Will a National Infrastructure Bill Increase Economic Growth

[ArrieS]

I am a positive person and I am not an economics major. It is hard to understand how spending money is growth.

Because spent money can be invested money. Governments can make smart choices in how it spends money to benefit the nation.

Although the comparison is somewhat tenuous, Governments in a fashion can be thought of as a business that can make investments.

[evilanne]

Articles on infrastructure investment/economic activity pros & cons.
Wikipedia "Infrastructure-based development" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrastru ... evelopment
"Concrete benefits Public investments in infrastructure do the most good at times like the present", Oct 2014 http://www.economist.com/news/finance-a ... good-times
"The problem with using infrastructure to stimulate the economy
The immediate boost to the economy from infrastructure stimulus spending is minimal, while the cost for any new jobs it creates can be huge" Jan 2016
http://www.macleans.ca/economy/economic ... e-economy/

[mjedlin66]

Have you ever heard of the Civilian Conservation Corps and the Hoover Dam? What about the Tennessee Valley Authority?

Dams are infrastructure. They provide artificial lakes, irrigation for large desert areas, and cheap, clean electricity.

Roads provide a lot of benefits as well. ArrieS says that building roads is subsidizing someone's back yard with a tree. Yes, it is, but that definitely stimulates the economy because it keeps the American Dream affordable. Our population continues to grow and MOST Americans want a back yard with a tree. Building the roads creates suburbs, which create all kinds of construction work, commercial zones which prop up to provide for the residential zones, and a new industrial zone which was previously an hour from the nearest residential but is now 15 minutes.

[ArrieS]

ArrieS says that building roads is subsidizing someone's back yard with a tree. Yes, it is, but that definitely stimulates the economy because it keeps the American Dream affordable.

Now we are to subsidize peoples dreams?

Our population continues to grow and MOST Americans want a back yard with a tree. Building the roads creates suburbs, which create all kinds of construction work, commercial zones which prop up to provide for the residential zones, and a new industrial zone which was previously an hour from the nearest residential but is now 15 minutes.

That's nice. But all of that excluding the homes with backyards would still occur. Without the road subsidies instead we would build up in more concentration. Townhomes, condominiums, and apartments. Which provide all the above benefits with more efficiency for the economy.

Again, we are just subsidizing a yard and a tree.

Any argument provided for building roads for homes is irrelevant. The same benefits would occur otherwise. People need a place to live, the market will meet that need. If you can afford a subsidized home, you can afford a townhouse, condo, or rent for an apartment. The market will build to meet your need so the economy will still benefit from that construction growth.

Only difference is the government won't be distorting the economy to do it.

[evilanne]

ArrieS,
I don't know why you are so hung up with roads and a house with a tree. Primary reason for highway system is promoting commerce, not to subsidize new homes. You ignore all other comments related to the other types of infrastructure.

[ArrieS]

Primary reason for highway system is promoting commerce, not to subsidize new homes. You ignore all other comments related to the other types of infrastructure.

You're statement relies on the assertion that the primary reason for the highway system is to promote commerce. I reject that based on facts.

Of the roads under the Federal Highway system.

"...65 percent are in rural areas and 35 percent are in urban areas..."

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/pubs/hf/pl11028/chapter1.cfm

But,

In the United States urban land is, "60 million acres (2.6 percent)."

2.6% of the land in the United States has 35% of the Federal Highway in it. That alone shows a disproportionate amount of the budget is to service Urban Areas. Add to that the roads with the largest cost to maintain are roads with the highest traffic, which would be urban areas.

The Federal Highway system spends money to subsidize the moment of people, not commerce. They just claim it's a part of commerce. But it's an unnecessary spending required that allows the economics of home ownership to get distorted.

[skiehawk11]

I'll give ArrieS research credit; he researches the shiznit outta stuff.

[privacylee]

You're statement relies on the assertion that the primary reason for the highway system is to promote commerce. I reject that based on facts.

From your source:

"National Highway System (NHS) roadways are important to the United States economy, defense, and mobility."

While in my view, the original intent of the highway system was to facilitate the rapid movement of troops and supplies for defense, the Federal Highway Administration made it a point to have "economy" as the first item on its list of the primary importance of the highway system. That, in a way, contradicts your previous statement as the economy and commerce are pretty integral to one another.

Of the roads under the Federal Highway system.

"...65 percent are in rural areas and 35 percent are in urban areas..."

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/pubs/hf/pl11028/chapter1.cfm

But,

In the United States urban land is, "60 million acres (2.6 percent)."

2.6% of the land in the United States has 35% of the Federal Highway in it. That alone shows a disproportionate amount of the budget is to service Urban Areas. Add to that the roads with the largest cost to maintain are roads with the highest traffic, which would be urban areas.

The Federal Highway system spends money to subsidize the moment of people, not commerce. They just claim it's a part of commerce. But it's an unnecessary spending required that allows the economics of home ownership to get distorted.

I'm curious about all of the goods and commodities (commerce: an interchange of goods or commodities, especially on a large scale between different countries (foreign commerce) or between different parts of the same country (domestic commerce) trade; business.) on those tractor trailers that use the highway system and how that is not considered an increase in commerce by improving the infrastructure by which goods are transferred. Isn't the highway system a more efficient way to move goods between parties thus creating the more efficient economy you seem to seek in your previous post? Not to mention that the public transportation you argued for in another post provides no means to transport those same goods and commodities.

The other part of your argument that is incorrect is based on the assumption that the Federal Highway system is spending money to provide access to residential homes. This is a false assumption. Again, directly from your source, "The NHS includes all Interstate highways (arterials), the Strategic Highway Network (defense purpose), intermodal connectors (roads connecting to major intermodal facilities), and other principal arterials." None of those items are local level roads and streets.

While I hate to source wikipedia, I feel like they have a pretty good definition of arterial road just in case you want to argue that point:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arterial_road

"An arterial road or arterial thoroughfare is a high-capacity urban road. The primary function of an arterial road is to deliver traffic from collector roads to freeways or expressways, and between urban centres at the highest level of service possible. As such, many arteries are limited-access roads, or feature restrictions on private access."

You may be able to bring your argument to the state and local level where the roads are being funded to provide access to residential homes with yards and trees, but it does not apply to the federal level as you are suggesting.

I find myself asking why I am even taking the time to write this.
I suppose that every once in a while I like to brush up on my argument skills and I fully expect to get some sort of reply where you find a "chink in my armor" so to speak. I guess I just feel like the Lorax in that someone must speak for the roads and the trees in the yards at the houses in rural areas which for some reason you despise the idea of people living in.

I agree with you that it would be better to subsidize small businesses instead of regulating them out of existence. As a matter of fact I would be ok without the government subsidizing small businesses and instead just staying out of their affairs almost completely. There are however, some things that I am ok paying taxes for with infrastructure and defense being two of those as opposed to the gross over payment of welfare, "disability", Obamacare, Medicade, etc. which create a lazy entitled society of succubi.

[evilanne]

ArrieS, You really need to go back and look at the history leading up to the establishment of the interstate highway system. Even if everyone lived in cities, you still need roads to get food, supplies, raw materials etc from rural areas or from other metro areas. The original legislation was really to support the cities when there was no mass transit available. The Metro system in DC wasn't operation until 1970's. Travel/tourism industry also has positive economic impact, even if you are just moving people.

Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1944 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal-A ... ct_of_1944

Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/programadmin/interstate.cfm

The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1952 authorized the first funding specifically for System construction.

Revenue from the Federal gas and other motor-vehicle user taxes was credited to the Highway Trust Fund to pay the Federal share of Interstate and all other Federal-aid highway projects.

Moving the Goods: As the Interstate Era Begins http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/interstate/freight.cfm

With the American entry into the European war in April 1917, the railroads were stretched beyond their capacity. For the first time, interstate transportation of freight by truck became not only possible but essential. Interstate roads were still largely dirt, and the trucks tore them up, but trucks demonstrated their value.

President Roosevelt submitted Interregional Highways to Congress on January 12, 1944. Like its predecessor, Interregional Highways based its conclusions largely on passenger traffic, with special emphasis on the need to address traffic problems in cities as a way of reversing the trends that were causing cities to decentralize, lose their tax base, and turn to blight. With the country at war, the report also focused on the military aspects of highway development.

