Progressives generally view themselves as seeking greater democratic control over economically significant decisions, disposal of public money, etc.
How they view themselves doesn't signify. The way they act is like totalitarians happy with democratic control only when it furthers their goal of making all "money" "public money" to be doled out by them on the basis of political correctness.
Reducing all public concerns to “economic sense” is also a kind of totalitarianism
But it is, at least, the soft totalitarianism resulting in the minimum enslavement of citizens of the productive class to the whims of citizens adept at manipulating the political process.
Freeing public concerns from the necessity of making economic sense results in the sort of hard totalitarianism that Krugman wants, wherein all output can be disposed of by citizens adept at manipulating the political process.
By the way, can you point to a government program (aside from defense) that Krugman opposes or wants to cut in any significant way?
So, because we live in an imperfect world afflicted with unintended consequences stemming from formerly made uneconomic decisions we should forevermore pour more unaccountable money into projects that make no economic sense. . .
Thus is it that we have a government subsidizing tobacco farmers and maintaining high tariffs to sweeten the profits of cane sugar farmers while it spends money on advertising programs aimed at curbing the consumption of tobacco and refined sugar.
"No, Sully, they’re telling us something about the limitation of economic theory that rests on assuming rational choice and also assumes that rational choice for individuals adds up to rational choice for a society."
And you, Krugman and CK are telling us that choices made by interested individuals who won't pay the bills should override choices made by individuals who will pay the bills.
Meanwhile, I've proposed off the top of my head two alternatives for funding the project that would more closely apportion the cost to those who would benefit from the project, neither of which you have addressed.
Here's another possibility. NYC commercial real estate owners would presumably be the biggest beneficiaries from the greater availability of labor coming in from NJ. Fund it with a special real estate tax surcharge dedicated to paying off the bond issue necessary to build the tunnel.
there may be numerous legal and other complications. Up until recently, NJ may have insisted on participation in part because its governor and others wanted credit and whatever degree of control they get from their end.
I agree completely. NJ pols wanted a chance to share in the fat envelopes of cash that could be milked from such a project. And they wanted their fair share of the "jobs" that could be created for their pals.
The inability of the private market to settle transportation issues – in particular railroad rates – and government’s success in doing what private methods couldn’t were a major impetus to Progressivism. Transportation and public works involving multiple jurisdictions touches on too many factors for the electorate in any separate jurisdiction to absorb them all rationally.
And as a direct result the passenger railroads are as messed up and as undesirable to commuters as they have become.
Instead of waiting around another generation for some plan that conservatives can pretend is sufficiently “private,” maybe the people can choose to suit themselves, through their democratically elected representatives.
And it seems to me that the people have done just that by electing Christie. So how come you're whining about it?
Your arguments are the same ones that make virtually the entire budgets of governments at every level immune to cost benefit analysis.
Perhaps Krugman in his wisdom can propose $14 Billion in cuts elsewhere in the budgets of NYC, NY State and NJ to free up the money for this project if it's so important. Or, perhaps he can propose a change in work rules, union involvement, style of management, etc. that will credibly prevent this project from becoming another endlessly more costly big dig.
Or, perhaps Krugman could come clean (as Thomas Friedman has) and openly propose that we move toward a less messy system like that in China and North Korea, where transportation projects are run by rational all powerful leaders rather than by elected politicians who need to worry about voters too stupid to understand the exquisite logic of continuing to spend on pet projects long after the treasury is bare.
Traffic into Manhattan during the day is absurdly congested. you spend more time idling or inching forward than you would believe. It’s a horrendous waste of gasoline and people’s time (an hour or more every day per person adds up) and once you get your car into town, parking it is ruinously expensive (The average price for monthly parking in Manhattan is $431, last year. daily rates around $30-40).
And yet people still insist on commuting by car, paying more than the cost of the bridges they use. At the same time people obstinately refuse to use and pay for mass transit at rates that make it sustainable. Perhaps they're telling us something about how badly mass transit systems are run by the very flunkies you want to entrust with more money for use in building a tunnel.
But if you insist on government involvement I have another suggestion that can prevent the NJ governor from being able to starve the city of cheap day labor from his state. Have NYC issue bonds to build the tunnell and pay off the bonds by charging New Jersey tunnell commuters a surcharge for the privilege of entering the city.
From Wiki re MTA formerly Triborough Bridges and Tunnels
Surplus revenue, formerly used for new automobile projects, would now be used to support public transportation. Since then, more than $10 billion has been contributed by the TBTA to subsidize mass transit fares and capital improvements for the NYC Transit Authority, Long Island Rail Road, and Metro-North Railroad.[3]
So, it turns out NY/NJ pols already had the 10+ billion in excess charges on bridge tolls. They could have used that to build a new tunnel but they blew it on subsidizing mass transit fares. . . for people who are not willing to pay the cost of mass transit, as I said before.
