"Bridge To Microsoft" Gets Federal Stimulus Funds 343
theodp writes "Among the first to benefit from the investment in roads and bridges from Obama's stimulus plan is Microsoft, which has $20B in the bank. Local planners have allotted $11M to help pay for a highway overpass to connect one part of Microsoft's wooded campus with another. Microsoft will contribute almost half of the $36.5M cost; other federal and local money will pay the rest. 'Steve Ballmer or Bill Gates could finance this out of pocket change,' griped Steve Ellis of the Taxpayers for Common Sense. 'Subsidizing an overpass to one of the richest companies in the country certainly isn't going to be the best use of our precious dollars.' Ellis called the project 'a bridge to Microsoft,' alluding to Alaska's infamous 'Bridge to Nowhere.'" A White House spokesman said this bridge project is still under review.
so? (Score:3, Insightful)
Unless it is a toll road which Microsoft owns completely, there is nothing wrong with using public money to build the road.
Re:so? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:so? (Score:4, Interesting)
I can't wait to get my street paved... it's asphalt on dirt and has more cracks and potholes than actual road surface left. They've been patching it with cold patch for about 5 years now. At one point, I would see several cars a night with flats from one particularly nasty pothole... typically it was a bent rim for added excitement. We're slated for curb-to-curb rebuild this summer. Hopefully they'll fish all the VW Beetles out of the potholes before they start digging.
And before you scream OT... I'm in WA ;-P
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Meh. On the one hand, yes. On the other hand, Microsoft probably brings in a teeny tiny bit of revenue for that community, and it's not uncommon for local governments to show their appreciation by funding projects like this.
They're going halfzies, I don't see anything wrong with it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Redmond's roads are actually in quite nice shape, quality-wise. The issue is that a section of the SR-520 highway (which connects Microsoft Seattle as well as to much of Redmond and parts of Bellevue) is already as wide as it can realistically be - the exit ramps are three lanes wide, the overpasses are six(!!), and there's not much space on either side - nonetheless experiences MAJOR congestion. Since a large portion of this overpass bridges' traffic is MS employees getting to and from work or between part
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd feel more inclined to support this project *if the money came out of Washingtonians pockets* not my pocket. I don't think people in Seattle would be happy to build an 11-million-dollar interstatw though my local Pennsylvania town, just so I could take a 5-minute shortcut to Walmart. The people who benefit are the ones who should pay, not foreigners from another state.
That's like that stupid New York sales tax. If they think I'm going to file tax returns on my online sales, the NY government can sit o
Re:so? (Score:4, Interesting)
It's even worse. Microsoft has a shell organization in Nevada. So all of Microsoft's products are developed and created in Seattle and then they 'sell' Windows through Nevada so that they don't have to pay Washington State for any of their income tax.
Meanwhile we have a bridge (520) which is unable to keep up with Microsoft commuters every morning that needs a multi billion dollar investment to reduce traffic.
All in all I would say Microsoft is a net force of good in the local economy and they probably give more than they take, but it would certainly be a little less repulsive if Microsoft actually had to pay a little of their way like the rest of us. Once again: if you're rich you get a free pass while the small businesses have to pick up the slack.
On the other hand. If the money is being passed out evenly across the country. And this community thinks this is what is best for their community then by all means go for it. Microsoft Employees probably do pay their fair share in taxes since most make above the median income and probably are in a higher tax bracket. If your entire town is based around a Microsoft Economy, it would be silly to repair the bridge to home depot.
Re:Bonuses (Score:3, Insightful)
Some of it may be performance based - meaning they can tweak *part* of that bonus based on performance - but the bulk is really just what their salary should be.
All so the company can squeeze 6 months of interest out of part of what they pay some people. Seems more trouble than it's worth, but
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
And those MS employees are residents of the state, so this is benefiting citizens of Washington. If you're against the stimulus altogether, then I can understand that, but otherwise, what did you expect?
Of course, I'm one of those people that thought the Bridge to Nowhere was a bridge to the Ketchikan airport.
Re:so? (Score:5, Interesting)
>>>Microsoft probably brings in a teeny tiny bit of revenue for that community
The amount of money MS gives the community is far less than 11 million dollars. This is the equivalent of spending ten dollars to get a 1 dollar coupon mailed to yourself. The money spent exceeds the money earned. It's foolish.
