Comments on: On Infrastructure Investment http://www.redstate.com/brianfaughnan/2009/01/07/on-infrastructure-investment/ Fri, 29 Apr 2011 02:34:23 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: E Pluribus Unum http://www.redstate.com/brianfaughnan/2009/01/07/on-infrastructure-investment/#comment-2458 E Pluribus Unum Wed, 07 Jan 2009 21:04:33 +0000 http://www.redstate.com/brianfaughnan/?p=348#comment-2458 <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/A_T43K_Qz2A&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/A_T43K_Qz2A&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

]]> By: C. E. van Avery http://www.redstate.com/brianfaughnan/2009/01/07/on-infrastructure-investment/#comment-2457 C. E. van Avery Wed, 07 Jan 2009 20:54:15 +0000 http://www.redstate.com/brianfaughnan/?p=348#comment-2457 While the data is adjusted for inflation, it does not appear to be adjusted for population growth. More people and businesses mean more infrastructure. Given the U.S. population went from about 170mil in 1956 to 300mil today, one would expect infrastructure spending to increase about twofold. Consumer habits have also changed significantly, with more cars and more miles driven per capita (which shows in the breakdown in the last graph). In short, I have doubts you can conclude much by just looking at inflation-adjusted spending. The real problem in discussion of infrastructure spending is it appears to be driven by anecdotes and news about bridge failures, power outages, water main breaks, etc.... While the data is adjusted for inflation, it does not appear to be adjusted for population growth. More people and businesses mean more infrastructure. Given the U.S. population went from about 170mil in 1956 to 300mil today, one would expect infrastructure spending to increase about twofold. Consumer habits have also changed significantly, with more cars and more miles driven per capita (which shows in the breakdown in the last graph). In short, I have doubts you can conclude much by just looking at inflation-adjusted spending.

The real problem in discussion of infrastructure spending is it appears to be driven by anecdotes and news about bridge failures, power outages, water main breaks, etc….

]]> By: johnt http://www.redstate.com/brianfaughnan/2009/01/07/on-infrastructure-investment/#comment-2436 johnt Wed, 07 Jan 2009 16:12:00 +0000 http://www.redstate.com/brianfaughnan/?p=348#comment-2436 From time immemorial statist gangsters have had love affairs with with public building and construction. To leech wealth off the private or governed sector and waste it on the ostentatious projects pf the ruling class has been a fixation and steady constant for more than 3.000 years. Bad enough our little Chicago hustler is going back to FDR's idiotic concepts of economics, but does this "progressive" have to take us back to the Sumerians and their ziggurats ? Underlying this massive rip off is the delusion of grandeur that accrues to the Leader, a monument to his own vision and magnificence, just ask Senator Byrd. Or where he around, Hammurabi. And down through the centuries the dopes fall for it. From time immemorial statist gangsters have had love affairs with with public building and construction. To leech wealth off the private or governed sector and waste it on the ostentatious projects pf the ruling class has been a fixation and steady constant for more than 3.000 years. Bad enough our little Chicago hustler is going back to FDR’s idiotic concepts of economics, but does this “progressive” have to take us back to the Sumerians and their ziggurats ?

Underlying this massive rip off is the delusion of grandeur that accrues to the Leader, a monument to his own vision and magnificence, just ask Senator Byrd. Or where he around, Hammurabi. And down through the centuries the dopes fall for it.

]]> By: AskMeLater http://www.redstate.com/brianfaughnan/2009/01/07/on-infrastructure-investment/#comment-2435 AskMeLater Wed, 07 Jan 2009 15:35:04 +0000 http://www.redstate.com/brianfaughnan/?p=348#comment-2435 Sorry about that. Says so right there above the graphs. Sorry about that. Says so right there above the graphs.

]]> By: Brian Faughnan http://www.redstate.com/brianfaughnan/2009/01/07/on-infrastructure-investment/#comment-2434 Brian Faughnan Wed, 07 Jan 2009 15:29:08 +0000 http://www.redstate.com/brianfaughnan/?p=348#comment-2434 All 3 of the graphs show spending as counted in constant (2006) dollars. Thus they are already adjusted for inflation. All 3 of the graphs show spending as counted in constant (2006) dollars. Thus they are already adjusted for inflation.

]]> By: AskMeLater http://www.redstate.com/brianfaughnan/2009/01/07/on-infrastructure-investment/#comment-2433 AskMeLater Wed, 07 Jan 2009 15:25:38 +0000 http://www.redstate.com/brianfaughnan/?p=348#comment-2433 Our dollar has lost much of its value over the years. For instance a dollar in 1981 is equal to about $2.34 in 2008. Not saying that we don't waste money on these projects or that the American taxpayer should pay for all these new projects. Just saying the value of our dollar has decreased, thus you would expect expenditures to increase. Just as they have for all Americans. Our dollar has lost much of its value over the years. For instance a dollar in 1981 is equal to about $2.34 in 2008.

Not saying that we don’t waste money on these projects or that the American taxpayer should pay for all these new projects. Just saying the value of our dollar has decreased, thus you would expect expenditures to increase. Just as they have for all Americans.

]]> By: david farrar http://www.redstate.com/brianfaughnan/2009/01/07/on-infrastructure-investment/#comment-2432 david farrar Wed, 07 Jan 2009 14:44:53 +0000 http://www.redstate.com/brianfaughnan/?p=348#comment-2432 The infrastructure investment of the Obama's stimulus proposal has nothing to do with repairing the national infrastructure, which isn't broken to begin with, as you point out, but all about giving states and local governments taxpayers' money to keep their unionized state employees inflated salaries and benefits packages funded. Heck! I thought everybody knew that. The infrastructure investment of the Obama’s stimulus proposal has nothing to do with repairing the national infrastructure, which isn’t broken to begin with, as you point out, but all about giving states and local governments taxpayers’ money to keep their unionized state employees inflated salaries and benefits packages funded.

Heck! I thought everybody knew that.

]]> By: 6eorge Jetson http://www.redstate.com/brianfaughnan/2009/01/07/on-infrastructure-investment/#comment-2431 6eorge Jetson Wed, 07 Jan 2009 14:43:14 +0000 http://www.redstate.com/brianfaughnan/?p=348#comment-2431 The more you have to operate/maintain, the higher your operations/maintainence cost will be. Great, another trillion (remember Obama's stated $450 billion number comes w/ an expiration date) of stuff that hasn't yet been willingly funded that we the taxpayers will have to support for the rest of our lives. The more you have to operate/maintain,
the higher your operations/maintainence cost will be.

Great, another trillion (remember Obama’s stated $450 billion number comes w/ an expiration date) of stuff that hasn’t yet been willingly funded that we the taxpayers will have to support for the rest of our lives.

]]>