I never said government should shun all public works; but when a public work strictly benefits one particular group of citizens that work should (insofar as possible) be paid for by that group of citizens (like bridge and tunnel tolls).
If the tunnel is an economically worthwhile project there's a very straightforward alternative available for getting it built. Set it up as an independent authority with no guarantee by government and let it sell bonds based on the revenues it's going to collect from people using the tunnel.
Oh, but that would presume people willing to pay the true cost of commuting by rail. . .
@ CK MacLeod:
How they view themselves doesn't signify. The way they act is like totalitarians happy with democratic control only when it furthers their goal of making all "money" "public money" to be doled out by them on the basis of political correctness.
@ CK MacLeod:
But it is, at least, the soft totalitarianism resulting in the minimum enslavement of citizens of the productive class to the whims of citizens adept at manipulating the political process.
Freeing public concerns from the necessity of making economic sense results in the sort of hard totalitarianism that Krugman wants, wherein all output can be disposed of by citizens adept at manipulating the political process.
By the way, can you point to a government program (aside from defense) that Krugman opposes or wants to cut in any significant way?
@ CK MacLeod:
So, because we live in an imperfect world afflicted with unintended consequences stemming from formerly made uneconomic decisions we should forevermore pour more unaccountable money into projects that make no economic sense. . .
Thus is it that we have a government subsidizing tobacco farmers and maintaining high tariffs to sweeten the profits of cane sugar farmers while it spends money on advertising programs aimed at curbing the consumption of tobacco and refined sugar.
@ fuster:
"No, Sully, they’re telling us something about the limitation of economic theory that rests on assuming rational choice and also assumes that rational choice for individuals adds up to rational choice for a society."
And you, Krugman and CK are telling us that choices made by interested individuals who won't pay the bills should override choices made by individuals who will pay the bills.
Meanwhile, I've proposed off the top of my head two alternatives for funding the project that would more closely apportion the cost to those who would benefit from the project, neither of which you have addressed.
Here's another possibility. NYC commercial real estate owners would presumably be the biggest beneficiaries from the greater availability of labor coming in from NJ. Fund it with a special real estate tax surcharge dedicated to paying off the bond issue necessary to build the tunnel.
@ CK MacLeod:
I agree completely. NJ pols wanted a chance to share in the fat envelopes of cash that could be milked from such a project. And they wanted their fair share of the "jobs" that could be created for their pals.
And as a direct result the passenger railroads are as messed up and as undesirable to commuters as they have become.
And it seems to me that the people have done just that by electing Christie. So how come you're whining about it?
Your arguments are the same ones that make virtually the entire budgets of governments at every level immune to cost benefit analysis.
Perhaps Krugman in his wisdom can propose $14 Billion in cuts elsewhere in the budgets of NYC, NY State and NJ to free up the money for this project if it's so important. Or, perhaps he can propose a change in work rules, union involvement, style of management, etc. that will credibly prevent this project from becoming another endlessly more costly big dig.
Or, perhaps Krugman could come clean (as Thomas Friedman has) and openly propose that we move toward a less messy system like that in China and North Korea, where transportation projects are run by rational all powerful leaders rather than by elected politicians who need to worry about voters too stupid to understand the exquisite logic of continuing to spend on pet projects long after the treasury is bare.
@ fuster:
And yet people still insist on commuting by car, paying more than the cost of the bridges they use. At the same time people obstinately refuse to use and pay for mass transit at rates that make it sustainable. Perhaps they're telling us something about how badly mass transit systems are run by the very flunkies you want to entrust with more money for use in building a tunnel.
But if you insist on government involvement I have another suggestion that can prevent the NJ governor from being able to starve the city of cheap day labor from his state. Have NYC issue bonds to build the tunnell and pay off the bonds by charging New Jersey tunnell commuters a surcharge for the privilege of entering the city.
@ fuster:
From Wiki re MTA formerly Triborough Bridges and Tunnels
So, it turns out NY/NJ pols already had the 10+ billion in excess charges on bridge tolls. They could have used that to build a new tunnel but they blew it on subsidizing mass transit fares. . . for people who are not willing to pay the cost of mass transit, as I said before.
I never said government should shun all public works; but when a public work strictly benefits one particular group of citizens that work should (insofar as possible) be paid for by that group of citizens (like bridge and tunnel tolls).
If the tunnel is an economically worthwhile project there's a very straightforward alternative available for getting it built. Set it up as an independent authority with no guarantee by government and let it sell bonds based on the revenues it's going to collect from people using the tunnel.
Oh, but that would presume people willing to pay the true cost of commuting by rail. . .