Re:so? (Score:5, Informative)
The headlines are deliberately confusing what happened here. MS offered to pay 70% up front when this was being planned in 2006. The rest was covered by the city of redmond, no federal funds. Redmond city planners have applied for some federal money to cover the increased price of more recent estimates for this project. It also hasn't yet been approved afaik. If microsoft was petitioning for federal money in place of what they've offered, that would be a completely different story.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
FYI, the roads here outright suck, this was a decision they made to ensure that the stupid Seattlites wouldn't get their fair share of the stimulus dollars. I happen to know of at least 3 fairly substantial projects which would have been a better choice than this bridge.
And that leaves out options like fixing our streets or our aging electrical grid. Or perhaps fixing the streetlight out front of my parents' house which has been broken for the last 2 decades. And no I'm not exaggerating, it's been broken si
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The only fair way to distribute money taken at gunpoint, ie. taxes, is to not take the money away in the first place.
But since America loaned too much money in the recent past, you're government is solving that for you by forcing you (promising to send your future taxes to someone in trade for money now) to take out much more loans.
Yes. You read that right. The government is solving the problem of Americans (and others) loaning to much by making you loan more.
This is, according to a certain democrat "redivi
Re: (Score:2)
Washington is - they have a massive backlog of highway projects.
The really insulting thing is - they pull crap like this after laying of over a thousand people, and then make us pay for their projects.
Re: (Score:2)
What did you expect now they have paid off the guns?
How about invading and conquering Canada? Those wiley canuks have been passing off their Canadian quarters in my change for years; Its all part of a vast conspiracy by those crafty Canadians to take over the United States, eh.
Re:so? (Score:5, Insightful)
Would an overpass benefit MS? Absolutely. Would it take SEVERAL THOUSAND VEHICLES A DAY off of Redmond's roads, much to the benefit of Redmond locals and other Washington residents? Absolutely.
This whole "Why MS? They've got money!" thing stinks more of people here's biases than an actual rational review of the situation. You want perspective? The city of Redmond is 47,000 people. There are 40,000 employees of Microsoft in Redmond every day. Not accounting for the overlap between the two, that means Redmond's population is DOUBLED during the day due to Microsoft alone, let alone Nintendo, Safeco Insurance, etc, etc, etc. See why reducing traffic on the area's arterial roads is a benefit for the entire community, not just MS?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How myopic. As someone who once worked at MS (and now at a Linux company, so sad that I feel I need to qualify that) - Redmond is a traffic nightmare, due to the sheer volume of intercampus transport for Microsoft (and other companies in the area, but MS is certainly the biggest).
I am not living anywhere near there, so I would curious to know how much of this traffic is made up of single person vehicles and how much is made up by multi-passenger vehicles like buses. If it is the former, then surely the solu
Re:so? (Score:5, Informative)
For on-demand shuttle usage, you go to any building reception, request a shuttle. They have an integrated dispatch network which will aggregate trips, so along comes a Prius (they only use the Prius), picks you up, makes as many pickups as possible in a beeline between you and your destination, attempting to fill the car where possible, and then drops you off in the optimal fashion. In this sense, it's pretty hard to fault Microsoft (who also offer all employees free public transport passes, paid for by the company).
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I am not living anywhere near there, so I would curious to know how much of this traffic is made up of single person vehicles and how much is made up by multi-passenger vehicles like buses.
What Achromatic said: many MS employees (and permanent/semi-permanent contractors) use company shuttles once on campus. A few bicycle around, or walk if it isn't too far; the campus is beautiful. However, thousands upon thousands of non-MS employees go there every day, for conferences, contract work, pizza delivery, and so forth. The MS campus is huge and made up of a tangled mess of twisty little roads, all alike.
Traffic during the rush hours is horrific; it isn't so bad the rest of the time, but driving a
Re: (Score:2)
Bitching about the bridge is just as silly as trying to get MicroSoft to pay for the new SR520 bridge!
Then how about the COMMUNITY pays for that (Score:2)
Redmond (the city) better darn well be getting taxes from Microsoft. So if Redmond (the city) has traffic issues, why are THEY not paying for new roads, in conjunction with Microsoft?
How about YOU pay for some overcrowded surface road in my city that sucks during rush hour? No? Well then.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Who are these people? Most of the highly moderated comments here so far seem to say that this is a non-issue and that the story is a troll. In fact, I just counted, and reading at +4, there are five comments who agree with you, while one comment is neutral and one disagrees.
Re:Pure Parasites. (Score:5, Insightful)
Okay, twitter:
1) Microsoft still pays huge amounts of taxes to the locale so it is certainly not a burden. You can bicker about whether it's as much a boon as it should be but there's no question it's a boon to the city.
2) Why don't more MS employees live in Redmond? Are you serious? Where do you live where everybody works within 3 miles of where they live.
