3 ms·

Only if G isn't already overspent. In the US and several counties G is well over budget and has been for a long time. This combined with large liabilities comin

Only if G isn't already overspent. In the US and several counties G is well over budget and has been for a long time. This combined with large liabilities coming down the pipeline and G should not be something we look to solve the issue.

hackuser 11y ago
> In the US and several counties G is well over budget and has been for a long time. I don't agree. G has been reduced considerably recently. Under Bill Clinton, G was higher and the U.S. ran a budget surplus. It's an old tactic: Cut taxes (now to historically low levels) and then say the country can't afford to pay for anything. The solution is to increase taxes. The U.S. economy is the largest in history (for the U.S. or any nation); the nation can afford more G than it ever could before. All the money is concentrated in the hands of a few, but as long as they pay their share the federal budget, at least, shouldn't be a problem.
jbooth 11y ago
Infrastructure spending in the US is backlogged for decades. Hard to argue we're overspending on that when we see a major bridge collapse disaster every 5 years. Bring that schedule forward through issuing more debt at record-low interest rates, and bang, you've solved several problems at once. People have jobs, they spend money, that helps the economy, and we get the infrastructure out of it as well. You'll even get some of that inflation that's been missing during the QE period, while all the fed economists looked at their macro textbooks in utter confusion.
- joelhaus 11y ago
  For the reason you mention, there would be substantial upside from increased infrastructure spending & the timing is pretty close to optimal. What's interesting is that through greasing the wheels of the economy via infrastructure investments (e.g. better broadband, connected/wired roadways, upgraded utilities and transportation hubs) you would see productivity gains which, over time, would further diminish the value of labor. Have always been interested in how long-term goals of social/economic policy should influence short-term decision making, but there aren't any easy answers.
- jpadkins 11y ago
  That is just a misallocation of funds, not a lack of budget. I think the federal government can find a way to fix bridges with a 4 Trillion dollar budget.
  - jbooth 11y ago
    So where would you reallocate from? Calling it '4 trillion' is technically correct but I find that taking out the passthru social programs (SS, medicare, medicaid) leaves you with the real number of what's available to allocate differently. Hard to say that we could pay for something out of SS benefits while still collecting FICA tax, and if you want to eliminate the program entirely that's a different discussion.
AnimalMuppet 11y ago
G is overspent. That does not necessarily mean the idea is wrong, however. What's missing is political will and trust. The trust issue is like this: If we expand government to get the economy moving, then once demand picks up, we have to shrink the government back down. Do I trust Congress to do that? Absolutely not.

hackuser 11y ago

> In the US and several counties G is well over budget and has been for a long time. I don't agree. G has been reduced considerably recently. Under Bill Clinton, G was higher and the U.S. ran a budget surplus. It's an old tactic: Cut taxes (now to historically low levels) and then say the country can't afford to pay for anything. The solution is to increase taxes. The U.S. economy is the largest in history (for the U.S. or any nation); the nation can afford more G than it ever could before. All the money is concentrated in the hands of a few, but as long as they pay their share the federal budget, at least, shouldn't be a problem.

jbooth 11y ago

Infrastructure spending in the US is backlogged for decades. Hard to argue we're overspending on that when we see a major bridge collapse disaster every 5 years. Bring that schedule forward through issuing more debt at record-low interest rates, and bang, you've solved several problems at once. People have jobs, they spend money, that helps the economy, and we get the infrastructure out of it as well. You'll even get some of that inflation that's been missing during the QE period, while all the fed economists looked at their macro textbooks in utter confusion.

joelhaus 11y ago
For the reason you mention, there would be substantial upside from increased infrastructure spending & the timing is pretty close to optimal. What's interesting is that through greasing the wheels of the economy via infrastructure investments (e.g. better broadband, connected/wired roadways, upgraded utilities and transportation hubs) you would see productivity gains which, over time, would further diminish the value of labor. Have always been interested in how long-term goals of social/economic policy should influence short-term decision making, but there aren't any easy answers.
jpadkins 11y ago
That is just a misallocation of funds, not a lack of budget. I think the federal government can find a way to fix bridges with a 4 Trillion dollar budget.
- jbooth 11y ago
  So where would you reallocate from? Calling it '4 trillion' is technically correct but I find that taking out the passthru social programs (SS, medicare, medicaid) leaves you with the real number of what's available to allocate differently. Hard to say that we could pay for something out of SS benefits while still collecting FICA tax, and if you want to eliminate the program entirely that's a different discussion.

AnimalMuppet 11y ago

G is overspent. That does not necessarily mean the idea is wrong, however. What's missing is political will and trust. The trust issue is like this: If we expand government to get the economy moving, then once demand picks up, we have to shrink the government back down. Do I trust Congress to do that? Absolutely not.