NationStates Jolt Archive

We often hear about how America's infrastructure is "crumbling" and deteriorating and neglected. Therefore the Obama stimulus package calls for filling in potholes, building new highways, and generally sprucing up the infrastructure. Instinctively, this all sounds very appealing, and also very appealing is the image of millions of citizens happily employed on pavement duty.

But the reality is, America's infrastructure is too good. We have too many roads, too many railroads, too many bridges, too many tunnels. At a time when road and rail traffic is plummeting, why are we building more roads and more rails? Isn't that completely counterintuitive?

Japan tried exactly this counterintuitive strategy during its recession starting in the 1990s, and it was a complete failure. Japan's economy was not jump-started. To the contrary, Japan simply got stuck with a gigantic debt and never-ending economic stagnation that has continued to this day.

The right thing for Obama to do is not to build more infrastructure. Instead, Obama must liquidiate infrastructure. Close the unprofitable, rarely-used stretches of roads, abolish the gasoline tax, or better yet, privatize roads and sell or lease them to the highest bidder, and use the proceeds to pay down the national debt.

Or he could improve the roads, instead of making new ones. We've got plenty of crappy ones in need of repairs and the sort.

Or he could improve the roads, instead of making new ones. We've got plenty of crappy ones in need of repairs and the sort.

Why improve the roads when traffic is plummeting? Thousands of miles of roads, especially highways, should be closed.

Or he could improve the roads, instead of making new ones. We've got plenty of crappy ones in need of repairs and the sort.

those were supposed to be taken care of by your state with some federal funding.


My issue with the road work in the stimulus package is this.

Were the roads and other infrastructure the cause of the recession ?
If no then why use the stimulus package on something that is not the problem.

You base this "too much" conclusion on.... what, exactly?

You base this "too much" conclusion on.... what, exactly?

The news. Railroad boxcar shipping down, truck shipping down, manufacturing down, civilian traffic down. Infrastructure must contract to meet the real-time economic conditions, or be an excess and waste.

Let me explain. Quantity =/= quality.

The news. Railroad boxcar shipping down, truck shipping down, manufacturing down, civilian traffic down. Infrastructure must contract to meet the real-time economic conditions, or be an excess and waste.

lets not tear up the roads.

Why improve the roads when traffic is plummeting? Thousands of miles of roads, especially highways, should be closed.
perhaps you can give an example of a road that should be closed.

The news. Railroad boxcar shipping down, truck shipping down, manufacturing down, civilian traffic down.

None of which means we have "too much infrastructure."

If you have to look for a new job, do you immediately start ripping out the plumbing fixtures?

Infrastructure must contract to meet the real-time economic conditions, or be an excess and waste.

Real-time economic conditions? That's unfortunate as roads, highways, railways are not built instantly to meet real-time strategy twitch gaming demands as perceived by ... you.

lets not tear up the roads.

Privatize them. Sell or lease them to the highest bidder. Private companies are much better at responding to market conditions, and they can decide what to do with 500 miles of interstate highways in montana.

As with all places, I suspect that some areas are in dire need of additional infrastructure whilst others aren't really using what they already have. I doubt that money would be invested where it is not needed, but it wouldn't be the first time I suppose.

None of which means we have "too much infrastructure."

If you have to look for a new job, do you immediately start ripping out the plumbing fixtures?
If I were in the process of looking for a job I would stop paying for upkeep on things I don't need, provide no benefit, and drain my finances.

Real-time economic conditions? That's unfortunate as roads, highways, railways are not built instantly to meet real-time strategy twitch gaming demands as perceived by ... you.
All things, including roads, are subject to real-time economic conditions. An unprofitable car factory run by GM can be shut down in a day due to economic conditions, so can a road.

If I were in the process of looking for a job I would stop paying for upkeep on things I don't need, provides no benefit, and drain my finances.


Oh, well see plumbing actually provides a benefit. Kinda like infrastructure.

Everything, including roads, are subject to real-time economic conditions. An unprofitable car factory run by GM can be shut down in a day due to economic conditions, so can a road.

Infrastructure is not designed to make a profit, so the comparison is rather silly. Not to mention your entire argument. What's the "right amount" of infrastructure? Tell me exactly. Give me a list of which roads and rails you want to eliminate, and why. Show me that the amount of infrastructure means it's "too" good and so we must remove it.

I'm pretty sure you cannot do this, and that is why your argument, as such, fails. By all means surprise me if you can.

Privatising roads is a bad Idea. People would have to pay to travel anywhere on the road. The idea behind building infastructure is that we create jobs and stimulate all the businesses involved with infastructure. Furthermore, I don't know about where you live but here in nc we have tons of bridges that need to be fixed along with many roads and interstates that are in need of repair. Plus this worked previously in the great depression.

those were supposed to be taken care of by your state with some federal funding.


My issue with the road work in the stimulus package is this.

Were the roads and other infrastructure the cause of the recession ?
If no then why use the stimulus package on something that is not the problem.

We could pave the roads with the bodies of investment bankers. ;D

We could pave the roads with the bodies of investment bankers. ;D

I suggest we all travel by balloon!

http://www.cutiegadget.com/pict/darth_vader.jpg

We could pave the roads with the bodies of investment bankers. ;D

then the life insurance industry collapses as there families get their golden parachutes.
lets not collapse anything more

then the life insurance industry collapses as there families get their golden parachutes.
lets not collapse anything more

Chaos is good for you. I've already started collecting resumes for my roving band of maniacs. :)

I suggest we all travel by balloon!

http://www.cutiegadget.com/pict/darth_vader.jpg

Or surfboard!

http://www.surfersvillage.com/gal/pictures/Darth-Vader_tom_cozad_640.jpg

:D

Oh, well see plumbing actually provides a benefit. Kinda like infrastructure.



Infrastructure is not designed to make a profit, so the comparison is rather silly.
Why is infrastructure "not designed to make a profit"? Infrastructure is no different from any other commodity.

Not to mention your entire argument. What's the "right amount" of infrastructure? Tell me exactly. Give me a list of which roads and rails you want to eliminate, and why. Show me that the amount of infrastructure means it's "too" good and so we must remove it.

I'm pretty sure you cannot do this, and that is why your argument, as such, fails. By all means surprise me if you can.

I never claimed I know what is mathematically the "right amount" of infrastructure. No single human being and not even any committee of human beings, knows what is the "right amount" of infrastructure.

The only entity capable of knowing what is the "right amount" of infrastructure is the free market, i.e. the economic decisions of all the participants in the free market who can gather meaningful, real-time economic information in the form of profitability. That's why the best solution is to privatize all roads, and allow the free market to optimally allocate resources, including operating roads. Unprofitable, underutilized roads will be closed, and useful, profitable, busy roads will remain open, which is common sense and most efficient.

Privatising roads is a bad Idea. People would have to pay to travel anywhere on the road. The idea behind building infastructure is that we create jobs and stimulate all the businesses involved with infastructure. Furthermore, I don't know about where you live but here in nc we have tons of bridges that need to be fixed along with many roads and interstates that are in need of repair. Plus this worked previously in the great depression.

This did not work in the Great Depression. FDR's stimulus packages made the depression even worse.

Or surfboard!

http://www.surfersvillage.com/gal/pictures/Darth-Vader_tom_cozad_640.jpg

:D

Dammit LG, you topped me again!

I never claimed I know what is mathematically the "right amount" of infrastructure. No single human being and not even any committee of human beings, knows what is the "right amount" of infrastructure.

The only entity capable of knowing what is the "right amount" of infrastructure is the free market, i.e. the economic decisions of all the participants in the free market who can gather meaningful, real-time economic information in the form of profitability. That's why the best solution is to privatize all roads, and allow the free market to optimally allocate resources, including operating roads. Unprofitable, underutilized roads will be closed, and useful, profitable, busy roads will remain open, which is common sense and most efficient.


[facepalm.jpeg]

Dammit LG, you topped me again!

The force is strong with this one. ;)

This did not work in the Great Depression. FDR's stimulus packages made the depression even worse.

Untrue. FDR's stimulus packages did help. When FDR tried to balance the budget in '36 the economy dipped again, and the way out of the Depression was the huge fiscal stimulus of WWII.

Untrue. FDR's stimulus packages did help. When FDR tried to balance the budget in '36 the economy dipped again, and the way out of the Depression was the huge fiscal stimulus of WWII.

FDR did not try to balance the budget in 1936.

The economy cratered in the 1930s BECAUSE of Hoover's and FDR's economic interventions. The economy would have quickly rebounded in 1930-1931 if Hoover pursued a laissez-faire economic policy.

