Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (135006)	3/27/2001 1:30:23 PM
From: combjelly	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1571546

"Why would "quality of life" start to due to a lack of government spending when spending is growing?" If the cost of buying land to build new roads skyrockets because of increasing real estate values, that could soak up the extra money and then some. Just a guess.

To: TimF who wrote (135006)	3/27/2001 4:22:25 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1571546

Tim, How fast does government spending have to grow to maintain quality of life? Spending went up in real (inflation adjusted) per-capita dollars. Why would "quality of life" start to due to a lack of government spending when spending is growing? How fast does spending have to grow? Pretty fast when the people emigrating to the state tend to be poor and/or illegal. Pretty fast when your freeways which are lifelines for your cities are aging and need significant repairs. Remember CA was one of the first places to have freeways and by 1990 some were almost 50 years old. Pretty fast when you are finally coming to terms with the fact that earthquakes are not going to go away and that most buildings built before 1980 are not equipped to meet the stress of even relatively small quakes. In another words, the shortage of state revenues hit CA at a time when it could least afford it. The state had matured and was experiencing the first problems brought on by an aging infrastructure. Then in the 90's, the sht hit the fan with quakes in both the North and the South, riots in the South, and a recession that prompted a major restructuring of LA's economy. As much as they say LA is better than ever, I don't agree. I think its a time bomb waiting to go off. In fact, I would argue that it did not based up the deteriorating infrastructure during that period.* I don't understand what you are trying to say. As for being short of funds because they spent too much on another category, what is the detail you used to come to that conclusion? I am assuming the shortage of funds for education and infrastructure based only on the posts by you and Scumbria here. I think you misunderstood my question. What makes you think or what evidence do you have that a shortage of funds in one sector was caused by over spending in another? I had not heard that before. ted