INFRASTRUCTURE: Maybe I should give up about this, but….

….probably 10 times, I’ve asked on my blog:  WOULDN’T SPENDING A LOT OF MONEY ON INFRASTRUCTURE SPENDING RESULT IN AMERICAN BUSINESSES DOING BETTER?

There will be hired:

Plumbers, electricians, painters, drywallers, bridge builders, architects, contractors, engineers, draftsmen, computer inputters, …etc etc etc…

There will be bought:

AMERICAN cement, wiring, wood, drywall, struts, metal..etc etc etc…..

MANY WORKING, MUCH TO BE BOUGHT.

That money, in turn, goes back into our economy.   Yes, Trump wants to spend a HECK of a lot, but here’s the question I’ve never had discussed here though I’ve asked and asked:

WOULDN’T THERE BE BENEFIT TO THIS HUGE INFRASTRUCTURE SPENDING PROPOSAL?   

z

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

32 Responses to INFRASTRUCTURE: Maybe I should give up about this, but….

  1. Any federal infrastructure spending should be on national level projects related to defense of the nation.
    The expressway system was justified to mobilize the military for defense, not by the “commerce clause”.
    A wall would be justified.
    Port clearance (dredging) might be.
    Block grants to local government would be a waste.

    Like

  2. bocopro says:

    Yeah, to make a buck you gotta spend a buck. To start up a new business without the necessary capital, you have to borrow from a lender or investor.

    IF — and that can be one mighty big word — IF things turn out right and the venture succeeds, everybody profits . . . lenders, investors, owner, customers. And in good times, the owner can expand or even incorporate his baby with other concerns.

    BUT — if the market dries up, if the workers strike, if materials become exhausted, everybody loses. So, it’s all a gamble. Trump is betting on the people to succeed with the loan and create growth as the cash circulates throughout the economy. His predecessor spent the same amount of money but made bad decisions on where to put it.

    Two ways to look at it:

    ‘Twas budget, and the spotlight whores
    did strut and harumph in the well:
    all selfish were the senators,
    and the future looked like hell.

    “Beware the Trump,” said Pelosi!
    “The fone that tweets, the pen that writes!
    Beware the EO rule decree,
    that gives us all these sleepless nights!”

    They took their fight to NBC:
    For days the limits they all fought –
    To save their lib’ral spending spree,
    Their Magic Negro for them bought.

    And, as they rode their unicorns,
    And smoked their tax-bought pixie dust,
    The Donald with his brassy horns
    Did blow away their grubby lust.

    Repeal! Renew! And tax review!
    The PotUS pen went “Cancel!” “Cut!”
    And ACA when he got through
    Was mercilessly undercut.

    “So, hast thou slain the Senate fiends?
    Show me the Schumer head, my boy!
    Just use Ol’ Harry’s ‘nuke ‘em’ means;
    We’ll put it on a spike with joy.”

    ‘Twas drastic, and the Demoncrats
    did wail and suffer in defeats
    for programs cut and caveats
    that they might lose their precious seats.

    Or . . . .

    Half a tril, half a tril,
    Half a tril downward,
    Into the valley of Debt
    Sank the five hundred.
    Forward, entitlements!
    Tax more the rich! All spent!
    If they’ll pay their fair share
    For deadbeats on Welfare.

    Forward the debt down the path!
    Was there a member afraid?
    Not so; the debt must have growth
    If the seniors are paid.
    Theirs not to debt decry,
    Theirs not to reason why,
    Theirs but to tax us high:
    Into the Valley of Debt
    Slid the five hundred.

    Waste to the right of them,
    Fraud to the left of them,
    Default in front of them
    Snickered and chuckled;
    Yelled at with ”Racist” threats,
    Gladly they raised the debt,
    Cutbacks not outlined yet,
    Paychecks they still will get . . .
    Damn the five hundred!

    ~~~~~~~
    Depends on whether you see the glass as half full, half empty, or the wrong size.

    Like

  3. Using tax money to “kickstart” the economy sounds pretty Keynesian to me.

    Like

  4. geeez2014 says:

    Ed, that’s another subject. Whether we should actually do it with tax money or not…though there are highways which I think are federal…or do they stop being federal in each state they run through? So you’re saying everything ought to be repaired by the State they’re located in?

    My question is more strictly ECONOMICS..

    Bocopro…again, SURE, we know it sounds like FORWARDING THE DEBT…no doubt about that.

    And my question remains!!! Or am I asking it incorrectly?

    CAN’T THIS HELP OUR ECONOMY IF SO MANY MORE ARE WORKING AND MANUFACTURING??
    bOCOPRO, you say “BUT — if the market dries up, if the workers strike, if materials become exhausted, everybody loses”

    They strike, you get other ones…fire them that minute. There are always those needing work. Materials could become exhausted but if you’ve ever dealt with large contract bids like I’ve been involved with, the provider knows in advance how much he needs to fulfill a possible contract…

    Like

  5. If people are working for wages provided by the government, there is no profit for the goverment, and profit and wages for the contractor are a direct cost to the taxpayer.
    If the infrastructure encourages growth by costing business less to provide (better roads, less wheel damage, access to larger ships, etc) there might be some benefit.
    Interstate system road repair should be a function of the feds. They own them.
    Building the wall is a cost saver, reducing expenditure on illegals we should not be spending on in the first place.

    Like

  6. geeez2014 says:

    Ed, if people are working for wages, they’re profiting and spending more in our economy. That’s a profit for the government, no? I’m not challenging you, just curious and eager to have someone to discuss this like this..finally! Thanks! Yes, profit and wages cost the taxpayer….but it first goes through the economy in good spending which benefits us all, no?

    TOTALLY agree with you that building the wall is a cost saver ….couldn’t agree more, and I might agree with what you said above, just need to ask those questions for clarification.
    And yes, on Interstates….

    Like

  7. geeez2014 says:

    Had the TV on and the remote too far to change channel…only to hear Megyn Kelly touting transgender marriage and books for children on the wonders of all of this. The transgender women/turned man (with a beard), said it was fine with his family because he’s not from a religious family…….

    Like

  8. Kid says:

    To your basic question, Infrastructure spending is good for the economy, jobs, etc. IMO.

    Interesting on the uranium one connection.

    Like

  9. Mustang says:

    I’ll begin with this proposition: American government is corrupt, no matter what level of government we are talking about. Step one in resolving the issue of infrastructure, therefore, is an acknowledgement that the American Republic only works well when its citizens are paying close attention to what is going on. More citizens paying attention to such things as improvements to infrastructure means (hopefully) less corruption … and highway and bridge construction is an area where corruption is rife.

    With that said, let’s address the issue of competition. Whose business is it to build and support bridges within states? If your answer is that it is the federal government’s responsibility based on the so-called commerce clause, then I would have to argue that we may as well restrain any notion that we are a federalist (shared powers) nation because one can use the counter-argument that everything that happens within our fifty states involves national commerce.

    I argue that it is a state responsibility to repair highways and bridges, even if they are named “federal highways.” Further, companies within those states ought to have a home field advantage in competing for state highway contracts -and let the citizens of those states pay for maintenance costs because they, more than any other, benefit most. Note: it may be overwhelming for a citizen to “pay close attention” to federally funded (and contracted) highway programs -less so for a citizen to monitor state-funded projects. The economic benefits to state control over highways and bridges (and hundreds of other infrastructures) is self-evident. The same is true for accountability: we know who to prosecute when bridges fail, and truckers know which states to avoid because their highways are a shamble.

    Simply said, it is inconceivable to me that we coerce citizens of California to pay for bridges and highways in other states.

    Liked by 1 person

  10. There are two types of investments, PRODUCTIVE and UNPRODUCTIVE (Adam Smith, “The Wealth of Nations). If the investment fixes itself in a object which results in INCREASED productivity, it should be made. If it DOESN’T and the labour of the investment is immediately “consumed,” the “investment” should be forgone. Think of it this way. A capitalist can invest in a machine that makes things 10x faster, or a butler to help him get dressed in the morning. Are BOTH a “good investment”? Why, or why NOT?

    Like

  11. Why is building a highway or bridge different from building a statue or monument?

    Like

  12. Knowing the Left, they’ll have us build “transgendered bathrooms”…

    Like

  13. Monuments to “stupidity”.

    Like

  14. Mal says:

    Where else would the money for infrastructure come from but the people? Naturally we have to pay for it. As often as you have asked about this, Z, I have mentioned the huge debt our former POTUS left us with, and with nothing to show for it but a weakened military and economy. WHERE IN HELL DID ALL THAT MONEY GO? A lot of it went to his Muslim brothers, esp. Iran.
    How far all that money could’ve gone in paying for our infrastructure. Now tell me again, who does Obama REALLY like?

    Like

  15. I was wrong about ownership of the Interstate System. From Wiki:
    “Interstate highways and their rights of way are owned by the state in which they were built.
    Maintenance is generally the responsibility of the state department of transportation.”
    Some states (Ohio, Pennsylvania) finance this with tolls.

    Like

  16. kid says:

    ED, and Pennsylvania spends the money on something else. If you drive an interestate from PA into Ohio, your teeth are rattling in PA, and then when you hit Ohio, you think you’re on a magic carpet ride. The way it sued to be anyway.

    Liked by 1 person

  17. Once again though, Money spent on infrastructure, even if paid out as wages to workers who then spend it elsewhere, is money from the government.
    To say that it improves the economy (apart from activity that promotes commerce) is to echo Nancy Pelosi who said that Unemployment Benefits were good for the economy for the same reason.
    It’s only a transfer of money from one set of pockets to another.
    It would be best to let us keep our own money to invest rather than have the government confiscate it to make payroll for someone else.
    Unless the activity paid for is a responsibility of the government, just spending to pump money into the economy is only a transfer of wealth.

    Like

  18. The dead Russian Uranium guy may have been the only passenger with two bullet holes in the back of his head in an apparent suicide.

    Like

  19. kid says:

    Ed, Baby steps. The Reagan economy lasted until March, 2000 without any additional prodding by the useless GWH Bush or the Totally Evil b clinton.