The temporary economic boom produced by the huge fiscal stimulus of WWII could only continue after WWII because so much of the world's productive capacity was destroyed by war, so Americans could find employment helping rebuild the world's productive capacity after the war. Huge fiscal stimulus by itself does not produce a permanent economic solution. Unless WW3 breaks out and destroys much of the world's productive capacity, Obama's fiscal stimulus will not save us from our second great depression, in fact it will only make it worse.

FDR did not try to balance the budget in 1936.

The economy cratered in the 1930s BECAUSE of Hoover's and FDR's economic interventions. The economy would have quickly rebounded in 1930-1931 if Hoover pursued a laissez-faire economic policy.

The economy cratered in the 30s because the Fed raised interest rates after the stock market crash . This is a point of agreement by keynesians and monetarists. Hoover and FDR were far too timid. Also, FDR was worried about the deficit in 36 or maybe it was 38 but somewhere around there so he cut off some government spending.

The temporary economic boom produced by the huge fiscal stimulus of WWII could only continue after WWII because so much of the world's productive capacity was destroyed by war, so Americans could find employment helping rebuild the world's productive capacity after the war. Huge fiscal stimulus by itself does not produce a permanent economic solution. Unless WW3 breaks out and destroys much of the world's productive capacity, Obama's fiscal stimulus will not save us from our second great depression, in fact it will only make it worse.

If anything WWII shows that Obama's stimulus is too timid, but it will probably help. No one said it was a permanent solution. Also the boom continued even after the world reached its previous productive capacity.

perhaps you can give an example of a road that should be closed.

Every turnpike (toll road) in Oklahoma. They are in worse shape than any county road in Texas. I've traveled them frequently and envy the people in Texas.

The economy cratered in the 30s because the Fed raised interest rates after the stock market crash . This is a point of agreement by keynesians and monetarists.

Absolutely false. The Fed raised interest rates in early 1929, BEFORE the crash. The Fed LOWERED interest rates in early 1930, and continued to attempt to expand money supply throughout the 1930s.


Hoover and FDR were far too timid. Also, FDR was worried about the deficit in 36 or maybe it was 38 but somewhere around there so he cut off some government spending.

Wrong, FDR drastically expanded deficit spending in 1938 (as a response to the 1937 recession) FDR stated he was "worried" about balancing the budget but he made no actions to do so, and grew the national debt every year he was in office.


If anything WWII shows that Obama's stimulus is too timid, but it will probably help. No one said it was a permanent solution. Also the boom continued even after the world reached its previous productive capacity.

The war boom was a result of the war, not a result of government spending. Even if America never entered the war, America would've experienced a boom by exporting products to countries that had their own productive capacities destroyed.

Furthermore, WWII shows that liquidation of nonproductive industries will solve the economic problem. Obama, the Democrats, and the Republicans are working together to prevent liquidation, prop up malinvested industries, and prevent recovery. FDR and Japan during the 1990s shows that the bigger the stimulus, the more disastrous the consequences and the more delayed the economic recovery.

I suggest we all travel by balloon!
<snip>




Wow that ballon is amazing. Where do you get something like that?

Absolutely false. The Fed raised interest rates in early 1929, BEFORE the crash. The Fed LOWERED interest rates in early 1930, and continued to attempt to expand money supply throughout the 1930s.

Hmmm.. perhaps I was wrong about that but the Fed did keep force austerity on the US generally surmised in Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon's infamous 'liquidationist' thesis. The Fed may have lowered nominal rates but with deflation the real interest rates were raised.


Wrong, FDR drastically expanded deficit spending in 1938 (as a response to the 1937 recession) FDR stated he was "worried" about balancing the budget but he made no actions to do so, and grew the national debt every year he was in office.

True. The 37 recession was caused by the drop in spending. Then the deficit expanded because of the recession.

The war boom was a result of the war, not a result of government spending. Even if America never entered the war, America would've experienced a boom by exporting products to countries that had their own productive capacities destroyed.

No, the boom was created by tgovernment spending. Massive fiscal stimulus on the US spending on the war and later the Marshall Plan stimulating investment overseas.

Furthermore, WWII shows that liquidation of nonproductive industries will solve the economic problem. Obama, the Democrats, and the Republicans are working together to prevent liquidation, prop up malinvested industries, and prevent recovery. FDR and Japan during the 1990s shows that the bigger the stimulus, the more disastrous the consequences and the more delayed the economic recovery.

Incorrect. The liquidation thesis of Andrew Mellon and others caused the Depression. FDR and Japan shows that the stimulus needs to be large enough to change the expectations of consumers and the business community.

Why is infrastructure "not designed to make a profit"? Infrastructure is no different from any other commodity.


Uh, because of what infrastructure is? You know, it's the same reason your toilet is not intended to make a profit, it's intended to sit there patiently while you shit all over it.

the fundamental facilities and systems serving a country, city, or area, as transportation and communication systems, power plants, and schools.

Schools are not intended to make a profit, they're intended to educate. Power plants are not supposed to turn a profit, they're supposed to provide electricity. Etc.

If you want to argue that our infrastructure is too good, start by demonstrating you even know what the hell infrastructure is supposed to do and what it isn't.

I never claimed I know what is mathematically the "right amount" of infrastructure. No single human being and not even any committee of human beings, knows what is the "right amount" of infrastructure.

Yet you magically know how much is "too much." Interesting and convenient. Also very revealing how little there is to your argument.

The only entity capable of knowing what is the "right amount" of infrastructure is the free market

Oh, so you're also The Bluth Corporation. Yeah I saw you make this exact same non-argument the other day. The free market knows all!

Well look, even if you're right, YOU are not the free market, so YOU do NOT know we have "too much" infrastructure. Congratulations, you've voided your own argument.

, i.e. the economic decisions of all the participants in the free market who can gather meaningful, real-time economic information in the form of profitability. That's why the best solution is to privatize all roads, and allow the free market to optimally allocate resources, including operating roads.

Yeah, you're the Bluth Corporation. What you post with two different NS's so that people won't remember your previous lame arguments? It doesn't work when you just repeat said lame arguments.

Unprofitable, underutilized roads will be closed, and useful, profitable, busy roads will remain open, which is common sense and most efficient

Roads are not intended to make a profit for someone. They're supposed to let people drive on them.

Fail.

Wow that ballon is amazing. Where do you get something like that?

I got it from google images, personally.

Wow that ballon is amazing. Where do you get something like that?

I got it from google images, personally.

They were delivered by a guy on a scooter:

http://www.funnychill.com/files/funny-pictures/darth-vader-scooter.jpg

:D

Uh, because of what infrastructure is? You know, it's the same reason your toilet is not intended to make a profit, it's intended to sit there patiently while you shit all over it.



Schools are not intended to make a profit, they're intended to educate. Power plants are not supposed to turn a profit, they're supposed to provide electricity. Etc.

I don't think you know what you're talking about. There are for-profit schools, and most electricity companies in the US are for-profit companies.

If you want to argue that our infrastructure is too good, start by demonstrating you even know what the hell infrastructure is supposed to do and what it isn't.
Your own dictionary definition proves that there's profit in infrastructure.



Yet you magically know how much is "too much." Interesting and convenient. Also very revealing how little there is to your argument.

Oh, so you're also The Bluth Corporation. Yeah I saw you make this exact same non-argument the other day. The free market knows all!
I'm not the Bluth Corporation, but that argument is in fact correct for our purposes.

Well look, even if you're right, YOU are not the free market, so YOU do NOT know we have "too much" infrastructure. Congratulations, you've voided your own argument.
I know there's generally too much infrastructure in the US. Any genius and any halfwit can tell you there's too much infrastructure. But only the free market can efficiently downsize our bloated infrastructure and determine what is precisely the optimal amount of infrastructure we need.

Yeah, you're the Bluth Corporation. What you post with two different NS's so that people won't remember your previous lame arguments? It doesn't work when you just repeat said lame arguments.
Uh, sure...



Roads are not intended to make a profit for someone. They're supposed to let people drive on them.

Fail.

You can say that for anything. Electric grids are not intended to make a profit for someone. They're supposed to let people use electric power. Except electric grids DO make a profit for their owners. Kinda throws a wrench into your whole "definition of infrastructure" nonsense.

Chaos is good for you. I've already started collecting resumes for my roving band of maniacs. :)

That reminds me: I need to update mine and sen it to you. I may be a bit overqualified.

Every turnpike (toll road) in Oklahoma. They are in worse shape than any county road in Texas. I've traveled them frequently and envy the people in Texas.
isnt that a reason to work on them not close them?

Hmmm.. perhaps I was wrong about that but the Fed did keep force austerity on the US generally surmised in Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon's infamous 'liquidationist' thesis. The Fed may have lowered nominal rates but with deflation the real interest rates were raised.
A single quote by Mellon does not an administration make. Mellon talked about liquidation but Hoover never took his advice. To the contrary Hoover imposed wage controls (like FDR's and Obama's "prevailing wage" m.o.), and enacted other vast, sweeping economic interventions.



