Almost Classical

For once, a post that agrees with Paul Krugman. He makes an argument I have advanced on this blog and I agree with his general premise that now is the ideal time for some infrastructure spending. See:  Ideology and Investment - NYTimes.com There’s an obvious policy response to this situation: public investment. We have huge infrastructure needs, especially in water and transportation, and the federal government can borrow incredibly cheaply — in fact, interest rates on inflation-protected bonds have been negative much of the time (they’re currently just 0.4 percent). So borrowing to build roads, repair sewers and more seems like a no-brainer. . I've posted an identical call for (sane and limited) infrastructure spending. We have billions of dollars in deferred maintenance that must be done. Now is the ideal time, with low bond rates and an anemic economy. I'm not calling for or supporting reckless spendthrift approaches to investment. I don't like waste (high speed r...

After a great deal of research on the matter, I have been an outspoken critic of high-speed rail. The binary simplicity of the major political parties and our media outlets soon reduce this debate to a different, larger debate: public vs. private spending. Any nuance? That doesn't make for good two-minute "debates" on cable news. When people read that I cannot support high-speed rail, one side of the issue assumes I'm against all public projects. In fact, I agree with the American Society of Civil Engineers that we need at least $2.2 trillion (yes, that's with a "T") in short-term investment simply to maintain our existing infrastructure. Building a cool train while bridges are collapsing seems wasteful to me. And the notion we can spend on huge new projects without taking the money from other projects is idealistic. As a nation, we have limited funds. We must spend money in ways that have the greatest return on investment. A colleague said I was wantin...

I support spending, wisely, to both maintain and upgrade the infrastructure of the United States. There is little room for debate that our infrastructure is dated, crumbling, and often inadequate for the current century. Yet we should be skeptical of politicians suggesting "public works" to rebuild our transportation, power, and facilities will somehow reduce unemployment and lead to a nearly immediate economic boom. The reality is improving our infrastructure would, at best, keep us even with other nations and would merely prevent further economic decline. Any improvement to our economy would be slight, if quantifiable at all. The reason for this is simple: The American Society of Civil Engineers estimates that as of 2011, deferred maintenance of U.S. infrastructure would cost at least $2.2 trillion to perform. In other words, for $2.2 trillion we would only maintain current service levels. A few extra cars or trucks might be able to use a road or bridge, but overall the eff...