4 ms·

I find it worrisome that the author starts from a place of advocating borrowing to support building more infrastructure. I was pleased, at least, to see that he

I find it worrisome that the author starts from a place of advocating borrowing to support building more infrastructure. I was pleased, at least, to see that he seemed to believe that infrastructure funds needed to be invested prudently. I don't have a lot of faith in the levels of governments to choose the right projects. The infrastructure rot we're seeing right now seems to be a result of the fact that economic growth is not what it was when everything was built in the first place. I think it's clear the stuff that was built in the 50s, 60s, and 70s was not sustainable outside of 6% GDP growth, and what we need now is sustainable infrastructure initiatives, rather than trying to bandaid the stuff we can't afford anymore.

mason240 10y ago
We have more than enough tax revenue to fund maintenance and development of infrastructure. It's political prioritization issue, not a funding one.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
jessriedel 10y ago
The benefits for the infrastructure accrue to citizens in the future, so its sensible to borrow money (at the very low rates that the government can obtain) and pay for the benefits as they are enjoyed. If the additional cost of the interest makes the project not worthwhile, then this means the project shouldn't be undertaken, not that it should be paid for upfront.
- padobson 10y ago
  Agreed. I won't discount the benefits of infrastructure now, pay later, so long as the infrastructure being built is economically maintainable later.
justavoice 10y ago
I think you bring up a good point: the growth of the 50s-70s was an atypical period, large swaths of Europe and Japan were recovering from the after-affects of WWII. That put the US in position to supply the world, and we did. That is no longer the case, and we need to scale our infrastructure expenditures to match our reduced growth.

mason240 10y ago

We have more than enough tax revenue to fund maintenance and development of infrastructure. It's political prioritization issue, not a funding one.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

jessriedel 10y ago

The benefits for the infrastructure accrue to citizens in the future, so its sensible to borrow money (at the very low rates that the government can obtain) and pay for the benefits as they are enjoyed. If the additional cost of the interest makes the project not worthwhile, then this means the project shouldn't be undertaken, not that it should be paid for upfront.

padobson 10y ago
Agreed. I won't discount the benefits of infrastructure now, pay later, so long as the infrastructure being built is economically maintainable later.

justavoice 10y ago

I think you bring up a good point: the growth of the 50s-70s was an atypical period, large swaths of Europe and Japan were recovering from the after-affects of WWII. That put the US in position to supply the world, and we did. That is no longer the case, and we need to scale our infrastructure expenditures to match our reduced growth.