Global financial meltdown #2

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

None of you have answered the question as to why taxpayers should subsidize internet comedy though. That's the context of that article.

I telecommute. Because I do so I live in a city. I could theoretically live in a cabin way up in the mountains but then I wouldn't be able to telecommute. I don't see it as some kind of "right" or even "need" that the taxpayers should have to run an internet line out to wherever the hell I want to live. That's silly.

And the idea of "national wireless internet" is even more absurd. Wi-Fi has a range of about 70 feet. Lets say new technology boosts that to 300 feet. Do you know what it would cost to implement that in the rural US? There are 19,000 municipal governments in the US. There are 30,000 unincorporated cities. It is almost certain that the market will bring high-speed web access to these places before a staggeringly large new bureaucracy would be able to, to say nothing of true-rural dwellings. That is assuming there is even demand for high-speed internet out in the sticks. The word of one comedian who is frustrated because he can't have his cake and eat it too does not sway me.

Uh, what he said.

Um, the example given int he article wasn't to say "National Broadband is required so comedy websites can function!" but to serve as an example of how internet coverage in north america is not as good or extensive as some here are trying to pretend it is.

I haven't pretended anything -- I'm going off the number (90% coverage) cited by that unfunny comedy writer himself. And I think that level of coverage over a country this huge, in that amount of time, without it being the product of a massive government investment, is a pretty freaking good deal for taxpayers. It's going to take longer to roll out access to more rural areas, but I don't see that as some kind of flaw that justifies an expensive fix.

And I will say that a goal of 100% coverage throughout the entire nation is simply ridiculous, and cost-prohibitive.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

Um, the example given int he article wasn't to say "National Broadband is required so comedy websites can function!" but to serve as an example of how internet coverage in north america is not as good or extensive as some here are trying to pretend it is.

Well it certainly isn't available in my mountaintop cabin, but it is available to almost everyone who needs it. It has become, and is becoming, available at such a rate as to make government intervention superfluous at best and counter-productive at worst. The article cited makes a terrible case (the guy had what he wanted, and gave it up due to a lack of diligence on his own part, now complains).

If you absolutely NEED some sort of government construction project to create jobs, there are simply way better places to invest that the market does not reach (government roads, improving the national parks, hell, creating new national parks).

[Dinsdale!]

Alright I give up, FLOW doesn't understand how the internet works and I don't feel like explaining it to him. Personally at this point I'm surprised he can figure out how to turn on his computer let alone access this site.

Okay, dude, I got this. The internet is, like, a series of tubes. Ted Williams said that, and he was the last person to hit .400. Wireless internet is like invisible tubes.

i.e. strings

i.e. string theory.

If the gov't doesn't help out., we'll never have a grand unified theory

like peace.

[Swordfish]

I'm suggesting high-speeed rail for the inter-city express that would link Boston-NY-Philly-DC. It would replace the current Acela express service that is not actually high speed at all. If a high-speed train can get from downtown NY to downtown Boston in 4 hours or less, then it becomes a viable alternative to air travel when you allow for the time spent getting to and from airports, security screening and air travel delays.

Right. i get that. What i don't get is why it's so important, other than to save the people who commute from boston to NY an hour or so of commute time.

Or at least, important enough to justify the expense. What is the ROI for the average taxpayer here?

I'm not suggesting high speed rail for the suburban rail network (two things are being conflated). For the suburban rail system, I would suggest improving the infrastructure capacity to remove the current problems with congestion, bottlenecks and domino-effect delays.

Agreed.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

But I can see your argument, definitely. I ride public transportation every day, and have for 3 years. Used to be a suburban rail, but now I'm on two different trolleys. I'd much rather see some development of local public transportation before I'd like to see high speed rail.

Like to see? Hell, it's required. There is no point in taking the train somewhere if you don't have a way to get around once you get there.

[lokisnow]

all politics is local. We can't have the state of california financing a los angeles rail network, but we can have teh state of california financing a completely useless and pointless high speed rail line for the whole state. (a flight from LA to SF takes an hour, add in an hour pre flight airport time and a half hour post flight airport time and it's still shorter than the five-eight hours a High Speed rail trip will take when you factor in the ten stops it has to make and pointlessly indirect pathway it takes to bum fuck desert land like Palmdale. And note that I'm not including an extra half hour for pre and post trip at the rail stations. In theory it might take only three hours to make an HSR trip from LA to SF, but in reality it will be double that. Especially once the Nimby's along the route start passing local laws that cap its speed at 65 mph while passing through their jurisdiction. (THANK OF HTE CHILDNRE!)

