Filed under Green Energy, by Stephen Baker on January 14
How about having the government buy back lots of gas-guzzling cars and SUVs--and then destroying them? Dean Baker suggests it in a post chock-full of interesting stimulus spending ideas. (Thanks to Helen Walters)
He writes:
This would get the most-polluting cars off the road (raising average full efficiency) and put some money into the pockets of the people who own them. Most of these car owners will have low and moderate income, so we will be putting cash into the hands of people who need it and will spend it. Blinder calculated that we get 5 million older cars a year off the road for a cost of less than $20 billion a year.
Baker has otherideas on drug trials, health insurance, even $10 billion a year to support writers and artists. (I'm not holding out much hope for that one.)
Filed under Infrastructure, by Peter Elstrom on January 9
What is our goal with universal broadband? The idea sounds simple. But Jim Crowe, a veteran telecom executive and now CEO of communications provider Level 3 (LVLT), points out that definitions like these are extremely important. When the U. S. rolled out basic telephone service and electric service to all homes, a clear goal was essential.
So what's the goal for the Obama Administration with universal broadband?
Continue reading "Let's Define "Universal Broadband""
Filed under Research, by Stephen Baker on January 8
Robin Miller leaves an extremely provocative comment, saying that the values of the metals in one five-kilometer asteroid are equal to the value of the U.S. national debt, or $9 trillion. The point is that the payback on space exploration, in addition to military, scientific, and tech advancement, could also be financial.
I'll paste the entire comment, with all the math, in the second part of this post, so that those inclined can study it.
Just one comment from me, the one-time Spanish history major: Robin, are you aware of what happened to prices of metals after the Spaniards conquered Mexico and Peru (which 500 years ago seemed to be the closest thing to modern-day asteroids)? Inflation rocked the Spanish empire (and they were ill-equipped to handle it, in part because they had eviscerated their banking industry in 1492 by kicking out the Jews). The point is that your calculations are based on prices dictated by current supply and demand of metals. But if supply grows by the size of a massive space rock, prices will likely fall.
But hey, if an asteroid scores us even a couple trillion, I'd say it's worth it.
Continue reading "Space is a gold mine--literally?"
Filed under Infrastructure, by Peter Elstrom on January 7
I just had an interesting interview with Robert Atkinson. He's the president of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, a nonpartisan Washington think tank. We were talking about the various governmental plans for universal broadband and he made a point that made me sit up straight. "You know we're not going to be in a recession two years from now," he said.
Let's hope not. Economists are still divided over how long the current downturn is likely to last, but most do think that the recession should be over before the start of 2011.
All of this is important because policy makers will need to make decisions soon about how to structure the various stimulus plans, for broadband, green energy, and other efforts. So how do you do it? Do you structure the plans to get people to spend right away or do you give them a few years to invest?
This matters for the broadband effort in particular. Groups such as Free Press have suggested that the government should have a three-year plan for encouraging investments in Internet infrastructure. Atkinson has a different take. He thinks three years is too long, and the stimulus should be concentrated in the next 12 to 18 months to encourage companies like AT&T (T), Verizon (VZ), and Comcast (CMCS.BA) to move fast. "If people have three years, they may take their time," says Atkinson.
The counterpoint goes something like this: You want steady stimulus over a prolonged period of time so that companies can make longer-term plans, hiring new staff and building new capacity. You want to avoid a quick sugar buzz that wears off in a matter of months.
What's the right approach?
Filed under Infrastructure, by Stephen Baker on January 7
If you'll look to the right, you'll see a new Twitter stream. Anyone who uses Twitter can add comments to the stream simply by including #voxstimuli in the tweet. The idea is to get people to add their ideas about how Obama and company should spend the stimulus money.
I like this approach because it gets people on the site immediately (and doesn't hinge upon people commenting to blog posts and waiting for us to approve them). My plan is to feast on provocative tweets and conversations, and expand them into blog posts.
