New study shows what really works to improve an economy

[Truthmatters]

New Study: Funding Public Services is the Best Route to Prosperity Talking Union


The New England states, can no longer afford to spend scarce resources on tax credits and other business giveaways. Instead, the region needs to focus its economic development efforts on rebuilding neglected infrastructure and improving education for people at all levels, from pre-school youngsters to older adult workers.

Those are the conclusions of a new study released today by economist Jeffrey Thompson of the Political Economy Research Institute (PERI) at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Thompson’s paper is based on his extensive analysis of research on what works and doesn’t work to create jobs and strengthen state and regional economies. It suggests a better approach to economic development, one that the New England states should pursue as they slowly dig out from the Great Recession that began in late 2007.

 

[Truthmatters]

The study provides ample evidence that infrastructure (roads, bridges, dams, energy transmission systems, drinking water, etc.) and education are effective approaches for creating jobs and generating economic growth in the state and region. Many of these activities — road and bridge repair in particular — bring in matching funds from the federal government as well as triggering investment from private businesses. And by necessity, infrastructure repairs employ local workers and local materials: it’s just not possible to have an underground water main located in Providence replaced in China.

 

[CountofTuscany]

New Study: Funding Public Services is the Best Route to Prosperity Talking Union


The New England states, can no longer afford to spend scarce resources on tax credits and other business giveaways. Instead, the region needs to focus its economic development efforts on rebuilding neglected infrastructure and improving education for people at all levels, from pre-school youngsters to older adult workers.

Those are the conclusions of a new study released today by economist Jeffrey Thompson of the Political Economy Research Institute (PERI) at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Thompson’s paper is based on his extensive analysis of research on what works and doesn’t work to create jobs and strengthen state and regional economies. It suggests a better approach to economic development, one that the New England states should pursue as they slowly dig out from the Great Recession that began in late 2007.

Isn't this what we were told the main focus of the Economic Stimulus Package would be? It was all about rebuilding what they called our crumbling infrastructure. We were going to create jobs by rebuilding a neglected America. I was all for it, but it never materialized. A token dollar amount was allocated to this cause.

 

[Truthmatters]

And why was that?

 

[California Girl]

And why was that?

Because your fucking moronic Messiah pissed it away. Idiot.

And... for the record.... research doesn't 'show', it suggests.

 

[CountofTuscany]

And why was that?

Are you asking me why only a token amount was directed to the original intent? I'd have to say government corruption. Pet projects, long lacking funding, were selected over the good of the national economy.

 

[California Girl]

I'm just wondering, if this new study is so accurate.... why countries with vastly larger (proportionally speaking) public sectors than the US are in the same - or worse - economic situation than we are. Hmmm.

And, it's a union blog that you link to.... If I am expected to take anything seriously, I'd like to evaluate the original research, not what some union spinner says.

 

[Truthmatters]

Republicans Voting Against Stimulus Then Asked Obama for Money - Bloomberg

The republicans repetedly claimed tax cuts work and spending doesnt.

They fought for reductions in the stim package and then would turn arround and voted against it anyway.

They then turned arround and held their hands out for the money.


Why didnt they fight FOR our economy instead of just voting against the dems?

Because they wanted the package to fail because they place party over country.

 

[California Girl]

Republicans Voting Against Stimulus Then Asked Obama for Money - Bloomberg

The republicans repetedly claimed tax cuts work and spending doesnt.

They fought for reductions in the stim package and then would turn arround and voted against it anyway.

They then turned arround and held their hands out for the money.


Why didnt they fight FOR our economy instead of just voting against the dems?

Because they wanted the package to fail because they place party over country.[/QUOTE]

Pot, meet kettle.

Because, as you are so fond of pointing out, that is exactly what the Dems did in previous admins. How can we take anything you say seriously when you can't even see your own fucking partisanship. Idiot. Wipe that drool off your chin, its so unbecoming.

 

[Truthmatters]

Unfortunately, Thompson describes how, instead of making these investments, state policymakers are too often turning to corporate tax breaks to lure businesses, and public subsidies for employers who promise to hire workers. These policies have been tried for decades, but the evidence suggests that these tax subsidies — to which the region dedicates billions of dollars each fiscal year — just don’t work.

 

[Truthmatters]

Republicans Voting Against Stimulus Then Asked Obama for Money - Bloomberg

The republicans repetedly claimed tax cuts work and spending doesnt.

They fought for reductions in the stim package and then would turn arround and voted against it anyway.

They then turned arround and held their hands out for the money.


Why didnt they fight FOR our economy instead of just voting against the dems?

Because they wanted the package to fail because they place party over country.[/QUOTE]

Pot, meet kettle.