Based on Interregional Highways, the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1944 authorized designation of a 40,000-mile network "so located as to connect by routes, as direct as practicable, the principal metropolitan areas, cities, and industrial centers, to serve the national defense, and to connect at suitable border points with routes of continental importance in the Dominion of Canada and the Republic of Mexico."

[evilanne]

I would be ok without the government subsidizing small businesses and instead just staying out of their affairs almost completely. There are however, some things that I am ok paying taxes for with infrastructure and defense being two of those as opposed to the gross over payment of welfare, "disability", Obamacare, Medicade, etc. which create a lazy entitled society of succubi.

I totally agree.

I could be wrong, but I think ArrieS is just upset that he lives in DC Metro area where he can't afford to own a single family home with a tree in the back yard.

[mjedlin66]

I could be wrong, but I think ArrieS is just upset that he lives in DC Metro area where he can't afford to own a single family home with a tree in the back yard.

Let's build him a road!

[ArrieS]

I could be wrong, but I think ArrieS is just upset that he lives in DC Metro area where he can't afford to own a single family home with a tree in the back yard.

Actually, I live in southern Maryland, down by Patuxent River Naval Air Station.

According to google maps, 73.2 miles from DC.

Sooooo, your theory is blown.

[ArrieS]

That, in a way, contradicts your previous statement as the economy and commerce are pretty integral to one another.

How so? I rejected evilanne's statement because it was a statement of fact that his argument relied on. I didn't believe the facts supported that statement. It only contradicts it if you assume I support your implication that it serves the economy as commerce in integral to the economy. Your statement relies on the assumption I do. Which I have argued it does not. So no, it's not a contradiction. Stating what the National Highway System says does not imply I agree with it.

I'm curious about all of the goods and commodities (commerce: an interchange of goods or commodities, especially on a large scale between different countries (foreign commerce) or between different parts of the same country (domestic commerce) trade; business.) on those tractor trailers that use the highway system and how that is not considered an increase in commerce by improving the infrastructure by which goods are transferred. Isn't the highway system a more efficient way to move goods between parties thus creating the more efficient economy you seem to seek in your previous post? Not to mention that the public transportation you argued for in another post provides no means to transport those same goods and commodities.

I never said it wasn’t. Your implication is that I refuted the efficiency and importance of the highway system in moving goods and people long distances. I never did. I only stated its objective has changed, it’s been high jacked for other purposes. Case in point, the United States needs a strong military and a part of that is a vibrate and strong economy. Part of that economy can be dedicated to serving the military. However, would you agree that the Industrial military complex has gone a little out of control as President Eisenhower warned us about?

Something can be good for one thing and serve that role, but still, be harmful and serving a different goal then was intended or it claims it is.

The other part of your argument that is incorrect is based on the assumption that the Federal Highway system is spending money to provide access to residential homes. This is a false assumption.

Habeas corpus!

I shall produce the corpse to prove the crime.

“The federal government helps state and local governments pay for construction and upkeep of airports, transit systems and major roads, but actually own very little of the nation’s transportation infrastructure-mainly roads in national parks and forests, Indian reservations, and military bases.”

http://www.artba.org/about/faq/

Go ahead and look at google maps. Look at major cities and see the Federal Highway system just circle many cities. That only purpose is to help funnel people around from different sections. We all know the shortest distance is a straight line. If Highway planning was solely for the movement of goods between cities highways would be as close to straight as possible. But look at DC, Interstate 495 just circles it. Just to move people.

From your source at Wikipedia

“in many cities, arteries are arranged in concentric circles”

They’re giant arterial roads built using and maintained with federal dollars.

Many cities have these, some even several rings. Look at all the highways that pop up and run for 30 miles then dead end. These are all being funded with federal dollars.

This is why again, 35% of the Federal Highway system is in 2.6% of the country.

[ArrieS]

I could be wrong, but I think ArrieS is just upset that he lives in DC Metro area where he can't afford to own a single family home with a tree in the back yard.

Wait.... In your mind, it makes sense that I'm upset I can't afford a house so that makes me complain about government spending that makes the cost of homes more affordable?

That is a logical conclusion in your mind?

[evilanne]

Wait.... In your mind, it makes sense that I'm upset I can't afford a house so that makes me complain about government spending that makes the cost of homes more affordable?

That is a logical conclusion in your mind?

Its about as logical as your argument that roads subsidize the cost of house with a tree in the back yard.