327

OK so which aspects of the past are embraced by "classical" or "neo-classical" economics? I can't think of many economic realities faced by Adam Smith (horses, slavery, whale oil) that are currently relevant. You and I and Keynes come from a different world than Adam Smith. And I don't know where Keynes ever suggested bailing out Wall Street. I don't know what school that fits into, if any. That's like a reverse transfer payment... perhaps unprecedented.

It's the school of economic thought that explains the behavior of every govenrment on the planet. They all do this. The Chicago and Austrian schools seem more divorced from the reality outside their beliefs, and seem based on ideas a lot less current than Keynes. I mean, how many sciences have a "classical" branch that anyone takes seriously?

A transfer payment may or may not be accompanied by a Hoover Dam. Regardless, it still has to come from somewhere and it still goes out the same way. Straight transfer payments are far cheaper than a Hoover Dam, really. No materials to buy. And it still has the same effect on the economy, that of consumer spending.

Why is it a priority to serve only these cities and not others? Ohio is not an island, and it seems like Ohioans might get more use out of a rail line that involves at least one transit-heavy destination. Ohio doesn't have any. By limiting ourselves to Ohio cities, we ensure that not one single station will offer competitive local transit service. And what does the past 40 years have to do with what's best for our present and future? Have we really thought about why this line doesn't already exist, if it's such an overwhelming no-brainer, and similar service is so "successful" elsewhre? Maybe it's because the conditions for that success don't exist in Ohio... not in sufficient quantities, not quite yet.

I've suggested before that midtown, particularly around the Agora, become a college neighborhood shared by Case and CSU. We may not be able to add an entire large university, but we can at least orient that area toward the universities we do have, which happen to both be on the same street where we just built a transit line.

We may largely agree regarding the current stimulus program. I didn't think we were talking about that, I thought we were talking about the Laffer Curve's validity. And I thought you were referring to actual depression-era "ditch digging" programs.

Few things in government are ever so black and white... ever, hence my discomfort with the notion... but I'm taking it as a given for discussion purposes. 3C is carved upon stone. Fine. What's debatable is whether, in hindsight, 3C really will give us the biggest difference in the shortest timeframe. If we used bad metrics or bad polling to reach the 3C conclusion... or if it's simply been obsolete for years... we have no time to waste in updating our approach, so as to not find ourselves so irrevocably trapped once again. We break huddle, we called a run, and there's 9 guys in the box.

^ A worthy assessment. Still, not one anti-rail word coming out of that republican's mouth... when he certainly could take that line if he wanted to. Kasich is. This guy seems to want a modern system and to disfavor the incremental approach. This is the kind of attitude we may not want to dismiss right away. It doesn't seem inimical to our ultimate goal. And it sure would be nice to have more republicans say things, within earshot of Ohio, that appear to legitimize our goals.

Actually, that WAS my point. "Reason" already has an accepted meaning. It's highly debatable whether that accepted meaning equates to Randian atheistic libertarianism... so the trick is to circumvent that debate by stating one's opening premise in a conclusory fashion. And nothing is more conclusory than adopting said premise as nomenclature.

None of this is fact, these are all theoretical assertions and predictions. Drags on the economy can flow from the public and private sectors alike, and absolutely no one believes it's productive or successful to dig and fill post holes. The success lies in the accompanying transfer payments, which stimulated consumer spending at a time when the chaotic implosion of the private sector had almost eliminated it.

Outer-ring suburbs like Lakewood, which itself is denser than many major cities? This "us vs them" business is not helpful to anything we advocate. It needs to go... at least in regard to freaking Lakewood. Come on. I realize some Lorain County folks will hop off 90 and onto the Clifton in a pinch... but it's not exactly a quick maneuver... are you suggesting Clifton gets substantial commuting use from exurbanites? That's conceivable, but it seems unlikely. I think it's mostly the northern end of the former Rockport Township that uses Clifton. I-90 is too much more direct for people west of Rockport. And in 1950 half the workforce stayed home, so that would presumably even out. And I don't think the downtown workforce has shrunk proportionally... far fewer people work at small operations in the city and inner ring the way they used to. Jobs now are seemingly more concentrated downtown and in the outer ring.

This is not only debatable but currently under debate. And rightly so. My other less coherent points, ironically enough, raise issues of coherency as to how we reached this point, finding our hands so thoroughly tied... and how we might improve upon the process for future endeavors. That's at least worth looking into, isn't it? And I might read your I-69 book... sounds plenty interesting to me.