3) This "bridge" is not on private property. It's on public property. It's not only to serve Microsoft. It connects two points in Redmond that happen both to have Microsoft offices. It also benefits, for example, Nintendo and Boeing. And everybody in Redmond.
4) The 40000 people of Redmond should fund the basic public infrastructure of their city because that's the role of the government of Redmond.
Then the Ireland thing comes completely out of nowhere.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
This isn't a bridge that only helps one company. RTFA.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The key here is "shovel ready". Most road improvements involve long and costly arguments with land owners about the value of the fifty foot long by ten foot wide strip that the city or state needs to acquire before the first construction worker can put on his hard hat. The only income generated during that first phase is what the lawyers make... and as a group lawyers don't stimulate anybody's local economy. But in this situation Microsoft already owns the land involved, so it should be a matter of a few we
Yeah but there's 25,000 of them, and more. (Score:5, Insightful)
That's a lot of jobs. When you realize that some cities would fork over hundreds of millions in annual tax abatements just to get that many jobs, pitching in on a bridge is not a bad deal.
Then there's nothing wrong with the Alaskan road (Score:2)
Unless it is a toll road which Microsoft owns completely, there is nothing wrong with using public money to build the road.
Have you never heard of allocation of resources according to priority?
It may technically be a public road, but all it's going to benefit is a few Microsoft workers.
Just like the bridge in Alaska was only going to benefit a few people in a remote location already served by ferry.
Do you honestly think there's nothing better to do with $30 million than helping a few thousand Microsoft empl
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:so? (Score:5, Insightful)
The City of Redmond thinks the project has value as well for traffic in other parts of the city. MS is picking up half the cost because they're the main beneficiary.
I'm the first one to scalp MS or jump on wasteful spending, but this doesn't seem that bad. It'll provide a lot of construction jobs, ease traffic on other roads in Redmond. I supposed you could argue there are other bridge and road projects in Washington that need the money worse. But as long as it's a public roadway and not some kind of gated private road...to me this doesn't seem to be in the same class as the Bridge to Nowhere.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Are you insane?! (Score:5, Insightful)
It's Micro$oft!!!!11eleven!
Do you know how many american babies they will have to sacrifice per square inch of that road? /sarcasm
I didn't think so!
Hey... how about the view-point that Microsoft is actually paying for half of that road - which WILL NOT BE MICROSOFT PROPERTY ONCE BUILT.
Or... the fact that it appears that the community actually needs that overpass.
Easing Congestion
The city of Redmond says the overpass will relieve congestion on other streets and support a big employer in the region, though one cutting jobs lately.
Microsoft said in January that it's eliminating as many as 5,000 jobs, including some from its Seattle-area workforce of 41,480.
"This project is a mobility improvement for the area as a whole," said Lou Gellos, a spokesman for Microsoft.
An existing bridge a few blocks away is congested and a nightmare for pedestrians and bicycle riders, he said.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
I would just like to point out, this also means they don't have to maintain it, the tax payers do.
Microsoft can certainly pay for it themselves, we've all been paying the god damn Windows tax for years, like it or not, let'em build their own damn roads. Or decentralize some more so the population isn't so dense.
Just shows Microsoft (and Redmond) haven't learned anything from the Internet or diversified networks.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you know how many American babies they will have to sacrifice per square inch of that road?
Don't worry, they'll just visa in some off-shore babies to do the job.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, there is something wrong with taking my money and giving it to the wealthy.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sorry, what will Microsoft have been 'given' when this is finished?
Just to give you a clue, it won't be a bridge.
Re: (Score:2)
Did you not read the article? Or my post?
Taxpayer money is being spent to directly benefit Microsoft. Where did I say they would be given a bridge?
Re: (Score:2)
I'd imagine that Microsoft and their employees pay far more than their fair share of taxes, why shouldn't they get something back?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not so sure... the only reason microsoft is in the position they are is because of the artificial government granted monopoly over an idea, what we call "intellectuak property". So they've been using the force of government to back up the windows tax for a long time, wouldn't be nearly so wealthy without that.
Re:so? (Score:5, Insightful)
Please do educate me as to how this is an essential service that benefits everyone that we would not be able to provide for ourselves.
From the article:
"The city of Redmond says the overpass will relieve congestion on other streets and support a big employer in the region, though one cutting jobs lately. Microsoft said in January that itâ(TM)s eliminating as many as 5,000 jobs, including some from its Seattle-area workforce of 41,480."
Microsoft could pay out of pocket but the new road is a public road and they shouldn't have to. The fact they're offering to pay any at all is a boon. As the article stats, MS is a huge employer in the area and creating better traffic throughput (ahem...enlarging bandwidth) is good not just for them but for the people using the road (employees of MS mostly but still "the public").
