The whole "$16 per muffin" thing is nothing more than a myth.
It happens everywhere at any conference. So really, this is nothing more than a non-issue.
The whole "$16 per muffin" thing is nothing more than a myth.
It happens everywhere at any conference. So really, this is nothing more than a non-issue.
You must have stopped reading my anecdote half way through. His stupidity and spite had a direct monetary impact on hundreds of people around his project.So this developer made an investment mistake. He poured alot of resources in vain. Shit happens, he's the one who took the hit.
Nope, this was well before that, but I really do admire your willingness to bend over backwards to blame the government. They really did force him to start the project.The funny thing is that the low FED interest rates probably made him start the project.
or.....starbucks wastes money and then eats the loss and lives to waste another day.If Starbucks wastes money, starbucks suffers. Competitors eat up starbucks and the consumer wins
not sure what authoritarian hell hole you think the US to be.If Govt. wastes money, the Taxpayer suffers. No one can really do anything about it and the people lose.
FED has had low interest rates long before that. And ofcourse no one forced him. But with low FED interest rates, a project will appear to be profitable, when in the long run it's not.Originally Posted by Wells
Oh god, you don't understand anything about competition do you?Originally Posted by Wells
For some reason govt. keeps wasting more and more money regardless of what people say.Originally Posted by Wells
When operatives stay in other countries they stay in 5-star hotels and buy $15 cans of coke. A story ran a while ago discussing how they had info from a few anonymous agents that they were running up 10,000$ tabs daily on a mission in europe.
---------- Post added 2011-09-22 at 06:13 PM ----------
Why would a developer have any control over if a mega-store finishes or not? The stores are in control. If the stores don't approve of a design, the land isn't purchased and the store isn't built. The developer buys land and pitches it to the mega-store and local municipalities for corporation approval, at which point they choose to build on that land. Claiming a developer (like there's a single "he" regarding it) is the sole responsibility in that case is foolish. If anything, that developer prematurely built before all terms were agreed with, and there really isn't much power there.
Your city has garbage laws if the government can't claim imminent domain, and a crap government if they don't. Imminent domain could have easily been invoked when that "box in a dirt field" started lowering property values: "The power to take private property for public use by a state, municipality, or private person or corporation authorized to exercise functions of public character, following the payment of just compensation to the owner of that property."
Did you ever think that maybe the gov. stood to profit from the cheap purchase of blighted lands? If they had any sort of investment and were standing to lose money, they'd easily take over the land for the better good.
Everything in the known universe creates waste.
The difference between Starbucks and the federal government is that starbucks, being for-profit, has incentive to spend resources to discover and solve waste issues.
The US government sees waste as "the cost of doing business" because they are playing with other people's money and they can just print money. When you see any sort of "here's the US government's budget" it's 100% false. There are classified budgets and undisclosed budgets that aren't included in those lists (or else you'd be able to see how much money is being spent, aka, it wouldn't be secret anymore).
The government will never, ever, lose spending power. Sure, they cut humanitarian and welfare projects but the government is very good at securing funding for those things it believes it "needs" to operate as is. And so you can blab all you'd like about the "ridiculous double standard" of conservatives, but the issue with them is that they hyperanalyze anything that they have no interest in maintaining while ignoring the waste in the things they support. So naturally that will be pointed out repeatedly: budget increases for schools is "bad" but having the rich receive tax breaks and luxury perks "good." The problem isn't one of waste, its of what is acceptable expenditure and what isn't. Obviously both sides of the moronic bi-partisan system believe they stand for the correct answer.
I don't know why this is being politicized at all - it is the government in total that needs to be assessed and reduced. All presidents have created massive amounts of waste (campaigns themselves are huge sources of waste). All of them have approved and signed off on gluttonous, self-profiting budgets.
When various parties had full control, they could have easily fixed tons of issues. Of course they didn't, they used their power to profit their constituents (corporations, not the public).
Exactly. So where are the threads and constant whining about private sector waste? Why do we treat government waste like its something special?Whatever you do in an economy, it has monetary impacts on people. That's because the value of your property is not something objective but the combined information of hundreds to millions of subjective values.