Yes, at the same time. We lost the streetcar tracks on Clifton to gain the added lanes. So, at no point were commuters just told to shove it... we switched modes, quite wrongly, but we never simply cut capacity on this route without replacing it.

It seems like the feds simply deferred to Ohio's own inexplicable insistence on 3C-above-all, and gave us $400 million largely for being a swing state and for being a hole in the system. But I haven't seen anything to indicate that the feds preferred 3C over any other Ohio project, including local or commuter rail. There's a LaHood quote over in the 3C thread which seems to confirm a degree of federal ambivalence. Obviously ARRA is not premised on a local or commuter rail expansion, but it's not like we're getting "high speed" out of the deal either. This whole thing is starting to look grossly mismanaged and poorly planned, at all levels. Why? 1) It seems entirely unclear who's in charge. The feds mandate what the states mandate what the feds mandate. What, in the end, is truly mandatory? What has been mandatory at any point and why? What options have been dismissed, and why? This is a fustercluck of responsibility and it needs to be cleared up pronto. 2) Coordination between cities and states is virtually non-existent. If Indiana can apply for CLE-CHI funding, and Ohio can refuse to apply for anything regarding its portion of that line, and Ohio can still claim Chicago's unreachable and blame Indiana... something is drastically wrong with the system. Indiana may not have done EPA studies on its portion, but as far as I can tell neither did Ohio, because Ohio was hell bent on 3C. It seems like the blame for failing to effectuate the Chicago Hub, vis a vis Ohio, is largely Ohio's. Not the feds, not Indiana. Neither one of them forced Ohio to ignore CLE-CHI. Nobody forced Ohio to focus on 3C. But because there's apparently no coordination at any level, it seems impossible to know any of this for sure. And that in itself is a serious problem.

They also don't have 60 political subdivisions per metro area, but who's counting.

I agree with you, and it comes down to the usual problem... we've got the wrong people in charge of our agencies and instutitions around here. The new management here is solving the immediate crisis but alienating enough people they may create a new crisis. And I remember those grand lakefront plans they had in the 90s... they're the only lakefront plans I've really liked, because they showed real ambition and tied in very well with the city's past & present. Heck of a lot better than a merry go round. I had no idea that simply drawing up the plans for this would gut the institution... I'm really not sure how that could have happened. Seems like there's some unfair blame on the lakefront plan, and not enough blame on simple mismanagement.

Never trust the Smart People's Guild or the Decency Union or any group who tries to co-opt something so abstract. A name like this means they have a direct purpose but they don't think we need to know what it is.

Well, I guess that settles it then.

And this is why the Laffer Curve is total bs. It has no content, but is claimed to make any number of points all by itself. The "size of government" and "ratio of government to non-government" are irrelevant... and the Laffer Curve is simply an aluminum pole around which to wrap political value judgments.

Short-staffed agency overseeing high-speed-rail effort draws fire The top Republican on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee called the award process "amateur hour," saying the agency didn't consult closely enough with elected officials and devoted too much money to projects helping increase speeds on existing Amtrak routes. Rep. John Mica of Florida said he's considering subpoenaing agency records to review its decision-making process. "I'm very concerned that FRA's work missed the mark, and maybe hijacked the ability of the country to see some true high-speed rail-operations," Mica said in a telephone interview... READ MORE AT: http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-03-08-rail-oversight_N.htm

Well put LK.

These cities definitely need some shining, in some cases literally. Nothing ignorant about realizing it's time for a bath.

Interesting... we lost the trolleys and added more lanes, though not necessarily at the same time. Time to put the trolleys back.

Clifton needs a trolley. That's the reason it's so wide in the first place.

Not only am I personally familiar, I've sat through long and detailed reports about them. I think this is about played out. We agree on some points. The neighborhoods will benefit from additional access to the shoreway. I'm wholly in favor of that. It's the speed limit and the re-configuration I don't like, and I'm not the only person with that opinion, even though I pretty much am the only one in this here sample. Please note that I used to be in favor of the entire project, traffic lights and all, but in my efforts to convince others I found myself convinced by them. It happens... and it's the reason I believe in really talking things through. I always appreciate when others are willing to join in that. No matter who "wins" I think this ultimately leads to better decisions and a stronger community.