Slashdot Mirror

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.

Actually the New Deal did work. If you chart the spending from the New Deal against the unemployment rate, industrial output and real GDP and compare it to the recession that was throttling the nation prior to the New Deal you will see it was a huge success.

Of course there are those who deride the New Deal and the teachings of John Maynard Keynes but when you read and analyse their arguments there are puzzling and outright false conclusions and logic.

First and foremost, you don't have to be a Nobel Laureate Economist to realize the "no shit Sherlock" logic behind Keynesian Economics during a recession. When individuals and corporations stop spending and the government steps in to create demand by spending of course its going to create jobs and stimulate the economy. To argue otherwise you'd have to be an outright moron or so pathetically stubborn you'd refute the facts to your own detriment.

But an even deeper fallacy in the arguments presented by the Heritage Foundation are their circular references to their own reports to provide credibility to their own conclusions, assumptions that the lag in starting up an infrastructure project precludes it ever creating jobs even though jobs will be created for the planning and engineering long before a shovel breaks soil, and the absurdity that federal funds for state infrastructure projects will only offset existing state funds already approved for the project that will be shifted to other state expenses some how does not create jobs. Uh, hello, do these people even have brains? If the federal funds offset existing approved funds which are then shifted to other state spending didn't the total expenditure, demand, and job creation just double? So much for common sense logic.

And the Japanese and their lost decade was not created by Keynesian Economics, it was created by outrageous speculation in real estate and securities, loose credit policies and low interest rates to fuel the speculation, and the greed of those running the financial institutions who were benefiting from the churning of the credit. Compared to the United States, Japan was already using Keynesian Economics as their government spending, according to the Heritage Foundation, was already over 31% of GDP while the United States is traditionally between 18% and 20%. And then to call Japan's government spending "flamboyantly unrestrained" while in the same paragraph pointing out that some governments spend greater than 40% or 50% of GDP is ridiculous.

The funny thing about the Japanese and their exploding economic bubble at the end of the 1980s is the cuts in taxes they made at the same time they increased government spending to prop up the failing economy. One has to wonder how much of Japan's debt problem is related to decreased tax revenue which to this day have not returned to the levels they experienced during the mid 1980s.

My standards on "wasted" energy are simple: Could you accomplish the same work with less energy? If so, the extra energy used is called "waste". The ratio of energy required to energy used is called "efficiency".

Most new European refrigerators use 150-300 KWh per year. Most new Energy Star-certified American refrigerators use 400-1000 KWh.

Most new European dishwashers use ~1KWh per load. Most new Energy Star-certified American dishwashers use ~1.5KWh per load.

Washing machines can't be directly compared, as European models heat their own water as needed, while American models offload their energy use to an inefficient tank-based water heater. European washing machines, however, are almost exclusively front-loading models. American washing machines are still primarily the much less efficient top-loading design.

On a related note, Europeans are rapidly replacing their hot water cylinders with more efficient instantaneous water heaters. These tankless water heaters are still almost unheard of in the USA.

European electronic appliances have had mandatory PFC and efficiency requirements for some time now. In the USA, efficiency is voluntary and PFC is rare. Because of this, devices sold in the USA often put two or three times as much strain on power generators as devices sold in Europe. On the other hand, many USA computer manufacturers have "voluntarily" adopted European standards in order to have their products certified for use in the EU.

Americans also adopted air conditioning earlier and to a greater degree than Europeans, and American cars are of course some of the least efficient in the developed world.

===

American energy apologists claim that the country is naturally disadvantaged; that European nations have greater population density, milder climates, and less industry than the USA. This is a fallacious argument, as many countries are precisely the reverse: The USA has ten times the population density of Canada. In theory, this should reduce energy consumption, particularly in the case of oil. The USA has a much milder climate. In theory, this should also reduce energy consumption. The USA has a massive trade deficit, importing far more than they export. The USA outsources much of their manufacturing and heavy industry, which should also reduce their energy consumption. Canada, quite the opposite, has a trade surplus, engaging in excess industrial production to export to other nations. The USA draws its power primarly from non-renewable, highly polluting coal and oil, which should, if the government and EPA had real power, increase prices and reduce energy consumption. Canada produces the bulk of their power from cheap, renewable hydroelectric sources. Canada also ranks higher than the US in the UN-sponsored Human Development Index.

But Americans use just as much energy as Canadians. Norway, Sweden, and Finland, while having equally cold climates, very low population density, trade surpluses, cheap, renewable energy, and high standards of living, actually use as little as 75% as much energy per capita as the USA. Most other highly industrialized countries — ranging from South Korea and Japan to New Zealand to France, the UK, and Germany — use rougly half as much energy per capita as the US.

