (assuming the differences in MPC between the chains of spending are irrelevant), but the second has a much greater effect on GDP in the long run, since (certain) government investments like education or physical infrastructure tend to have massive returns to GDP compared to private investment. The HK government really ought to be spending this money on improving economic infrastructure, whether that be transportation, education or whatever.
I feel that Hong Kong’s infrastructure is already very good. Our public transportation system is so good that owning a car is an option/luxury. It’s unheard of in the west. Buses, trains, and ferries connect everything. The airport is AMAZING.
What infrastructure do you have in mind?
I don’t know if we have any power plant or water issues.
by Infected Mushroom » Mon Aug 02, 2021 5:56 pm
Bombadil wrote:Infected Mushroom wrote:
I feel that Hong Kong’s infrastructure is already very good. Our public transportation system is so good that owning a car is an option/luxury. It’s unheard of in the west. Buses, trains, and ferries connect everything. The airport is AMAZING.
What infrastructure do you have in mind?
I don’t know if we have any power plant or water issues.
Public housing, as opposed to selling off reclaimed land for billions so developers can build luxury apartments.. the whole Kowloon water front is an absolute eyesore.. convert busses to electric, all those unused rooftops that could generate solar power..
..loads of things they could do.
by Infected Mushroom » Mon Aug 02, 2021 6:01 pm
Conservative Republic Of Huang wrote:I never really got the economic logic of direct stimulus as opposed to government investment. $25 to a restaurant and $25 to a school has the same effect on aggregate demand (assuming the differences in MPC between the chains of spending are irrelevant), but the second has a much greater effect on GDP in the long run, since (certain) government investments like education or physical infrastructure tend to have massive returns to GDP compared to private investment. The HK government really ought to be spending this money on improving economic infrastructure, whether that be transportation, education or whatever.
by Bombadil » Mon Aug 02, 2021 6:02 pm
Infected Mushroom wrote:Bombadil wrote:
Public housing, as opposed to selling off reclaimed land for billions so developers can build luxury apartments.. the whole Kowloon water front is an absolute eyesore.. convert busses to electric, all those unused rooftops that could generate solar power..
..loads of things they could do.
Are electric buses and solar power on a large scale realistic?
Also, why invest in environmental technology when cities to the north don’t care and their pollution will keep floating over and have regional effects?
The advantages of this scheme is that it’s private-party investment and market-driven. So the people will, in the aggregate, spend money on what they care about through consumerism. So whatever sector ends up benefitting the most will be the one consumers are willing to spend on.
by Bombadil » Mon Aug 02, 2021 6:06 pm
Infected Mushroom wrote:Conservative Republic Of Huang wrote:I never really got the economic logic of direct stimulus as opposed to government investment. $25 to a restaurant and $25 to a school has the same effect on aggregate demand (assuming the differences in MPC between the chains of spending are irrelevant), but the second has a much greater effect on GDP in the long run, since (certain) government investments like education or physical infrastructure tend to have massive returns to GDP compared to private investment. The HK government really ought to be spending this money on improving economic infrastructure, whether that be transportation, education or whatever.
Eh? Really?
I love getting 5,000 though. And at my workplace, everyone else is thrilled. The plan meshes well with the city’s identity.
If you had a choice between getting X dollars from the US government (or wherever you’re from) or trusting them to spend/invest it in some public program… which would you go with? You expect government to be able to spend the money properly?
Infected Mushroom wrote:For the 5,000… I intend to spend it aggressively on restaurants and extra drinks every few nights.
by Infected Mushroom » Mon Aug 02, 2021 6:11 pm
Bombadil wrote:Infected Mushroom wrote:
Eh? Really?
I love getting 5,000 though. And at my workplace, everyone else is thrilled. The plan meshes well with the city’s identity.
If you had a choice between getting X dollars from the US government (or wherever you’re from) or trusting them to spend/invest it in some public program… which would you go with? You expect government to be able to spend the money properly?
Lol..Infected Mushroom wrote:For the 5,000… I intend to spend it aggressively on restaurants and extra drinks every few nights.
by Infected Mushroom » Mon Aug 02, 2021 6:13 pm
Bombadil wrote:Infected Mushroom wrote:
Are electric buses and solar power on a large scale realistic?
Also, why invest in environmental technology when cities to the north don’t care and their pollution will keep floating over and have regional effects?
The advantages of this scheme is that it’s private-party investment and market-driven. So the people will, in the aggregate, spend money on what they care about through consumerism. So whatever sector ends up benefitting the most will be the one consumers are willing to spend on.
One of those cities has already converted all their busses and taxis..
Shenzhen is a city that has reached a future that the U.S. can only dream about.
The city, home to about 12 million people, has made a wholesale conversion to electric transportation, with 16,000 Electric Buses and 22,000 Electric Taxis, as Fully Charged explains in the video at bottom (via Electrek and InsideEVs).
