I see DeMent is off on one of his sophomoric rants again........but I digress.

This rant is positively lucid compared to such popular ideologically fueled pieces of horse hockey like "tax cuts increase revenue" which I heard a Republican senator from Iowa spot just this morning.

But I digress as well.

Are the concepts of limited government and enumerated powers dead?

Well if you mean as envisioned buy a bunch of 18th century farmers of whom around half opposed both central banking and the modern corporation, sure. The concepts are still there and should be supported but we live in a reality where we have already stripped states of the one economic power that would have been truly meaningful (if not completely counter productive) which is control over incorporation. If I seem intemperate it's only because it's imposable in such a short space to have anything like a meaningful dialog, so I bait the gullible and those of you who are a taste hipper will know exactly what I'm talking about.

cheers :)

BTW I'm impressed with Steve's restraint when it comes to my snark sometimes. If he doesn't know it I agree with much more of what he prattles on about then he might think.

If We Build Three Really Large Pyramids…

... or at least a wooden badger....

Dr. Schuler, I'll ask again, only because I've never got an answer from anyone, before we calculate the benefits of whatever multiplier effect we may get from this government spending, what is the effective divisor effect that must be offset from all this deficit spending?

Not to mention the effects of deadweight loss. I've asked the same question myself.

I assume that a road shares many of the planning/approval issues as transmission lines: multiple properties, multiple territorial governments, and multiple layers of government. So at least ten years seems like a good point of reference.

I think that is about right.

With regards to the Northridge earthquake I believe alot of the normal "red tape" was bypassed since these were roads that aleardy existed prior to the earthquake--i.e. these were brownfield projects not greenfield projects.

Ok, enough with the cinematic diversions. By the way, ten years keeps coming up in a lot of context about why we shouldn't do something, e.g., drill in ANWR. The only real question is whether this will still be a relevant observation in 2019 as it was in 2009, or 1999.

Just a data point.

I work for an investor owned utility, while I don't deal with federal regulators I do deal with them at the state level and talk to the guys who deal with the federal regulators. I was being charitable in my assumptions on time to get something sited, licensed and ground broken.

Minimizing downside risk means getting the most for your money in the case of a zero multiplier. Getting people to dig holes and then fill them back up again is the perfect example of ignoring downside risk. Steve's example of pyramid-building ia actually a little better than that. At least pyramids are tourist attractions. Egypt's pyramids have been tourist attractions for well over 2,000 years.

I think that re-surfacing roads or even building new ones is one of the poor ways to spend the money because I think that we're in the waning days of that kind of transport. We should be thinking about our world as it will be for the productive life of the investment rather than this minute's needs.

Do you have any idea how long it would take to build a new freeway for example? You'd have to site it, buy up all the property (even under eminent domain), and then take bids. You'd be lucky to get that all done in 12 months. I'm guessing more like 24 to 36.

I think you'd be wrong. The Arrowhead-Weston transmission project took over nine years to build 220 miles of transmission lines on largely pre-existing transmission corridors (that is, no eminent domain was needed). That's measured from first submission for governmental approval to being in service.

I don't think most people realize how much planning is required of government projects today to avoid ethical abuses, environmental problems and property rights issues. The TVA project, which dislocated numerous residents and snail darters, strikes me as utterly impossible today.

So, we should take the stimulus money and build three really large pyramids out in the middle of nowhere that will get the economy going again.

Is your argument that building 3 very large pyramids wouldn't create a stimulus, or that it isn't an efficient way to create a stimulus?

Unless you have a way to directly convert $800B into pyramids, you will still need to by material, equipment, and labor, thus stimulating the economy to some degree.

If you just think it would be a less than ideal method of converting $800B into economic growth, you'd be right, but then you're either arguing that no conceivable project could produce a large enough growth to be worthwhile, or that the desired goal of the stimulus is indeed possible, but it's implementation won't accomplish it.

We are paving roads, building bridges, providing infrastructure.

Really? It strikes me that we are resurfacing roads and bridges. That's not what I consider big "I" infrastructure. It's pretty close to polishing roads; it doesn't do much more than prevent government cutbacks from contributing to the downturn.

The New Deal changed the shape and economics of the Tennessee Valley, created more productive farmland, new sources of electricity, and brought new industry to the region. We can't build such things anymore given the National Environmental Protection Act. Not even pyramids without several years of planning, study and environmental mitigation.