I'm so angry with the U.S. and Chinese governments right now!

[GO-NAD!]

Keep in mind that the New Deal happened near the end of brutal depression. By brutal, I don't mean people lost their jobs. I mean people lost everything, including their lives from malnourishment, etc.

Large New Deal projects were accomplished by men's camps in which hard work was exchanged for food, a place to sleep, and low wages. It helped end the depression, but it was at a cost unlike what today's market and laws would tolerate.

I was referring more to the programs mentioned in the article. I don't have any argument with your point though.

 

[GrimSurfer]

I was referring more to the programs mentioned in the article. I don't have any argument with your point though.

Understood. I guess I'm just looking at large national works projects being difficult to fund/achieve without broad societal acceptance and strong administrative goals.

The desperation of the 1930s made it easy for Washington to set its grand national works into motion. All major national works (and there have really been only two -- Manhattan and Apollo) since then have been imperialist, rather than domestic, oriented.

It's hard to get out of this mind set, even though there's a strong arguement that forward leaps in education, health, energy, and transportation can infrastructure strengthen this county much more in the long term.

But it isn't needed enough because America and Americans are not desperate enough to try something new. Not yet, anyway.

 

[kystorm]

Brilliant post thanks for clearing up everything.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

lol you are welcome

 

[Joe B]

Understood. I guess I'm just looking at large national works projects being difficult to fund/achieve without broad societal acceptance and strong administrative goals.

The desperation of the 1930s made it easy for Washington to set its grand national works into motion. All major national works (and there have really been only two -- Manhattan and Apollo) since then have been imperialist, rather than domestic, oriented.

It's hard to get out of this mind set, even though there's a strong arguement that forward leaps in education, health, energy, and transportation can infrastructure strengthen this county much more in the long term.

But it isn't needed enough because America and Americans are not desperate enough to try something new. Not yet, anyway.

Just happened to stop by tonight and read your post. I'm not sure what you mean by "imperialist orientated".
Regardless, I would like to point out that the Manhattan and Apollo projects (you said, "there have really been only two") were NOT the largest major national works since the 1930's. Dwight D. Eisenhower's Interstate Highway System dwarfs both of these combined in adjusted current dollars.

 

[GrimSurfer]

Just happened to stop by tonight and read your post. I'm not sure what you mean by "imperialist orientated".
Regardless, I would like to point out that the Manhattan and Apollo projects (you said, "there have really been only two") were NOT the largest major national works since the 1930's. Dwight D. Eisenhower's Interstate Highway System dwarfs both of these combined in adjusted current dollars.

The Manhattan Project ensured American imperialism by supporting a conclusive defeat of Japan, reestablishing American dominance in the Pacific, checking Soviet expansion in Europe and giving Washington the ultimate monopoly of force until 1950 (and a significant edge until about 1955).

The Apollo Programme was Kennedy's response to fears of the militarization of space. That programme, and the previous Mercury and Gemini programmes, had massive spin offs for the military including ICBMs, global satellite communications, gps, etc.

Both of these programmes were conceived, constructed, controlled and fully funded at the Federal level. They did not build on existing infrastructure, they build everything that was needed from towns, roads, test facilities, ranges, and launch pads.

The Interstate System started with state highway systems in the 1920s and we're gradually developed In conjunction with various state projects.

Eisenhower championed it, but neither he nor his administration (and, indeed the Federal government of any administration) can claim complete federal sponsorship or control. Indeed, parts of the system were successfully blocked at the municipal and state levels at times. Regardless, it is a great system that cost a lot of money and decades to realize.

 

[Joe B]

The Manhattan Project ensured American imperialism by supporting the defeat of Japan...

Forget I said anything. Your grasp of US involvement in WWII speaks volumes for your political views and an obvious lack of understanding of historical fact. "Ensured American imperialism" ? Really?

 

[GrimSurfer]

Forget I said anything. Your grasp of US involvement in WWII speaks volumes for your political views and an obvious lack of understanding of historical fact. "Ensured American imperialism" ? Really?

Oh, do you believe nuclear weapons won the war, or that they were developed exclusively to end it? Japan was finished by 1944, due to the USN which had totally and utterly dismantled the Japanese war effort and, indeed, its entire economy. The only question was what kind of ugliness it would take to topple Imperial Japan.

After Yalta, the US and UK understood that WWII would be won by the Allies and that the Soviets would emerge as a competitor.

