The government may not have laid phone lines and cable, but they sure as hell granted monopolies so that companies would lay the lines. If that isn't "picking winners and losers" I don't know what is. And you might not have heard of Fedex Ground and UPS Ground? Those use mostly those 18-wheel rectangular aircraft to deliver the cargo. While FedEx overall is primarily air, UPS is in fact primarily ground-based. barfo
I do not look at healthcare/welfare/social programs as infrastructure as well - as was made specific in my initial post on the subject. Do not confuse my argument with siding with Obama - who I most specifically said I did not listen to. I do think that utilities, electric grid, investment in clean/renewable energy and it's distribution are good examples of infrastructure spending which makes sense. My original post on the subject was specifically on the point that making a laundry list of things to invest in is a good plan - because you have to make educated guesses and try to stir the economy into places which will make the most sense. I did not make the leap from this to endorsing the current plan - if only because I have not had the time to actually listen to it...
I don't deny that DARPA started the idea of the internet, as a way to communicate during a time of war, so of course government to government lines had to be built. How many miles were then purpose built by the government for private users? My point is that the government is now trying to pick winners and losers. It would be akin to saying that Apple is a superior operating system, so they get subsidies and Microsoft doesn't. Or google over Yahoo!. Much of the broadband out there was swept up after the Enron bankruptcy. They got too far ahead of the market and overbuilt infrastructure. Their bankruptcy was our gain. Charter cable overbuilt and Comcast is buying their capacity for pennies on the dollar. THAT's the way businesses should be built: There's a market opportunity, the best business wins and if there's a bankruptcy the citizenry isn't asked to pay for it. I have no doubt that another version of the internet would have been created all on its own if the government hadn't opened their network. Same with smart phones and everything else you mentioned. It's great there are spinoffs from DoD and NASA that we all can use, but that's a secondary if not tertiary interest. The government shouldn't be in the business of--as a primary goal--creating markets.
And I'm against granting monopolies. If they choose not to build the infrastructure, someone else will when the opportunity becomes valuable enough. Besides, there are competitors to cable in the satellite business and via phone lines. What's next? Sweet. So, they never use local or state roads? They don't drive on toll roads? Their business couldn't exist without the Interstate system? That's an interesting proposition.
I can think of several counterexamples. The Manhattan Project, for one, was a Manhattan Project sized effort. The moon shot was certainly a large effort. Building the interstate system was quite costly and took decades to complete. The railroad land giveaway that you like gave away 129 million acres of land to the railroad barons. How much is that land worth today? Probably hundreds of billions if not trillions. Hardly a 'really cheap' project. Building military bases. Rural electrification. Roads and schools. None of that shit is cheap. But yes, development of the internet was relatively inexpensive, so if that's the only infrastructure you know about or value, I guess infrastructure projects are cheap. barfo
Why should we subsidize ethanol? Food prices are rapidly escalating because of the land being used for corn production. Why solar? Why wind? What makes them superior to other forms of energy? And why is it the government's business in the first place? There's an implicit assumption that some bureaucrat knows better than the market. I hate to keep harping on it, but Hayek demonstrably proved that idea to be false by addressing the "Knowledge Problem". My solution is to stop distorting the market and let private money flow to the best ideas. Some will win big and some will go bankrupt. Creative destruction is a wonderful thing.
You are against the reality of American life for the past 150 years. Not sure why you hate America so much. It might be interesting to you, but it certainly wasn't what I said. barfo
Haven't read the thread, but 2 answers off the top of my head. Private industry just won't do some of the most expensive research. Management is judged by income statements and you can amortize only what, 15 years out for tax purposes. That's usually the limit for financial statements too, unless FASB has made any changes in 30 years. You tell me, I bet it's still 15 years. Other governments subsidize research, and if we don't, they will make the discoveries and we'll have to buy their products. The trade balance will get even worse.
Given that you've been factually wrong about damn near everything you've said in this thread, you need a white flag. Long may you wave. barfo
The Manhattan Project wasn't an infrastructure one. However, it cost $21.6B total in 1996 dollars, over 4 years. The Apollo program cost $20B, total. $170B in today's dollars, over 10 years or so - $17B a year. Roughly the same budget NASA has now, and a tiny fraction of even Obama's deficit for a single year. The govt. gave away land for the railroads. It cost them nothing to do so. The railroad barons put up seriously huge amounts of capital and risked it all in case the railroads didn't pan out. Roads? The highway system cost $425B in inflation adjusted dollars over 35 years, or $12B a year Military bases aren't infrastructure, you're reaching. Again, compared with Medicare which costs $500B a year, or Social Security which costs about $1T a year.
I dunno, I'd call weapons systems infrastructure. That's amusing. Hey, Denny, it will cost you nothing if you give me all your assets. C'mon, what are you waiting for? If you say so. Even the dictionary disagrees with you though. in·fra·struc·ture –noun 1. the basic, underlying framework or features of a system or organization. 2. the fundamental facilities and systems serving a country, city, or area, as transportation and communication systems, power plants, and schools. 3. the military installations of a country. Yes, people cost a lot. So what? Go ahead and kill as many as you can, for all I care. We'll make more. barfo
I know you'd call weapons systems infrastructure, but you would call anything infrastructure if it meant govt. could tax more and spend more. Just as the military has its own code of justice, it also has its definition of infrastructure. Infrastructure is the basic physical and organizational structures needed for the operation of a society or enterprise,[1] or the services and facilities necessary for an economy to function.[2] The term typically refers to the technical structures that support a society, such as roads, water supply, sewers, power grids, telecommunications, and so forth. Viewed functionally, infrastructure facilitates the production of goods and services; for example, roads enable the transport of raw materials to a factory, and also for the distribution of finished products to markets. In some contexts, the term may also include basic social services such as schools and hospitals.[3] In military parlance, the term refers to the buildings and permanent installations necessary for the support, redeployment, and operation of military forces.[4]
And you must be joking about assets. The govt. shouldn't own any assets at all, or if they do they're for public use (like roads, or even for railroad barons). The govt. isn't a person nor should you twist property rights to construe to it.
Ok, well, if the government shouldn't own assets, it clearly follows that any assets the government has should be transferred to a few railroad barons. Sure, that makes sense... barfo
Or 40 acres and a mule, or 1862 Homestead Act, and so on. Where it has given away those assets (it shouldn't own), the private sector has improved the land with private capital and built whole industries. The only industries the govt. builds are defense and ... govt. itself.