What we need is the state of california or the government of the united states willing to finance a los angeles rail network instead of a statewide project, because there is a massively bigger need for it and because building a High speed rail without local rail networks in the major cities it connects is like building a high-dive board but forgetting to build the pool beneath it. instead, they're only willing to finance fucking boondoggle giant projects that make no sense because there isn't the base local infrastructue in los angeles. There is in San Diego and San Francisco. so the high speed rail line should be a second phase, after the first phase of LA rail construction is complete. Or we should build both simultaneously, because construction delays will cause the HSR california line to take at least twenty-forty years to complete, LA could get a lot done in that time.

[Shryke]

all politics is local. We can't have the state of california financing a los angeles rail network, but we can have teh state of california financing a completely useless and pointless high speed rail line for the whole state. (a flight from LA to SF takes an hour, add in an hour pre flight airport time and a half hour post flight airport time and it's still shorter than the five-eight hours a High Speed rail trip will take when you factor in the ten stops it has to make and pointlessly indirect pathway it takes to bum fuck desert land like Palmdale. And note that I'm not including an extra half hour for pre and post trip at the rail stations. In theory it might take only three hours to make an HSR trip from LA to SF, but in reality it will be double that. Especially once the Nimby's along the route start passing local laws that cap its speed at 65 mph while passing through their jurisdiction. (THANK OF HTE CHILDNRE!)

What we need is the state of california or the government of the united states willing to finance a los angeles rail network instead of a statewide project, because there is a massively bigger need for it and because building a High speed rail without local rail networks in the major cities it connects is like building a high-dive board but forgetting to build the pool beneath it. instead, they're only willing to finance fucking boondoggle giant projects that make no sense because there isn't the base local infrastructue in los angeles. There is in San Diego and San Francisco. so the high speed rail line should be a second phase, after the first phase of LA rail construction is complete. Or we should build both simultaneously, because construction delays will cause the HSR california line to take at least twenty-forty years to complete, LA could get a lot done in that time.

Hehehe, Canada has the same issues. Urban infrastructure is so fucked under the way many countries are set up.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

Hehehe, Canada has the same issues. Urban infrastructure is so fucked under the way many countries are set up.

I reckon all countries of our relative size (Russia, Canada, USA, Brazil, China, Australia) face the same problem. We don't have series-of-cities-right-next-to-each-other that you get in western europe (with the exception of the Northeast USA and Beijing-Shanghai megalopolis in China). There isn't a need for as much public transit when urban areas are separated by such enormous distance.

[Shryke]

I reckon all countries of our relative size (Russia, Canada, USA, Brazil, China, Australia) face the same problem. We don't have series-of-cities-right-next-to-each-other that you get in western europe (with the exception of the Northeast USA and Beijing-Shanghai megalopolis in China). There isn't a need for as much public transit when urban areas are separated by such enormous distance.

I was more talking about how cities need internal transit but the fact that power generally resides far more with the state/province/equivalent government means it doesn't happen very much.

[karaddin]

The other big issue with it in Australia (or at least NSW) is that long term infrastructure projects suck up a lot of cash now, without giving a return before the next election so you face the hit for spending without the boost from the result. What makes it even worse is the fear that you spend 6 or 9 years in government spending money on it, only to get voted out just before it finishes and the other side gets to claim credit for it.

[ThinkerX]

Broadband access..of all the problems and perils out there, *this* is the one that people here choose to argue about?

As it is, I have a somewhat relevant tale of my own here. Half a century ago, my parents laid claim to a homestead here in the frozen north, right at the end of the road grid, and with that, the utility grid. The olde telephone landlines used to stop - literally about a mile and a half past their house (these days its about ten miles past their house). Same story with the power grid. Natural Gas pipelines for residential use also end just past their place (and didn't get put in until about two dozen years ago, and then with a lot of hassle). Get the picture? Ok...now on to cell phones.

Folks have had cell phones for over ten years now. Problem was, they could not use the cell phones at their house because they lived about a mile past the range of the last cell tower in the lineup. Pa used to find it immensly frustrating: a neighbor he visited pretty often had reliable cell service, and if the gods of the wavelengths were smiling, he *might* get a really weak signal at the top of the driveway, but mostly the cell phone was for getting hold of him when he was out and about. Since he was out and about quite a bit, that made having the cell phone worth while. That was the situation until this spring - when the next cell tower got turned on. Now, not just my parents, but all of their neighbors have cell phone service - all three or four hundred of them (not sure just how many are in that new subdivision).

Thats it - a brand spanking new cell phone tower to provide service to a few hundred people. The old tower was at least close to the intersection of several important local roads; it probably provided service to well over a thousand people, and a good three dozen or so businesses. Same story with the tower before that one. But this new tower...whats the point? There are no businesses to speak of. It is a rural area with few internet users. It is, quite literally, right at the edge of the wilderness.