Re: (Score:2)
That sounds good until you think about the fact that the City of Seattle is getting basically squat and a half out of the stimulus. In other words, rather than fixing traffic in one of the most congested areas in the country, they've decided to cave to Republican pressure and build the overpass.
It's a bit unfortunate that change doesn't seem to be including major cities like Seattle or LA. Perhaps if the rural voters get lucky we won't have any cities at all in the near future.
Things like fixing the electri
Re: (Score:2)
Just like I'm sure that Boeing paid for the Boeing Freeway.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_State_Route_526 [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. I'd much rather directly pay into a poor states fund instead of handing all of the money to the feds, only to have most of it come right back. It's how the federal government grabbed their power... power of the purse.
Re:so? (Score:5, Insightful)
Because people all over the country pay for a lot of things for people in specific areas of the country. Washinton is a donor state receiving $0.88 for each dollar its citizens paid in Federal income tax [taxfoundation.org]. And given that Microsoft has its headquarters in Redmond, the city and the county are almost assuredly subsidizing at an even higher rate.
If you want to jump on why the rest of us are paying for things in specific areas of the country, you'll want to focus on New Mexico ($2), Alaska ($1.87), West Virginia ($1.83), Mississippi ($1.77), North Dakota ($1.73), Alabama ($1.71), Virginia ($1.66), Montana ($1.58) and South Dakota ($1.49).
And to answer your question from a more philosophical point of view, we all pay for roads to be built all over the country so that we have the freedom to know that we can drive wherever we want to. As a resident of California (a donor state to the tune of $0.79), I could be irked by how much New Mexico gets. But I choose to remember the vacations I've taken to New Mexico and how roads paid for with federal monies enabled me to take those vacations.
On Philosophy (Score:2)
And to answer your question from a more philosophical point of view, we all pay for roads to be built all over the country so that we have the freedom to know that we can drive wherever we want to.
That's a great description of why the federal government should help pay for a national highway system.
And a damn poor one of why the FEDERAL government should pay for local surface roads and not the community in which the roads provide service to local residents.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
As a resident of North Dakota who favors leaving the union (and ideally forming a new entity with a recently-freed Montana), I'd be just fine not accepting any more federal money if it also meant not dealing with federal law, Californians, and the entire Boston->DC corridor. :)
As far as why federal money might be flowing into ND, consider:
ND has less than 1/3rd of 1 percent of the US population, but
ND is responsible for between 15 and 20% of US wheat production
ND is responsible for a significant portion
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The same reason you don't pay for public roads outside of your house; Because it's one of the things you pay taxes for.
Even if the little stretch of road leading up to your property only benefits you and other nearby residents, a fully comprehensive road system that the public can use benefits everyone hugely.
It's better that government try to provide public access to private properties and to design road systems to cope with the traffic they generate than to have a vast network of private roads which may
Re: (Score:2)
The question is, should it be up to the federal government to provide funding for municipal roads ?
IMO the municipal government should be providing for these things. If you want to make the argument that the federal government should be in charge of inter-state highways then fine. But my only question was, can someone please give me a good reason why the federal government should be taxing people all over the country to build public roads when the municipal and state governments are supposed to provide for
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Nothing about the stimulus package is normal, however one of the goals was to be able to provide funds to local municipalities to fund public works, such as road construction, that had existing plans and could be started within the short term. This overpass plan fits very nicely into that goal.
It was planned in 2006 by Redmond and Microsoft voluntarily put forth 50%. By late 2008 it was realized that the original estimates weren't enough and that Redmond at the time could not afford to go forward with the
Re:so? (Score:5, Interesting)
Connecting two parts of the company campus? The company should pay for it.
If I understood correctly, it connects two parts of the city. It so happens that each has one part of MS campus in it, so MS will benefit greatly, but they're not the only one to do so (and of course, as TFA says, they do pay for it, just not for all of it).
Re:so? (Score:4, Insightful)
Connecting two parts of the company campus? The company should pay for it.
That depends, Microsoft is a huge company, and they have a massive number of workers that need to get from 'point A' to point 'B', which requires crossing public land. They also pay a massive amount of taxes.
And the bridge would be a great convenience to a lot of Microsoft workers, who so happen to be American citizens, as well.
When they build this bridge, it could effect traffic on other city roads. For example, it could relieve traffic that improves quality of life for individuals and businesses not working for Microsoft.
It could save money on further road expansions and traffic controls that might otherwise need to be added to other roads that are congested due to increasing traffic between parts of their campus, as Microsoft expands.
