 |
Re: The Economic and Environmental Potential of High-Speed Rail -And the eligibiilty and/or legality of the use of project/taxpayer funds to "lobby" Congress?
Author: BOB2
Date: 10-17-2023 - 20:35
FUD Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Basically an advertising piece aimed at
> CongressCritters and state legislators. Not that
> there's anything wrong in it, really. It's just a
> bit one-sided. And little is actually said about
> environmental impact, just economic. Reads like a
> story you'd find in Railway Age, but without quite
> as much meat.
If you mean it is PR that is intended to lobby or affect "CongresscCritters" (meaning Federal Legislator's in the House and/or Senate I presume...???) to provide funding for the project, and it is done with Federal project funds, or State funds used to match Federal project funds, then it is of course illegal and a clear violation of Federal law.
Of course, nothing could surprised me at this point, given the long history of just sheer hubris, incompetence, and mismanagement of this gold plated taxpayer fiasco. And the thought that the CAHSRA would not do something that flagrant or arrogant has long passed, given the long history of flagrant and arrogant lies that have been told by California's "runaway money train".
As to the multiplier effects of societal infrastructure expenditures (and from many other societal expenditures...) on GDP, yes, all expenditures can result in economic multipliers, even spending on natural disasters can do that, too. But there are far better examples than the theoretical general "macroeconomic" benefits which may come about from this particular gold plated fiasco.
What we are getting for what we are paying for it, in actual long term transportatin benefits, is the better economic argument for the average taxpayer to use at the "microeconomic" level is more important in assessing the degree of gold plated and unnecessary waste and bloat/compared to long term benefits/after costs, of the CAHSRA's current boondoggle.
And, I should note that this same kind of simplistic "macroeconomic" argument can even be used to show the economic "benefits" of an increase in cancer rates, as this can also increase short term GDP growth by stimulating the demand for doctors and medications.
So yeah, it's pretty predictable simplistic economic "benefits" propaganda aimed at about the level of comprehension of your generally pretty dumbass "average" Member of Congress these days. So it just might work...?
-------------------------------------------------------
> Basically an advertising piece aimed at
> CongressCritters and state legislators. Not that
> there's anything wrong in it, really. It's just a
> bit one-sided. And little is actually said about
> environmental impact, just economic. Reads like a
> story you'd find in Railway Age, but without quite
> as much meat.
If you mean it is PR that is intended to lobby or affect "CongresscCritters" (meaning Federal Legislator's in the House and/or Senate I presume...???) to provide funding for the project, and it is done with Federal project funds, or State funds used to match Federal project funds, then it is of course illegal and a clear violation of Federal law.
Of course, nothing could surprised me at this point, given the long history of just sheer hubris, incompetence, and mismanagement of this gold plated taxpayer fiasco. And the thought that the CAHSRA would not do something that flagrant or arrogant has long passed, given the long history of flagrant and arrogant lies that have been told by California's "runaway money train".
As to the multiplier effects of societal infrastructure expenditures (and from many other societal expenditures...) on GDP, yes, all expenditures can result in economic multipliers, even spending on natural disasters can do that, too. But there are far better examples than the theoretical general "macroeconomic" benefits which may come about from this particular gold plated fiasco.
What we are getting for what we are paying for it, in actual long term transportatin benefits, is the better economic argument for the average taxpayer to use at the "microeconomic" level is more important in assessing the degree of gold plated and unnecessary waste and bloat/compared to long term benefits/after costs, of the CAHSRA's current boondoggle.
And, I should note that this same kind of simplistic "macroeconomic" argument can even be used to show the economic "benefits" of an increase in cancer rates, as this can also increase short term GDP growth by stimulating the demand for doctors and medications.
So yeah, it's pretty predictable simplistic economic "benefits" propaganda aimed at about the level of comprehension of your generally pretty dumbass "average" Member of Congress these days. So it just might work...?
| Subject | Written By | Date/Time (PST) |
|---|---|---|
 The Economic and Environmental Potential of High-Speed Rail
|
Commenter | 10-17-2023 - 12:49 |
|
Re: The Economic and Environmental Potential of High-Speed Rail
|
FUD | 10-17-2023 - 17:49 |
|
Re: The Economic and Environmental Potential of High-Speed Rail -And the eligibiilty and/or legality of the use of project/taxpayer funds to "lobby" Congress? |
BOB2 | 10-17-2023 - 20:35 |
|
Re: And, having known and met Norm Mineta several times personally, it's even kind of embarrassing...
|
BOB2 | 10-18-2023 - 11:08 |