Since that time, American imperialism has been extraordinarily good for the world. It has helped us spread systems of responsible governance, develop and distribute technologies important to human development, and ensure a modicum of stability in the international system. Sure, we've done some very ugly/clumsy things too, but global human development indices under this broad umbrella is higher than it has ever been at any time in Earth's history.

If you don't think that nuclear weapons enabled the American empire, you're missing a very big point. You're also missing a very big point if you overlook the threat of force that is regrettably needed to ensure stability for human development. Heck, the Greeks and Romans understood this centuries ago.

PS. I served in Third Fleet (Nimitz's old command) and spent a great deal of my time in the Pacific. I've walked the beaches of a Normandy, had 35 years in uniform, and am a War College grad. You?

 

[Joe B]

I find it interesting that you felt the need to edit your post (#305) before you made a reply. Do you think I'll reply any further to someone who back pedals so well?

 

[GrimSurfer]

I find it interesting that you felt the need to edit your post (#305) before you made a reply. Do you think I'll reply any further to someone who back pedals so well?

Troll.

 

[GO-NAD!]

Understood. I guess I'm just looking at large national works projects being difficult to fund/achieve without broad societal acceptance and strong administrative goals.

The desperation of the 1930s made it easy for Washington to set its grand national works into motion. All major national works (and there have really been only two -- Manhattan and Apollo) since then have been imperialist, rather than domestic, oriented.

It's hard to get out of this mind set, even though there's a strong arguement that forward leaps in education, health, energy, and transportation can infrastructure strengthen this county much more in the long term.

But it isn't needed enough because America and Americans are not desperate enough to try something new. Not yet, anyway.

Well, there are many who consider climate change serious enough to warrant drastic measures. Of course, it will take more than efforts in the US to make a practical difference. Personally, as an incremental measure, I would favour carbon taxes that gradually ramp up over the years. Private industry and consumers will then have incentive to reduce their carbon footprint. However, those carbon taxes must be accompanied by corresponding cuts to income taxes; otherwise it's just another tax grab.

Of course, for anyone who is a denier, doing nothing is the best course of action...

Our federal government is planning to implement a carbon tax, but instead of offsetting income tax cuts, they plan to send annual rebates to Canadian households. It leaves me shaking my head, because it will mean another layer of bureaucracy to administer the rebate program, not to mention that it will be a blatant effort to buy our votes with our own money - "Look, here's x-dollars that the government is giving you! Aren't we great?"

 

[GrimSurfer]

Well, there are many who consider climate change serious enough to warrant drastic measures. Of course, it will take more than efforts in the US to make a practical difference. Personally, as an incremental measure, I would favour carbon taxes that gradually ramp up over the years. Private industry and consumers will then have incentive to reduce their carbon footprint. However, those carbon taxes must be accompanied by corresponding cuts to income taxes; otherwise it's just another tax grab.

Of course, for anyone who is a denier, doing nothing is the best course of action...

Our federal government is planning to implement a carbon tax, but instead of offsetting income tax cuts, they plan to send annual rebates to Canadian households. It leaves me shaking my head, because it will mean another layer of bureaucracy to administer the rebate program, not to mention that it will be a blatant effort to buy our votes with our own money - "Look, here's x-dollars that the government is giving you! Aren't we great?"

Climate change, particularly that of the man made variety, is an important issue. While views vary on the effectiveness of taxation schemes, it's not the only tool available to influence change.

In the US, a significant reduction in carbon emissions could be achieved by replacing coal with nuclear energy (as France has done),removing individuals use of large commercially classed vehicles for personal use, decentralizing industry (which would greatly reduce transportation and warehousing for the distribution of finished goods to consumers),and overhauling wasteful infrastructure (inefficient plants, poorly insulated homes, etc).

These would be stop-gap measures until new, cleaner, technologies are developed as a result of greatly increased public funding.

If America wants another moonshot programme, let's try innovative clean energy generation so we can free ourselves of the recurring economic, social, and political costs (foreign wars and dealing with scumbag regimes) of petroleum to heat/cool our homes, move people and materiel, and grow our food.

Putting a trillion dollars of public money into developing alternative forms of energy over the next twenty years would do more for us in the long run than a pet political project like high speed intercontinental rail. This, combined with managing birth rates at home and abroad, and continuing to insist that large developing economies like India and China avoid the "ugly phase" of their industrial revolutions, would do many favors for the world.

 

[GO-NAD!]

Climate change, particularly that of the man made variety, is an important issue. While views vary on the effectiveness of taxation schemes, it's not the only tool available to influence change.