Microsoft clearly thinks it will benefit them directly or indirectly, I mean, it's clear because they're paying half of it, which also makes it a loss less expensive than certain alternatives.
It's definitely not clean-cut that Microsoft is the only beneficiary here, such that they should pay for it.
For one thing, the bridge will be public property, and it will cross public property, or require the local government to buy-out private property owners, so it makes sense the government will pay for what they own.
Only the government has eminent domain privileges, so only the government can really be assured of being able to even complete the necessary pre-requisites for this project.
Microsoft may have a lot of cash, but they aren't experts in the road construction and maintenance business, and the liability risks of owning a road are massive, and not something they should have to take on.
Anymore than Microsoft should have to PAY for the right to have police officers come to investigate a crime, or to have to build and pay for their own police force.
Simply put.. roads are a government service, just like police, fire, emergency response units, military, etc.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Using public money borrowed against future generations, to build an unnecessary private bridge for one of the most profitable companies in America.
I can take you for a drive not far from here and show you roads, bridges, exits and overpasses built for several profitable multi-national companies. In fact, many times those highly profitable companies demanded those amenities in exchange for locating facilities in those areas. In exchange for their mere presence they not only forced states to borrow again
Microsoft gets stimulus funds for volcano lair (Score:2)
It will really boost the economy.
Film at 11.
Waste (Score:3, Insightful)
Public works projects as a way of recovering from a recession has never worked. It didn't work for the Japanese in the 90's, they spent 10 years building roads and bridges and wondering why nothing was happening. It didn't work for us in the 30's. And it will never work.
We need to stop listening to Keynesian and socialist economists who don't have the first clue what they're talking about and are trying to give solutions based on theory instead of what's been shown to work.
You want to turn this economy around? Cut taxes to 20%, max. Reduce regulations on small businesses \ cut the red tape.
The government cannot create jobs except government jobs, and government jobs do not build an economy. All government can do is get out of the way, and keep the playing field fair for the players.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Cut taxes to 20%, max.
I wonder what I could buy if I had 80% of my money. Oh, wait, sales tax would also be 20%? Guvmint's gotta get its fix somehow.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder how much money you'd be making in the first place without your reaping of the benefits all those government programs your taxes are paying for...
Public schools? Public roads? Police force? Hospitals? Cheap electricity? Clean water? Advanced technology (NASA, DARPA, the internet, etc.)?
The idea that the money we pay in taxes is purely a detriment to us is ridiculous, a
Re: (Score:2)
``Oh, wait, sales tax would also be 20%?''
That's almost what we pay over here in the Netherlands. We pay 19%, to be exact.
Re:Waste (Score:5, Insightful)
Because the term "Keynesian economics" is being used so much, we might as well inform those who have no idea what you and I and the rest of us free-market people are talking about.
John Maynard Keynes [wikipedia.org] was a British economist in the early 1900's. He wrote a book called "The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money" which basically outlined various interventionist policies that the government could employ and what short-term effects they would have on the economy. It was very highly refuted but it gave the government a bunch of easy answers and policies that would ultimately expand government control, yet would be easy to sell to the public. Keynes' work is highly taught by government-subsidized Universities all over the world. Almost anyone taking economics at a University level will be taught "Keynesian Economics".
Anyone who wants to hear both sides of the argument should pick up a copy of General Theory as well as Henry Hazzlitt's "Failure of the New Economics" which is one of the best refutations of Keynes' principles.
Re:Waste (Score:5, Insightful)
Fuck the Austrian school! Why is it ALWAYS the Austrians with the libertarians?
At least cite Milton Friedman [wikipedia.org] for a good critique of excessive government spending. He at least believed in a modern monetary policy, and wasn't advocating the goddamn gold standard. Can you even come up with a less realistic metric for a world economy than gold?
Re:Waste (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure I can come up with something way worse than gold: paper. The gold standard was considered unstable, and we did have a panic of 1907 that got the public behind paper money, however, comparing the stability of gold to paper is a joke. Paper money has been highly unstable and since it's introduction there has been nothing but inflation.
Money needs to be an economic good in order to be used as money. In other words, it has to have value as used as something *other* than money. Because it is a medium of indirect exchange. In order really understand it's significance it helps to imagine a world with no concept of "money".