Because, as you are so fond of pointing out, that is exactly what the Dems did in previous admins. How can we take anything you say seriously when you can't even see your own fucking partisanship. Idiot. Wipe that drool off your chin, its so unbecoming.

LIAR

 

[Truthmatters]

Note the very few replys to real information on what works?

 

[The Rabbi]

New Study: Funding Public Services is the Best Route to Prosperity Talking Union


The New England states, can no longer afford to spend scarce resources on tax credits and other business giveaways. Instead, the region needs to focus its economic development efforts on rebuilding neglected infrastructure and improving education for people at all levels, from pre-school youngsters to older adult workers.

Those are the conclusions of a new study released today by economist Jeffrey Thompson of the Political Economy Research Institute (PERI) at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Thompson’s paper is based on his extensive analysis of research on what works and doesn’t work to create jobs and strengthen state and regional economies. It suggests a better approach to economic development, one that the New England states should pursue as they slowly dig out from the Great Recession that began in late 2007.

It would be easy to dismiss this as the product of a left-wing think tank (which it is). But that's too easy.
In fact what the "study" shows is that public spending on infrastrure is merely better than handing out subsidies to companies. But those are the only two choices considered. In a choice between eating horse shit and eating cow shit most people would pick cow shit. That doesn't mean cow shit is the preferred choice of food.
FAIL.

 

[boedicca]

Note the very few replys to real information on what works?

Then why didn't the Obama Administration implement it instead of using the Stimulus Pork to reward and protect the jobs of low productivity public employee unions?

 

[Truthmatters]

did either of you actually read the study?

 

[Metternich]

The Political Economy Research Institute is a front for the Center for American Progress. They describe themselves as a think-tank that aims for "progressive" values that "critique the policy that stems from conservative values." Obviously, they are not an unbiased source and should be treated as such. This was, after all, the institute which manged to reach the conclusion that radio stations must abide by national and local caps to ownership; yet no other media establishment should face the same restriction. Their reason--I take it straight from the report--was described as "conservative ownership." Furthermore, I could find no peer-review of the paper from the OP and similarly, must take it with more than a healthy dose of salt.

This institute I don't personally care for because, for all of its declarations of public accountability and progressive idealism, refuses to disclose who contributes to the institution. This was brought up by Politico and ever since then I've noticed (such as this article) most of their articles seems to be catering towards a certain established interest. In short, they aren't acting like progressives; they're just a front for the Democrat machine.

 

[Truthmatters]

http://www.peri.umass.edu/fileadmin/pdf/published_study/priorities__brief_August10_PERI.pdf

 

[Truthmatters]

The Political Economy Research Institute is a front for the Center for American Progress. They describe themselves as a think-tank that aims for "progressive" values that "critique the policy that stems from conservative values." Obviously, they are not an unbiased source and should be treated as such. This was, after all, the institute which manged to reach the conclusion that radio stations must abide by national and local caps to ownership; yet no other media establishment should face the same restriction. Their reason--I take it straight from the report--was described as "conservative ownership." Furthermore, I could find no peer-review of the paper from the OP and similarly, must take it with more than a healthy dose of salt.

This institute I don't personally care for because, for all of its declarations of public accountability and progressive idealism, refuses to disclose who contributes to the institution. This was brought up by Politico and ever since then I've noticed (such as this article) most of their articles seems to be catering towards a certain established interest. In short, they aren't acting like progressives; they're just a front for the Democrat machine.

Your link NEVER mentioned PERI , you provided no evidence of the claim that it is a front for CAP.


Now I understand you refuse to read anything that doesnt make you feel good about your failed ideas but that doesnt give you a pass on facts.

 

[Metternich]

Your link NEVER mentioned PERI , you provided no evidence of the claim that it is a front for CAP.

Political Economy Research Institute - SourceWatch

The PERI is under commission by the Center for American Progress.

peri.umass.edu "Center for American Progress" - Google Search

If you search PERI's site, and Center for American Progress; you'll see that every one of their reports (if you read them) cite CAP as a sponsor/commissioner. Additionally, you'll find the page at PERI that describes itself closely interlinked with the CAP.

If all your major work is done for one institute... How else do you describe yourself?

Now I understand you refuse to read anything that doesnt make you feel good about your failed ideas but that doesnt give you a pass on facts.

It'd be better if you understood your sources.

 

[boedicca]

did either of you actually read the study?

You first dearie. You have a long record of posting nonsense that you haven't bothered to read. So read it, and then provide your own commentary in your own words as to why it is relevant.

If you have a shred of intellectual honesty, you'll also contrast the Theory with the actual Implementation by the Obama Administration.