In the US, a significant reduction in carbon emissions could be achieved by replacing coal with nuclear energy (as France has done),removing individuals use of large commercially classed vehicles for personal use, decentralizing industry (which would greatly reduce transportation and warehousing for the distribution of finished goods to consumers),and overhauling wasteful infrastructure (inefficient plants, poorly insulated homes, etc).

These would be stop-gap measures until new, cleaner, technologies are developed as a result of greatly increased public funding.

If America wants another moonshot programme, let's try innovative clean energy generation so we can free ourselves of the recurring economic, social, and political costs (foreign wars and dealing with scumbag regimes) of petroleum to heat/cool our homes, move people and materiel, and grow our food.

Putting a trillion dollars of public money into developing alternative forms of energy over the next twenty years would do more for us in the long run than a pet political project like high speed intercontinental rail. This, combined with managing birth rates at home and abroad, and continuing to insist that large developing economies like India and China avoid the "ugly phase" of their industrial revolutions, would do many favors for the world.

While high speed rail may be a pie in the sky project, I like that the GND at least stimulates conversation and debate over how best to achieve reductions in carbon emissions. It's better than what's coming out of the GOP right now, which is pretty much nothing. Same with the Conservative party up here.

 

[GrimSurfer]

While high speed rail may be a pie in the sky project, I like that the GND at least stimulates conversation and debate over how best to achieve reductions in carbon emissions. It's better than what's coming out of the GOP right now, which is pretty much nothing. Same with the Conservative party up here.

I look at all signature political projects with skepticism, regardless of the party pitching them.

 

[highfigh]

Sure, high speed rail would be uber expensive to implement country-wide, perhaps to the point that it's a non-starter.

Coincidentally, I read this article today about the first New Deal.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/03/surprising-truth-about-roosevelts-new-deal/584209/

Many infrastructure schemes were fostered by the New Deal that had been considered impossibly expensive beforehand. Would high speed one such idea? Who knows? But I wouldn't automatically pan ideas as a knee jerk reaction.

Look at labor and material costs now vs the time of the last New Deal, as well as the typical work ethic. Back then, people were ashamed of being unemployed and welfare didn't exist in the same form but now, there's a lot of "gimme, gimme, gimme". Personally, I think there's a lot of work that could have been done via something similar to the WPA when more people were unemployed and I think it would be possible to implement some kind of beautification programs for picking up trash. That alone would make Milwaukee a better place and if you want photos of places where it lines the streets, let me know. Also, there's a lot more infrastructure in place now and if a nationwide high speed rail system is going in, some of that needs to be moved. In addition, look at the cost of insurance that's paid by contractors- there was no unemployment insurance, worker's comp, Social Security contributions were far lower and I doubt union wages were much of a factor. In 1949, the median wage for cement and concrete finishers was less than $2300/year.

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=coo.31924052151168;view=1up;seq=379

 

[GrimSurfer]

Exactly. The social and economic contexts are completely different.

With regard to labor costs... quite right. That $2300 in 1949, when adjusted for inflation, is less than $25k in 2018 dollars.

You raise another good point about the relocation of infrastructure. What about boring through forests, wetlands, etc. to lay track and power lines? And where's the power going to come from? Coal, natural gas? What about transmission losses (and issue which is often ignored).

So that signature plan sounds good when a politician says it quickly, but its cost-benefit fades on closer reflection.

As for requiring people on social assistance to do some kind of meaningful work in exchange for benefits, just imagine the uproar from civil libertarians and unionists!

You make a very good point wrt work ethic and sacrifice too. Imagine peoples reaction today to the JFK rhetoric (and that's what all political speeches are, after all, even the stirring ones like JFK's) about going to the moon!

https://er.jsc.nasa.gov/seh/ricetalk.htm

 

[highfigh]

Exactly. The social and economic contexts are completely different.

With regard to labor costs... quite right. That $2300 in 1949, when adjusted for inflation, is less than $25k in 2018 dollars.

You raise another good point about the relocation of infrastructure. What about boring through forests, wetlands, etc. to lay track and power lines? And where's the power going to come from? Coal, natural gas? What about transmission losses (and issue which is often ignored).

So that signature plan sounds good when a politician says it quickly, but its cost-benefit fades on closer reflection.

As for requiring people on social assistance to do some kind of meaningful work in exchange for benefits, just imagine the uproar from civil libertarians and unionists!