    Like

  20. kid says:

    Plus imagine all the people who will get hired and won’t be on state or company UE dollars, but will be paying some taxes instead. A double win.

    Like

  21. Kid. What am I missing?
    If they get paid from tax dollars, give back a portion of that pay as taxes (which they were paid from), where is the benefit? It’s workfare. It’s like UE that makes you punch a clock.
    And if it’s so great, we should borrow more from China to do it even more.
    Keynes was the economist who supported this.
    And Obama was one of the politicians who implemented it.

    Like

  22. kid says:

    obama implemented Keynes? obama put nothing into America so what am I missing?
    Some rea ltime examples come to mind. Russia has no money for Infrastructure. Well over 90 some % of the people live in huge apartment blocks in efficiency apartments because the Russian economy does not support a living plan that includes people buying houses and all the things that go into that. Furniture, Appliances, Niceties, roads that traverse through the suburbs, on and on and on. We had that until clinton sent all the jobs to Mexico, Canada, and China. Now we don’t have people working, nothing is being invested into America the last 8 years – companies aren’t ever going to put money into infrastructure. Economies are based on the velocity of money. The pump has to be primed. The feds need to put money into the the infrastructure which will create jobs, put more money into more pockets, who will spend more (*Private sector spending) on goods and services which will jack revenue of non-government companies and the cycle builds until the private sector is fueling itself and government can step back.

    Well, we actually need infrastructure investment anyway. One case in point is the Brent Spence bridge from Ohio to Kentucky on I-75. It has no emergency lanes and is often has constricted traffic due to safety concerns. This is the major route for truckers between Canada and the South East USA. Like Trump says, there is a bunch of America that looks like a 3rd world country. Just visit Newark NJ, Cleveland OH, many other “Used to be Mfg towns”. We are sucking big time.

    Summary, Govt primes the pumps, more people working. More people forced to be working. There are a lot of weeders and breeders out there right now who can work and will work once they have to. Dude needs to put gas in the car to take out his gal to get something to eat, and wants other products in his life, he is going to get a job. The money flow starts taking a big 180 from “govt to freeloaders” to “Used to be freeloaders to govt”.

    Final Point, If Krugman is against it, It HAS to be the right thing to do.

    Like

  23. Privatize that bridge, the money will come to fix it.
    Like the Ambassador Bridge in Detroit to Windsor.
    The phone company built the telecommunications infrastructure.
    And the cable companies.
    And Edison.
    ANR brought natural gas pipelines to the north.

    Like

  24. kid says:

    Ed, Doesn’t seem like its gonna happen. btw – check out History Channel – Curse of Oak Island. Especially the last few episodes. I’ll do a post on it soon actually.

    Like

  25. BTW, I enjoy the Brent Spence bridge .
    I never realized it was in trouble.

    Like

  26. kid says:

    Ed, Yea. Every 5 years or so they do a 3 mil [money laundering] environmental study.

    Like

  27. Angel says:

    more jobs for Americans is fine by me Z!! HAPPY VALENTINES DAY! hope you get everything u want hon! 🙂

    Like

  28. Baysider says:

    Totally on board with Ed and Mustang here. The national highway system is called the federal defense system for a reason. There is a fascinating history to it when in the early 20’s, I believe, Eisenhower was put in charge of seeing how a typical military column with all needed support vehicles fared moving across the country, evaluating both roads and equipment. It was an eye-opener — the bog downs, breakdowns, the almost impassable spots. His detailed report became the jumping off point for a push for federal defense highways. I think they stay federal. (They get a gas tax, after all.) Nothing else.

    Like

  29. geeez2014 says:

    Ed. I totally disagree with you here “To say that it improves the economy (apart from activity that promotes commerce) is to echo Nancy Pelosi who said that Unemployment Benefits were good for the economy for the same reason.” I do get your thinking but don’t think it’s the same thing…people would be WORKING…
    VERY interesting info on who owns Interstates…thanks for that.

    Angel,I won’t be getting much for Valentine’s Day anymore!

    EVERYBODY: I bought a little red heart with Peanuts on the front, a Whitman’s Sampler of chocolates for my German student who lives here and put it in his lunch for tomorrow, then I thought “Will he be embarrassed taking that out of the brown bag in front of his buddies?” Then I thought they know and love ME, so…maybe it’ll be sweet rather than dumb? I HOPE SO 🙂

    Kid, Seems like you’re agreeing more with me….LOVED THIS “Final Point, If Krugman is against it, It HAS to be the right thing to do” Amen to THAT!!!

    Vrag, TRANSGENDER BATHROOMS….so true!! Great stuff.

    Mal, couldn’t agree with you more….right on.

    Mustang, I’m not even sure I’m following most of what you said…. I don’t see a benefit for any state, or our country, if truckers have to avoid a state full of pot-holed highways…

    THANK YOU, everybody….I so appreciate your input. Particularly those who agree with MEEE (smile!) XXX

    Like

  30. cube says:

    If our airports, bridges and roads are falling apart, we have no choice but to fix them. Frankly, I’d rather money go towards something we can all benefit from than to providing benefits for lazy, non-working, layabouts whose talents include crime and procreation.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s