Let's say that you're a dairy farmer. You can't stockpile milk indefinitely, and you can't sell enough milk in one day to pay for everything that you need. You need something that you can exchange your milk for that will be small, convenient, easy to save and extremely easy to trade later on. That's how money evolved. People have used rice, salt, pepper, gold, silver etc. Now we're using paper and the only reason it has any value what-so-ever is because the government forces us to use it. Yet every single time the government prints a new dollar it's value diminishes because there is more of it. Eventually the currency becomes worthless. In fact, it's not even proper to call fiat currency money. Originally it was a claim that be redeemed for money, until the government cut that off and forced everyone to trade worthless pieces of paper called banknotes. Why would they do that ? Because having a real asset backing the currency prevents them from running the presses excessively and limits their control and ability to expand their own projects. Only when they run the presses eventually the currency becomes worthless.
The US dollar is worth about 3 or 4 cents compared to what it was in 1913, when the Federal Reserve was created. Giving a central authority, even if it's the government, complete control over the creation of money always results in runaway inflation. Every single country in world history that has tried paper money has run it into the ground. Every single one.
I agree with a lot of Friedman's views but that one issue I STRONGLY disagree with him on. We don't have to use gold, although what I would like to see at the very least is the abolition of laws that prevent people from using gold if they so wish. Government should not be dictating the terms of contracts. I've heard some arguments in favour of legal tender laws (the courts will need to decide what to to be used in civil cases etc. legal tender simplifies that), but Canada doesn't have any law determining what people can use in contracts. No one is forced to trade the Canadian dollar in Canada, even stores don't have to accept the Canadian dollar if they don't want to. People should be able to trade with whatever they want, and legal tender must be backed by *something*.
Re: (Score:2)
The relative value of currency over a period of time has absolutely nothing to do with the actual standard of living in a country...If we wanted to, we could adopt a tight monetary policy and jack the relative value of our currency through the roof. It'd also spawn massive deflation, and basically end farming and manufacturing in this country.
The idea that a physical anchor (e.g. the gold standard) is going to magically stem inflation or stabilize markets is naive. All you're really doing is screwing with t
Re: (Score:2)
"The relative value of currency over a period of time has absolutely nothing to do with the actual standard of living in a country...If we wanted to, we could adopt a tight monetary policy and jack the relative value of our currency through the roof. It'd also spawn massive deflation, and basically end farming and manufacturing in this country."
True, but I'm going to skip over that for just a second because I think I answer that while responding to your other points.
"The idea that a physical anchor (e.g. th
Re: (Score:2)
Can you even come up with a less realistic metric for a world economy than gold?
Ballet performances in Spandau?
Always believe in your soul!
Re: (Score:2)
Bad economic models lead to even worse politics.
Sakdoctor's Leave it the fuck alone school of economics.
Oh, and I talked to many economic students at university. They progressively developed this ability, to bury common sense under layers of bullshit, until they even convinced themselves.
See also: Securitization
Re: (Score:2)
You misunderstand what is happening. (Score:3, Interesting)
The government are not creating jobs. That is simply a side effect. They can't realistically fly over American towns in helicopters and drop dollar notes, though that would probably be as effective.
What they are doing by performing useless public works is transferring private debt to the public purse. The government borrows and spends, the spending pays off the private debts.
Re:Waste (Score:5, Insightful)
Public works projects as a way of recovering from a recession has never worked.
Public works by themselves can't fix a broken economy, but they can be a useful part of a solution if done right.
It didn't work for the Japanese in the 90's, they spent 10 years building roads and bridges and wondering why nothing was happening. It didn't work for us in the 30's. And it will never work.
I gave ten bucks to a homeless guy and he was begging again later that day. Obviously giving money to the poor doesn't help them significantly. See the logical fallacy? An example does not make something a truism.
We need to stop listening to Keynesian and socialist economists who don't have the first clue what they're talking about and are trying to give solutions based on theory instead of what's been shown to work.
Yeah, if only there were countries with higher standards of living an more stable economies and higher median wealth than the US. We could do what they do. Oh, wait there are such countries and they almost all implement socialist programs you are claiming don't work.
You want to turn this economy around? Cut taxes to 20%, max.
Tax cuts haven't worked in practice and credible economist will tell you there isn't even a viable theory as to how that would work. Trickle down economics has failed. The biggest proponents among economist, even die hards like Greenspan, have abandoned it. The wealth has consolidated at the top and it isn't trickling back down. The only people still advocating that nonsense are paid publications trying to provide PR materials for policies no reputable economist will touch.
educe regulations on small businesses \ cut the red tape.
Yeah, reducing regulations has helped a lot too. It results in businesses that pass on a lot of the costs of their doing business to the rest of society.
The government cannot create jobs except government jobs, and government jobs do not build an economy.