[lokisnow]

in a related note many state and federal parks deep in the wilderness provide cell service now because otherwise they demographically can't sustain themselves in the long run. people can't go without their texting.

[Joanna vander Poele]

I was more talking about how cities need internal transit but the fact that power generally resides far more with the state/province/equivalent government means it doesn't happen very much.

Hey now, the Canada Line is my lifesaver :) Richmond to Vancouver and back has never been easier. And it looks so sleek and modern too.

Where do you live, Shryke? How's the transit there?

PS I have to confess, I was only in Montreal for a day and a half, but the subway there looked kinda... grimy :P haha. Plus, they still use wheels! Very loud.

[ants]

Jeor:

Our banks have still expanded credit to the housing market at an irresponsible and unsustainable rate like pretty much the rest of the western world did with their housing markets. While we didn't quite get to the "NINJA" loan level as occured in the US, our banks still made risky loans. Low-doc loans, interest-only loans, high LVR loans (including ones that lent you the deposit!), don't think for a second we're immune. Not to mention the doubling of the FHOG and guarenteeing offshore bank borrowing by the govt during the onset of the GFC (I can't stress enough how stupid this was) where first home buyers used the doubling up of the grant as their deposit.

While I agree we won't see the same "bang" as the US did, our bubble will deflate and it will have repurcussions on our economy. I'm of the idea that we'll see a slow, painful melt of atleast 5 years while inflation eats away, similar to what occured during the 90s recession.

Australia is in a significantly different place to the UK/US:

• Our interest rates are quite high already - unlike the UK/US the Reserve Bank can drop them almost 5 full points before hitting zero. That is a LOT of manoeuvring room that the UK/US just didn't have when things hit the wall.
  
• Despite (relative to world current levels) high interest rates - we are at full employment.
  
• Because of our auction style of house buying, bank checks are very different to the UK/US. Far more focus on ability to pay back than relying on the house value staying constant/rising.
  
• Different (and stronger) risk structures and regulation on our banks.
  
• Significantly less sub-prime lending than in the US.
  

A drop in commodity prices wouldn't be good, but that plus a drop in interest rates would cause the dollar to depreciate from its current high levels. That would give a lot of other parts of the economy a shot in the arm, instead of being strangled.

Frankly, house prices staying steady would not be the end of the world either.

[ants]

Double Post

[Shryke]

Hey now, the Canada Line is my lifesaver :) Richmond to Vancouver and back has never been easier. And it looks so sleek and modern too.

Where do you live, Shryke? How's the transit there?

PS I have to confess, I was only in Montreal for a day and a half, but the subway there looked kinda... grimy :P haha. Plus, they still use wheels! Very loud.

Toronto and Montreal.

And you think the wheels make it loud? The wheels are the reason it doesn't do that incredibly loud metal-on-metal screeching.

Montreal is better then Toronto, but still has some issues. Both suffer, afaik, from the fact that a city just cannot raise the funding necessary to upgrade mass transit infrastructure, especially when they are usually getting screwed by riders from outside the city limits who don't pay city taxes but use the transit. This means funding needs to come from the provincial or federal level and that shit can be like pulling teeth.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

The majority of economists surveyed by the National Association for Business Economics believe that the federal deficit should be reduced only or primarily through spending cuts.

The survey out Monday found that 56 percent of the NABE members surveyed felt that way, while 37 percent said they favor equal parts spending cuts and tax increases. The remaining 7 percent believe it should be done only or mostly through tax increases.

As for how to reduce the deficit, nearly 40 percent said the best way would be to contain Medicare and Medicaid costs. Nearly a quarter recommended overhauling the tax system and simplifying tax rates and exemptions. About 15 percent said the government should enact tough spending caps and cut discretionary spending.

The latest survey by the NABE was conducted in the two weeks ending Aug. 2, the day that the Senate passed and President Obama signed legislation to cut spending by more than $2 trillion and raise the nation's debt ceiling.

The agreement managed to avert a potential default, but Standard & Poor's downgraded U.S. credit from AAA to AA+, citing the political wrangling over the deal as a reason.

According to the survey of 250 economists who are members of NABE, nearly 49 percent of those responding said the country's fiscal policy should be more restrictive, while nearly 37 percent said they believe the government should do more to stimulate the economy. The remainder said fiscal policy should remain the same....

http://www.cnbc.com/id/44226011

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

*cue Shryke impugning the source*

[Greywolf2375]

Interesting way to quantify the jobless rate

[Shryke]

*cue Shryke impugning the source*

Can't find much on how that organization leans actually.

Though they were headed by Greenspan at one point apparently.

Though I do enjoy the first sentence being ridiculously misleading, but that's CNBC's fault:

The majority of economists surveyed by the National Association for Business Economics believe

The survey out Monday found that 56 percent of the NABE members surveyed