This was in the early 90s when interest rates were subsantially higher.FED has had low interest rates long before that. And ofcourse no one forced him. But with low FED interest rates, a project will appear to be profitable, when in the long run it's not.
Of course I do, don't be an asshole. What I also understand is that through market dominance a corporation can be in a position where they can create a substantial amount of waste before they open themselves up to enough risk to lose their position.Oh god, you don't understand anything about competition do you?
Citation required. But I know your knowledge of US history is rather limited. Our government actually performs better in many ways than it did in the past.For some reason govt. keeps wasting more and more money regardless of what people say.
Like just yesterday I linked you a GAO report showing the foodstamps program running at its most efficient levels.
It's because when you vote you sign over all rights management to a proxy who doesn't have to be or do anything they promised when you voted for them. No politician will ever match a constituent's desires 100% anyway.
There is no way for an individual to control how much funding any government program gets. All you can do is pick a candidate that's supposed to have similar beliefs and hope they do that.
Obama was very ANTI-HOMELAND SECURITY in his campaign until homeland security did that "test the air" and "thousands of staff" smoke and mirrors show at his inauguration, he ended up cutting none of that funding, DHS still monitors us, those laws were never overturned completely.
When you're in power, it is always better to err on the side of caution, especially when you're constantly being fed (potentially bogus) reports of danger, no matter what the cost to the general people is.
---------- Post added 2011-09-22 at 06:21 PM ----------
When the government wastes all you can do is vote for someone else to hope they stop wasting your money. That's not a good system.
That's why you see "constant whining" about it, it's called "it is a problem."
Private waste can still effect outside parties though. I could have my property values tanked for instance. To say government waste is different because it effects the public via taxes is wrong. Waste in any sector effects the public.private waste is not.
i wonder how many posts on this forum are just complaining/whining.
[QUOTE=Caiada;13310522]More oversight and regulation of the government's spending would be quite helpful. I think everyone could agree with that.
Also, a $16 muffin better be the greatest muffin ever made on Earth.[COLOR="red"]
Some people are like cutting the amount of money spent of muffins won't help. Hello if they are spending x4 on muffins think what else they are multiplying the cost on.
Are you kidding? The waste levels are the most they have ever been. You can trot out as many examples of efficiency as you'd like, it's not hard to see that the inefficiencies outnumber them. The right has been pinning all of it on the left... notice the topics that they bring up are all helping the poor or involving health care?
GAO Details Billions in Federal Waste --- Report Obtained by Fox News
by Trish Turner | February 28, 2011
As members of Congress fight over what to cut in the current federal budget to avert a government shutdown, lawmakers are about to receive a blockbuster report that could provide a roadmap to potentially hundreds of billions of dollars in waste. The nonpartisan Government Accountability Office (GAO) is poised to release a report Tuesday that one senator said "will make us all look like jackasses."
"Go study that (report). It will show why we're $14 trillion in debt," said Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla. "Anybody that says we don't look like fools up here hasn't read the report."
Read more: http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/20...#ixzz1YhtqHW5V
---------- Post added 2011-09-22 at 06:31 PM ----------
Private waste is managed privately. When the government has 50 programs that cost $2 billion each, totalling $100 billion dollars, and it is revealed that the exact same thing can be accomplished for $20 billion total across 5 programs, that's waste. It's up to the government to fix it.
When your property value tanks that's not waste. Something depreciating in value isn't waste.
Waste would be that you have poor insulation and pay too much heating and AC due to it. It's not up to anyone except for yourself to fix your house, and until you do you are effectively wasting money.
Last edited by frott; 2011-09-22 at 06:33 PM.
I think the majority of you are only looking for blame any place you can. So what if they had an "expensive" meal? Don't tell me any of you don't take advantage of free food/services/whatever at your jobs. I'm not sure if what posted above was correct but a $76 per person is not really that much. I think I spent around $200 on my senior prom dinner for me and my date. I am not really sure why you are all up in arms over this.
eagerly awaiting citation.The waste levels are the most they have ever been.
Have you not been following the thread? My argument is that government waste is no different than any other. So the public impact of private sector waste is super fucking relevant.What are you even talking about? Nobody said it couldn't.