If the rest of the industrialized world has superior trade balance, has equal or superior culture and leisure, overall health, and

My standards on "wasted" energy are simple: Could you accomplish the same work with less energy? If so, the extra energy used is called "waste". The ratio of energy required to energy used is called "efficiency".

Most new European refrigerators use 150-300 KWh per year. Most new Energy Star-certified American refrigerators use 400-1000 KWh.

Most new European dishwashers use ~1KWh per load. Most new Energy Star-certified American dishwashers use ~1.5KWh per load.

Washing machines can't be directly compared, as European models heat their own water as needed, while American models offload their energy use to an inefficient tank-based water heater. European washing machines, however, are almost exclusively front-loading models. American washing machines are still primarily the much less efficient top-loading design.

On a related note, Europeans are rapidly replacing their hot water cylinders with more efficient instantaneous water heaters. These tankless water heaters are still almost unheard of in the USA.

European electronic appliances have had mandatory PFC and efficiency requirements for some time now. In the USA, efficiency is voluntary and PFC is rare. Because of this, devices sold in the USA often put two or three times as much strain on power generators as devices sold in Europe. On the other hand, many USA computer manufacturers have "voluntarily" adopted European standards in order to have their products certified for use in the EU.

Americans also adopted air conditioning earlier and to a greater degree than Europeans, and American cars are of course some of the least efficient in the developed world.

===

American energy apologists claim that the country is naturally disadvantaged; that European nations have greater population density, milder climates, and less industry than the USA. This is a fallacious argument, as many countries are precisely the reverse: The USA has ten times the population density of Canada. In theory, this should reduce energy consumption, particularly in the case of oil. The USA has a much milder climate. In theory, this should also reduce energy consumption. The USA has a massive trade deficit, importing far more than they export. The USA outsources much of their manufacturing and heavy industry, which should also reduce their energy consumption. Canada, quite the opposite, has a trade surplus, engaging in excess industrial production to export to other nations. The USA draws its power primarly from non-renewable, highly polluting coal and oil, which should, if the government and EPA had real power, increase prices and reduce energy consumption. Canada produces the bulk of their power from cheap, renewable hydroelectric sources. Canada also ranks higher than the US in the UN-sponsored Human Development Index.

But Americans use just as much energy as Canadians. Norway, Sweden, and Finland, while having equally cold climates, very low population density, trade surpluses, cheap, renewable energy, and high standards of living, actually use as little as 75% as much energy per capita as the USA. Most other highly industrialized countries — ranging from South Korea and Japan to New Zealand to France, the UK, and Germany — use rougly half as much energy per capita as the US.

If the rest of the industrialized world has superior trade balance, has equal or superior culture and leisure, overall health, and

My standards on "wasted" energy are simple: Could you accomplish the same work with less energy? If so, the extra energy used is called "waste". The ratio of energy required to energy used is called "efficiency".

Most new European refrigerators use 150-300 KWh per year. Most new Energy Star-certified American refrigerators use 400-1000 KWh.

Most new European dishwashers use ~1KWh per load. Most new Energy Star-certified American dishwashers use ~1.5KWh per load.

Washing machines can't be directly compared, as European models heat their own water as needed, while American models offload their energy use to an inefficient tank-based water heater. European washing machines, however, are almost exclusively front-loading models. American washing machines are still primarily the much less efficient top-loading design.

On a related note, Europeans are rapidly replacing their hot water cylinders with more efficient instantaneous water heaters. These tankless water heaters are still almost unheard of in the USA.

European electronic appliances have had mandatory PFC and efficiency requirements for some time now. In the USA, efficiency is voluntary and PFC is rare. Because of this, devices sold in the USA often put two or three times as much strain on power generators as devices sold in Europe. On the other hand, many USA computer manufacturers have "voluntarily" adopted European standards in order to have their products certified for use in the EU.

Americans also adopted air conditioning earlier and to a greater degree than Europeans, and American cars are of course some of the least efficient in the developed world.

===

American energy apologists claim that the country is naturally disadvantaged; that European nations have greater population density, milder climates, and less industry than the USA. This is a fallacious argument, as many countries are precisely the reverse: The USA has ten times the population density of Canada. In theory, this should reduce energy consumption, particularly in the case of oil. The USA has a much milder climate. In theory, this should also reduce energy consumption. The USA has a massive trade deficit, importing far more than they export. The USA outsources much of their manufacturing and heavy industry, which should also reduce their energy consumption. Canada, quite the opposite, has a trade surplus, engaging in excess industrial production to export to other nations. The USA draws its power primarly from non-renewable, highly polluting coal and oil, which should, if the government and EPA had real power, increase prices and reduce energy consumption. Canada produces the bulk of their power from cheap, renewable hydroelectric sources. Canada also ranks higher than the US in the UN-sponsored Human Development Index.

