News-Record.com

"A city searching for its soul"

Greensboro's new motto!

The writer of the LTE needs to be made aware that New York City-- home to Central Park-- has a lower crime rate than does Greensboro.

First things first. Make Greensboro the safest city in America and the creative class and the industries who follow them will beg us to come here. Then we can afford all the parks we want.

"What value do I bring to that world?"

It's not your dough you are talking about, it's all of ours.

Which business school advocates taking more taxpayer money during an economic slowdown/recession, falling home values, skyrocketing gas and food prices then dumping it into downtown greenways and civil rights museums?

BTW, speaking of apples to oranges, your comparison of NYC, London and Paris to piddly little Greensboro, NC meets that criterion.

Byron Loflin was high when he penned his letter . . .

. . . civil rights 'no-seums'

I will have to disagreed with Dan about this. While you are correct to point out that comparing Greensboro to the world's A-list cities like NYC, Paris or London is not particularly helpful, this does not mean Greensboro does not need a Greenway.

Many of the greatest public projects have been created during the times of crisis and economic turmoil. 1853 - the year New York legislature approved the funding for the central park was marred by weak economy, an epidemic of yellow fever in New Orleans, and coincided with inauguration of Franklin Pierce - rightly considered one of the worst presidents in the US history. But one does not need to look back that far - recall that many of the greatest public projects in the US were constructed as a part of FDR's plan to stimulate economy following the Great Depression.

Aside from a history lesson, Greenway is a smart investment because it encourages smart growth - something this city needs very badly. Creating desirable places to live will increase home values, and, therefore the tax base. Perhaps more people will consider living in Greensboro rather than Winston Salem or Burlington. I personally know people who commute from Chapel Hill (despite its much higher costs of living) because they don't want to live in Greensboro. Greenway, together with downtown redevelopment, is a good way to start wooing these people back and making Greensboro into a more desirable destination.

The same Bible that says "without vision, my people perish" says:

"Thou shalt not steal" and
"Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, oxen, etc."

If you want green space, go work in your own yard. Go buy some land and plant more trees. Don't take the money your neighbor was going to use to buy his kid a bike or to fix his car's transmission. Who are you to take his money from his family?

" I personally know people who commute from Chapel Hill (despite its much higher costs of living) because they don't want to live in Greensboro"

That may be true. But I bet ya I personally know a LOT MORE people who commute from surrounding counties (and outside the city limits) BECAUSE of the higher costs of living in Greensboro.

Greensboro has a large assortment of parks and green spaces. I'd imagine when you add up all the parks and other green space in Guilford County, it would come to a size a lot bigger than Central Park.

You want a park, you buy it. I can already imagine a world without this "greenway".

That's what we have now. And I'm completely cool with that.

I agree with others. Now is not the time to spending money on things that are not critical. Both the greenway and the civil rights museum fall in that category.

The greenway is a nice idea. But don't force taxpayers to pay for it.

I'm also opposed to spending billions of our tax dollars to send spacecraft to Mars.

I just had a wonderful idea. Since they like to tax gas for highways and cigaretttes for health funding, let's tax certain items for a park.

How about bikes and accessories, spandex, birkenstocks, and baby strollers? Maybe even frisbees, dog leashes, and bottled water?

"$130 a person"

That's assuming that everybody would contribute $130.

Change that calculation to only include property owners and I'm sure the $130 increases significantly.

I end up supporting the greenway. The vision thing is important, and one of the key selling points of Gboro is its parks. This would build on that (weak) brand identity, as the letter suggests. Plus, it's real. With so much of our tax money disappearing into various rat holes, it's nice to see something tangible actually emerge. Third, it would come at a discount: there's a state slush fund, plus some private money would be used. I've seen 10 mil as a number that the city would have to pony up, and while it would doubtlessly be more, it's not, on balance, a bad thing to fund.

“Which business school advocates taking more taxpayer money during an economic slowdown/recession, falling home values, skyrocketing gas and food prices then dumping it into downtown greenways and civil rights museums?

