J.C. Bradbury sounds off against the stated rationale for publicly funding the Braves' minor league stadium. However, he seems to leave the door open for other rationale. For sake of argument, let's presume that the Gwinnett project is representative of the projects emerging from the fiscal stimulus package. Would a few thousand stadiums be deemed a success from stimulus standpoint?
From a transparency and data-availability standpoint, my concern is that a Gwinnett-type project is the best we can hope for. Despite the project's warts, at least there are verifiable statements about its expected return. With that in mind, I believe the debate on macro-level multipliers (see Krugman, Mankiw, Thoma) is somewhat misplaced. There does not appear to be sufficient debate in regard to specific projects. Mark Zandi's work moves us in the right direction, but it is still inadequate due diligence to limit the probability that public moneys will be wasted on individual projects that have a negative multiplier.
So here is my challenge for stimulus proponents and opponents alike. Would a fiscal stimulus building minor league baseball stadiums be deemed a success? Why or why not?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment