Well, as you might guess, I am NOT in favor of these “FDR_Great Depression” style projects,they wind up being a feasting point for all the corrupt maggots of the USA.
Instead, why not do something to encourage consumption? like a $5000 tax credit to buy a NEW AMERICAN-MADE car? That way the dealers make money, the factories make money, the auto mechanics make money, and the loan officers make money-the multiplier effect. Whereas these construction projects benefit construction workers and politically connected construction firms-and the local mafias.
Read about the “Big Dig”-its enough to turn your stomach!
Right, because everyone in America surely wants a NEW AMERICAN-MADE car, and the Big Dig is an exact replica of every major public works project ever built in America. :rolleyes:
You don’t drive on the Interstate system by any chance do you?
Construction projects also benefit all those who use our nation’s infrastructure; that is, all of us. How is encouraging people to buy yet another new car they don’t need going to be any better than that?
I was visiting with a colleague of mine yesterday, and we were talking about the business outlook for the year. The subject of this stimulus package came up, and he mentioned that the easiest way for this funding to get down to small communities is for the Feds to beef up and/or introduce loan forgiveness into existing programs, such as the SRF program (state loan program for water, wastewater, and some stormwater projects).
I got to thinking what a good idea that was. Wouldn’t it be a more streamlined process to add funding to things like FEMA’s Hazard Mitigation Grant program, Rural Electric Cooperative Association, State Aid programs for transportation needs, and Community Development Block Grants?
That fits well into the infrastructure needs of the country and bypasses the issue raised by the OP concerning monstrous money-sucking projects. It would put the funding right where it is needed most, judging by the “shovel-ready” list shown on the Conference of Mayor’s site. Anti-corruption controls are already ‘built-in’ to these funding mechanisms.
The point of the whole stimulus package is not to fund a few expensive projects, but to fund many small projects which repair or replace vital systems. I’m hopeful that we will realize that goal.
Yes, but some vital systems will be expensive projects. Water Tunnel No. 3 in New York or the Second Avenue Subway line in Manhattan or the rebuilt San Francisco – Oakland Bay Bridge are all vital systems but are also big and extremely expensive. And the massive water main break in Maryland last month also demonstrates the need for infrastructure repair.
“Get more money in circulation.”
Yes, I know I quoted it twice.
Where do you think that money comes from? It comes from one of two places…either from persons or businesses who would already circulate that money, or from foreign lenders who want to be paid back. In the case of the former, wouldn’t it make more sense for THEM to circulate that money they have, instead of taking it from them and circulating it on their behalf? If the latter, how the hell are bridges and roads going to generate wealth in order to pay that money back? The deal is this…America is broke! Whether taking $$ from those who have it in order to redistribute according to some preconceived notion about where it *ought *to go, or by taking it from lenders who will want that $$ back, this “stimulus” can only prolong the agony that the U.S.A. is about to experience.
The way I figure it is that the US has spent the past few years blowing a trillion dollars, including massive expenditure on public works, but all in Iraq. How about we blow the next trillion dollars here and at least have something to show for it?
Or broken, rather.
Repair/rehab of our roads, bridges, ports, sanitary sewer systems & plants, electric grids etc. essentially keeps our commerce going. It’s mighty hard to get your melons to market if there’s no good roadway between your farm and the city. It’s hard to get industry to thrive in a place with substandard rail lines & sewer systems. It’s hard for a city to protect the health of its workforce if the water-treatment plant is failing. That’s how infrastructure generates wealth - by supporting the transportation of goods and services, and by protecting the quality of life of the workforce.
The problem is, we don’t need investment in infrastructure to get ahead. We need investment just to keep up.
FYI, here’s a couple of excerpts from testimony of ASCE before the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee on Infrastructure Investment and Economic Recovery last October:
Link.
I wouldn’t for one second argue that infrastructure is negligent spending. Infrastructure is what keeps everything moving. However, massive sudden investment in infrastructure is not “stimulus”. It is a short-term bandage that keeps some people in construction employed, and nothing else. In no way does it create wealth. Rather it consumes it. It is an expense, rather than an investment. There is no actual return.
While I live north of the 49th and may not be intimately familiar with the state of transportation infrastructure systems in the USA, and while infrastructure spending has possibly been ignored for some period of time, I don’t believe that there is imminent danger of melons rotting in the field because the roads and rails providing access and egress are hopelessly impassable.
Infrastructure spending is important, to be sure. It is best spent by those who do not need to borrow hundreds of billions of dollars to do it.
If this were a case of the U.S. waking up one day and saying “I think I’ll just spend some trillions of dollars on some fat public works projects!”, then I’d be inclined to agree with you.
