Funding infrastructure

[watu05]

Is it too late for the US to compete with China? This author points out that the US has ignored its infrastructure for too long and has no long term plan for competing with China, because whatever Biden wants to do will be watered down and US long term planning lasts at best one or two election cycles.

Had Trump borrowed China's $2 Trillion and invested it in infrastructure, we would be in a much better place now. Instead economic growth in Trump's first three years was the same as Obama's last three, the corporate tax breaks went into stock buybacks, wealth became more concentrated at the top, and now suddenly Republicans say debt is bad so we can't do anything. OK, debt is bad when it isn't invested productively.

Biden’s Anti-China Ambitions

Like his immediate predecessor, Joe Biden is committed to a distinctly anti-China global strategy and has sworn that China will not “become the leading

www.counterpunch.org

 

[lawpoke87]

You do understand why Obama saw good growth his first three years and why he saw subpar growth his last five...correct ?

 

[shon46]

I just planted another money tree in my back yard. I hope that will help

They plan to use the illegals they are letting in by the thousands at the border to do the slave labor to build infrastructure

 

[watu05]

You do understand why Obama saw good growth his first three years and why he saw subpar growth his last five...correct ?

Growth produced by Trump's tax bill/China borrowing did not exceed the "subpar" growth you complain about, the repatriated profits were not used as promised, and the benefits of both went to almost entirely to those who didn't need it. Had Trump's Chinese borrowing been invested in infrastructure instead, the US would now be more productive and competitive economically.

Both Bush and Trump were handed healthy economies which should have enabled the US to start reducing its debt. Instead both dramatically increased the national debt and simultaneously reduced Federal revenues with tax cuts for the rich which once again did not produce the promised results. They both handed their huge debt loads and economic troubles along with a Republican party which once again suddenly became anti-debt.

Some things never change.

 

[lawpoke87]

Trump was handed declining consumer confidence as well as declining gdp growth. The economy was headed the wrong direction by almost all key indicators. I’ve been as critical as anyone on this board about our exploding debt and unlike others I’ve been consistent regardless of whose in the White House. Both parties have thrown caution to the wind. As a result, our kids are going to suffer as more and more of our tax revenue is eaten by debt service. It ain’t going to be pretty.

 

[Gmoney4WW]

Trump was handed declining consumer confidence as well as declining gdp growth. The economy was headed the wrong direction by almost all key indicators. I’ve been as critical as anyone on this board about our exploding debt and unlike others I’ve been consistent regardless of whose in the White House. Both parties have thrown caution to the wind. As a result, our kids are going to suffer as more and more of our tax revenue is eaten by debt service. It ain’t going to be pretty.

Not saying it ain't gonna bite some generation in the ass, but I been hearing that since 1980. 40 years later, the chomp still hasn't truly happened.

 

[watu05]

Instead of infrastructure, here's where $6.4 trillion of your tax dollars went.

Budgetary Costs of Post-9/11 Wars Through FY2020: $6.4 Trillion | Figures | Costs of War

The Costs of War Project is a team of 35 scholars, legal experts, human rights practitioners, and physicians, which began its work in 2011. We use research and a public website to facilitate debate about the costs of the post-9/11 wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.

watson.brown.edu

 

[watu05]

Infrastructure investments make the US economy more efficient and earn a real return. Someone has to make those investments. And both parties have recognized the need for decades. Heck, even Trump promised a huge infrastructure bill. Never even proposed one.

 

[lawpoke87]

Curious to see how our sales pitch “we may offer the lowest ROI of any OECD country but we have really nice bridges” plays with the world investment community.

 

[Gmoney4WW]

Difficult to intuit your meaning. Let me get this right, you are saying none of that is used by corporations, besides roads and bridges?

 

[watu05]

Difficult to intuit your meaning. Let me get this right, you are saying none of that is used by corporations, besides roads and bridges?

Agreed. Hard to name a business that doesn't depend on our power grid which is antiquated, high speed electronic communication, an educated work force, or even two income families in need of childcare. Even a 19th century definition of infrastructure would have included the telegraph, electricity, railroads, etc. which were the foundations of American economic development.

Our Interstate highway system was authorized in 1956 under Ike. 40K miles were authorized. The system was supposedly finished in 1992 with total mileage of about 46K. It's in serious need of repair in places. Can anyone name a major infrastructure project of that magnitude since that created the same economic benefits? That was 65 years ago! We are living off the foresight and investment of a previous generation.

 

[astonmartin708]

everything is part of an infrastructure:

phycical; roads and bridges.
the only shared resources the rest provide public use but tend to be commercial



communication; phone, internet, tv and radio
commerce; trucking, trains, ships
financial; banking, stock market, retail
civil; building codes
education; schools
social; friends, family, living environment
entertainment; theater, movies, stadiums, galleries, parks
comunity; hospitals, public buildings, police and fire
transportation; airports, train stations, subway, bus , uber, and taxi.
manufacturing; assembly and distribution
private business;
labor; individual jobs, work place standards, employees

I mean, besides employees and jobs, and to a lesser degree entertainment and art galleries... yeah kinda.

 

[lawpoke87]

Odd that the people who create the jobs and know the economic effect of the propose bill the best oppose the same. If the result were a net positive effect on corporate growth there wouldn’t be widespread opposition in the business community.

 

[watu05]

As posted above both parties have recognized our lack of investment in infrastructure for decades and have promised to do something about it. During this same period, corporations have both gained political power (eg Citizens United) and reduced their contribution to federal income taxe revenue from 30% to 10%. Trump claimed to repatriate overseas untaxed income would be used to invest in expanding US business and employment, instead (and as predicted) the vast majority went into stock buy backs and dividends.
The point? Corporations want improved infrastructure but don't want to pay for it. They have short term alternatives such as low cost overseas production and frankly have the political power to prevent a tax increase. Short term thinking for the country, but corporate execs, bonuses are paid annually and stock options usually vest over four years.
The role of government in a market economy is to step in where market forces do not operate; Infrastructure and the environment are two of those areas.

 

[aTUfan]

there already already funding for infrastructure, its a tax on every gallon of gasoline.

 

[aTUfan]

just as the dems push for passage, Biden terminates a real infrastructure project. the wall.