Writes Brett Christophers, in "The Unfortunate, Unintended Consequence of the Inflation Reduction Act" (NYT).
८ मे, २०२३
"The Inflation Reduction Act... will help accelerate the growing private ownership of U.S. infrastructure...."
"The consequences for the public at large, whose well-being depends on the quality and cost of a host of infrastructure-based services, from energy to transportation, are unlikely to be positive.... Biden’s laws will radically overhaul this culture. Informed by what Brian Alexander, a writer for The Atlantic, in 2017 described as a profound recent change in philosophy among U.S. policymakers about 'how to build and maintain America’s stuff,' the modus operandi of... is principally to subsidize and catalyze private-sector infrastructure investment.... [I]n political-economic terms Mr. Biden, far from assuming Roosevelt’s mantle, has actually been dismantling the Rooseveltian legacy. The ultimate upshot will be a wholesale transformation of the national landscape of infrastructure ownership and associated service delivery...."
Writes Brett Christophers, in "The Unfortunate, Unintended Consequence of the Inflation Reduction Act" (NYT).
Writes Brett Christophers, in "The Unfortunate, Unintended Consequence of the Inflation Reduction Act" (NYT).
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
३१ टिप्पण्या:
Biden is doing his damndest to re-elect Trump, isn't he?
Paywall but from the paragraph NYT wants you to believe ‘infrastructure’ means what it bas always meant- bridges, roads, platforms, etc. To George Soros it means ‘clean energy’ and all the pork laden projects subsidizing building it and rewarding corruptocrats* while creating blue collar ‘jobs’ for workers that need to depend on George Soros, which means you better do what he wants or you’ll lose your job…
* spell check correcting corruptocrats is who we are…
The inflation reduction act...
- Largest investment in climate/environmental focus ever. $391 billion.
- Huge expansion of IRS. $80 billion.
- Unclear inflation reduction measures, mainly focused on enabling drug price negotiation
Worked out in secret with Schumer and Manchin. Mainly focused on giving a "win" before the mid-cycles.
Just about the worst all around recipe - as a war breaks out, inflation rages, and our deficit spending is out of control - congress focuses on unprecedented environmental investment.
Mr. Biden, far from assuming Roosevelt’s mantle, has actually been dismantling the Rooseveltian legacy.
Ten percent for the big guy.
The author assumes that all those wind turbines and solar panels can get local approval. That’s no longer a sure thing.
The real problem with pursuing net zero is that it will triple electricity rates.
Hard to say what Biden’s biggest screwup is: the IRA, immigration, inflation, Russia policy or China policy. Biden has caused irreparable harm in short order.
Zuckerberg’s hatred of Trump gave us Biden.
I thought the NYT supposedly had great editors that enforced good writing standards. Each paragraph in this article would flip concept between the start and end of it.
I read it, because I know a bunch of people who recognized the consequences of the IRA and Infrastructure and Investment Jobs Act; but Brett Christophers would not be one of them. Christophers wants government to own all the infrastructure, rather than what he describes of Biden's plans to have subsidize public corporate investment. His concern seems to be whether we are to have a Communist/Socialist economy or a Fascist economy, and he prefers a Communist one. He just seems afraid to use the actual words.
Personally, I rather we have freer markets.
The other unfortunate, unintended consequence is that it won’t do a thing to reduce inflation.
It's a basic truism that anything the government can do, the private sector can do better, faster, cheaper. But sometimes "better, faster, cheaper" isn't the most important consideration. That's where policy makers shoud look, that's where public discussion should happen.
How far do you take school choice when one outcome is that kids without responsible parents are left in even worse shape? Military, highways, police, fire--is society best served by giving the wealthy better service? Maybe, maybe not. It depends on the quality of the service provided to the rest of us under that scenario.
That's the discussion that needs to happen--where is equality the highest value? (In which case you want government or a highly regulated private sector.) Where isn't it? (In which case you want greater or lesser degrees of free market.)
There is almost nothing, infrastructure wise, that can't be better conceived, built and operated by the private sector. Very few people in the public sector are qualified to have the jobs they have.
This was getting some traction in the early part of the century but fell away with the 2008 financial crisis. Privately owned infrastructure can be more efficiently constructed and operated, and serve a greater purpose than a jobs bank for workers whose union dues end up financing the Democratic Party. Opponents will pretend that this will result in the exclusion of large numbers of people from being able to use public infrastructure, and that is simply a lie.
Remember the public debate on this? No? You mean that they simply chose a name based on a Congressional scoring that the bill would reduce inflation that has already blown up, and forced it through and accused anyone who wanted to read it of being a Nazi?
Ain’t democracy grand?
There are Constitutional entanglements with the government censoring you. Private companies- well, they can do whatever they want say the liberals…
“Unintended”
LOL “unintended” eh? Sure. What’s the point of 435 proof reading voting members then?