… actually that would be the Keynesian School

“Reacting to the severity of the worldwide depression, John Maynard Keynes in 1936 broke from the Classical tradition with the publication of the General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money. The Classical view assumed that in a recession, wages and prices would decline to restore full employment. Keynes held that the opposite was true. Falling prices and wages, by depressing people's incomes, would prevent a revival of spending. He insisted that direct government intervention was necessary to increase total spending.

“Keynes' arguments proved the modern rationale for the use of government spending and taxing to stabilize the economy. Government would spend and decrease taxes when private spending was insufficient and threatened a recession; it would reduce spending and increase taxes when private spending was too great and threatened inflation. His analytic framework, focusing on the factors that determine total spending, remains the core of modern macroeconomic analysis. “

http://www.frbsf.org/publications/education/greateconomists/grtschls.html#A8

Fwiw .. I would argue there is merit in most of the theories .. and there are problems with them all. The best answer – to practically everything – lay in the middle, with a little from each.

==

MERCHANTILISM.. aside from rearranging “selling more goods than they bought” to “earning more than you spend” .. this one has little merit, imho.

PHYSIOCRAT: “… a policy of laissez-faire, which called for minimal government interference in the economy”. I’m generally cool with that, but there are limits. For example I don’t mind paying taxes to assure inner-city garbage pick-up .. were it not mandated, we’d have open sewers from the bums too cheap to hire the service and too lazy to haul it themselves.

CLASSICAL: Adam Smith was close with the “ideal economy [as] a self-regulating market system that automatically satisfies the economic needs of the populace” ... but there is still occasional need for intervention – every circuit needs a balance, and Smith provided nothing to offset the bully factor.

MARGINALIST: “… prices are determined by the costs of production .. the basic analytic tools of demand and supply …” OK, but it has become so cheap to make stuff that the rules of supply and demand have been destroyed, and globalization assures “returns equal to their contributions to production” is no longer a valid assumption.

MARXIST: “the market system allows capitalists, the owners of machinery and factories, to exploit workers by denying them a fair share of what they produce”. Well there is some truth in that, see MARGINALIST above .. but there will be no "reserve army of the unemployed" to “rise up and seize the means of production”.

INSTITUTIONIST: “… individual economic behavior as part of a larger social pattern influenced by current ways of living and modes of thought” .. well that’s obvious .. but I reject universal “government controls and social reform to bring about a more equal distribution of income”

KENESIAN: “Falling prices and wages, by depressing people's incomes, would prevent a revival of spending”. We see that today, but I also reject universally “that direct government intervention was necessary to increase total spending”

SUPPLY SIDE: “emphasizes the need for incentives to save and invest if the nation's economy is to grow”. We should do more of that, to date it has been empty rhetoric.

WHAT’S LEFT? The JDR Theory !!!

The JDR Theory, still under development, says that given the freedom, Men (and Women) will create their own opportunity, limited only by talent and initiative.

Taxes should be low to encourage folks to earn, but at some point, folks should be doing things because they enjoy it not because they can demand (bully) huge salaries. For this reason, at some nominal number, say $12 million a year, tax rates should spike. If one cannot live comfortably at a million a year, then one has other issues.

Taxes could be low because the money would be spent efficiently. Cost would be low because taxes are spent mainly to lower overall expenses. The Polio Vaccine of the 50’s is my best example.

Also mandated would be paying a fair price for raw-materials and other assets now given away by politicians and bureaucrats. Ditto the cost of protecting off shore assets = costs that should be borne by those exploiting those assets. Consider how expensive gas would be if for the past 100 years the Exxon's had to pay for the US Military that currently protects those overseas interests, then think how much further along we’d now be towards being sustainable energy self-sufficiency.

Accordingly, one also needs to be responsible for the mess one creates. If you produce a waste stream, you need to clean it up - not pass in over to the EPA. The solution to pollution is not dilution, the solution is elimination and sustainability.

