Hi Chuck, There is another major segment of our local, state and national economies you left out, the black-market or illegal trade in drugs and prostitution. While, because of our stupid drugs and “vice” laws, this segment is mostly invisible (at least for accounting/tax purposes) nonetheless, as we hear about every day, it’s ubiquitous, often violent and, these days it’s probably growing faster than any other part of the economy.

I guess, if you were to sum all ‘legal’ business transactions and compare that total with all ‘legal’ income, one would find a very large hole. That’s the sound of money being sucked into a criminal vortex. A vortex of our own creation, I should add.

Chuck: Over 60 percent of the jobs provided by the largest employers in the Portland metro area are dependent and reliant on healthy public spending.

Think about that the next time someone suggests that the way to address a slowing economy is to cut taxes or cut back on government spending.

Tell them “government is the economy.” Bill: OH, I get it, just like Russia. Of course, government was their problem because government makes bad decisions, could not allocate material to local stores from Moscow, 8 time zones away and of course they let agriculture policy fall into the control a bigger idiot than Al Gore with million dying of starvation. (Make no mistake, people are will die from following Al Gore - some are already starving.)

Why?

ecause government makes decisions based on popular will, not sound economics. The government decides what people will get, not what they want Just a few glaring examples: 1 .We ethanol instead of gas. Result: people starve from high food prices. 2 We get toy trains that cost more than driving (even if gas hits $40/gal) Our taxes go up. 3. Compact urban development (as people want a back yard for the kids). Families leave. 4. Condo towers for millionaires. As people cannot afford a home. 5 Government decides to save tress by banning paper bags - oops plastic harms the environment. (or was it the other way around?) 6. Government tries to force us on mass transit to save energy. It doesn’t save energy compared to small cars. 7. Government will have spent over 4 billion on the toy train while traffic congestion increased. Had that money been spent on road capacity, we would probably have no congestion.

Hopefully people get the idea.

The only advantage of big government spending is power for local politicians and public employee union bosses. Joe Sixpack get screwed. So do you.

Thanks

I think you are missing the point. Yes, unfortunately govt is a large part of spending due to the increasing share of overall taxes (compare the state budget in 1990 vs. today.)

However, I think if you talk in economic terms, tehn be fair, tell me what return you get from $1 of taxes vs. $1 not spent in taxes in eith numbers or jobs created? I don't really believe, out side of jobs intended to follow govt reculations, you can say govt has created any job outside of a govt job.

After all, don't we get getting told employers under <100 workers are the fastest growing job growth?

torridjoe ...is there anything funnier than the 30th iteration of the absurdity that driving a car is cheaper than riding rail? Bill Funnier? How about someone who hasn’t bothered to check the facts before sprouting off.

Lets do a little research and math:

Rail: From: trimet.org/pdfs/ridership/busmaxstat.pdf 1. MAX delivered 175,964,052 passenger-miles in 2007 2. MAX system cost was $75,685,134 3. MAX had 3,780,504 vehicle miles. 4. MAX had 34,035,600 boardings

Therefore, according to TriMet, MAX cost is: The average MAX trip was : 175,964,052 / 34,035,600 = 5.17 miles The cost was $75,685,134 / 34,035,600 = $2.22 per boarding The cost was $75,685,134 / 175,964,052 = $0.43 per passenger-mile

Car: From AAA: ouraaa.com/news/library/drivingcost/YourDrivingCosts.pdf Since transit gives you ONE SEAT, a small car is the closes comparison in the AAA analysis. Page 6 gives the cost per mile at 12.4 ¢/mile, with fuel being 7.4 ¢/mile (with fuel at $2.256/gal.)

Analysis:

1. First, lets be kind to transit, and adjust AAA cost for fuel to $5.00 per gal: (7.4 x 5/2.256) = $16.4. This is an increase of 9.0¢ / mile (16.4-7.4). Adding that to the 12.4 ¢/mile above, gives a small car operating cost per mile = 21.4 ¢/mile.

2. At a national average of 1.57 persons per car, this gives 13.6 ¢/ passenger-mile (21.4 / 1.57) At Portland’s average of 1.3 persons per car, this gives 16.5 ¢ / passenger-mile (21.4 / 1.3)

Bottom Line: Operating cost: Car-----16.5 MAX-–43.0 (260% that of a car)

We could repeat this including ownership costs, but the comparison would probably be even worse, as MAX is over $1.10 pr passenger-mile.

Or we could say the average MAX ride is 5.17 miles and you only pay $2.05, or 39.7 ¢ / passenger- mile. That is only 240% that of a car, with the taxpayers picking up part of the cost (aka: welfare)

Thanks JK

This is a silly argument for anyone who has taken an econ 101 course. Sure, the money taken by taxation doesn't disappear, but there is deadweight loss that occurs as a result of over-ruling people's preferences. Government spending is obviously necessary to ensure justice and equality, but let's not pretend that it doesn't come at a cost.

Hey Bill, the IRS lets me deduct more than 50 cents per mile, which is two and a half times more than your calculation. Wow, that's so cool. The IRS is giving us poor schmucks a break.

Uh, also, your example (or AAA's, which I don't trust either) assumes the average car gets 30 mpg. Not even most small cars get that level of fuel economy in city driving. In addition, your logic that a small car is the closest analogy to riding Tri-Met is specious, because huge numbers of people drive very big vehicles with no other passengers.

As for Chuck's basic point, economies with a high level of domestic government spending (e.g., Europe, Japan) generally do better for the average citizen than economies with lower levels of government spending. Of course, when government spending is taken to the extreme--that is, as in a communist regime--that's a different story. Same thing when domestic government spending is virtually nil, as in a failed state in the Third World.

Gil wrote, "Of course, when government spending is taken to the extreme--that is, as in a communist regime--that's a different story.

Is it? Or, is that our situation, simply replace "communist" with ... fascist regime in which corporations control gov't, not the people.

It's not so important how much gov't takes in taxes, it's how that money gets spent. These days, I'm sorry to say, there's little to show for all the record-level spending under Bush, most states or even local governments. (Although they usually do a more efficient job than the feds.)

"Same thing when domestic government spending is virtually nil, as in a failed state in the Third World."

Welcome to the dark-side... Floyd

Gil Johnson: Hey Bill, the IRS lets me deduct more than 50 cents per mile, which is two and a half times more than your calculation. Wow, that's so cool. The IRS is giving us poor schmucks a break. JK:Hey Gill, it IS cool!

The IRS uses AAA estimates and theAAA basis its estimates on the average AAA member, which is considerably “upscale” from the typical American. The major difference is that the AAA cost is based on an average car age of 2 ½ years, while the real American average car age is 9 years. See PortlandFacts.com/Transit/AAA_method.htm for a general comparison of the AAA method with the average driver. Also PortlandFacts.com/Transit/Cost-Cars-Transit-Details(2005).htm . Note that the IRS uses AAA’s numbers and thus are highball numbers.

Gil Johnson: Uh, also, your example (or AAA's, which I don't trust either) assumes the average car gets 30 mpg. JK: Remember, I chose a “small sedan” because you only get one little seat on MAX. Ideally we would compare it to a single seat car, like they probably have in third countries or Europe. (A more fair comparison might be to a 100 MPG enclosed three wheel scooter.)

Gil Johnson: In addition, your logic that a small car is the closest analogy to riding Tri-Met is specious, because huge numbers of people drive very big vehicles with no other passengers. JK: We are comparing apples to apples. Not a single seat to a 4-6 seat vehicle.

If the goal is to save money, then one should compare the various options. A crummy little car is the one that most closely matches the MAX experience (admittedly without the vibrancy of gangs.) That people choose a more expensive car just indicates that people have more important values than saving money. Not being assaulted by gagsters, not walking & waiting in the snow & rain and convenience come to mind.

Gil Johnson: Same thing when domestic government spending is virtually nil, as in a failed state in the Third World. JK: Of course, one of the hallmarks of a “failed state in the Third World” is disrespect for property rights, croneyism and sweet deals for insiders. Sound familiar? (North Macadam Condos, Pearl, light rail lines etc.)

Thanks JK

Pat,

I pay my gas tax. Since it is a tax, it must be much more than is needed to build and maintain all the roads and bridges I need to drive on, and to pay for any health and environmental costs of auto travel. Isn't that the way these socialist governments work? It's those damn freeloading bicyclists who are not paying their way.