So now the biggest socialist president in our history is actually Ayn Rand?
No end to the gaslighting...
“ How far do you take school choice when one outcome is that kids without responsible parents are left in even worse shape?”
Always love this comment, that ignores the horrendous school system we have now and how so many people of any means has already opted out. Oh my gosh how far can we take school choice when some children might suffer from it. Versus oh my gosh how long can we let children suffer horribly from the current system.
The current system which has become a democrat party money machine and vote factory. It certainly isn’t focused on those children.
"to subsidize and catalyze private-sector infrastructure investment"
IOW, crony capitalism to make rich people richer.
"The Unfortunate, Unintended Consequence of the Inflation Reduction Act" (NYT).
This depends on the meaning of intent. The intent of the act was to pass something, anything, to get a legislative win and shovel money out the door. None of its provisions was examined, discussed, and evaluated. No one voting for it knew what the consequences were going to be, except in terms of ballpark figures for the subsidies. Of course, the very name of the act was BS. The overall "intended" consequence, insofar as there is one, is to force a green transition BAMN, at the cost of crippling debt and a lower standard of living.
This author seems to assume that the "public sector" will simply be able to do create new green infrastructure when commanded to do so.
The evidence supports that shared responsibility occurs through progressive prices ("inflation"), not costs, offset through labor and environmental arbitrage, preferred currency for economic exchange, and redistributive change.
Ain’t democracy grand?
The democratic/dictatorial duality, which is why America was founded as neither a democracy nor a dictatorship.
Biden is doing his damndest to re-elect Trump, isn't he?
Or pass the buck a la Afghanistan, Iraq, Obamacares, immigration reform, etc.
Of course! QuidProJoe knows how to maximize the opportunities for graft.
Democrats are incapable of governing, but they excel at grifting and pandering.
does this article actually give SPECIFICS? And why not name all the Republican senators who voted for this piece of crap?
Like: Romney, Collins, and Lisa Murkey who voted against the final bill but kept the bill alive through all the Senate deliberations and admendments.
The way I read this, the Feds are selling access to infrastructure to corporations, who will no doubt assess a healthy set of fees to the people that use it. This kind of Fed-Corporate partnership has worked very well indeed, when it comes to silencing dissenting views online, or excluding dissenters from commercial media, or even removing their ability to use the banking system to accept payments or transact business. The Fed can't work this kind of magic legally, that pesky old parchment you unnerstand, but corporations: well, it's just business, Pilgrim. Now it's on to infrastructure!
Let's see.....I seem to recall Tax Increases being mentioned by this Administration. For what? If they're not building infrastructure anymore, and our balance of payments is being shifted into the private sector, then... why increases?
Of course, Huey Long made these kinds of deals a campaign issue that won him elections, considering the famous bridges, the first of which was actually built alongside a government-funded one, that had long been in progress, ways delayed and over-spent. Long's alternative was finished quickly and put into service and paid out (in tolls) before the first one was completed, if I recall correctly.
The difference is, Long did it for the people - not the corporation.
"The real problem with pursuing net zero is that it will triple electricity rates."
The REAL problem is hundreds of thousands to millions will freeze to death during a prolonged mid-winter grid outage.
“ How far do you take school choice when one outcome is that kids without responsible parents are left in even worse shape?”
I have to tell you as a public school teacher, it can't get much worse. The only answer is school choice, with most of the money following the kid.
We're going back to the old days where most people had an 8th grade education at best, and the motivated will be an educated elite. (At a time when the poorest of the poor has instant access to the entirety of human knowledge.)
“ How far do you take school choice when one outcome is that kids without responsible parents are left in even worse shape?”
I have to tell you as a public school teacher, it can't get much worse. The only answer is school choice, with most of the money following the kid.
We're going back to the old days where most people had an 8th grade education at best, and the motivated will be an educated elite. (At a time when the poorest of the poor has instant access to the entirety of human knowledge.)
progressive prices ("inflation"), not costs, offset through labor and environmental arbitrage, ...
Also, capital depletion, and debt progression. Inflation, tuition, employment, etc.
"Biden’s laws will radically overhaul this culture."
Radicalism: The beliefs or actions of people who advocate thorough or complete political or social reform.
Source: Oxford Languages
Why do we need such radical change when historically, the USA is arguably one of the greatest nations in the history of mankind? Who benefits?
"The real problem with pursuing net zero is that it will triple electricity rates."
So, net-triple then.
... is principally to subsidize and catalyze private-sector infrastructure investment.... [I]n political-economic terms Mr. Biden, far from assuming Roosevelt’s mantle, has actually been dismantling the Rooseveltian legacy.
Say what? Is this guy not familiar with the the various New Deal TLAs like the Reconstruction Finance Corporation? If you are going to talk about "subsidizing private-sector infrastructure investment" that is 100% FDR's corporatist legacy.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा