4 ms·

The country attempted to move forward on infrastructure, but the bill died in an anti-democratic institution dominated by right-wing austerity hawks (the US Sen

The country attempted to move forward on infrastructure, but the bill died in an anti-democratic institution dominated by right-wing austerity hawks (the US Senate).

ducttapecrown 4y ago
Those people are not austerity hawks. They are austerity hawks if and only if the President is a Democrat. Otherwise they run budget deficits.
tylersmith 4y ago
Bridges can be fixed without federal laws. It's ridiculous to blame all poor infrastructure on a single law failing to pass.
- omegaworks 4y ago
  It's not really ridiculous when the federal government controls the power to issue currency. Any infrastructure improvement that occurs at the local level needs to be paid for by either tax or debt. Taxes take money out of a local economy and debt is typically more expensive for local municipalities. The federal government can borrow at extremely low interest and literally create currency if needed. If the infrastructure expands the productivity of the economy as a whole that currency creation does not contribute to inflation. At a macro level bridges enable more efficient commerce, so issuing currency to pay for them can be the most optimal way forward for the society. If the bridge saves 1,000 farmers $150,000 in fuel/transportation cost over the course of its life, that bridge created $150,000,000 of new value in the economy.
jaywalk 4y ago
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > The country is not a democracy, so the Senate being "anti-democratic" is entirely irrelevant. Insofar as the government claims (and, more importantly, insofar as those subject to the government believe that it is important for a government to be able to claim) democratic legitimacy through consent of the governed, both the fact that the government as a whole is radically antidemocratic in structure despite superficial rituals of democracy, and the fact that the centerpiece of that antidemocratic structure is the Senate matters a whole lot.

The country attempted to move forward on infrastructure, but the bill died in an anti-democratic institution dominated by right-wing austerity hawks (the US Senate).

ducttapecrown 4y ago

Those people are not austerity hawks. They are austerity hawks if and only if the President is a Democrat. Otherwise they run budget deficits.

tylersmith 4y ago

Bridges can be fixed without federal laws. It's ridiculous to blame all poor infrastructure on a single law failing to pass.

omegaworks 4y ago
It's not really ridiculous when the federal government controls the power to issue currency. Any infrastructure improvement that occurs at the local level needs to be paid for by either tax or debt. Taxes take money out of a local economy and debt is typically more expensive for local municipalities. The federal government can borrow at extremely low interest and literally create currency if needed. If the infrastructure expands the productivity of the economy as a whole that currency creation does not contribute to inflation. At a macro level bridges enable more efficient commerce, so issuing currency to pay for them can be the most optimal way forward for the society. If the bridge saves 1,000 farmers $150,000 in fuel/transportation cost over the course of its life, that bridge created $150,000,000 of new value in the economy.

jaywalk 4y ago

dragonwriter 4y ago
> The country is not a democracy, so the Senate being "anti-democratic" is entirely irrelevant. Insofar as the government claims (and, more importantly, insofar as those subject to the government believe that it is important for a government to be able to claim) democratic legitimacy through consent of the governed, both the fact that the government as a whole is radically antidemocratic in structure despite superficial rituals of democracy, and the fact that the centerpiece of that antidemocratic structure is the Senate matters a whole lot.