True. The 37 recession was caused by the drop in spending. Then the deficit expanded because of the recession.



No, the boom was created by tgovernment spending. Massive fiscal stimulus on the US spending on the war and later the Marshall Plan stimulating investment overseas.
Marshall Plan played a minuscule role in Europe's recovery. The end of WWII-era price controls and the rebuilding of war damage spurred Europe's growth.



Incorrect. The liquidation thesis of Andrew Mellon and others caused the Depression. FDR and Japan shows that the stimulus needs to be large enough to change the expectations of consumers and the business community.

You're hopeless :D

I'm not the Bluth Corporation, but that argument is in fact correct for our purposes.

Oh, your argument is correct even though it's blatantly false and I just fucking proved it? Oh okay then.

And you're not Bluth Corporation? You just sound almost exactly like him. And make the same exact argument.

Compare this post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14447315&postcount=38)...

A centralized, top-down response to climate change is a horrifically bad idea.

Climate change is only bad to the extent that it negatively impacts human activities.

The focus should be on the most efficient (in terms of benefits gained for resources used) means of countering the negative effects of climate change on human activity. Perhaps this means stopping it beforehand--but it could conceivably also be the case that the most efficient means is to reactively respond to the consequences after the fact, especially since it's possible that climate change could have positive effects that could compensate for at least some of its negative effects.

No single, monolithic entity can ever possess the information or information-processing capability to reliably untangle this web. There's just too much to deal with, and the relationships are too complex.

The free market, being the single most reliable distributed information-gathering and information-processing mechanism ever devised by man, is the only institution that has the capability to deal with climate change in the most efficient way possible.

With this post you made in this thread.

The only entity capable of knowing what is the "right amount" of infrastructure is the free market, i.e. the economic decisions of all the participants in the free market who can gather meaningful, real-time economic information in the form of profitability. That's why the best solution is to privatize all roads, and allow the free market to optimally allocate resources, including operating roads. Unprofitable, underutilized roads will be closed, and useful, profitable, busy roads will remain open, which is common sense and most efficient.

Now, maybe it's not you. Maybe it's someone who just makes practically the exact same argument, lauds the free market in the exact same way, and points to its magical abilities as the solution.

Either way, you/you're both wrong. The free market is not God. It's not the answer to everything that is a problem, or everything you assume (and cannot support in the slightest) to be a problem.


I know there's generally too much infrastructure in the US. Any genius and any halfwit can tell you there's too much infrastructure.

Gee how compelling! Another bold, unsupported assertation!

But only the free market can efficiently downsize our bloated infrastructure and determine what is precisely the optimal amount of infrastructure we need.

Which you assume is true! Gee, assuming you're right is another compelling argument!

"I'm right because I saw it on the news... also, because any idiot knows I'm right... and also, since I'm right, the free market is the solution!"


You can say that for anything. Electric grids are not intended to make a profit for someone. They're supposed to let people use electric power. Except electric grids DO make a profit for their owners. Kinda throws a wrench into your whole "definition of infrastructure" nonsense.

Ah yes, now the DEFINITION OF THE WORD is "nonsense."

Damn that English language, it's not making a profit!

I will repeat: infrastructure is not intended to make a profit. That is not its purpose. Whether someone sometimes makes a profit off one aspect of it is IRRELEVANT to its purpose.

They were delivered by a guy on a scooter:

http://www.funnychill.com/files/funny-pictures/darth-vader-scooter.jpg

:D

Epic fail, my friend. :)

Japan's economy was not jump-started. To the contrary, Japan simply got stuck with a gigantic debt and never-ending economic stagnation that has continued to this day.
Wow... talk about NOT understand what's going on.

isnt that a reason to work on them not close them?
Beats me. I suppose the Oklahoma toll roads, under private supervision, can stay open if they are profitable and can pay for themselves. There's no reason to fix a road just because a few cars are travelling on them though. That's an utter waste of resources and will solve no economic problem in the short run or long run.

Wow... talk about NOT understand what's going on.
What do you think has gone on, Mr. Japan?

A single quote by Mellon does not an administration make. Mellon talked about liquidation but Hoover never took his advice. To the contrary Hoover imposed wage controls (like FDR's and Obama's "prevailing wage" m.o.), and enacted other vast, sweeping economic interventions.

I'm talking about the the independent central bank, not Hoover. Both keynesians and monetarists blame the Fed's austerity policies early in the 30s causing the great depression.

You're hopeless :D

Backatcha.

Now, maybe it's not you. Maybe it's someone who just makes practically the exact same argument, lauds the free market in the exact same way, and points to its magical abilities as the solution.

Either way, you/you're both wrong. The free market is not God. It's not the answer to everything that is a problem, or everything you assume (and cannot support in the slightest) to be a problem.
Hmm I like this Bluth Corp guy!


Which you assume is true! Gee, assuming you're right is another compelling argument!

"I'm right because I saw it on the news... also, because any idiot knows I'm right... and also, since I'm right, the free market is the solution!"

It's called an educated guess based on the assumption that a free market is operating. If you want to test my hypothesis, feel free. Privatize the roads and see what happens- will there be more roads or less?

Ah yes, now the DEFINITION OF THE WORD is "nonsense."

Damn that English language, it's not making a profit!

I will repeat: infrastructure is not intended to make a profit. That is not its purpose. Whether someone sometimes makes a profit off one aspect of it is IRRELEVANT to its purpose.

No dictionary claims that "infrastructure is not intended to make a profit." Stop abusing the English language.

What do you think has gone on, Mr. Japan?
Because your quote about the building spree in Japan ignores, oh, say, the rather large and powerful construction lobby here in Japan, their ties to both the LDP AND the various ministries, the old system of factions within the LDP that allowed a faction to raise money by directing these nice large building projects in the middle of nowhere in order for the Diet member to bring home the bacon and be re-elected, the old system of complete bid-rigging that went on (And still does) in Japan where the companies would get together and decide who got what and at what price BEFORE publicly presenting a bid, and let's not forget how Japanese laws regarding the use of monies generated by both the gas tax and the expressway tolls need to be used for road building only, leading to odd construction projects just because the money had to be used only for roads and not, say, schools.

All of which shows that your example of Japan as to why infrastructure projects don't work is very misleading. The conditions in Japan were never geared towards actual targeting them where they were needed and would do the most good. They're still not.

So, since you didn't mention the issues in Japan while using it as an example, I can either assume that you are being dishonest or you didn't have a clue. Which is it?

I'm talking about the the independent central bank, not Hoover. Both keynesians and monetarists blame the Fed's austerity policies early in the 30s causing the great depression.



Backatcha.

How can you claim the independent central bank enacted austerity policies? They lowered interest rates (not as low as today but historically low by 1930s standards), and they vastly expanded the base money supply. (Here's an illustration: http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_nSTO-vZpSgc/SAfQt-Y9odI/AAAAAAAACe8/OXcZqKLmThk/s400/base-money-2008-04-17.png)

These actions just made the situation worse.

In a couple, 5, 10 years you'll see how nothing Obama does will jumpstart the economy, no matter how huge the deficits and stimuluses get.

Hmm I like this Bluth Corp guy!

Hurrrrrrr.

It's called an educated guess based on the assumption that a free market is operating. If you want to test my hypothesis, feel free. Privatize the roads and see what happens- will there be more roads or less?

The US does not have a free market economy. So, your assumption was wrong, and your 'educated guess' is nothing but a guess. Think your blind shots in the dark are a valid argument for "America's infrastructure is too good?" Guess again.

No dictionary claims that "infrastructure is not intended to make a profit." Stop abusing the English language.

No, a dictionary didn't claim that. I never said it did. I did however show how the definition of infrastructure clearly indicates its purpose, and the purpose was clearly not "to make profit." This remains the case.

Now, have anything else incredibly stupid for me to shoot down?

Well, one problem is that's not true. As long as the US population continues to rise and our economy continues to expand, demand for infrastructure will continue to rise. Add to that the fact that this growth is not steady but instead follows periods of rapid expansion mixed with stagnation and decline; that means the cost of maintaining and replacing infrastructure is similarly volatile.

Private infrastructure is definitely one major component of the solution. I feel the government should use a lease-to-buy system to enable companies to purchase infrastructure, with the proceeds of the lease being used to recoup the cost of constructing the asset and for reinvestment in new projects. This would enable the government to divest infrastructure while still retaining ultimate power to repossess assets in the event of market failure. Obviously, there are some risks with "natural monopolies" that would need to be regulated to ensure

Of course, you could avoid these monopoly problems entirely if you scrapped the EPA's and other agencies' regulations that make it difficult to construct these assets in the first place, but I don't know if most people would be fans of living right next door to unfiltered coal plants, toll roads or having a transmission line built over their house...

Because your quote about the building spree in Japan ignores, oh, say, the rather large and powerful construction lobby here in Japan, their ties to both the LDP AND the various ministries, the old system of factions within the LDP that allowed a faction to raise money by directing these nice large building projects in the middle of nowhere in order for the Diet member to bring home the bacon and be re-elected, the old system of complete bid-rigging that went on (And still does) in Japan where the companies would get together and decide who got what and at what price BEFORE publicly presenting a bid, and let's not forget how Japanese laws regarding the use of monies generated by both the gas tax and the expressway tolls need to be used for road building only, leading to odd construction projects just because the money had to be used only for roads and not, say, schools.

All of which shows that your example of Japan as to why infrastructure projects don't work is very misleading. The conditions in Japan were never geared towards actual targeting them where they were needed and would do the most good. They're still not.

So, since you didn't mention the issues in Japan while using it as an example, I can either assume that you are being dishonest or you didn't have a clue. Which is it?
Haha you're assuming roads in the US will be "targetted" "where they need to be and would do the most good"? Let's make the wild assumption that no "highways to nowhere" will be built in the US. But even if we make such an absurd assumption, all this road building will not revive the economy.

America needs less roads, not more: that's the true target. Americans are driving less, due to economic troubles, and will continue to drive less and less in the coming years. Traffic is plummeting and there's no reason for traffic to revive any time soon.

How will filling in potholes and paving roads in this situation of declining traffic and stagnating economy improve the economy? The result will be the same as Japan: the US will be saddled with a gigantic debt and never-ending economic stagnation.

No, a dictionary didn't claim that. I never said it did. I did however show how the definition of infrastructure clearly indicates its purpose, and the purpose was clearly not "to make profit." This remains the case.


But infrastructure can make a profit, right? Then we are in agreement.

But infrastructure can make a profit, right? Then we are in agreement.

Your ass could make a profit too. Ass like that, with so much stuff to pull out of it? A fortune. Right now it's just wasted assets. You should either get it removed or go immediately into the prostitution industry. Anything else is an inefficient allocation of resources according to God, the Free Market, and Me.

Right now it's just wasted assets.

Pun intended?

*ponders sigging that post*

Haha you're assuming roads in the US will be "targetted" "where they need to be and would do the most good"? Let's make the wild assumption that no "highways to nowhere" will be built in the US. But even if we make such an absurd assumption, all this road building will not revive the economy.
Ah, you ARE clueless then, Thank you for showing me which one it was.

America needs less roads, not more: that's the true target. Americans are driving less, due to economic troubles, and will continue to drive less and less in the coming years. Traffic is plummeting and there's no reason for traffic to revive any time soon.
Yeah, it's not like the economy might, oh, I don't know, revive after a few years. And it's not like, say, our population keeps expanding. And of course to re-open a road, it doesn't take months of labor. :rolleyes:

And you STILL haven't answered any question regarding which roads are not needed. Nor have you actually stated what would happen to any small communities who suddenly find themselves without any roads. In fact, you're just giving the same bullshit argument we get from libertarians that amounts to magic pixies making everything better.

How will filling in potholes and paving roads in this situation of declining traffic and stagnating economy improve the economy? The result will be the same as Japan: the US will be saddled with a gigantic debt and never-ending economic stagnation.
One, it is highly, HIGHLY doubtful America would end up like Japan given all the differences in the systems. Two, the idea is to provide jobs. You know, money?

Well, one problem is that's not true. As long as the US population continues to rise and our economy continues to expand, demand for infrastructure will continue to rise. Add to that the fact that this growth is not steady but instead follows periods of rapid expansion mixed with stagnation and decline; that means the cost of maintaining and replacing infrastructure is similarly volatile.

Private infrastructure is definitely one major component of the solution. I feel the government should use a lease-to-buy system to enable companies to purchase infrastructure, with the proceeds of the lease being used to recoup the cost of constructing the asset and for reinvestment in new projects. This would enable the government to divest infrastructure while still retaining ultimate power to repossess assets in the event of market failure.
Why would government need to repossess roads when the economic conditions turn sour? The company that owns the road will just go under and its assets liquidated, that's called capitalism.

People also forget that fiscal and monetary stimulus are like opiate analgesics. If used sparingly and as directed, they'll relieve economic pain and help speed along recovery. If overused, you become addicted to them and their effects rapidly diminish as tolerance builds.

Now, what have we been doing since the 1980's? Running massive deficits and flooding the economy with cheap liquidity most years regardless of the actual state of the economy. Our economy has become so addicted to cheap credit and socialized risk through deficit spending that these tools have been utterly depleted and can no longer provide significant benefit. We may need to suffer severe economic contraction via high interest rates and strict fiscal discipline to ultimately salvage our economy.

Whether or not we can tolerate such brutal rehabilitation is another story. I think it would cause massive economic harm for many people, and the simple truth is most people aren't going to accept promises of long-term economic benefits if they're unemployed and poor.

Why would government need to repossess roads when the economic conditions turn sour? The company that owns the road will just go under and its assets liquidated, that's called capitalism.

Not when they turn sour, but only if there is evidence of market failure in the form of legal wrongdoing, anti-competitive activities or other problems that have nothing to do with economic conditions. Since it's not realistic for companies to be able to truly compete in some infrastructure sectors due to the limitations I mentioned previously, those cases of wrongdoing would be the time when the government would have to repossess assets.

Otherwise, assumption of the risk. If you want to get into a capital lease for that asset, you're going to be stuck with its consequences.

Yeah, it's not like the economy might, oh, I don't know, revive after a few years.
Now, THAT is faith.

Thankfully, with my understanding of economics from a free market perspective, I can say for sure that the economy won't revive after a few years. Obama's stimulus package will just exacerbate the recession.

But I guess this debate won't be settled until after a few years and after we see how the economy is holding up then.

And it's not like, say, our population keeps expanding. And of course to re-open a road, it doesn't take months of labor. :rolleyes:

And you STILL haven't answered any question regarding which roads are not needed.
I'm not a Soviet economic planner who tries to micromanage the economy. I have a hunch about which roads are not needed, but I can't say for certain because I don't have the feedback mechanism (profitability in the free market) to verify my decisions to close roads. The only way to determine which roads are not needed is to privatize them all and watch market forces pare down the unprofitable ones while upkeep the profitable ones.
Nor have you actually stated what would happen to any small communities who suddenly find themselves without any roads. In fact, you're just giving the same bullshit argument we get from libertarians that amounts to magic pixies making everything better.
Small communities can move, or adapt their lifestyles (become more self sufficient or build their own roads). It's not the end of the world.


One, it is highly, HIGHLY doubtful America would end up like Japan given all the differences in the systems. Two, the idea is to provide jobs. You know, money?
That's not a sustainable economy at all. If government is a magic pixie that can "provide jobs" whenever it pleases, why haven't we always had this sort of central planning? Fiscal stimulus did not work in the 1930s, won't work today.

Small communities can move, or adapt their lifestyles (become more self sufficient or build their own roads). It's not the end of the world.

How are they going to move if there are no roads?

Not when they turn sour, but only if there is evidence of market failure in the form of legal wrongdoing, anti-competitive activities or other problems that have nothing to do with economic conditions. Since it's not realistic for companies to be able to truly compete in some infrastructure sectors due to the limitations I mentioned previously, those cases of wrongdoing would be the time when the government would have to repossess assets.

Hmm that's reasonable.

How are they going to move if there are no roads?

I don't know, each individual situation would probably be different. Perhaps they heard the road was going to be closed soon so they packed up and moved out before then (probably most common situation). If the road was closed before they could move, they can even walk.

I don't know, each individual situation would probably be different. Perhaps they heard the road was going to be closed soon so they packed up and moved out before then (probably most common situation). If the road was closed before they could move, they can even walk.

Oh that's practical. Am I going to leave my stuff behind and walk and take a huge financial loss, or am I going to hold a half ton of crap of my back?

Perhaps a wheelbarrow would be in order...

Oh that's practical. Am I going to leave my stuff behind and walk and take a huge financial loss, or am I going to hold a half ton of crap of my back?

Perhaps a wheelbarrow would be in order...

Yep, better get the wheelbarrow.

Yep, better get the wheelbarrow.

Quick! LG! We must corner the wheelbarrow market!

That reminds me: I need to update mine and sen it to you. I may be a bit overqualified.

Don't be so sure. You can be the weirdo with the razor sharp frisbees.

