WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:
Quote:

brewster wrote:
Quote:

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:
Quote:

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/s ... estic_Product_GDP_History

well, GDP includes government spending. so if government spending increases, of course GDP will increase, if all else is equal.

Not true. Since gov spending is tax dollars, if you increase gov spending without economic growth you must increase taxes and reduce capital available to investment and consumption, then these components of GDP shrink, resulting in a zero sum game.

here's the hole in your argument, you can increase government spending not just through taxation - you can do it through adding debt as well. this is how government spending exploded even as tax rates were cut during the Bush years.

and of course, adding spending through adding debt does not mean we're more productive. buying stuff on a credit card doesn't mean you're wealthier. so this is why GDP is misleading. given that, i'm not shocked that the government promotes it as a valid production metric.

borisp wrote:
Quote:

brewster wrote:
Quote:

borisp wrote:
Consider the first half of the XIX century, when the immigration rate when up to an incredible 10% of the population!

The wiki you quote says current US pop is 12.5% immigrant. So much for that argument.

Yeah, I mean "population" and "population growth" - who can possibly tell them apart?

Quote:

brewster wrote:
Quote:

borisp wrote:
Second thing to look at is the way the GDP is discounted by the inflation.

Except that in neither linear nor log is growth markedly changed post 1980 when the methodology changed. So, even using your log scale, growth was not damaged by US social programs, it stayed exactly as it was at the same time as we were able to provide retirement programs for seniors and healthcare for them and the poor: what you call theft.

Ok. Imagine you are a talented investor and earn 5% in your brokerage account. Now, if the inflation is 2%, it means that your REAL growth is 3%. If the inflation is 4%, it means your REAL growth is 1%. And, if the inflation is 6%, it means you have no growth, but your real worth is going down at 1% annually.

Now, the hard part! What if I tell you that your REAL growth is 4% and that I assumed that inflation is 2% when I calculated it? Well, it is obvious that I must have started with the notional growth of 6%, subtracted 2% and cam up with 4%, right?

And now, ladies and gentlemen, the Hardest Part Ever. The pinnacle of addition and subtraction. The one that would require the whole mass of knowledge your learned in the second grade. Here it is: imagine, that you find out, that I cheated when I told you that your real growth is 4%, assuming the inflation is 2%. Specifically, you find out that the TRUE inflation is 5%! So, what do we conclude? Well, that means that 6% notional growth translates not into 4% real, but into just 1% real!!!

So, we see that if the formula for the inflation was changed to make believe that the inflation is 2% instead of 6%, - it means that the real discounted reported rate of GDP growth must be 4% LOWER than what is reported.

Ah, arithmetic! The mortal enemy of all things socialists.

brewster wrote:
Quote:

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:
Quote:

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/s ... estic_Product_GDP_History

well, GDP includes government spending. so if government spending increases, of course GDP will increase, if all else is equal.

Not true. Since gov spending is tax dollars, if you increase gov spending without economic growth you must increase taxes and reduce capital available to investment and consumption, then these components of GDP shrink, resulting in a zero sum game.

moobycow wrote:
The Grove seems to have the backs of the stores facing the main street and a large parking structure cutting off the other side of the Grove from pedestrians. This is not what Tommy was talking about.

SRhia wrote:
Can you elaborate where this gravel path is? is this where the old crooked bridge used to be? I'm dying to take my kids to Liberty State Park on bikes - now that the weather is finally better (and DTJC streets is so dangerous for kids to bike around)! Appreciate it.

Quote:

Frinjc wrote:
As for the access to LSP, I did a run last sunday from DTJC to Ellis Island and back using the gravel path by the soon-to-be replaced-we-hope bridge around Morris Canal. Following this, a concrete slab and a path carved in the vegetation, one can relatively quickly access the other end. This little loop did not add much work to my run and there were skateboarders and a few people including bikers, it is starting to be known.

tommyc_37 wrote:
...I understand that when Newport was built, the rest of Jersey City was viewed as undesirable. But are we now stuck with the mall forever? I've lived here for 7 years and it seems to me that Jersey City sees the value in new urbanism, the focus on the pedestrian, etc etc. I wonder if there are any way to "urbanize" the existing Newport Mall? Is the mall a financial success, overall? In our lifetimes, is there a chance that the mall will be demolished in favor of smarter development?

...There has to be a better way to integrate the wonderful neighborhoods of Downtown with the waterfront.

by Dahood on 2013/4/2 4:26:42

Neighboring towns of Hoboken and Bayonne have relaxed their rent control laws, JC should do the same. This will translate to higher tax revenue and better services.

VA2015 wrote:
Does anyone know how these ordinances will affect food trucks hired to cater private events?

I am interested in doing so, but do not want to run afoul of enforcement because they think the truck I hired is vending to the general public. Will the 300 ft from a restaurant/2 hour rule still apply?

Also, to respond to Loko - the better food trucks are usually near the Grove and Exchange Place path stations. Or at the Grove Farmer's market.

neverleft wrote:

Even seeing them in what use to be Healy country..CV.