Shenzhen is the home base of BYD, one of the largest electric vehicle makers in the world.
What’s the upside to all those electric buses?
“First of all, they have zero emissions and no pollution,” as one of the bus drivers explains in the video at bottom.
“Second is, no noise. Third is, they’re easy to operate,” the driver says, adding that driving a diesel bus previously was a strain on her arms.
Link
I used to live in Causeway Bay and the noise of those fucking busses was ridiculous.. and given the high rise nature of HK all those fumes stay trapped at street level.
Given the developer owners of HK busses wouldn't spend a penny on upgrades then a lot of this cash could have gone on subsidies to get it done.
by Conservative Republic Of Huang » Mon Aug 02, 2021 8:06 pm
Infected Mushroom wrote:Conservative Republic Of Huang wrote:I never really got the economic logic of direct stimulus as opposed to government investment. $25 to a restaurant and $25 to a school has the same effect on aggregate demand (assuming the differences in MPC between the chains of spending are irrelevant), but the second has a much greater effect on GDP in the long run, since (certain) government investments like education or physical infrastructure tend to have massive returns to GDP compared to private investment. The HK government really ought to be spending this money on improving economic infrastructure, whether that be transportation, education or whatever.
Eh? Really?
I love getting 5,000 though. And at my workplace, everyone else is thrilled. The plan meshes well with the city’s identity.
If you had a choice between getting X dollars from the US government (or wherever you’re from) or trusting them to spend/invest it in some public program… which would you go with? You expect government to be able to spend the money properly?
by Infected Mushroom » Mon Aug 02, 2021 8:39 pm
Conservative Republic Of Huang wrote:Infected Mushroom wrote:
Eh? Really?
I love getting 5,000 though. And at my workplace, everyone else is thrilled. The plan meshes well with the city’s identity.
If you had a choice between getting X dollars from the US government (or wherever you’re from) or trusting them to spend/invest it in some public program… which would you go with? You expect government to be able to spend the money properly?
From the stance of self-interest? I want the money direct. From the detached stance of economics, the public good is best furthered through government investments, rather than consumer spending. If there's no physical infrastructure projects, throw it at education. Education is the gift that keeps on giving (GDP).
Of course, throwing money at the people directly is best for the government maintaining popularity.
by Conservative Republic Of Huang » Mon Aug 02, 2021 9:03 pm
Infected Mushroom wrote:Conservative Republic Of Huang wrote:From the stance of self-interest? I want the money direct. From the detached stance of economics, the public good is best furthered through government investments, rather than consumer spending. If there's no physical infrastructure projects, throw it at education. Education is the gift that keeps on giving (GDP).
Of course, throwing money at the people directly is best for the government maintaining popularity.
Eh? But I thought consumer spending accounted for the majority of GDP. Or not?
by Bombadil » Mon Aug 02, 2021 9:09 pm
Conservative Republic Of Huang wrote:Infected Mushroom wrote:
Eh? But I thought consumer spending accounted for the majority of GDP. Or not?
I'm sure in medieval Europe, men created the majority of the GDP. Doesn't mean that females are less capable of contributing to GDP. The direct effect of education spending is the same as the direct effect of consumer spending. However, in the long run, someone with better and more education contributes more to GDP, so it also has a powerful, indirect effect that does not occur immediately. Iirc, in the US, $1 spent on education produces around $8 or $9 in GDP in the long run.
by Conservative Republic Of Huang » Mon Aug 02, 2021 9:13 pm
Bombadil wrote:Conservative Republic Of Huang wrote:I'm sure in medieval Europe, men created the majority of the GDP. Doesn't mean that females are less capable of contributing to GDP. The direct effect of education spending is the same as the direct effect of consumer spending. However, in the long run, someone with better and more education contributes more to GDP, so it also has a powerful, indirect effect that does not occur immediately. Iirc, in the US, $1 spent on education produces around $8 or $9 in GDP in the long run.
Like I said earlier, they are investing in education, they're invested in fucking it up to be in accordance with the party line, they've even created prescriptive answers you should learn as opposed to applying any critical thinking to a subject.
In fact even more broadly, China has identified revamping education to have a far more patriotic citizenry..
Why China cracked down on education and upended a US$70 billion tutoring industry, with millions of jobs and students affected
‘Discourse and ideology need to be controlled by the central government’, and Beijing ‘aims to rectify education itself’, industry insider says
Link
by Saiwania » Mon Aug 02, 2021 9:43 pm
Conservative Republic Of Huang wrote:The direct effect of education spending is the same as the direct effect of consumer spending. However, in the long run, someone with better and more education contributes more to GDP, so it also has a powerful, indirect effect that does not occur immediately. Iirc, in the US, $1 spent on education produces around $8 or $9 in GDP in the long run.
by Conservative Republic Of Huang » Mon Aug 02, 2021 9:49 pm
Saiwania wrote:Conservative Republic Of Huang wrote:The direct effect of education spending is the same as the direct effect of consumer spending. However, in the long run, someone with better and more education contributes more to GDP, so it also has a powerful, indirect effect that does not occur immediately. Iirc, in the US, $1 spent on education produces around $8 or $9 in GDP in the long run.