Epic fail, my friend. :)

http://www.adamsmash.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/05/darthchoke.jpg

Every turnpike (toll road) in Oklahoma. They are in worse shape than any county road in Texas. I've traveled them frequently and envy the people in Texas.

that's because we don't let the Indians manage the toll roads.
I am pretty certain they just use the money to open more casinos.
I-44 was in good condition last time I was on it.

Were the roads and other infrastructure the cause of the recession ?
If no then why use the stimulus package on something that is not the problem.

What are you trying to say here?

Oh, good, I was waiting for an opportunity to bust this video out.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOKMbhm0l6c

We often hear about how America's infrastructure is "crumbling" and deteriorating and neglected. Therefore the Obama stimulus package calls for filling in potholes, building new highways, and generally sprucing up the infrastructure. Instinctively, this all sounds very appealing, and also very appealing is the image of millions of citizens happily employed on pavement duty.
And...?
But the reality is, America's infrastructure is too good.
This is where you err.

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/GermanNightmare/Infrastructure.jpg

Many of the places I've been to in the U.S. do not look like they're part of a first world nation. They might barely make it second world.
When was the last time your government actually improved the infrastructure? The highway-plan?
We have too many roads, too many railroads, too many bridges, too many tunnels. At a time when road and rail traffic is plummeting, why are we building more roads and more rails? Isn't that completely counterintuitive?
Not really, no.
First of all, improving, repairing, and maintaining infrastructure does creative and keep jobs. A well-developed and up-kept infrastructure is what keeps a country going - much like the oil in an engine, without it, everything breaks down.
And have you considered that road and rail traffic might be plummeting because you're in a recession? Or have already been for quite some time?
Japan tried exactly this counterintuitive strategy during its recession starting in the 1990s, and it was a complete failure. Japan's economy was not jump-started. To the contrary, Japan simply got stuck with a gigantic debt and never-ending economic stagnation that has continued to this day.
Have you considered that Japan might have had a deeper-rooted problem than infrastructure? Infrastructure is all nice and well - except that it is only part of the puzzle. If you have no goods which you'd want to transport via your infrastructure to sell elsewhere, solid infrastructure won't do you any good.
Plus, if I'm not mistaken, the U.S. economy is much more dependent on its home market - which happens to be stretched out across a continent. Unless you want to put everything on a plane and drop it off where it's needed, railway and roads are still what you need.
The right thing for Obama to do is not to build more infrastructure. Instead, Obama must liquidiate infrastructure. Close the unprofitable, rarely-used stretches of roads, abolish the gasoline tax, or better yet, privatize roads and sell or lease them to the highest bidder, and use the proceeds to pay down the national debt.
The right thing to do is to repair, improve, and re-evaluate the existing infrastructure. I mean, honestly, some areas I've been to in the U.S., be it East or West coast, North or South - some areas are in desperate need of improved infrastructure.

Leaking waterpipes which apparently nobody is responsible for cost money.
A run-down electricity network which breaks down when needed most costs money.
How easily available is broad-band internet access in rural areas? That too is part of the infrastructure.

There's so much more which would come to mind if I thought about it longer.

I disagree with you, however, that selling infrastructure paid for and used by the public should not be sold to private investors.

There are several things that shouldn't be put up for competition, and infrastructure is one of those.

And...?

This is where you err.

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/GermanNightmare/Infrastructure.jpg

Many of the places I've been to in the U.S. do not look like they're part of a first world nation. They might barely make it second world.
When was the last time your government actually improved the infrastructure? The highway-plan?

Not really, no.
First of all, improving, repairing, and maintaining infrastructure does creative and keep jobs. A well-developed and up-kept infrastructure is what keeps a country going - much like the oil in an engine, without it, everything breaks down.
And have you considered that road and rail traffic might be plummeting because you're in a recession? Or have already been for quite some time?

Have you considered that Japan might have had a deeper-rooted problem than infrastructure? Infrastructure is all nice and well - except that it is only part of the puzzle. If you have no goods which you'd want to transport via your infrastructure to sell elsewhere, solid infrastructure won't do you any good.
Plus, if I'm not mistaken, the U.S. economy is much more dependent on its home market - which happens to be stretched out across a continent. Unless you want to put everything on a plane and drop it off where it's needed, railway and roads are still what you need.

The right thing to do is to repair, improve, and re-evaluate the existing infrastructure. I mean, honestly, some areas I've been to in the U.S., be it East or West coast, North or South - some areas are in desperate need of improved infrastructure.

Leaking waterpipes which apparently nobody is responsible for cost money.
A run-down electricity network which breaks down when needed most costs money.
How easily available is broad-band internet access in rural areas? That too is part of the infrastructure.

There's so much more which would come to mind if I thought about it longer.

I disagree with you, however, that selling infrastructure paid for and used by the public should not be sold to private investors.

There are several things that shouldn't be put up for competition, and infrastructure is one of those.

Exactly! Clearly he's never played SimCity. ;)

Exactly! Clearly he's never played SimCity. ;)

Damn you LG, now I have the urge.

*Starts up SimCity*

Now, THAT is faith.

Thankfully, with my understanding of economics from a free market perspective, I can say for sure that the economy won't revive after a few years. Obama's stimulus package will just exacerbate the recession.
Having read multiple articles from economists that range all over the place in terms of time (But most saying we're in for a bad couple of years, but should reverse in about 3 to 4 of them) I can say that you either do not know what you're talking about or you have your outcome and are desperately finding facts to back that up.

I'm not a Soviet economic planner who tries to micromanage the economy. I have a hunch about which roads are not needed, but I can't say for certain because I don't have the feedback mechanism (profitability in the free market) to verify my decisions to close roads. The only way to determine which roads are not needed is to privatize them all and watch market forces pare down the unprofitable ones while upkeep the profitable ones.
See, the funny thing is that a road is designed to serve the people traveling on it, not maintain a profit.

Small communities can move, or adapt their lifestyles (become more self sufficient or build their own roads). It's not the end of the world
Oh goodie. I guess you just don't like to eat. Or have ANYTHING made out of any mined materials. Farms and mines are bit hard to move after all.

Fiscal stimulus did not work in the 1930s, won't work today.
Prove it. Last time I read up on the subject, it depended upon who you asked. So show it, oh, and not a blog this time m'k?

The news. Railroad boxcar shipping down, truck shipping down, manufacturing down, civilian traffic down. Infrastructure must contract to meet the real-time economic conditions, or be an excess and waste.

So what happens when shipping ramps up? Build new roads again?

Call me crazy but the last time I checked, the population is increasing, which would leave me to believe that when these economic woes are over, there will be a lot more people driving around the country. This is because they are able to afford gas to drive around the country, and they have become of age to drive around the country.

Unless you want to ban driving or some crap like that.

The highway-plan?And the main reason we got the interstate roadways was because Eisenhower was a former general, and he wanted a way to move military units more quickly between states.


I like the idea of refurbishing and building new roads. The old(er) ones are ridiculously under-repaired, and dangerous to drive on. (Damn potholes, I hate having to swerve around like an idiot to avoid them on my motorcycle. :mad:)

Edit: And what are the Interstate highways officially called? The Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways, of course.

Damn you LG, now I have the urge.

*Starts up SimCity*

Cool! I earned my kickback quota. :D

How can you claim the independent central bank enacted austerity policies? They lowered interest rates (not as low as today but historically low by 1930s standards), and they vastly expanded the base money supply. (Here's an illustration: http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_nSTO-vZpSgc/SAfQt-Y9odI/AAAAAAAACe8/OXcZqKLmThk/s400/base-money-2008-04-17.png)

The lowered interest rates when adjusted for deflation were high. To see a comprenhensive account of how the Fed's austerity policies played a decisive role in the initiation of the Great Depression and the subsequent failure to recover from a libertarian point of view read:http://www.futurecasts.com/Friedman,%20Monetary%20History%20of%20U.S.%20(II).htm

These actions just made the situation worse.

Untrue. The loose money policies after the austerity policies helped the economy even if it did not overcome the depression given the difficulty of recovering from deflationary spirals.

In a couple, 5, 10 years you'll see how nothing Obama does will jumpstart the economy, no matter how huge the deficits and stimuluses get.

I wouldn't bet my life on it.

Small communities can move, or adapt their lifestyles (become more self sufficient or build their own roads). It's not the end of the world.


Congratulations, you just described the purpose of every state's department of Transportation. Each city pays a bit of money via gas taxes, in order to pay for projects that benefit their smaller region of the country.

