Ron Paul: Stimulus Packages Will Turn Recession Into A Depression

[snoopy369]

Particularly, the Georgist idea would effectively combat companies buying up huge tracts of land and sitting on it, waiting for cities (say, Denver/Aurora) to sprawl out to the spot they purchased; then build a bunch of houses and charge high premiums for the developments.

As far as I'm concerned, entirely undeveloped/unused land SHOULD be prohibitively expensive. It should either be used by its owner for some benefit, or it should be owned by the state. There's no economically beneficial reason to permit the ownership of unused land; if someone else can use it to a benefit, they should be able to. [That said, 'recreation' and 'the environment' are perfectly good reasons - but that should be the purvey of the state.]

[Victor Galis]

I'm not against taxation or financing the government, but I do support a different method. How do you feel about a Georgist Land Tax?

I'll have to look at this more carefully later.

One problem though with limiting work weeks is that it really only helps low-skill industries. If a certain skill is in short supply and is slow to train new people (like medicine), it doesn't help anybody to choke off the availability of labor.

That's true. Well, but it's not necessarily based on skill. It's true of any industry where there's a shortage of people. I'm sure there's a fair number of skilled trades where there is unemployment.

I don't think people saving money would hurt the economy. I think that we have too much dependence on the retail sector in the United States (and the west in general). Basing your economy on borrowing from China to buy Chinese made goods is not very sound.

That's the joy of capitalism The economy grows when stuff is bought. It contracts when stuff doesn't. Now, you could argue that if we were less materialistic a fall in GNP would not necessarily mean we're worse off. The trouble is that less consumption means less jobs (unless productivity or work hours fall).

If we had a command economy, the transition would not be so difficult, but we'd give up a lot of efficiency

[notyoueither]

My commute is 30 minutes 1-way. When I had an apartment, I had a 15-minute commute until my job got moved, after which I would've had a 30-45 minute commute if I'd stayed. I ended up moving in with my then gf, now wife, and had a 30 minute commute. So for me, moving out to the country didn't change my commute.

Now, it's true that if I rented an apartment in Hartford, I could have a 5 minute walk for a commute. But I don't want to live in Hartford. Full stop.

Do you mind if I ask why you would dislike living in Hartford?

[Felch]

There's no economically beneficial reason to permit the ownership of unused land; if someone else can use it to a benefit, they should be able to. [That said, 'recreation' and 'the environment' are perfectly good reasons - but that should be the purvey of the state.]

Certainly purpose of any economy is to ensure that resources are being properly exploited. Socialists try to achieve this by dividing the pie equally, while capitalists try to do this by making the pie as big as possible. I sympathize more with a squatter who wants to use a property than with a speculator who wants to gamble on its future value. I do think that there are private groups that would be interested in owning land for recreation or environmental reasons. Ski resorts can derive value from a snowy mountain, and hunting clubs might be organized to provide weekend warriors with recreation on privately owned wilderness. Environmental groups might want to purchase sensitive land so that they can exercise ownership rights and sue polluters. The important thing with those is that the land itself isn't as valuable as it would be if it were more integrated with the overall economy, so the tax on the land would generally be lower.

[Naked Gents Rut]

Do you mind if I ask why you would dislike living in Hartford?

No hockey team.

[Arrian]

Do you mind if I ask why you would dislike living in Hartford?

1. I don't like cities. They're ok, I guess, to visit.
2. I have come to enjoy owning my own house (which you can do in Hartford, but not within 5 minutes walk of the office)
3. I really like owning land. I like the seclusion, and the beauty of it. I like the fact that I have ~1 acre of land fenced in and my dogs can romp around in there. My wife was even more about having land. Her first requirement, when we were looking for houses, was a 3 acre minimum. I talked her into theoretically accepting 1. We ended up with 5.8.
4. Hartford is lacking some basic conveniences. Like, you know, a decent grocery store. It's a chicken & the egg sort of thing. People don't want to live there, so there isn't a store (or more stores - certainly not downtown)... which contributes to people not wanting to live there. There's the Civic Center and the Bushnell, but we don't have to live in Hartford to go. On weekends, we can park for free (company parking garage).
5. Education. We don't have a kid, but we may decide to have one. If we lived in Hartford, we'd send the kiddo to private school. That isn't cheap. Furthermore, I'm vaguely suspicious of private schools. My wife went to an excellent one, and she turned out great, but... hey, I'm a public school guy and those snooty private school types man, I dunno about 'em.
6. Crime.