But Americans use just as much energy as Canadians. Norway, Sweden, and Finland, while having equally cold climates, very low population density, trade surpluses, cheap, renewable energy, and high standards of living, actually use as little as 75% as much energy per capita as the USA. Most other highly industrialized countries — ranging from South Korea and Japan to New Zealand to France, the UK, and Germany — use rougly half as much energy per capita as the US.

If the rest of the industrialized world has superior trade balance, has equal or superior culture and leisure, overall health, and

My standards on "wasted" energy are simple: Could you accomplish the same work with less energy? If so, the extra energy used is called "waste". The ratio of energy required to energy used is called "efficiency".

Most new European refrigerators use 150-300 KWh per year. Most new Energy Star-certified American refrigerators use 400-1000 KWh.

Most new European dishwashers use ~1KWh per load. Most new Energy Star-certified American dishwashers use ~1.5KWh per load.

Washing machines can't be directly compared, as European models heat their own water as needed, while American models offload their energy use to an inefficient tank-based water heater. European washing machines, however, are almost exclusively front-loading models. American washing machines are still primarily the much less efficient top-loading design.

On a related note, Europeans are rapidly replacing their hot water cylinders with more efficient instantaneous water heaters. These tankless water heaters are still almost unheard of in the USA.

European electronic appliances have had mandatory PFC and efficiency requirements for some time now. In the USA, efficiency is voluntary and PFC is rare. Because of this, devices sold in the USA often put two or three times as much strain on power generators as devices sold in Europe. On the other hand, many USA computer manufacturers have "voluntarily" adopted European standards in order to have their products certified for use in the EU.

Americans also adopted air conditioning earlier and to a greater degree than Europeans, and American cars are of course some of the least efficient in the developed world.

===

American energy apologists claim that the country is naturally disadvantaged; that European nations have greater population density, milder climates, and less industry than the USA. This is a fallacious argument, as many countries are precisely the reverse: The USA has ten times the population density of Canada. In theory, this should reduce energy consumption, particularly in the case of oil. The USA has a much milder climate. In theory, this should also reduce energy consumption. The USA has a massive trade deficit, importing far more than they export. The USA outsources much of their manufacturing and heavy industry, which should also reduce their energy consumption. Canada, quite the opposite, has a trade surplus, engaging in excess industrial production to export to other nations. The USA draws its power primarly from non-renewable, highly polluting coal and oil, which should, if the government and EPA had real power, increase prices and reduce energy consumption. Canada produces the bulk of their power from cheap, renewable hydroelectric sources. Canada also ranks higher than the US in the UN-sponsored Human Development Index.

But Americans use just as much energy as Canadians. Norway, Sweden, and Finland, while having equally cold climates, very low population density, trade surpluses, cheap, renewable energy, and high standards of living, actually use as little as 75% as much energy per capita as the USA. Most other highly industrialized countries — ranging from South Korea and Japan to New Zealand to France, the UK, and Germany — use rougly half as much energy per capita as the US.

If the rest of the industrialized world has superior trade balance, has equal or superior culture and leisure, overall health, and

I question those statistics. For one, they aren't a measure of "percentage of households with a personal computer", but "total personal computers per unit population". So they fail to capture differences between countries in the distribution of computers per household. I was also unable to find any definition of what they consider to be a "pesonal computer". Does that include PCs used in corporate settings? Server farms? Then there's the fact that Bermuda is #7 on the list, ahead places like Finland and the Netherlands. Wtf?

To illustrate my point, check out this table: http://fiordiliji.sourceoecd.org/vl=7877390/cl=18/ nw=1/rpsv/factbook_fre/07-02-03-g01.htm. Iceland has the highest percentage of households with a computer at approx. 90%, while the U.S. sits at approx. 62%. Your stats show Iceland at #15 in computers-per-capita and the U.S. at #1. What gives?

Yes, I realize my table shows France lagging behind the U.S. and Germany ahead.

Then add what they pay in private costs, and it isn't a pretty picture: Public and private expenditure on health

It's not that there's any free lunch, but Americans pay more per capita in taxes to health care than the Japanese do in both public and private costs combined.

The United States has the Hummer of health care systems.

Acually, the US is the largest manufacturer in the world. Of course, tha's changing, but still. http://iris.sourceoecd.org/vl=22386847/cl=50/nw=1/ rpsv/scoreboard/gf11c.htm

• Netherlands $14.57
• US $14.20 (That's the OECD's number; the AFL-CIO says $12.03.)
• UK $13.33
• Australia $13.14
• Japan $12.83

For the US, that number has been flat for well over a decade. For the European countries, it's climbing. That data is four years old.

That study is worth a look. The US has the lowest level of legal employment protection, and the lowest level of collective bargaining for wages, of any of the OECD countries.

More recent data is available, but not for free. The OECD Database requires a paid subscription.