Bah, education isn't everything. Look at what happened to education in the US, throwing unlimited money at universities in the form of federal loans just cause tuitions to increase beyond inflation without limit as to be unaffordable for most. Frankly, I don't want state subsidy or taxpayer money to be going to advancing Liberal propaganda amongst the nation's youth and backing curriculum that only ever has bad things to say about the country and its history and legacy. Look at all the stupid crap in the form of amenities that certain universities are spending on.
I believe that individuals can spend money better than universities can, which just do "research" that rarely bears fruit. The only higher education institutions I'd trust are those with a hard STEM background. Money going to the Humanities is money flushed down the toilet.
by Infected Mushroom » Tue Aug 03, 2021 12:05 am
Conservative Republic Of Huang wrote:Saiwania wrote:
Bah, education isn't everything. Look at what happened to education in the US, throwing unlimited money at universities in the form of federal loans just cause tuitions to increase beyond inflation without limit as to be unaffordable for most. Frankly, I don't want state subsidy or taxpayer money to be going to advancing Liberal propaganda amongst the nation's youth and backing curriculum that only ever has bad things to say about the country and its history and legacy. Look at all the stupid crap in the form of amenities that certain universities are spending on.
I believe that individuals can spend money better than universities can, which just do "research" that rarely bears fruit. The only higher education institutions I'd trust are those with a hard STEM background. Money going to the Humanities is money flushed down the toilet.
Here comes the famous economist who once said "jobs are just on paper." Excuse me if I think raising people out of poverty is more important than your fantastical abstractions about the Volk or whatever. Got any empirics, or just more editorializing?
by Infected Mushroom » Tue Aug 03, 2021 12:07 am
Saiwania wrote:Conservative Republic Of Huang wrote:The direct effect of education spending is the same as the direct effect of consumer spending. However, in the long run, someone with better and more education contributes more to GDP, so it also has a powerful, indirect effect that does not occur immediately. Iirc, in the US, $1 spent on education produces around $8 or $9 in GDP in the long run.
Bah, education isn't everything. Look at what happened to education in the US, throwing unlimited money at universities in the form of federal loans just cause tuitions to increase beyond inflation without limit as to be unaffordable for most. Frankly, I don't want state subsidy or taxpayer money to be going to advancing Liberal propaganda amongst the nation's youth and backing curriculum that only ever has bad things to say about the country and its history and legacy. Look at all the stupid crap in the form of amenities that certain universities are spending on.
I believe that individuals can spend money better than universities can, which just do "research" that rarely bears fruit. The only higher education institutions I'd trust are those with a hard STEM background. Money going to the Humanities is money flushed down the toilet.
by Conservative Republic Of Huang » Tue Aug 03, 2021 12:48 am
Infected Mushroom wrote:Education’s become something of a race to the bottom though, with a college degree uncritically being required to do anything and with massive stretches of college years being a waste. Educational funding would just facilitate further credentialism.
Infected Mushroom wrote:
I do think that having each person spend the 5,000 how they want is going to lead to a better and more natural economic outcome than the government taking that money in the aggregate and throwing it at some big, bureaucratic program
by Gim » Tue Aug 03, 2021 12:49 am
Conservative Republic Of Huang wrote:Infected Mushroom wrote:
Education’s become something of a race to the bottom though, with a college degree uncritically being required to do anything and with massive stretches of college years being a waste. Educational funding would just facilitate further credentialism.
Economics is not based on aesthetic appeal. What does "natural" mean? Why is something better if it is "natural"?
While I think infrastructure may be worth investing it, education isn’t worth as much as it used to.
In the same sense, people on the brink of starvation probably appreciate and value food more, and waste less, than those who have an abundance of food. Doesn't mean we should restrict the food supply and starve people so they learn not to waste food.
by Conservative Republic Of Huang » Tue Aug 03, 2021 12:59 am
Gim wrote:Conservative Republic Of Huang wrote:In the same sense, people on the brink of starvation probably appreciate and value food more, and waste less, than those who have an abundance of food. Doesn't mean we should restrict the food supply and starve people so they learn not to waste food.
Only if leftover food(from supply store or manufacturer) went to the needy.
by Conservative Republic Of Huang » Tue Aug 03, 2021 1:07 am
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Al-Haqiqah, Ancientania, Dumb Ideologies, Europa Undivided, Kaumudeen, Southland, The Black Forrest, The Two Jerseys, Valrifall
Advertisement