Seriously though, I am trying to decide whether libertarian economic thinking erodes the ability to think reasonably, or if libertarian economic thinking attracts folks who already have limited reasoning abilities.

Anyway, I'm sure Trimet studied enclosed three-wheel scooters in their analysis of comparative transportation costs. Hey, maybe that's where the name Trimet came from!

ROFLMFAO!

How badly I want to verbally badger you for posting such a doltish post but, I'm sure that's what Kari intended when he let this pass -- my bet is that Kari knew this'd get you tattooed and let it pass because it stirs the pot here on BlueOregon; Kari's a smart guy.

The government doesn't create the economy, it leaches off of it. The government doesn't create jobs, it shifts them from the private sector to the public.

That's the fact.

geoffludt

geofflundt: If you want to talk about leaching off, start with Bear Stearns/JP Morgan.

Watered down regulation let them make a killing unloading crappy pieces of paper, but when things started going against them, they get well-connected friends to bail them out -- with money that should be going to schools, health care, etc.

Chuck is a moron who gets to post on here once in awhile for some unknown reason. I can't figure out why anyone would ever hire Chuck's firm for anything since he is so stupid. Must have read some Marx in college and never grew out of it. Move to Cuba Chuck, you'll fit right in there.

I've held this policy for years: the only new tax, levy or assessment I will vote for is one that would pay for independent financial and efficiency audits of as many government agencies as we can. And then we should mandate acting on any recommendations to budget and spend more wisely. Government spending may be part of the economy, but I have ample opportunity to see just how poorly most agencies manage their funding. If they were a corporation the IRS would shut them down. I'm tired of seeing tax dollars mis-managed, and then 'more-money' initiatives on the ballot....always presented with the gun-to-our-heads threat of lost services if we do not agree.

Nick Wirth: A lot of terrible math is being done in these comments. JK: Care to point out any such "terrible math"? (If your math ability is up to it.)

Thanks JK

geoffludt wrote:

The government doesn't create the economy, it leaches off of it. The government doesn't create jobs, it shifts them from the private sector to the public.

That's the fact.

Since it's a fact, I am sure you can give us copious evidence of this, yes? Please include examples of the vigorous economies that operate without government "leaching."

Pat Ryan: All you self styled number crunchers trying again to compare rail to auto and again, not bothering to factor in the cost of "free"ways and all of the other infrastructure that you always remember to count when you discuss light rail. JK: You didn’t bother to read. The comparison was only OPERATING costs. However, you are right there is a flaw, the CAR INCLUDES GAS TAX, so the result is the cost of cars being inflated by the tax (which pays much of road construction an maintenance and some transit.) While the rail numbers contain ZERO right of way construction costs. So the actuality is that rail is worse than the numbers suggest.

Light rail, costs too much, does too little.

Pat Ryan: Hint. Don't forget to factor in medical expenses for various respratory illnesses, collision and liability insurance costs, JK: Don’t forget to count the FACT that rail is more dangerous than driving. It kills people at a rate of 2 ½ time that of cars! See PortlandFacts.com/Transit/MAXSafetyChart.html.

As to air pollution, cars DO NOT put uranium, thorium and mercury into th air - LIGHT RAIL DOES! See: ornl.gov/ORNLReview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html

Pat Ryan: and most importantly the mental price paid by Blue Oregon readers having to refute the arguments of two groups of people:

The cynically dishonest and their willfully ignorant acolytes. JK: Why don’t you try actually refuting the arguments, instead of the ad hominems.

Thanks JK

randy,

I've noticed a consistent quality to comments on BlueOregon that use "stupid" and "moron" to describe others. Yours is no exception.

sj -- ROFLMAO again, this time at YOU! We should have let that big bank collapse and all the other banks that were owed money by that big bank would've collapsed too and then when your boss went to pay you from the money he put into the little bank or credit union that was owed money by the big bank, he wouldn't be able to because that little bank would have blown up as well and guess what? -- you would have too.