-Arrian

[Solomwi]

Particularly, the Georgist idea would effectively combat companies buying up huge tracts of land and sitting on it, waiting for cities (say, Denver/Aurora) to sprawl out to the spot they purchased; then build a bunch of houses and charge high premiums for the developments.

As far as I'm concerned, entirely undeveloped/unused land SHOULD be prohibitively expensive. It should either be used by its owner for some benefit, or it should be owned by the state. There's no economically beneficial reason to permit the ownership of unused land; if someone else can use it to a benefit, they should be able to. [That said, 'recreation' and 'the environment' are perfectly good reasons - but that should be the purvey of the state.]

Adverse possession is a much more elegant solution to idle land than seizure and forfeiture to the state. And it has the added benefit of already being in place.

[Felch]

I know a guy who raises horses and is taking over the farm next to his. The land is abandoned, I think because the owner died and no family is around to take over. Instead of decaying and presenting a problem for the community, the farm is being worked and used productively. Adverse possession is a good instrument for resolving such cases.

[The Mad Monk]

Particularly, the Georgist idea would effectively combat companies buying up huge tracts of land and sitting on it, waiting for cities (say, Denver/Aurora) to sprawl out to the spot they purchased; then build a bunch of houses and charge high premiums for the developments.

As far as I'm concerned, entirely undeveloped/unused land SHOULD be prohibitively expensive. It should either be used by its owner for some benefit, or it should be owned by the state. There's no economically beneficial reason to permit the ownership of unused land; if someone else can use it to a benefit, they should be able to. [That said, 'recreation' and 'the environment' are perfectly good reasons - but that should be the purvey of the state.]

Not only no, but HELL NO.

We have given the government far too much power already. Don't you DARE suggest that if I want to leave MY land undeveloped, for WHATEVER reason, that it should be surrendered to the government, which will only be TOO HAPPY to sell it to the next developer of a casino/strip mall/housing tract that fills the right campaign coffers.

Recreation and the environment should the the purview of the GOVERNMENT!? What the hell are you smoking!?

[The Mad Monk]

Meanwhile, back on topic...

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama warned on Thursday that failure to act on an economic recovery package could plunge the nation into a long-lasting recession that might prove irreversible, a fresh call to a recalcitrant Congress to move quickly.

In an op-ed piece in The Washington Post, the president argued that each day without his stimulus package, Americans lose more jobs, savings and homes. His message came as congressional leaders struggle to control the huge stimulus bill that's been growing larger by the day in the Senate. The addition of a new tax break for homebuyers Wednesday evening sent the price tag well past $900 billion.

Senate Democratic leaders hope for passage of the legislation by Friday at the latest, although prospects appear to hinge on crafting a series of spending reductions that would make the bill more palatable to centrists in both parties.

Obama painted a bleak picture if lawmakers do nothing.

"This recession might linger for years. Our economy will lose 5 million more jobs. Unemployment will approach double digits. Our nation will sink deeper into a crisis that, at some point, we may not be able to reverse," Obama wrote in the newspaper piece titled, "The Action Americans Need."

More behind the link... http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090205/...s_stimulus_126

Did I read that right? Did Obama really write that if the corpulant piece of bloat known as the stimulus package isn't passed, and quickly, that the economy will go into an irreversable death spiral???

What. The. HELL.

[DanS]

Yeh, it's total bull****. Further, it's the wrong thing to say.

[Naked Gents Rut]

It's the right thing to say if you're trying to use the "politics of fear" to push your Democratic wish-list through Congress as quickly as possible.

[DanS]

Yes, but why is he relying on the politics of fear? He is going to get what he wants anyway, more or less.

[The Mad Monk]

Let's see. We survived the Long Depression, the Great Depression, Stagflation, and a host of other little recessions, but THIS one will DESTROY THE WORLD.

[Docfeelgood]

Let's see. We survived the Long Depression, the Great Depression, Stagflation, and a host of other little recessions, but THIS one will DESTROY THE WORLD.

OBAMA gonna save us all!!!!