3 ms·

There's a lot of truth in the article, but i do disagree with the section stating that everything must pay for itself. Maybe i misread that, but government shou

There's a lot of truth in the article, but i do disagree with the section stating that everything must pay for itself. Maybe i misread that, but government shouldn't be run like a business. Jon Oliver talked about debt last week (1) and how infrastructure is paid for. But if I've learned anything in my life, it's that our government is mostly show, and most of these decisions are made behind closed doors, everything else is just posturing for their base. (1) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yq_E3HquRJY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yq_E3HquRJY

burlesona 6y ago
Strong Towns agrees with you, and the author points this out in the article, but with specific terminology. Infrastructure is capital investment that needs to generate a return so that it can pay for consumption of public goods. Ie. a road is not really valuable in and of itself, whereas a school or hospital is. From the article: > We need to be obsessive about this, particularly at the local level, because we need to improve our quality of life. Many things that are in the American Jobs Plan are not infrastructure, but rather consumption. Still, they are worthy of our spending. If we want the resources to do them, not just in a one-time blowout but in an ongoing manner, then we need a real financial return on our infrastructure investments. > If we want to spend $10 billion establishing a Civilian Climate Corps, we have to make our investments in infrastructure financially productive. > If we want to spend $100 billion on public schools and $12 billion on community colleges, we need our infrastructure investments to have a positive return on investment. > If we want to spend $25 billion on child care, $400 billion on care for the aging and people with disabilities, and expand long-term care under Medicaid, we can’t make infrastructure investments that make our cities poorer. > If we want to spend $15 billion eliminating racial and gender inequities, $40 billion on job training, and $48 billion on workforce development and worker protection, then we can’t allow our federal infrastructure investments to continue to induce, everywhere across this continent, the American version of the Chinese Ghost City.

burlesona 6y ago

Strong Towns agrees with you, and the author points this out in the article, but with specific terminology. Infrastructure is capital investment that needs to generate a return so that it can pay for consumption of public goods. Ie. a road is not really valuable in and of itself, whereas a school or hospital is. From the article: > We need to be obsessive about this, particularly at the local level, because we need to improve our quality of life. Many things that are in the American Jobs Plan are not infrastructure, but rather consumption. Still, they are worthy of our spending. If we want the resources to do them, not just in a one-time blowout but in an ongoing manner, then we need a real financial return on our infrastructure investments. > If we want to spend $10 billion establishing a Civilian Climate Corps, we have to make our investments in infrastructure financially productive. > If we want to spend $100 billion on public schools and $12 billion on community colleges, we need our infrastructure investments to have a positive return on investment. > If we want to spend $25 billion on child care, $400 billion on care for the aging and people with disabilities, and expand long-term care under Medicaid, we can’t make infrastructure investments that make our cities poorer. > If we want to spend $15 billion eliminating racial and gender inequities, $40 billion on job training, and $48 billion on workforce development and worker protection, then we can’t allow our federal infrastructure investments to continue to induce, everywhere across this continent, the American version of the Chinese Ghost City.