You missed the point. Destroying property value is a way in which private sector waste can harm the public.When your property value tanks that's not waste.
Do you know what a developer is? They build buildings then find people to use them. Not every chain box store has a building custom built for it. This example was one such project. Speculative building.Why would a developer have any control over if a mega-store finishes or not?
Eminent domain isn't the issue here. The issue was the developer started on a project without finding out if the city was willing to reshape the road for him first.Your city has garbage laws if the government can't claim imminent domain, and a crap government if they don't.
just because government has no profit motive doesn't mean it has no motive to reduce waste.Your city has garbage laws if the government can't claim imminent domain, and a crap government if they don't.
Some would argue (and I don't fully doubt it) that those strange expenditures are disguises for funding operations and programs so the public can never know about them..no matter what.
You're arguing a totally different case here. You're arguing against private property rights. You're arguing that people aren't allowed to build buildings with certain aestethic appearances.
The government waste part of your anecdote affected everyone in a totally different way. It used resources for nothing productive. That happens. It was his resources, he used them bad, shit luck. Society as a whole became poorer, but the person who got poorer was the contractor.
If bulldozing a city block then building half a store before boarding it up and abandoning it for close to 20 years in the middle of a previously healthy part of the city thus killing local property values doesn't count as private sector waste hurting outside people then you're either being intellectually dishonest or there is no point in continuing this.Property values did not tank because of private waste. They tanked because the private sector constructed something on private property that people do not want to see.
nope. not once have I said this man did not have the right to do what he did.You're arguing against private property rights.
Hahaha the aestethic appearances of a crime ridden plywood box.You're arguing that people aren't allowed to build buildings with certain aestethic appearances.
Which is exactly what happened here. It seems I could roll this up into a tube and beat you with it and you still wouldn't see it.It used resources for nothing productive.
Are people allowed to build houses on private property that look like shit which causes property values to go down, in your book?Originally Posted by Wells
Yes, but that has nothing to do with the housing prices going down. He used it on something unproductive, resources were wasted. Private entepreneurs make mistakes all the time. No one is saying any different. The difference is that when a private entepreneur does the mistake, he's the one taking the biggest hit. It's his own resources that are being wasted.Originally Posted by Wells
Which made it wasteful.Property values did not go down because it was wasteful - property values went down because it was aestethically unpleasing.
Unless they enter into a contract forbidding it sure, but I won't pretend it doesn't happen.Are people allowed to build houses on private property that look like shit which causes property values to go down, in your book?
I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around the idea that wasting resources had nothing to do with property values in this case.but that has nothing to do with the housing prices going down.
In fact I can only conclude you're trying to tread water here until the topic changes.
Really? beacause this developer is still going strong, but I know personally a man who's business went under in the local die off.he's the one taking the biggest hit
Ok.Originally Posted by Wells
Property values were just a bi-product not inherently related to waste. What if the mall had been completed, using even more resources, but left empty for decades. Surely housing prices wouldn't have dropped as much, but it would've wasted alot more physical resources. And I'm not treading any water, I'm showing you that you're looking at the wrong thing.Originally Posted by Wells
He wasted resources because of a mistake, this mistake just happened to be aestathically unpleasing. Even if he'd made a successful investment, it could've still dropped property prices.
Oh come on that's such bullshit. So what if he's still going strong? That just means he didn't do very many mistakes overall. The mistake he did with the mall still cost him resources. And again you reveal that you have an emotional stance instead of a rational stance on this issue.Originally Posted by Wells
Thats nice but we're not talking about gaudy mansions. We're talking about urban blight.No, that doesn't have to be wasteful. If I build a house I like very much, but everyone else thinks looks totally rubbish - causing property values to go down, does not make it wasteful. Subjective values.
Just because it could have anyway doesn't matter here.He wasted resources because of a mistake, this mistake just happened to be aestathically unpleasing. Even if he'd made a successful investment, it could've still dropped property prices.
And you keep refusing to see the connection between: 1) Made mistake 2) consequences of mistake.
Don't assume the two are mutually exclusive, its just lazy.And again you reveal that you have an emotional stance instead of a rational stance on this issue.