Many Tea Party folks don't seem to get the concept that governments have to invest in order to maintain or to increase revenues in order to pay down the debt. Raising tax rates and cutting costs alone are not going to do the job. Economic expansion is also necessary.
From a planning standpoint, in a world where human capital is increasingly the only thing that matters and where people are more mobile than they've ever been, livable cities are the principal way governments are able to compete for the best talent. So, fixing the U.S. in order to make it more livable and sustainable should keep planners occupied for the foreseeable future.
An investment in high-speed rail, for instance, doesn't just provide a short-term stimulus to a recessionary economy and fill the gap in aggregate demand when consumers and businesses are unable or unwilling to do so. Such a capital expenditure in infrastructure enhances the economic competitiveness of the country over the long term and helps create the circumstances for economic growth.
The deficiencies of our educational system are relevant here because, if people don't know the history of the Great Depression, they may repeat the same mistakes, including prematurely worrying about the debt and attempting to curtail government spending.
Keynesian economics clearly demonstrated itself through that period in American history, and the nation only fully recovered during World War II, which increased aggregate demand and maximized production in the country.
Hopefully, the President will announce some sort of Manhattan project or mission to the moon Tuesday night when he speaks about the Gulf of Mexico deep-sea oil drilling disaster and about America's unacceptable dependence on fossil fuels because every one of the world's major problems is telling us we need to shift to clean energy immediately.
When did I go from Luke Skywalker to Obi-Wan Kenobi?
I don't think the Tea Party people, themselves, know their organizing principles. The comparison to the Boston Tea Party, itself, doesn't really make any sense.
TO you are way too smart for your own good sometimes I don't think that the average (heck the above average) Tea Partier has a clue as to what economic philosophy they believe in. I am sure that if you worded it right they would agree with any theory you sold them. I know this is getting back to my extreme dislike for a group (it isn't a movement) that has no principles/boundaries/structure, but unless you stand for something... won't you fall for anything??
A common mistake people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools. -Douglas Adams
By that I meant if you took statements from Tea Partiers on average, you'd probably wind up with something loosely resembling Austrian School or neoclassical economic theory (only in dumbed-down layman's terms)....(even if they might not be able to pin it as such...)
I would guess that the "Tea Party" candidates would have a strong hands-off approach to planning/zoning, if they even cared at all about land use issues.
"This is great, honey. What's the crunchy stuff?"
"M&Ms. I ran out of paprika."
Benighted as my state appears to be in regard to its historical policies it does provide some leadership regarding comp planning and construction codes.
Local govts, in order to keep status as "qualified local govt", have to create and follow comp plans, so there is some security therein for those engaging in a planning profession.
As the cliche goes, "If you don't plan you will certainly be blindsided by changes".
More broadly, does it not seem logical that the more complex become our lives, our society, and our general activity, that the more complex our means of regulation would have to become, ergo, "bigger".
Has not a lesson been learned from the recent deregulation of things like energy marketing (Enron and the false California energy crisis) and the financial sector (artificial assets and the housing bubble collapse), not to mention oversight of the mining and mineral extraction industries (coal mine explosions, mountaintop removal, and most recently oil spill ((LA Times has just reported that inspection authority for the rig that exploded was assigned to the South Pacific Marshall Islands)))?
Last edited by TexanOkie; 15 Jun 2010 at 11:24 AM.
"...I would never try to tick Hink off. He kinda intimidates me. He's quite butch, you know." - Maister
As with most questions, I believe the answer lies somewhere in the middle / and it depends on the specific situation. There is no one size fits all answer.
"Those who plan do better than those who do not plan, even though they rarely stick to their plan." - Winston Churchill
ursus forgot to mention China in his list of uber state controlled planning locations.
Their model appears to suit the biggest corporations just fine.
There is a huge ideological area between communism and Enron. A definition I've heard is that communism is control of business by government, and fascism is control of government by business. I think somewhere in between is where to shoot for; it's not an either or.
You didn't mention what might happen if US turned to fascism...
Suppose a prez like GWBush began rounding up "intellectuals" as did Franco in Spain, and gunning them down, as Franco did with Lorca, would anyone protest?
Interesting - he did manage to shut a lot of intellectuals up, though