I’m not so naive that I think none of the proposed projects are ‘pork’. However, in looking over the lists, I’m heartened to see many which are rehabilitation or replacement projects for worn-out systems. That doesn’t build wealth in the sense of capital, but it builds value nonetheless, don’t you think?
(Pardon my melon comment, that was a bit of hyperbole 
).
It’s my opinion that infrastructure in the U.S. has been neglected, for a long period of time; that sewer and water systems in particular are in bad shape. I think that if investment is not made in these systems soon, then we will see sharp increases in problems we’re having now - loss of/interruptions in service; spills/overflows resulting in environmental damage; sinkholes and cave-ins causing property damage.
Here’s where I do have problems with this issue: this should have been taken care of by individual municipalities as they went along. Example: the City of Jackson, for years, did not spend water/sewer user fees on maintenance of their existing systems, or replacment of older lines. Now they suffer from broken mains, cave-ins, blockages, surcharges - and they don’t have the money to fix it. Is it really the Fed’s responsibility to step in and do what they refused to do, years ago? Probably not. But that’s how far behind we are.
Multiply across the nation and you get … Uncle Sam borrowing hundreds of billions of dollars to fix it. I don’t necessarily agree that this stimulus bill is the only way out of the current jam we’re in. I think this is a lesser evil, frankly.
You mean like a Honda or a Nissan?
No, I don’t. There is no “value” in that the bridge cannot be sold on the open market from a willing seller to a willing buyer. It is an expense, and nothing more. To me, it’s like telling a family that is having trouble with their finances to renovate their basement. And hey, add a pool in the back yard while you’re at it! Since you’re not bringing in enough money, wouldn’t it be nice to have a nice new home theatre in the basement? That’ll stimulate the family. Of course, this will just consume assets that would be more productive either paying down some of the existing overwhelming debt, or placed into channels that generate additional income. The latter in the scenario of public “stimulus” is equivalent to leaving it in the hands of consumers or businesses.
I don’t think it’s a way out at all. The problem is that the USA is not generating enough wealth, period. And borrowing foreign money to build something that does not in itself generate wealth is a sure path to ruin, given the situation it finds itself in.
To me, it’s more like repairing a broken potable water line into a family’s home, so that they can quit carrying buckets of water from a spring of dubious quality. The value is in its usefulness, its contribution to quality of life - in the case of the water line, in its ability to protect against disease. In the case of a bridge, it may be a safer crossing, or provide clearance to free up shipping on the river, or serve as another link to the city so that traffic congestion is relieved.
I understand your point about “crown jewel” type projects - overblown, glorified monuments to the vanity of politicians - but the focus here is to rehab/replace stuff which desperately needs fixing/replacing.
I, too, really hate defecit spending. But what do you think of the person who borrows money to get a needed medical procedure for their child?
I’m not quite understanding what you mean about assets here. Are you meaning the workforce performing the work?
I think we would have been alright, had we not spent so much on the war. However, I’m not an economics expert so I might be wrong about that.
It’s kind of a rock-and-a-hard-place situation, as far as the infrastructure thing goes. Either we borrow money and plow it into these lifelines, or we get further and further behind.
Those clowns in Washington are hell bent to ‘do something’. I’d rather spend money (even money I don’t have yet) on things which are needed, and can be used by all citizens, than on a lot of other BS things.
As an alternative, we could admit that blowing $1 trillion in one place reduces the wisdom of doing so again in another.
Say an improvement to a road cuts travel time between the warehouse and store by 20%. The company owning the trucks making this trip will get 20% more productive work out of their drivers, perhaps do with fewer trucks and fewer drivers, spend less on gas, and increase productivity. Is there no value in that? The interstate highway system, already mentioned, made it far easier to get products around the country. It led to the growth of suburbs, and the mall, and whole bunches of other stuff. No value in that?
In case you don’t believe 20%, a recently finished improvement to the freeway I take on the way to work immediately cut 20% from my commute.
In addition, an article in the Mercury News last week surveyed city planners in the Bay Area. Most had about $100 million in deferred road maintenance. I read in Mr. Roadshow last year that the average car here suffers at least $100 of damage a year from poorly maintained roads. You think there is no value in reducing that?
Moving thread from IMHO to Great Debates.
If you’re sick of hearing about Obama, why are you posting threads like this?
If you don’t like Obama now, Ralph, just wait until he actually becomes president in 8 days.
He just can’t make up his mind:
I don’t think the entire package is to be spent only on infrastructure - the latest figure I heard bandied about was $85 billion for the public works portion. Of course,
Example:
From here.