Since you know so much about infrastructure, how many vehicles a day does an interstate highway need to function? What about long-distance travel through deserted areas? Or the effect that your inane plan would have on consumer goods, by creating an entirely new set of transport costs that would be passed on to customers?

america's useful tangible infrastructure, that which everyone can use and which nearly everything people who live here take for granted (along with nature's cycles of renewal and the combination of the two) utterly depends upon, is not so much excessive, as entirely backwardheaded as to its design and priorities. we don't have TOO MUCH infrastructure. we have THE WRONG infrastructure!

building and rebuilding the the RIGHT infrastructure, would do three things: besides facilitating the services that a real useful infrastructure would provide, WITHOUT people having to indenture themselves to it to do so, would also protect the environment AND boost the economy by putting people to work, in real, meaningful, gratifying jobs.

obviously the RIGHT infrastructure I'M talking about ISN'T cars and roads. its guideway based, NONcombustion propelled, modest form factor mechanical transportation, NONcombustion generation of electrical energy, and making broadband internet access an entitlement.

Chaos is good for you. I've already started collecting resumes for my roving band of maniacs. :)

*applies*

The only entity capable of knowing what is the "right amount" of infrastructure is the free market, i.e. the economic decisions of all the participants in the free market who can gather meaningful, real-time economic information in the form of profitability. That's why the best solution is to privatize all roads, and allow the free market to optimally allocate resources, including operating roads. Unprofitable, underutilized roads will be closed, and useful, profitable, busy roads will remain open, which is common sense and most efficient.

This will urbanize America to an amazing degree, as populations centralize to avoid paying excessive tolls.

Urban areas are decidedly more liberal/Democratic than their rural counterparts.

Are you sure this is what you want?? ;)

Exactly! Clearly he's never played SimCity. ;)
*Godzilla appears and tramples cityscape*

So much for a damaged infrastructure... :tongue:
And the main reason we got the interstate roadways was because Eisenhower was a former general, and he wanted a way to move military units more quickly between states.
Which, I might add, is kinda strange since the railroad is the mode of transportation for large military bodies.
I like the idea of refurbishing and building new roads. The old(er) ones are ridiculously under-repaired, and dangerous to drive on. (Damn potholes, I hate having to swerve around like an idiot to avoid them on my motorcycle. :mad:)
I bet you really enjoy the issues of the game then? "These roads are dangerous..."
Edit: And what are the Interstate highways officially called? The Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways, of course.
To be renamed into the more accurately "Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways in dire Need of Repairs"

infrastructure is as much the weakness of 'free market' makiavellianism, as motivating productivity is that of procustianism.

(and why is see both as being equally unoptomal)

Which, I might add, is kinda strange since the railroad is the mode of transportation for large military bodies.It was your country that gave him the idea. ;)
The Autobahns.
I bet you really enjoy the issues of the game then? "These roads are dangerous..."Oh, you have no idea.

To be renamed into the more accurately "Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways in dire Need of Repairs"I agree! :D

The news. Railroad boxcar shipping down, truck shipping down, manufacturing down, civilian traffic down. Infrastructure must contract to meet the real-time economic conditions, or be an excess and waste.

Really I was sure masstransit(light rail and bus) was up since last summer.

So Trilateral Commission how much money do you get paid to troll for them?

But the reality is, America's infrastructure is too good. We have too many roads, too many railroads, too many bridges, too many tunnels. At a time when road and rail traffic is plummeting, why are we building more roads and more rails? Isn't that completely counterintuitive?


data: CIA factbook.

km of railroads
European Union 236,436
United States 226,612

km of roads
United States 6,465,799
European Union 5,454,446

area (sqare km)
United States 9,826,630
European Union 4,324,782

I don't think the USA infrastructure is "too good". And, iirc, the US railways isn't exactly the epitome of modernity.

But the reality is, America's infrastructure is too good. We have too many roads, too many railroads, too many bridges, too many tunnels. At a time when road and rail traffic is plummeting, why are we building more roads and more rails? Isn't that completely counterintuitive?

Is there congestion in the morning and afternoon? If so, then there isn't enough infrastructure.

I dunno why you're bothering to argue with the OP. It's obvious to me that he'd rather have a lovely wank over libertarian ideals than face reality.

The news. Railroad boxcar shipping down, truck shipping down, manufacturing down, civilian traffic down. Infrastructure must contract to meet the real-time economic conditions, or be an excess and waste.

Privatize them. Sell or lease them to the highest bidder. Private companies are much better at responding to market conditions, and they can decide what to do with 500 miles of interstate highways in montana.

If traffic is down, that means no one is using the roads. If no one is using the roads, no one would pay to use those roads. If no one would pay to use those roads, who will be the clients for the private road companies?

I don't think that you have thought this out well.

The stimulus package has the $88.6 million for new construction for Milwaukee Public Schools, which, reports the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, have shrinking enrollment, 15 vacant schools and, quite logically, no plans for new construction.

So, we're going to finance the building of schools for which there will be no students...

what a great idea...

The stimulus package has the $88.6 million for new construction for Milwaukee Public Schools, which, reports the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, have shrinking enrollment, 15 vacant schools and, quite logically, no plans for new construction.

So, we're going to finance the building of schools for which there will be no students...

what a great idea...

Next time post the article. I can't support Milwaukee in this one. Post edited.

Since when did shrinking enrollment = no students? Unless somewhere in the last few years Milwaukee turned into a fallout-esque wasteland there will be some amount of students in Milwaukee, and those students should have a decent school.

There are already enough schools, and some are already vacant. Tell me once again how building more schools is a good idea. You are already at far more capacity than students.

If that's your idea of logic, then build me four or five more houses just for me.

There are already enough schools, and some are already vacant. Tell me once again how building more schools is a good idea. You are already at far more capacity than students.

If that's your idea of logic, then build me four or five more houses just for me.

Look up. Building schools to replace old schools at the end of their service life, or to consolidate schools in overserved areas is okay. That's what I thought was going on here, since you didn't post an article. Milwaukee is doing neither.

Link to article in question:

http://www.jsonline.com/news/education/38762217.html

The stimulus package has the $88.6 million for new construction for Milwaukee Public Schools, which, reports the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

that's not what the article actually said

Which, I might add, is kinda strange since the railroad is the mode of transportation for large military bodies.

For moving vehicles, anyway. The US tends to send the vehicles by train and the troops by plane these days.

As for our roads...

http://cmsimg.freep.com/apps/pbcsi.dll/bilde?Site=C4&Date=20090206&Category=COL12&ArtNo=902060338&Ref=AR&Profile=1189&MaxW=550&MaxH=650&title=0

Nah, they're fine.

If anything, people are being provided with new recreational opportunities.

http://www.webwiseforradio.com/site_files/153/Image/pothole2.jpg

It was your country that gave him the idea. ;)
The Autobahns.
Which were built for prestige. The real workhorse to transport the troops has always been the railroad.
Oh, you have no idea.
Does your country have pristine roads? :p
I agree! :D
Hooray!
data: CIA factbook.

km of railroads
European Union 236,436
United States 226,612

km of roads
United States 6,465,799
European Union 5,454,446

area (sqare km)
United States 9,826,630
European Union 4,324,782

I don't think the USA infrastructure is "too good". And, iirc, the US railways isn't exactly the epitome of modernity.
I have to admit, I find it very strange that a country as huge as the U.S. has let its railroad service deteriorate like it has. Especially with the option to have an Auto Train and take your car with you to another city.
For moving vehicles, anyway. The US tends to send the vehicles by train and the troops by plane these days.
Sounds familiar. ;)
As for our roads...

http://cmsimg.freep.com/apps/pbcsi.dll/bilde?Site=C4&Date=20090206&Category=COL12&ArtNo=902060338&Ref=AR&Profile=1189&MaxW=550&MaxH=650&title=0

Nah, they're fine.

If anything, people are being provided with new recreational opportunities.

http://www.webwiseforradio.com/site_files/153/Image/pothole2.jpg
Your potholes have their own fish population? Geez, you really oughta do something about that!

Pot-hole fishing - the other roadkill! :tongue:

Just to take the argument maybe a different way. What difference does it make if the road are privately or publicly funded? In privately fund are basically all toll roads. In publicly funded system taxes are used to make and repair roads. The idea being if you spread the burden over a very wide base the amount that has to be paid is much smaller.

Industry can benefits from roads
Retailers can benefit from roads
Car companies can benefit from roads

The right amount of infrastructure is already out there. Just about every road has to go public hearing. There are bids and people to over see those bids. There are traffic studies and what have you. All of which can be good for the economy. It creates a need in our universities for Civil engineers, material scientist, traffic studies people, city planning.

For us to remove infrastructure you would have to provide public transportation everywhere subways, buses, trains whatever. In New York people are force to take public transportation due to the sheer volume and expense of driving everyday. Yet there are still people that do it everyday. Those public transportation services entities become just as bad if not worse at spending "public" money than maintaining roads.

In short it becomes who do you want to pay your money to a road crew or a public subway/train system. Those also could be considered infrastructure.


