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 (602447)	3/4/2011 5:24:16 PM
From: J_F_Shepard	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1574685

Hedge fund dollars come from the public just like munie people's...... And I'll bet none of those munie folks broke any laws to get that money as ridiculous as it is .......can't be sure about the fund guys...

To: TimF who wrote (602447)	3/5/2011 1:15:42 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574685

Top World Bank Economist: U.S. Should Invest in Infrastructure In a recent report, the McKinsey institute argued that America’s poor infrastructure is holding back its economic development. The top economist at the World Bank, Justin Lin, appears to agree. Earlier this week Lin said playing catch-up with China’s infrastructure investments would do the United States good, Bloomberg reports: China averaged 9.6 percent economic growth from 1979 to 2002, as it quintupled the size of the country’s highway system to 25,000 kilometers (15,000 miles), he said. The U.S. could profit from following China’s lead, Lin said, noting the fastest train in the U.S., Amtrak’s Acela, took 2 hours and 46 minutes to bring him from Washington to New York this morning. In China, he said, a high-speed train would make the trip in an hour. Add one more voice to those in favor of infrastructure investment: Mary Meeker, financial analyst at Morgan Stanley and author of a new nonpartisan report called USA Inc. In recent decades, Meeker observes, the United States has been spending less on productive investments, such as infrastructure and education, and more on areas of preservation, such as health care. That combination has caused America to lose its innovation edge, writes the Atlantic: In the last 40 years, we’ve pumped the breaks on productivity-enhancing investments in infrastructure, education and technology, while health care and income security costs have accelerated dramatically. Like an aging couple shifting its spending away from the kids’ clothes and tuition toward pills and doctor visits, the U.S. government has transformed itself from a defense-technology-infrastructure investor to a national insurance conglomerate for its aging population. … Productivity-enhancing spending, according to Meeker, comes from three main sources: infrastructure, education and research and development investment. We’ve seen infrastructure spending collapse as a share of the budget since the 1960s. Of course, entitlement spending is necessary to care for an aging population — but at some point America’s aging infrastructure is going to need some care of its own. Image: via Atlantic infrastructurist.com

To: TimF who wrote (602447)	3/5/2011 1:45:23 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574685

Click on the link below to see how the US compares to 20 other nations. Raising the Gas Tax Would Lower U.S. Economic Vulnerability Posted on Friday February 25th by Eric Jaffe The last time we checked on Ryan Avent, he was making a powerful argument for high-speed rail in the United States. Earlier this week, over at the Economist, Avent made an equally strong case for raising the gas tax: The current rate no longer brings in enough money to cover current highway spending. Petrol taxes are an efficient way to raise revenue, and the government needs revenue; President Obama’s deficit commission recommended an increase in the federal petrol tax rate. Burning oil produces carbon emissions, and dearer fuel would reduce America’s sky-high per capita carbon footprint. But a higher tax rate would also diminish the possibility that a sudden rise in oil prices would throw the economy into recession. … But those prices are rising anyway; better to capture the revenue and use it, all while improving behaviour. Few people listened when the deficit commission suggested raising the gas tax 15 cents by 2015. But if Congress is to authorize a transportation program anywhere near President Obama’s $556 billion budget request, the money will have to come from somewhere. Even the Chamber of Commerce and the American Federation of Labor-Congress of Industrial Organizations, in what the New York Times described as a “rare joint show of support,” think a higher gas tax could be good for the country: [AFL-CIO President Richard] Trumka and [Chamber of Commerce President Tom] Donohue even said legislators should consider the politically toxic option of raising the gas tax, which was not indexed to inflation and has not been touched since 1993. “Seventeen years is a long time and the states have stepped up,” Donohue said, referring to states that have raised their own gas taxes. He added that even truckers were in favor of an increase on the diesel tax if it meant more money went to repairing roads and bridges. Business Insider proposed the intriguing scenario of pegging gas prices at $5 after 2015: Whatever gas would cost on the open market (benchmarked to the price of oil), the tax would make up the difference between that and $5. If the market price for gas went over $5, the tax would disappear. With the price of oil now cracking the $100 a barrel threshold, $5 a gallon doesn’t seem so far off. The arguments against raising the gas tax are getting harder to make, but no doubt politicians will keep trying. They always do. infrastructurist.com