 |
Re: Infrastructure spending is needed-badly
Author: BOB2
Date: 01-13-2010 - 12:49
Poor Tom can't help himself-everything is awful-the sky is always falling-the end is alway nye- the glass is always half empty? We should have just stayed in the cave........it was warm and safe there? And, God forbid that we put people to work building those terrible projects like Hoover Dam or the Pasadena Freeway during the thirties????
The current stimulus infrastructure funds are just beginning to be spent. The ARRA railroad monies have not even been allocated, as of yet. The first round of this is expected to be announced in the next two months, it won't get programmed to some projects until summer at the earliest. Most of the highway spending won't even peak until the second quarter of this year-it takes that long to get the funds programmed, specs and design out, take competitive bids, and let contracts. Even for the road paving projects, most are just starting work now.
As to the simplistic economic theories, the design, engineering, equipment procurement, utlility work, and other project development costs also create "stimulus" spending injections. True, these expenditures are slower to get out into the economy, but these have longer lasting positive effects, because they create real long term benefits. But, an infrastructure "policy" cannot be based on boom bust political spending. It needs to be part of an economic "strategy" for the long term. Maybe this is why Warren bought BNSF-because well managed railroad infrastructure-providing efficient transportation services are a good investments?
We spent as much as 5% of GDP on infrastructure in the 1960's (Water, dams, new freeways, streets and roads, schools and universities, even space engineering with civilian spinoffs.....) now we spend around 1% of GDP, not enough to even maintain just the roads and bridges we already have. We actually lived better each year back then, business costs were reduced as markets were expanded, and we maintained our competitive edge. Now we are living off of our parents, or our grandparents, or even our great grandparents infrastructure legacy to us.
So any change from consumption based stimulus policies (here's "free" government money to go to Walmart and buy more imported goods???-then they might hire some more low paid clerks.....?) to an investment based jobs policy in infrastructure is a good thing to me. It just needs to be a more permanent part of our long term economic strategy, not an after thought every 10 years or so, when we have a recession, and need "temporary" jobs.
Improving our railroad infrastructure isn't the worst way to put people to work or to put some spending back into this economy.
The current stimulus infrastructure funds are just beginning to be spent. The ARRA railroad monies have not even been allocated, as of yet. The first round of this is expected to be announced in the next two months, it won't get programmed to some projects until summer at the earliest. Most of the highway spending won't even peak until the second quarter of this year-it takes that long to get the funds programmed, specs and design out, take competitive bids, and let contracts. Even for the road paving projects, most are just starting work now.
As to the simplistic economic theories, the design, engineering, equipment procurement, utlility work, and other project development costs also create "stimulus" spending injections. True, these expenditures are slower to get out into the economy, but these have longer lasting positive effects, because they create real long term benefits. But, an infrastructure "policy" cannot be based on boom bust political spending. It needs to be part of an economic "strategy" for the long term. Maybe this is why Warren bought BNSF-because well managed railroad infrastructure-providing efficient transportation services are a good investments?
We spent as much as 5% of GDP on infrastructure in the 1960's (Water, dams, new freeways, streets and roads, schools and universities, even space engineering with civilian spinoffs.....) now we spend around 1% of GDP, not enough to even maintain just the roads and bridges we already have. We actually lived better each year back then, business costs were reduced as markets were expanded, and we maintained our competitive edge. Now we are living off of our parents, or our grandparents, or even our great grandparents infrastructure legacy to us.
So any change from consumption based stimulus policies (here's "free" government money to go to Walmart and buy more imported goods???-then they might hire some more low paid clerks.....?) to an investment based jobs policy in infrastructure is a good thing to me. It just needs to be a more permanent part of our long term economic strategy, not an after thought every 10 years or so, when we have a recession, and need "temporary" jobs.
Improving our railroad infrastructure isn't the worst way to put people to work or to put some spending back into this economy.