Our tax dollars funded the research and equipment that was the internet. Our tax dollars funded the universities who expanded it and built the software to make it useful. It has created millions of jobs that are not government jobs and makes up a huge part of the world economy. Government spending can and does create more jobs and bring more growth to the economy than the same money spent by the private sector. It doesn't always. The spending has to be carefully picked for that purpose, but it certainly can and has done so in the past.
All government can do is get out of the way, and keep the playing field fair for the players.
That's the problem. The playing field is not fair. We'd like to think our economy is a meritocracy, but it isn't. Wealth is mostly transferred by inheritance and with our current tax policies pretty much every economic model predicts wealth will continue to consolidate into fewer hands, the middle class will shrink, and the lower class will grow. Reducing taxes across the board accelerates this process. The only thing that will change it is a complete wealth redistribution ala revolution, or increasing the progressiveness of taxes to take some of that money back from the high end, enough to at least balance out wealth condensation. Then, that money needs to be put back into the economy on the low end, raising the overall wealth of the poor. One way that has worked in many other countries is socialized medicine, where the consolidated nature usually leads to greater efficiency overall.
I can go on and go into detail, but I think a lot of people here don't have much of a grasp on economics. Our economic crisis s not that we don't have enough money. The problem is the money is too inequitably distributed (just like during the great depression) and this leads to a volatile stock market and overall loss of wealth as it is lost dur
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes. Relieving the middle class of their cash through inflation and interest, and placing that cash in the pockets of rich bankers does have benefits. For the bankers.
For the rest of us, the national debt spirals out of control, personal debt spirals out of control, the dollar drops in value each year (all of these in a compound growth curve), while our wages increase in a linear, far slower fashion. We have less and less resources to deal with more and more debt needed to make up for our shortfall in incom
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
No, actually cutting taxes is what makes the rich, richer, while the middle-class and poor (who pay a smaller percentage of their income in taxes) get poorer.
Meanwhile, spending money on shared public projects (roads, schools, etc.) benefits us all equally, and the rich pay a higher proportion of the costs.
All the problems we're facing, which
The real news item (Score:2, Insightful)
"This project is a mobility improvement for the area as a whole," said Lou Gellos, a spokesman for Microsoft. An existing bridge a few blocks away is congested and a nightmare for pedestrians and bicycle riders, he said.
So, we have the relatively common phenomenon that commercial development has outgrown the infrastructure. Big deal. Usually the government handles this as part of its own work, without direct commercial assistance. In this case, MSFT is offering money to help solve the problem. They deserve kudos, not punishment, since they could alternatively be lobbying/strongarming the relev
Do we have all the facts? (Score:4, Interesting)
Seattle Roads (Score:2)
Obligatory "I hate MS as much as the next guy" ... (Score:2)
I hate Microsoft as much as the next guy - but last time I checked, the folks working at Microsoft were taxpayers too, and so deserve to benefit from federal spending related to infrastructure.
I am NOT a fan of the stimulus package as passed. I am in favor of the concept (I lean Keynesian, not Austrian School); but it seems to me a very large chunk of this smells more like opportunistic pork-barrel politics. To pick an example: Funding for diabetes education. I think as part of the normal federal budget thi
You have it backwards (Score:4, Insightful)
Were this any lesser company, 100% of the cost would be paid for by tax dollars. That Microsoft is contributing half is either a sginficant act of generosity on their part, or a major triumph of democracy over corporate greed and corruption. Either way, it's a victory for taxpayers.
It was a similar situation when Disneyland wanted their own exit on the I-5 in Anaheim. There were significant reasons from the taxpayers point of view to do this - it greatly improved traffic in that section of the freeway, and throughout that part of Anaheim - but Disney still ended up paying for a significant portion of the cost. (In their case, it was a damned good investment in their wholly owned subsidiary, the city of Anaheim.)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Were this any lesser company, 100% of the cost would be paid for by tax dollars.
Really? The little fact that the bridge goes between two parts of a private facility wouldn't be an issue?
It was a similar situation when Disneyland wanted their own exit on the I-5 in Anaheim.
There may have been a similar level of screaming about private entities benefiting from public money, but it's hardly a comparable project. A freeway offramp is part of the public infrastructure. A bridge connecting two pieces of private property is not.
Mind you, I'm not saying this bridge is a bad idea. It makes sense if building it eases traffic congestion more than spending the same amount of money
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In point of fact, it is very clear that this bridge will, in fact, be a public road, open to anyone who wishes to use it. And even if no one ever uses who is not a Microsoft employee, it will draw traffic away from other, apparently crowded, roads to use this on instead. That is a direct public benefit to everyone in the area, in the form of reduced congestion on roads around a major employer in the area.
