3 ms·
So your argument is, because government projects are usually problematic, we should not be calling attention to new problematic projects? Doesn't that seem a li
by dandelany 12y ago
So your argument is, because government projects are usually problematic, we should not be calling attention to new problematic projects? Doesn't that seem a little... fatalistic?
- Shivetya 12y agoI am not aware of many if any actually big government projects that are not problematic. However I do think the story was full of underhanded/indirect Chinese bashing, if not just plain foreigner bashing; like the quote "unaccustomed to the rigor of American construction rules". I guess they are just too stupid to do business in the real world, and this in the state that wants to waste billions on a train to nowhere. Frankly I am amazed at how much oversight there isn't on billion dollar plus projects. You would think there should be more than one agency, in particular neutral non government agencies that should be required to sign off on projects that crest a certain dollar amount. This is not to say that big government projects are all bad, they do lay ground work for many private companies to build on. Look as Space X, it would not be where it is today if not for NASA but it is a better choice for many things that NASA because of its big government mentality are not good at anymore. We only have to look at the recent boondoggle that was the ACA's main website to understand that oversight by non politically aligned, no government groups, is warranted. TL;DR. Yes, a lot of China bashing going on, to redirect the ire from its rightful spot, inept government with no real oversight. There needs to be "civilian" oversight on large government projects, appointed by industry experts.