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 : A Neutral Corner -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (218)	9/18/2005 10:01:25 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2253

"September 18, 2005 Still Getting It Wrong on Post-Katrina Aid [Cross-posted on Agoraphilia, where comments are enabled.] I know almost nothing about Bush's proposed "Gulf Opportunity Zone" except what's in this short MSN article (reporting on his speech Thursday). But from what I can tell, the plan gets almost everything important wrong. Post-Katrina recovery funds should attempt to do two things: (1) help the people whose lives were disrupted by the storm and its aftermath; and (2) avoid creating incentives for more people to place themselves in the path of future disasters. As I've said before, this is a difficult needle to thread, because any aid sets a precedent for future aid. The Bush plan, however, doesn't serve either goal very well. Several aspects of the plan -- incentives for job creation, tax relief for individuals and businesses, loans and loan guarantees for projects, and homesteading of federal land -- are specifically designed to encourage economic growth in the Gulf region. This approach fails on goal (1) because the incentives are aimed at anyone who might want to settle in the region, whether they lived there before or not. And it fails on goal (2) because it encourages development of the Gulf region in preference to other areas of the country. A sensible version of the plan would target the tax relief, loan guarantees, homesteads, etc., at displaced persons, but it would allow them to be exercised anywhere in the country. That way we would help the victims without subsidizing excessive risk-taking. Just to be clear (because I've found that my position on this matter is frequently misinterpreted), I am not saying the Gulf region is economically undesirable and should be abandoned. It should and will be rebuilt. The question is what extent of economic activity should take place there, and how many people should live there. Subsidizing economic development in that region relative to other parts of the country causes more people and businesses reason to settle there than makes economic sense, because they are not exposed to the true cost (including risk-related costs) of their choices. Posted by Glen Whitman on September 18, 2005" theagitator.com

To: Lane3 who wrote (218)	9/18/2005 10:07:20 AM
From: Constant Reader	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2253

Sounds like you are stuck in all-or-nothing thinking. Let's take this opportunity to be creative, to experiment with new ideas and see if they work or not. As all will be temporary measures, we can fine-tune them as we go, throw out the ones that don't work, think about applying what does work on a nationwide basis. We have a rare opportunity here. Let's not waste it.

To: Lane3 who wrote (218)	9/18/2005 11:27:30 AM
From: X Y Zebra	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2253

LOL!!! hey, i am not the one making those [idiotic] decisions; i just answered the question.... Why are we doing it now, here? i'll still try an answer... 1. because politicians are stupid and spineless... they cannot bring themselves to say... 'the city of N. O. is UNDER water level, if we re-build it here, there is NO guarantee this disaster will not happen again, regardless of how much infrastructure or engineering we put to it. so why put good money into a bad project? let's rebuild it somewhere else' THAT would be a no-no... regardless of how sound the decision would be 2. since they will not say that, then, they have to say something even less justifiable by saying what they did, i.e. create incentives... (so the 'greedy' guys that know how to do things will come and help us) thus, making yet another step into third-worldoom state and create this "especial enterprise zone". then they will applaud themselves, they will trumpet to the world how bright they are, except that the only listening audience will be idiots who don't know not'ing, and their own ilk of lying hyenas who will praise the idea, without possible anchor on logic or reason -since that is how they do things... politicians and money is a bad combination simply because all they have to do to get such money is ask, [and they have the power to tax]. they do not have to work for it, therefore they do not know its worth if you ask such question, then I am going to turn it around and ask you... how come you have not been as vehement as you seem now and questioned the use of money in stupid programs from foreign aid to the hundreds of pork barrel programs they gift each other (in order to buy votes, which is the ONLY real valid reason why politicians do anything based on logic). the reaction to this disaster, and their subsequent idiotic decisions that are making, is another showcase of their total disregard for efficiency and logic. all this has simply brought to the surface for everyone to see, what sorry state the government has reached, on BOTH sides. i cannot answer the part that you define "undesirable or desirable"... this has to be answered first: desirable (or not) for whom? for the government? (to buy votes and be seen as 'they care'?) for the people that used to live there? (has a consensus been made if they want to return?) for the developers to justify their risk? (so they can be motivated to go and build there) i am only answering the part that AFTER desirability has been capriciously determined... and they are seeking builders by giving them an added incentive to do so... regardless how sound it is to rebuild... again, it seems interesting why you do not make the same sort of questioning about how tax dollars get used when there are hundreds of other questionable practices.... including the one of being so convoluted about passing specific laws and/or programs i.e. you pass 'all or none' (line item veto good ? -g) and so a seemingly good law, in order to pass, they include a bunch of rubbish in the form of pork, without the possibility of being 'lined-out' if any logic would be applied. instead of creating special enterprise zones, (which if properly targeted and thought out, they could bring benefits to specific areas under the present system)... why not just work under a more efficient system where tax dollars are not grossly wasted in what is reaching to be a blatant and careless way... an orgy of dumbness