So, your first qustion is irrelevant, since it is based on factually incorrect assumptions. And it is co
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Roads of this nature are usually private.
The microsoft campus is not some freeform corporate campus. The land was all bought up and developed piecemeal as the company grew. Most of the buildings are seperated by (small, old) public roads. Both of the roads that will be connected in this case (36th and 31st, to be connected on a diagonal because of a bend in the freeway) are old, public roads, which currently end in a T at the freeway. Through traffic from 148th to 156th will probably use it heavily, although it provides extra good Microsoft ac
Typical Unimaginative Solution From Redmond (Score:3, Funny)
I live in the area... (Score:2, Informative)
$29.99 Earmarked for Linus' Portland Penguin Pool (Score:2)
How come nobody's complaining about this [playmobilusa.com]?
Eyewitness report (Score:2, Informative)
The older Microsoft campus was confined to the east side of highway 520, with dozens and dozens of properties rented and scattered all over Redmond, Bellevue, and other places in the area. Lately they have been building an absolutely HUGE property just across the highway from the old campus
What annoys me.. (Score:4, Insightful)
The state should not give tax payer money to a monopolistic company damaging the local economy by laying off people when clearly they didn't financially need to.
Grand scheme of things... (Score:2)
If you lived in Redmond, you'd know why (Score:5, Insightful)
TFA Misleadery (Score:3, Insightful)
However, a revised estimate of the cost was somewhat higher than expected. The City of Redmond (not MS) decided to ask for stimulus money to offset this. After some initial talks, Redmond chose not to ask Microsoft for additional funding until they had pursued federal funds, which were assigned. (Redmond did not make up the difference itself because it cannot afford it.)
This is not a case of MS pushing Congress into funding their campus development. This is a case of Redmond deciding the project costs were a good investment for the city, and asking for stimulus money to make up a shortfall.
Note also that MS is expanding its campus in a huge project. The overpass is a small, small portion of what the company will ultimately spend. This is good for Redmond's economy, and the city wants to encourage the expansion.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But you reduce other people's freedom simply by existing since you and me, like everybody else, take up space.
Freedom to do what? Freedom to use my land for whatever? No, that is not freedom, that is chaos (or if the government mandates that, that is tyranny, but thats for a different post). You have no natural freedoms to do anything with things that people own, you have (or at least, in a free society should have), freedom to do whatever on the land you own provided it does not violate the rights of other people. And you have the freedom to do whatever with the things you own so long as it doesn't affect the fr
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Theoretically, you should not need motivation to sell your land, because, if you're using your land inefficiently, the free market will take care of providing a buyer who is willing to pay you enough to motivate you to sell your land to him. However, in practice, property tax might be necessary to provide an incentive for someone to sell land that he doesn't really need but just wants to keep and use inefficiently since he happened to have it. Property tax in this case provides an incentive not to do tha
Re: (Score:2)
Now, if there was a lack of land to buy, I might believe that motivating people to sell land is a good thing, but the
Re: (Score:2)
Well, by keeping the land for yourself, you are preventing others from using it. There's a lot of stuff that can be done with land: you can farm it, build a house or business complex on it, drill for oil on it, etc. Moreover, not all land is equal; it differs by location. Some areas (like Japan and California) are very short on land, and it is a very valuable resource.
"Land speculation", where you just hold land as an investment and don't do anything on or with the land, prevents others from doing things
Aaand... what did you expect? (Score:2)
A website that depicts Microsoft as the embodiment of the Borg collective, the Empire and the army of Sauron all in one, what else do you think would be the outcome? Hmmm?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Ok, mod me down but this guy that you people put in charge is a socialist nut case...
Socialism. It's probably one of the most confusing and misunderstood terms in the US. Partly this is because it is a political movement separate from it being an economic method. Party this is because there was a huge propaganda campaign in the US to spread fear about it as part of a campaign against Asia in the cold war.
Listen to me carefully. Every president ever has been a socialist. Every economist is a socialist to a fair degree or they are insane. Socialism has always been part of our economic system
Re: (Score:2)
"Republic" refers to form of government.
"Socialism" refers to an economic system.
Setting aside for the moment the fact that Obama's policies don't come close to actual socialism, it would be quite possible to have a republican (small r) form of government that supported socialist economic policies.
Re: (Score:2)
You continue to believe that and continue to worship that bastard... You are a lost cause and i'm finished here.
Re: (Score:2)
"A republic is a state or country that is not led by a hereditary monarch but in which the people (or at least a part of its people) have an impact on its government." (from Wikipedia)
This concept is not mutually exclusive to elected representatives instituting socialist policies. You're mixing orthogonal concerns.