The profits of a company should not be taxed (these fees only get passed long) but neither should there be universal credits. I’ve been to plenty of g-man subsidized dinners where the actual business talk was grossly overestimated. Similarly, loopholes like the Bermuda Corporation Game would be slammed shut.

G-men should not be allowed to print money; the deficit spending we’ve done in the past 8 years has really hurt the value of the dollar and is one big reason the economy sucks right now. G-men should not be allowed to subsidize markets because it distorts the true supply, another big reason the economy sucks right now.

Like "the profits of a company" .. "the profits of an indiviual company" should not be taxed but neither should there be universal credits offered ... see above .. and we have traveled in a loop.

Like "the profits of a company" .. "the profits [wages] of an individual" should not be taxed but neither should there be universal credits offered ...

G-men should not be allowed to subsidize markets because it distorts the true DEMAND, another big reason the economy sucks right now.

==

Here's "An Open Letter" to which President Bush .. or his crony .. actually responded to .. Go Me! (... but neither Bushy nor the cronie really listened ... )

==

Americonomy

An Open Letter to President Bush, Senators Dole and Burr, Congresswoman Foxx, Chairman Bernanke, and the American People.

Congress is moving rapidly towards an Economic Stimulus Package – another $150 billion in unbudgeted taxpayer money. Let’s spend that money wisely.

Returning cash to Americans as a simple rebate is a bad idea. Money will simply be transferred overseas via Wal-Mart widgets with only a small portion actually stimulating our economy. Ditto tax incentives a.k.a. Corporate Welfare. Here’s a better idea:

Manufacturers should be encouraged but not required to accurately label the USA content of their products: consumer, industrial, subassemblies, raw materials, etc., in a manner similar to the country-of-origin information required by the American Automobile Labeling Act. American manufacturers can ink new labels much more rapidly than overseas producers. Make false labeling penalties very high.

The Economic Stimulus could be rapidly distributed to everyone as Food Stamps, with their applicability extended to include all things American, but only against the USA percentage. Standard IRS forms could document qualifying tax incentives.

In this way, American taxpayer money would directly stimulate only American Manufacturing – the biggest bang – and also fuel local companies who supporting American Industry. Businesses might also think harder about outsourcing.

While I don't necessarily oppose a greenway, I think, given the present economy, such a project would best be tabled for a while. Right now, people a struggling to pay higher gas prices while shelling out more and more for groceries and other necessities.

Additionally, we feel we are being taxed to death!!! Paying for bonds, talk of increasing sales tax, increases in property taxes, and even MORE money being requested by our ever-greedy schools, etc. are all creating situations where the money "going out" is exceeding the money "coming in" for many who live here.

In our present situation, we are going to HAVE to curtail the non-essential projects and expenses. If we don't, people aren't going to be able to continue to AFFORD to live in Greensboro!

IMHO, the best investments Greensboro could make for future growth are: 1) Improve academically. When I hear parent talk about relocating, the school system is almost always the number one reason for selecting a city/area. 2) Reduce crime. While G'sboro does not equal Durham's reputation for crime, it is close behind. 3) Clean house. Get rid of those in G'sboro politics that had rather argue their own personal agenda instead of working toward building a positive reputation for the city. 4) Stop developers from destroying the beauty and health of G'sboro. Trees were put on earth to keep a healthy balance in the air. Reckless disregard for preserving hundred plus year old trees is a trademark of G'sboro. 5) Preserve what you have. I was taught, from childhood, to take care of what I had rather than destroy it and go buy more. G'sboro is constantly wasting resources it has only to seek more and more. Somewhere along the line, people must learn there will come a time when they will not ever have enough to buy more because there will be no more. 6) Stop already with the tax increases. When locals are looking for a place to move, they usually try to avoid Guilford County due to the high property tax. Almost every county surrounding Guilford has a lower tax rate.

The Greenway supporters should get involved in the budget, find the pork (I guarantee there is plenty.), then redirect those funds for their project. I think it is a wonderful idea and hope Greensboro can "find" the funds for it.