From a emotional point of view Americans Love their cars, anything that furthers this aim will be easily sold to the voters.


So let's be clear you want to eliminate unnecessary roads? How will your determine which roads are unnecessary? If you give us a good method of consideration maybe in principle your suggestion might work. I am at least willing to hear your ideas.

I have to admit, I find it very strange that a country as huge as the U.S. has let its railroad service deteriorate like it has. Especially with the option to have an Auto Train and take your car with you to another city.

It is only the passenger side of things that has deteriorated - in freight, the US railroads are world leaders.

So let's be clear you want to eliminate unnecessary roads? How will your determine which roads are unnecessary? If you give us a good method of consideration maybe in principle your suggestion might work. I am at least willing to hear your ideas.

I'm afraid that all Trilateral Commission/Bluth Corporation has given is that the "free market" is the only engine/mechanism/wonder of the world with enough "processing power" to "allocate resources efficiently."

Unfortunately there is no free market in the US, so he/they really are pointing to imaginary, abstract deity-ideologies to wave a magic wand and answer this question.

Does your country have pristine roads? :pHell, no. :D

I think your idea of infrastructure is much too limited. Infrastructures are not just roads and bridges. They are also sewer systems and waste water treatment plants and water purifying plants, as well as subway and train tunnels and tracks, underground and above groud cables for utilities and carrying power to and from grids and power plants (including nuclear plants), in addition to roads and bridges, airport terminals and so on.

I want to be able to flush the toilet (wherever I am), brush my teeth and have water to drink, and I like to take the subway to and from work (I don't own a car). I also don't like to trip and fall on sidewalks or step into potholes when I cross the street, and I like the traffic lights to turn green and red so I know when to cross the street and when not to do so. I also like having heat in the winter and if necessary some air conditoning in the summer. Finally, I am glad there is no sewage running freely into the streets as it did in days of yore, and I glad we treat the sewage so it does not pollute the groundwater.

Therefore, I am all for shoring up the USA infrastructure.

We often hear about how America's infrastructure is "crumbling" and deteriorating and neglected. Therefore the Obama stimulus package calls for filling in potholes, building new highways, and generally sprucing up the infrastructure. Instinctively, this all sounds very appealing, and also very appealing is the image of millions of citizens happily employed on pavement duty.

But the reality is, America's infrastructure is too good. We have too many roads, too many railroads, too many bridges, too many tunnels. At a time when road and rail traffic is plummeting, why are we building more roads and more rails? Isn't that completely counterintuitive?

Japan tried exactly this counterintuitive strategy during its recession starting in the 1990s, and it was a complete failure. Japan's economy was not jump-started. To the contrary, Japan simply got stuck with a gigantic debt and never-ending economic stagnation that has continued to this day.

The right thing for Obama to do is not to build more infrastructure. Instead, Obama must liquidiate infrastructure. Close the unprofitable, rarely-used stretches of roads, abolish the gasoline tax, or better yet, privatize roads and sell or lease them to the highest bidder, and use the proceeds to pay down the national debt.

You clearly have never driven around Washington DC. Roads are needed there.

Also, Japan does a lot of strange things. Also also, Japan is 377,000ish km^2. The US is 3,700,000ish km^2. The US needs more infrastructure than Japan. Maybe not as much as it does, but Japan is not a good basis of comparison.

You clearly have never driven around Washington DC. Roads are needed there.

Also, Japan does a lot of strange things. Also also, Japan is 377,000ish km^2. The US is 3,700,000ish km^2. The US needs more infrastructure than Japan. Maybe not as much as it does, but Japan is not a good basis of comparison.


Personally, I think Washington DC receives too much federal money per capita and we should be reducing the amount of nationally collected tax money flowing into projects which only benefit a small constituency in the greater Virginia/Maryland area.

If you take umbrage with this statement, first look at the population of this region, than determine the percentage of expenditures in the total budget which will directly or indirectly benefit that region as compared to the population and expenditures for the rest of the country, and I think you will see it is disproportionate.

Personally, I think Washington DC receives too much federal money per capita and we should be reducing the amount of nationally collected tax money flowing into projects which only benefit a small constituency in the greater Virginia/Maryland area.

If you take umbrage with this statement, first look at the population of this region, than determine the percentage of expenditures in the total budget which will directly or indirectly benefit that region as compared to the population and expenditures for the rest of the country, and I think you will see it is disproportionate.

Nation's capital blah blah symbol to the rest of the world blah.

I don't know if we have too much transportation infrastructure or too little, but I agree that free market economics is the best way to deal with the problem (if it exists). Before anyone says that America doesn't have a free market, a mixed market is perfectly able to (and usually does) engage in free market economics.

Privitizing transportation is the only way to increase efficiency. Having miles and miles go to the midddle of nowhere does little good but still has high costs. Transportation IS meant to create a profit, it just doesn't create it directly. Transportation enables people to move, trade, and encourages other economic actions, which create profits for the government in the form of gas taxes, income taxes, corporate taxes, sales taxes, etc.

Someone said that we should abolish the gas tax; I agree. This would decrease the cost of movement, which would encourage the exchange of goods, thus further increasing wealth and economic stability. Unfortunately, that may increase gas costs in the long run, as the demand for gas increases.

Infrastructure is not limited to roads, it also includes our telecommunications, power grid, natural gas supply and pretty much all public and private buildings. All of these things have room for improvement.

Why tear up the roads?

They aren't there to make money. The roads are there so people, and troops, can move around easy.

Why do want to take away people's freedom of movement?

Besides, why spend money tearing them up when the roads may see increased use in the future? Then money would have to spent building new roads.

Why tear up the roads?

They aren't there to make money. The roads are there so people, and troops, can move around easy.

Why do want to take away people's freedom of movement?

Besides, why spend money tearing them up when the roads may see increased use in the future? Then money would have to spent building new roads.

I don't remember the OP talking about tearing up roads so much as barricading them, sidelining maintenance, and/or selling the land for certain roads to private developers. I can see that approach working to an extent. For those of us in rural areas, there are a lot of roads which are the state's responsibility that maybe host a dozen cars a day - and all those vehicles could handle offroad travel. Not having to plow and repair those roads would save a significant amount of money. And if someone wanted to build a development and provide their own roads to it, even better to get some money back.

I support building more railroad track and rebuilding sections of track to be more compatible with vehicular traffic. Also support the supression of obstructionist NIMBYs. And surprisingly, I support an increase in the gas tax, as long as it is met with a cut in taxes elsewhere.

data: CIA factbook.

km of railroads
European Union 236,436
United States 226,612

km of roads
United States 6,465,799
European Union 5,454,446

area (sqare km)
United States 9,826,630
European Union 4,324,782

I don't think the USA infrastructure is "too good". And, iirc, the US railways isn't exactly the epitome of modernity.

total win!

data: CIA factbook.

km of railroads
European Union 236,436
United States 226,612

km of roads
United States 6,465,799
European Union 5,454,446

area (sqare km)
United States 9,826,630
European Union 4,324,782

I don't think the USA infrastructure is "too good". And, iirc, the US railways isn't exactly the epitome of modernity.

you should factor in population density as well.

you should factor in population density as well.

every year that passes this becomes MUCH less of a factor then it was when america's nonhighway infrastructure was in MUCH better shape! this is certainly true in car-lifornia, but i'm reasonably confident it applies to nearly all but the very lowest population density states as well.

every year that passes this becomes MUCH less of a factor then it was when america's nonhighway infrastructure was in MUCH better shape! this is certainly true in car-lifornia, but i'm reasonably confident it applies to nearly all but the very lowest population density states as well.

What?

Why is population density not an important factor...?

every year that passes this becomes MUCH less of a factor then it was when america's nonhighway infrastructure was in MUCH better shape! this is certainly true in car-lifornia, but i'm reasonably confident it applies to nearly all but the very lowest population density states as well.

lolwut

If traffic is down, that means no one is using the roads. If no one is using the roads, no one would pay to use those roads. If no one would pay to use those roads, who will be the clients for the private road companies?

I don't think that you have thought this out well.

Simple. I'll explain you how ultra-liberist heads work.

The State sells the roads to private companies at the cost of two peanuts and a lint ball, because no one uses them. After five years, when the State has put enough subsidies into the economy to make it start again, there will be a lot of trucks willing to use that road. And now they'll have to pay to use it.

That's the way you do it: get your money for nothing, get your shares for free!

you should factor in population density as well.

Actually no. I discarded population density because the CIA factbook data aren't about the capacity of those railways and roadways; just about total length.
Example: 10 km of a secondary road add up with 10 km of a 4-lanes motorway to make 20 km roadways; and 10 km of a 4-tracks hi-speed/hi-capacity railway add up with 10 km of a winding countryside non-electrified single-track railway to make 20 km railways.