Tom Civiletti -- You totally discombobulated my statement. I was talking about government's leaching of jobs from the private sector. I can site my own payroll as an example. If I didn't have to pay the government as much as I do, my small business could probably hire an additional person but instead, the government takes that money and gets to hire their own person -- it leeches productivity from my business and hundreds of thousands of other business'. The government is necessary to protect our freedom -- that means defense of property rights (everything else is up for debate -- which is why you and yours have done such a good job at enslaving hundreds of thousands of people to dependence on government handouts). I recommend you buy a primer on macro-economics before you run your mouth again.

geoffludt,

I've read enough economics to know that the laissez faire model which has evolved into the Chicago School of free trade is a load of crap that serves the wealthy and those willing to rip off whatever they can wherever they can whenever they can. I pay quite a bit in taxes, myself. I just mailed off quarterly estimated payments today. It pisses me off that a good chunk of that money is used to kill people and screw-up Iraq while enriching several rip-off contractors like Haliburton. It pisses me off that some of it is used to keep a large portion of the male Afro-American population behind bars, assuring that a good portion of Afro-American children will live in poverty. I have no problem with my money being used to fund public schools, family services, environmental protection, and a host of other government services. I think we should spend more on some of them.

You think government is a leech because you do not value a civil society. I'm glad that most Americans do not share your values.

I hear that taxes in Antarctica are low. Perhaps you should off-shore your business.

"They'd rather take their money and spend it outside the state or on something else that creates no job and brings no money back into Oregon."

Nice - set up a false choice. First off, I believe my original question was what is a better ROI - $1 spent on taxes or $1 not spent on taxes which you never answered. If we are going to depend on govt for job growth, then we are in trouble.

As far as job creation, OK then I'll revise it, govt spending has never created anything but more govt jobs if that helps - unless you count mandated jobs like consultants getting customer past govt regulation requirements.

Steve wrote:

govt spending has never created anything but more govt jobs

Without government workers performing government services, the infrastructure that allows the economy to operate at anything beyond a rudimentary level would crumble into chaos. Government enables job creation in the private sector. Even illegal business benefit from government infrastructure.

June 16, 2008

by: Tom Civiletti | Jun 16, 2008 8:12:59 PM Without government workers performing government services, the infrastructure that allows the economy to operate at anything beyond a rudimentary level would crumble into chaos. Government enables job creation in the private sector. Even illegal business benefit from government infrastructure.

That’s an excellent point Tom. I guess it’s difficult to let go a bad idea like libertarianism, although they are usually right on issues of freedom and basic individual rights.

As for that “illegal business” stuff, any of you math geniuses care to speculate on how much possible state and local revenue taxing cannabis might bring in?

To the mighty-high Floyd

Tom Civiletti -- So, you'd rather pay more for public schools (proven failure), family services (because no one knows how to run a family like the government does), and environmental protection (afterall, god forbid we use our own resources -- I got it, lets buy oil from folks that have a view of the world that doesn't include you and your efeminate little freedom of speech and right to choose) then protecting US interests abroad (Iraq's burgeoning oil fields) and public safety (I guess you'd rather your mother was raped by some felon then lock em' up).

You had all better wake-up and stop running your sucks and listen, I mean really listen to what you are regurgitating -- You are advocating for the demise of America. I only pray that in your heart of hearts you really don't want that.

Chuck, take a gander at Ashland Oregon, perhaps the most "progressive" small town in Oregon. Government is the economy there also. It is choking off home ownership, and has raised taxes and fees already to astronomical levels.

The problem with government as "the economy" is that there are no rational alternatives and little to no cost controls nor productivity gains when the cost of government rises exponentially.

geoffludt,

I get it now. Real men, as opposed to the kind concerned with efeminate[sic] little freedom of speech and such, believe it's every man [and child] for himself and f**k the planet if there's a buck to be made.

You have the right to think that way, and I have the right to pity you and work to protect the world from those who think that way. There is not much for us to discuss, but I can recommend a good therapist should you begin to feel the emptiness inside you.

"Government enables job creation in the private sector."

Uh, you mean govt allows business to expand which is NOT creating jobs.

"As for that “illegal business” stuff, any of you math geniuses care to speculate on how much possible state and local revenue taxing cannabis might bring in?"

Good point, how about taxing those who work for $ under the table and have bad soc sec numbers.

<h2>Perhaps now you may realize taxing never really solves anything besides giving people new motivationnot to pay taxes.</h2>