Comments on: Jean Edward Smith, Eisenhower, And Stimulus

By: Most current Frum Definition News - Socially frum

Most current Frum Definition News - Socially frum — Tue, 08 Jan 2013 12:30:46 +0000

[...] Jean Edward Smith, Eisenhower, And Stimulus I mostly enjoyed it myself, but Frum agrees with Smith's claim the Interstate Highway Act was a Keynesian stimulus plan to deal with the finish of the Korean War. That would seem primarily …. So 1956 is the definition of anti-Keynesian, anti-surplus, anti … Read much more on First Issues (blog) [...]

By: John Lewis

John Lewis — Fri, 28 Dec 2012 13:10:15 +0000

I never bothered to read an Al Gore biography, but I wonder if he took an interest in environmental issues in part because of the large role his father played in the Interstate Highway act. Loosely speaking we could say that Al Gore senior helped create a highway system for the flow of goods and services and Al Gore helped create a highway system for intellectual property (i.e the internet). That is quite an unpredictable and probably controversial macro-economic footprint!

In terms of taxes it is interesting to note that the gas tax was created to fight the deficit, in 1933 it was 7.7% of total IRS debt collection.

No part of the history of the gas tax is Keynesian, IMO. You also have to figure in toll roads and other receipts as part of the Trust Fund. When budgeted for it anticipated 38.5 billion in revenues for 37.3 billion in expenditures.(interesting story how that turned out) In the early part of the 16 year history of the Interstate Highway act raised(taxed, took out) more money than it spent(put in).

This is why I say that it contributed the negative economic growth in 1958. Which I suppose is debateable. I also suppose that somehow or another a good chunk of the history is being nudged in a particular direction, because the Interstate Highway Act, its trust fund, gasoline taxes, and everything we casually talk about actually have experts and interested parties.

By: djf

djf — Thu, 27 Dec 2012 21:33:28 +0000

Mr. Kott apparently believes that it is only conservatives and free-market types who advocate for policies while ignoring the costs those policies will impose on society. First of all, politicians and activists, from all points on the political spectrum, almost never give a fair accounting of the costs of the policies for which they advocate. If one is talking about scholars and opinion journalists, I think those on the right are far more intellectually honest than those on the Left, who almost never admit that there is any downside (other than “making the rich pay their fair share,” blah, blah, blah) to the patent medicine they peddle to the public (e.g., the steaming, stinking heap of refuse and offal known as the Affordable Care Act).

Also, it seems that Mr. Kott wishes that America’s patterns of living, working, travel and commerce had remained frozen in time as of about 1950. Perhaps this would have been possible – if the country had been placed under the control of the East German communist party. Apart from the lack of realism, we are given no reason to believe that the costs of buidling the interstate highway system ultimately outweigh the benefits realized from it.

By: Pete Spiliakos

Pete Spiliakos — Thu, 27 Dec 2012 20:50:46 +0000

The short-term stimulus effects of the Interstate Highway Act could not have been large. The law was signed in 1956. The next year saw economic growth of 2% and the next year a -.9 decline in GDP. The recovery from the 1958 recession follows the exact same V-pattern as the recovery from the 1953-1954 recession that ened long before the passage of the highway act. The highway system probably played a role in the higher trend economic growth from 1962 – through the end of the decade.

By: Joseph Kott

Joseph Kott — Thu, 27 Dec 2012 20:07:35 +0000

The Interstate Highway program did bring both benefits and costs, far beyond the upfront construction expenses, wages, and profits. The situation for the cities was decidedly mixed too, as Tom Lewis discussed in his fine book, Divided Highways. The history of neighborhood displacement, for example, is well known. As to air quality these days, that situation is also mixed, as reported, say, by the American Lung Association. The benefits of cleaner internal combustion engines have mostly been erased by the persistent long-term rise in vehicle miles of travel, whether measured per driver, per vehicle, or per household. Then there is the whole problem of rising greenhouse gas emissions and their effects. Market-based solutions, congestion-based road pricing being one, are well known. Whether conservative intellectuals are ready to think these problems and possible solutions through carefully is not known as yet.

By: djf

djf — Thu, 27 Dec 2012 18:45:29 +0000

Mr. Kott seems to be suggesting that we may well be better off without the interstate highway system. As with any undertaking of this size, there were obviously trade-offs involved in building the interstate system (particularly in disruption of local economies and neighborhoods and destruction of natural topography). No doubt the project was pushed through without much consideration of these costs. It seems pretty far-fetched, though, to suggest that the interstate highways have worsened pollution or pulmonary disease – our air is cleaner now than it was before the interstate highways were built. And, as far as I know, every highly developed society now has a similar high-speed motor highway system. Certainly, our contemporary nationwide market economy would be inconceivable without the interstate system.

Also, the interestate system was a bipartisan project, supported by politicians across the political spectrum, not some sort of rightwing corporate plot.

By: Kate Pitrone

Kate Pitrone — Thu, 27 Dec 2012 18:21:08 +0000

According to the History of Public Works in the United States the New York World's Fair of 1939 had a Futurama exhibit showing a controlled access highway system, which attracted so much public attention that FDR created a commission to explore the possibilities. The US Army wanted such a system for defense, which is perfectly in accord with the Constitutional directive for the building of national roads. 40,000 miles were authorized in 1947, but not until the 1952 Federal Aid Highway Act Was enough money allocated for a 50-50 fed/state cost-sharing project. General Lucius Clay headed the committee, because bolstering national defense was an objective. We were worrying about the Union of Soviet Socialist Republic more than socialist-type employment projects.

By: THURSDAY GOD & CAESAR EXTRA | Big Pulpit

THURSDAY GOD & CAESAR EXTRA | Big Pulpit — Thu, 27 Dec 2012 18:05:17 +0000

[...] Jean Edward Smith, Eisenhower, and Stimulus – Pete Spiliakos, PoMoCon [...]

By: Joseph Kott

Joseph Kott — Thu, 27 Dec 2012 17:25:17 +0000

The third word in the last sentence of my post above should of course have been “blinders”, rather than the typo put in its place.

By: Joseph Kott

Joseph Kott — Thu, 27 Dec 2012 16:42:04 +0000

Take a look at the compelling research done by David Aschauer on the economic impact of infrastructure investment in roads and bridges. While there are shorter-term economic impacts in terms of construction jobs and the multiplier effect of these, the longer-term benefits are often overlooked. These include freight hauling costs, reduced travel time, and improved travel safety. A limitation of this kind of analysis of highways investments, however, is neglect of the environmental costs that are real though typically not visible through market mechanisms. In facilitating motor vehicle use and dependence, these investments contribute to the health costs, borne most directly by those with cardio-pulmonary illnesses, associated with air pollution, environmental impacts from both air and water pollution. One day conservative intellectuals will confront these real-world complexities without ideological binders. That day has not yet arrived.