What?

Why is population density not an important factor...?

didn't say its not important, rather that the significance of it changes radically as its density increases exponentially.

i believe the traditional argument against guideway based transportation had to do with relatively low population density. a factor which has altered drastically at an exponential rate.

that was all i meant to be saying and imply.

(flanged wheel on steel rail DOES consume 1/5 as much energy and 1/12 as much real estate/per ton/passenger 'mile' (or any other measure of distance) as rubber tyre on pavement. with the combined first cost of vehicules and right of way being mostly equivalent, simply distributed differently (and less fairly again in the case of rubber tyre on pavement). looking at longer term costs and maintenance, guideway based systems are even MORE favored.)

There are already enough schools, and some are already vacant. Tell me once again how building more schools is a good idea. You are already at far more capacity than students.


Could it be because the schools that are already there are too old, lacking in respect with modern safety standards? Just an idea, but buildings aren't exactly eternal.

Why improve the roads when traffic is plummeting? Thousands of miles of roads, especially highways, should be closed.

You are so completely off the mark that it's embarrassing. It is possible that there might be some abundance of unused railroad tracks where you live, but A) that doesn't equate to the nation, any nation, and B) exempt or unused rail lines are part of the evolution of rail. Many are being turned into trails for recreational use.

"Too much infrastructure"? You're off your nut. Drive downtown Spokane for a minute. You'll see that the infrastructure we have is not in great shape uniformly across the country.

"Too much infrastructure"? You're off your nut. Drive downtown Spokane for a minute. You'll see that the infrastructure we have is not in great shape uniformly across the country.

i love the highway in spokane. the ruts are deep enough that i didn't have to steer around the curves.

didn't say its not important, rather that the significance of it changes radically as its density increases exponentially.

i believe the traditional argument against guideway based transportation had to do with relatively low population density. a factor which has altered drastically at an exponential rate.

that was all i meant to be saying and imply.

(flanged wheel on steel rail DOES consume 1/5 as much energy and 1/12 as much real estate/per ton/passenger 'mile' (or any other measure of distance) as rubber tyre on pavement. with the combined first cost of vehicules and right of way being mostly equivalent, simply distributed differently (and less fairly again in the case of rubber tyre on pavement). looking at longer term costs and maintenance, guideway based systems are even MORE favored.)

This is true plus the new diesel engines in combination with the above means trains are much more efficient than tractor trailers. I fully support revamping the national rail system because it will always be a more efficient and consequentially eco-friendly mode of transportation. BUT it only takes a few people to run a locomotive with 110 separate cars where as it takes at least 1 driver for every over the road tractor-trailer - in stimulus terms, this means a potential net loss of 100 transportation jobs that would have to be rolled into rail infrastructure development or another sector entirely.

Could it be because the schools that are already there are too old, lacking in respect with modern safety standards? Just an idea, but buildings aren't exactly eternal.

I can see money for safety renovations but demolishing old schools and rebuilding state of the art complexes with federal money is at best questionable ethics and at worst immorally looting the taxpayers. If we're going to do it for Wisconsin, why not do it for the whole country? Oh, yeah - we can't afford it.

data: CIA factbook.

km of railroads
European Union 236,436
United States 226,612

km of roads
United States 6,465,799
European Union 5,454,446

area (sqare km)
United States 9,826,630
European Union 4,324,782

I don't think the USA infrastructure is "too good". And, iirc, the US railways isn't exactly the epitome of modernity.

still not satisfied with your explanation on why population and population density is not a factor.
population of
US 303,824,640
EU 491,018,683

people per KM of railway.
US 1341
EU 2076

people per KM of roadway.
US 47
EU 90

seems for population our infrastructure is ahead of the EU.

A large infrastructure does not equal a good or adequate infrastructure.

still not satisfied with your explanation on why population and population density is not a factor.
population of
US 303,824,640
EU 491,018,683

people per KM of railway.
US 1341
EU 2076

people per KM of roadway.
US 47
EU 90

seems for population our infrastructure is ahead of the EU.

"people per kilometer of railway" is a pretty damn weak measure of how "good" or "ahead" infrastructure is. Having just 1 person per kilometer of railway wouldn't exactly mean that railways is efficient, modern, safe, and effective as a means of transport.

Pretending that some arbitrary and frankly ludicrous statistics automatically makes anyone's entire infrastructure system better or worse - is stupid. Show me something that has actual relevance and isn't just comparing bullshit ratios and pretending that they mean anything.

The OP sure hasn't come in to support his wild conclusions either. Not since he found out "lol the free market god will solve everything" wasn't really a winning argument. You willing to pick them up on his behalf?

i love the highway in spokane. the ruts are deep enough that i didn't have to steer around the curves.

Yeah, I hadn't thought of how easy that makes eating or conversing on cell phones or digging for loose change in the back seat. Thanks. :p

My brother works in SC and he is always fixing bridges for the state. They even have to outsource some of it so perhaps they can catch up with the money going to infrastructure. I live in Ak and I am sure we could always use a road or two to nowhere and a bridge to cross it. I am sure Bible Spice has a few construction friends to give the contracts too.

I don't remember the OP talking about tearing up roads so much as barricading them, sidelining maintenance, and/or selling the land for certain roads to private developers. I can see that approach working to an extent. For those of us in rural areas, there are a lot of roads which are the state's responsibility that maybe host a dozen cars a day - and all those vehicles could handle offroad travel. Not having to plow and repair those roads would save a significant amount of money. And if someone wanted to build a development and provide their own roads to it, even better to get some money back.

I support building more railroad track and rebuilding sections of track to be more compatible with vehicular traffic. Also support the supression of obstructionist NIMBYs. And surprisingly, I support an increase in the gas tax, as long as it is met with a cut in taxes elsewhere.

It doesn't sound quite right to me to wait until the roads have more traffic to get them up to a decent standard. I mean, should you wait until you're morbidly obese or little more than skin and bones before you re-think your diet? Should you wait until just before the repo men show up to pay your bills? Should you wait until the whole building is on fire to call the fire department?

"people per kilometer of railway" is a pretty damn weak measure of how "good" or "ahead" infrastructure is. Having just 1 person per kilometer of railway wouldn't exactly mean that railways is efficient, modern, safe, and effective as a means of transport.

Pretending that some arbitrary and frankly ludicrous statistics automatically makes anyone's entire infrastructure system better or worse - is stupid. Show me something that has actual relevance and isn't just comparing bullshit ratios and pretending that they mean anything.

The OP sure hasn't come in to support his wild conclusions either. Not since he found out "lol the free market god will solve everything" wasn't really a winning argument. You willing to pick them up on his behalf?

So two is roads/tracks per area considering the US has a large stretch of low population density know as the Midwest.
Also consider this for all government planning/ownership is worth why is it Europe couldn't be arsed up to build their railroad all on standard gauge ?
If you only count the standard gauge Europe has less KM of Rail Roads then the US. Because the evil privately owned American Rail Roads had the common sense to build all their lines the same Gauge.

So two is roads/tracks per area considering the US has a large stretch of low population density know as the Midwest.

What? Low population density matters less than minimum distance between all points in a transportation network. Which will only increase with lower population density, and especially with a sprawling interstate system.

Also consider this for all government planning/ownership is worth why is it Europe couldn't be arsed up to build their railroad all on standard gauge ?
If you only count the standard gauge Europe has less KM of Rail Roads then the US. Because the evil privately owned American Rail Roads had the common sense to build all their lines the same Gauge.


I never said anything about government planning vs privatization. This was a claim that the US infrastructure is not only better than Europe's, but it is "too" good.

What? Low population density matters less than minimum distance between all points in a transportation network. Which will only increase with lower population density, and especially with a sprawling interstate system.

when you have low population density you tend to send Railroads in straight lines through the countryside. With higher population density you make secondary service routes/ or curve the service lines to service population centers en route. both of these add to total KM of Railroad length.


I never said anything about government planning vs privatization. This was a claim that the US infrastructure is not only better than Europe's, but it is "too" good.

its not too good. America's infrastructure is designed for America. the EU's infrastructure is designed for Europe.

As soon as you said "Privatizing roads" I stopped listening.

It doesn't sound quite right to me to wait until the roads have more traffic to get them up to a decent standard. I mean, should you wait until you're morbidly obese or little more than skin and bones before you re-think your diet? Should you wait until just before the repo men show up to pay your bills? Should you wait until the whole building is on fire to call the fire department?

Well, roads don't just disappear when you stop maintaining them, they just get crappy. And what I'm saying is that states can't afford to maintain them (tax receipts are dropping like a rock) so the first thing we should be doing is to reduce spending on roads with low traffic so at least a little something can be done for other roads.