You make a very good point wrt work ethic and sacrifice too. Imagine peoples reaction today to the JFK rhetoric (and that's what all political speeches are, after all, even the stirring ones like JFK's) about going to the moon!

https://er.jsc.nasa.gov/seh/ricetalk.htm

I think the forests have been cut back to the point of being a non-issue, if the system is used like a conduit from one coast to the other with spurs that connect to locations to the North & South. The problem, as you asked, is "How will it be powered?". If she thinks electricity will power it, how will it be generated if fossil fuels or nuclear material aren't used? Solar and wind power would require far too much money, far too much land and the power generated, being DC, needs to be inverted. That means energy WILL be lost. AC voltage, generated at a power plant, can be increased with transformers, to compensate for losses over the miles of cables but DC is at a disadvantage from the start, as Tesla and Edison proved (much to the disappointment of Edison). I guess they could use solar panels and the wind from the train's movement, but the fact that something moves in response to this movement means some resistance exists to that movement. They could use a combination of solar, wind and some Hall-Effect generator that is part of the track system but in effect, this implies a search for perpetual motion.

I remember JFK's "Ask not what your country can do for you..." speech- now, it's a lot of 'What's in it, for me?'

 

[GO-NAD!]

Exactly. The social and economic contexts are completely different.

With regard to labor costs... quite right. That $2300 in 1949, when adjusted for inflation, is less than $25k in 2018 dollars.

You raise another good point about the relocation of infrastructure. What about boring through forests, wetlands, etc. to lay track and power lines? And where's the power going to come from? Coal, natural gas? What about transmission losses (and issue which is often ignored).

So that signature plan sounds good when a politician says it quickly, but its cost-benefit fades on closer reflection.

As for requiring people on social assistance to do some kind of meaningful work in exchange for benefits, just imagine the uproar from civil libertarians and unionists!

You make a very good point wrt work ethic and sacrifice too. Imagine peoples reaction today to the JFK rhetoric (and that's what all political speeches are, after all, even the stirring ones like JFK's) about going to the moon!

https://er.jsc.nasa.gov/seh/ricetalk.htm

I have the understanding that the primary purpose is to address climate change, not to address high unemployment, which the USA doesn't appear to suffer at this juncture. Regardless, if jobs are created by the GND - in whatever form it may take* - you think people won't be interested in taking them?

Is American work ethic really that poor? If welfare expenditures are any indication, it doesn't appear to be a huge problem.
https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Economy/Social-welfare-spending/>-%-of-GDP/Excluding-education

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-37159686

*Can we stop obsessing with high speed rail? There's more to it than that.

 

[highfigh]

I have the understanding that the primary purpose is to address climate change, not to address high unemployment, which the USA doesn't appear to suffer at this juncture. Regardless, if jobs are created by the GND - in whatever form it may take* - you think people won't be interested in taking them?

Is American work ethic really that poor? If welfare expenditures are any indication, it doesn't appear to be a huge problem.
https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Economy/Social-welfare-spending/>-%-of-GDP/Excluding-education

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-37159686

*Can we stop obsessing with high speed rail? There's more to it than that.

That's just one part of it- the rail system is one example of how little she understands about energy.

 

[GrimSurfer]

Regardless, if jobs are created by the GND - in whatever form it may take* - you think people won't be interested in taking them?

Is American work ethic really that poor?
.

I guess my point is that the political, social and economic conditions have changed since the New Deal. Standards of living have increased. Unemployment is at record lows. So people don't want to exchange backbreaking labor for minimum wages.

The US can't afford to pay more. With a debt to GDP ratio on 300%, the Treasury can't underwrite grand public schemes.

Public private partnership seems to be the new model across the Western world because, frankly, various signature projects, foreign wars, etc. have driven us all (not just the US) into difficult financial territory.

 

[GO-NAD!]

I guess my point is that the political, social and economic conditions have changed since the New Deal. Standards of living have increased. Unemployment is at record lows. So people don't want to exchange backbreaking labor for minimum wages.

The US can't afford to pay more. With a debt to GDP ratio on 300%, the Treasury can't underwrite grand public schemes.

Public private partnership seems to be the new model across the Western world because, frankly, various signature projects, foreign wars, etc. have driven us all (not just the US) into difficult financial territory.

With the modern equipment available now, the proportion of work that would be back-breaking is likely far less now, than it would have been then, I imagine. Referring back to the Atlantic article, a key part of the New Deal, was creating conditions that encouraged the banks to invest their hordes of cash in major infrastructure projects, that they would not otherwise touch.

But, as you say, it's not a direct apples-to-apples comparison.