05 March 2012

"can’t imagine how the government can be an investor"


Dear Dr. Bones,

Worried a little about the usual problem of thin skins attached to blue noses, I think I had better leave the following tripartite caboodle

It's time for a new narrative about how to grow the American economy
greg-bialecki | Sun, Mar 4, 2012 8:12 PM EST

Greg Bialecki is the Secretary of the Department of Housing and Economic Development....

(...)

Governor Patrick and I and others in the Patrick-Murray Administration have been working to develop such a strategy for Massachusetts over the last five years and we think that what has been working for Massachusetts has relevance for the US as a whole.

(...)

The government is a terrible investor

I’m sorry but the Massachusetts government has demonstrated that it is a terrible investor:

1. At its best it will be overly cautious and lose less than the market (your five-year recall)

2. In the middle it will put money into faddish industries (Evergreen) and then pass laws forcing the consumers to support these weak companies

3. At its worst it will miss new industries entirely or funnel money to golf buddies of government officials (Cognos)

Massachusetts had the weakest growth during Romney’s term in the country, because you raised investment taxes and those who wanted to innovate left the state. Now you claim you can be a better substitute. If you guys were great investors, you wouldn’t be working for the government.

It’s time for our government at all levels to get out of supporting a welfare/warfare economy and develop an innovation economy based on allowing the market to determine which products people want fastest and letting that happen, rather than stifling it at every turn, trying to take a cut for projects that by rights should be killed.

You may say “oh we tried that before”. Yeah and lots of people got jobs, and created products. You can’t just say it’s time to stop innovating because I got mine, but that’s what too many people in Massachusetts do. Life is about growth, expansion and replacement of what is not useful any more with new growth.

seascraper @ Mon 5 Mar 10:11 AM

The government invests by building infrastructure and safety nets

I have no doubt that our other-winged friends can’t imagine how the government can be an investor. That’s because they apparently can’t imagine (a) how it is possible to invest in any capacity other than in exchange for ownership and (b) how any motivation besides individual self-interest can drive successful investment.

The government invests in growth when it builds a sustainable transportation infrastructure — in Massachusetts, that demands investing in commuter rail and the MBTA. The government invests in growth when it builds (or at least stops dismantling) a world-class educational system. The government invests in growth when it funds basic scientific research in a variety of domains. The government invests in growth when it invests in providing affordable and accessible health care to every American. The government invests in growth when it invests in ensuring that our seniors can live comfortably, enabling younger generations to devote more of their energy making our economy strong and viable. The government invests in growth when it builds and strengthens (rather than dismantling) regulatory agencies that stop the handful of wealthy predators among us from plundering the prosperity of the rest of us. The government invests in growth when it punishes those who commit crimes against humanity (like kidnap, torture, rape, and murder) so that we aren’t forced to live in a nation that is a pariah in the civilized world. A populace that is frightened, hungry, ill, thirsty, cold, angry and depressed is much less able take the bold, creative, and innovative steps needed to thrive and prosper in the 21st century world.

The GOP opposes every action that a first-world nation does to promote sustainable growth in the twenty-first century.

somervilletom @ Mon 5 Mar 2:22 PM

here for you to hold while I poke a few holes. As follows:

On the contrary, Wall Street and lesser Hoovervillains can "imagine how the government can be an investor" with ease, and what they imagine terrorizes them. Let the evil Fedguv once start doing anything that might actually make a profit [*], and ¿What chance would ScroogeBank and the Warbucks Defense Widget (&c. &c.) have against a Supercompetitor that comes equipped with the power to levy taxes, not to mention with pepper spray and nukes? A Competitor so Super is Sam that--¡oh, the unfairness of Life!--He can borrow money cheaper than anybody else on the planet.

Of course it is humiliating to have to admit that one is scared, so instead of frankly sayin’ what Paddy just said for them, economic whight-wingers mostly shut their eyes, clap their hands, and recite piously from the same catechism that Freedame ‘Seascraper’ just gave us a fine specimen of: "... Government ... will be overly cautious ... [and] put money into faddish industries ... [and] miss new industries entirely ... [and] funnel money to golf buddies of government officials." For no reason at all (that ever gets properly) explained, that is, ‘government’ is bound to make every mistake in the Specuvestment for Dummies book. And then invent a couple of new ones.

I wouldn't know about umber-skied Planet Seascrape, but around here, we never got closer to the Abomination of Econmic Desolation than the Tennessee Valley Authority--certainly not very close. Had NSTAR and National Grid been around in 1933, well fortified with M.B.A. expertise from the H*rv*rd Victory School [**], I daresay there would have been no occasion for Uncle Sam to go into banausic Trade at all. Rather oddly, TVA was both the closest Sam ever got to specuvestment as the Secret Sector ordinarily understands it and one of the plainest Fedguv infringements ever on the sphere of the Red Cross.

(( "To be continued," he threatened, twirling his moustache. ))

Happy days.
--JHM


___
[*] That--money returned on money laid out, and returned in the form of money well before the heat death of the universe--is what Paddy and the Baincappers understand by the word ‘investment’. I like the MBTA too, and wish the card-carrying Blue Blazers were more concerned about it, yet if our hack masters up on the Hill decide to do something about its finances, to speak of ‘investment’ is only a way of amusing oneself. Or of trying to deceive somebody else.

Somerville seeems to be taking the lead in reducing the I-word from a notion that was maybe not so nice, but clear and definite, to mist and mush and "Crossing the Boston Common, Olive and Verena invested a total of $2.75 (€2.08) with three different stakehandlers."


[**] Reference is to the former



Allston (Mass.) Academy of Chirurgy and Barber Science




No comments:

Post a Comment