Time to spend money on Infrastructure

[Murhy]

Ohhhhh no my mistake. I just thought you meant "than any other country except for Norway and Ireland"

David Leonhardt is the Washington bureau chief of The New York Times.

He won a pulitzer prize for his "graceful penetration of America’s complicated economic questions"

I think his viewpoint is reliable.

 

[blackhawk]

Were close to 17 trillion dollars in debt and Congress can't seem to find any pork or waste to cut that makes coming up with money to spend for Infrastructure problematic at best.

I'd stop building other nations and start building ours...Dictating the middle east isn't our job.

If you can find a way to get both parties to stop sending money overseas I'm all for it.

 

[AmazonTania]

Ohhhhh no my mistake. I just thought you meant "than any other country except for Norway and Ireland"

David Leonhardt is the Washington bureau chief of The New York Times.

He won a pulitzer prize for his "graceful penetration of America’s complicated economic questions"

I think his viewpoint is reliable.

He is not an economist, for good reason. He's using his opinion, which is not really a viewpoint.

Changing GDP per capita and the amount of hours work to, GDP per hours worked, which doesn't make any sense. He also made the correlation that because Norway and Ireland has a better education system than that of the United States, those countries must be more skilled and more productive. As if this has anything to do with overall productivity.

Other than that, there really isn't much to consider from the article. Productivity of a nation is generally rated by hourly productivity, not GDP per hours worked. GDP per hours worked is only the net value of all the productivity. David Leonhardt doesn't know what he is talking about.

 

[Murhy]

Ohhhhh no my mistake. I just thought you meant "than any other country except for Norway and Ireland"

David Leonhardt is the Washington bureau chief of The New York Times.

He won a pulitzer prize for his "graceful penetration of America’s complicated economic questions"

I think his viewpoint is reliable.

He is not an economist, for good reason. He's using his opinion, which is not really a viewpoint.

Changing GDP per capita and the amount of hours work to, GDP per hour, which doesn't make any sense. He also made the correlation that because Norway and Ireland has a better education system than that of the United States, those countries must be more skilled and more productive. As if this has anything to do with overall productivity.

Other than that, there really isn't much to consider from the article. Productivity of a nation is generally rated by hourly productivity, not GDP per hours worked. GDP per hours worked is only the net value of all the productivity.

He is probably using applied mathematics, given that is what he studied at Yale.

 

[AmazonTania]

He is probably using applied mathematics, given that is what he studied at Yale.

What applied mathematics is there? All you do is take a nation's GDP and divide it by the total amount of hours worked in that nation. It's not that hard, and you can really do it without a degree from Yale.

Doesn't really change the fact that he cherry picked (or either screwed up) an economic methodology. He is not entirely wrong in his reasoning, but is playing correlation equals causation.

Just know that productivity is measured by the amount of hours worked. Value added per hour is measured by GDP per hours worked. David Leonhardt just mixed up the too. Not a crime, but he is wrong.

 

[Murhy]

He is probably using applied mathematics, given that is what he studied at Yale.

What applied mathematics is there? All you do is take a nation's GDP and divide it by the total amount of hours worked in that nation. It's not that hard, and you can really do it without a degree from Yale.

Doesn't really change the fact that he cherry picked (or either screwed up) an economic methodology. He is not entirely wrong in his reasoning, but is playing correlation equals causation.

Just know that productivity is measured by the amount of hours worked. Value added per hour is measured by GDP per hours worked. David Leonhardt just mixed up the too. Not a crime, but he is wrong.

There are multiple points on either side that can pull a country up the "list" or push it down. Obviously the information that we want to use is that which keeps us higher on the list. Thats where we want to be.

Its not like saying that the earth is round. It is. Period.

I just feel like saying that America is among the most productive countries would be more accurate. Im not saying we suck or anything.

 

[Flopper]

Infrastructure Gap? Look at the Facts. We Spend More Than Europe - Forbes

The U.S.’s fourteenth place ranking in the World Economic Forum’s infrastructure index scarcely bespeaks a national scandal. Luxembourg and Canada rank just above the U.S., and Austria and Denmark rank just below. None of these countries are exactly slouches in the infrastructure category. Among the twenty largest countries, the U.S. ranks second only to Canada. The World Economic Forum index also shows that U.S. infrastructure beats the European Union average by a wide margin! How can that be with the high speed rail and the gleaming Autobahns of the European Union – the envy of our transportation bureaucrats?

Consider another hitch. OECD infrastructure experts find that Europe has too much supply of roads and rail relative to the demand. Yes, they have trains departing every few minutes, but half empty, and do Germans really need five different Autobahns to drive from Munich to Frankfurt? The same OECD experts find that the U.S., Canada, and Australia have built about the amount of infrastructure that fits the demand.

Well, if all else fails, our big government spenders at least can show that we spend little on infrastructure relative to countries that have good infrastructure. We can really catch the U.S. with its pants down by looking at its miserly infrastructure spending.

Get ready for a surprise. According to OECD statistics, the United States spends 3.3 percent of its GDP (2006-2011) on infrastructure investment versus the European Union’s 3.1 percent. With roughly equal GDPs, the United States actually outspends the Europe Union – our model of infrastructure perfection.

Europe relies heavily on mass transit. The US relies on roads. Maintaining roads so tens of millions of people can drive 5 passenger autos to work carrying one passenger not only clogs our roads and freeways but creates huge road maintenance costs. Unlike Europe we have to carry far to much heavy freight on our roads which also runs up the maintenance costs.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Were close to 17 trillion dollars in debt and Congress can't seem to find any pork or waste to cut that makes coming up with money to spend for Infrastructure problematic at best.

I'd stop building other nations and start building ours...Dictating the middle east isn't our job.

If you can find a way to get both parties to stop sending money overseas I'm all for it.

Why? We don't spend that much and it is wise investment. Unless, that is, you are talking about our ridiculous military intervention.

 

[Flopper]

I'd stop building other nations and start building ours...Dictating the middle east isn't our job.

If you can find a way to get both parties to stop sending money overseas I'm all for it.

Why? We don't spend that much and it is wise investment. Unless, that is, you are talking about our ridiculous military intervention.

Rarely does the government really give anything to other nations without strings being attached.

 

[Pete7469]

It sure would be pro-American and pro-business to invest monies in the country's infrastructure. It would provide jobs, not only with the infrastructure project, it would also create jobs in the business sector as the business sector becomes more competitive on the world stage.
Didn't Ike build the US interstate system for those very reasons?

Not at all. The interstate system was intended to provide maximum mobility for military materials in the event of war.

All the other benefits are secondary.

 

[LoneLaugher]

It sure would be pro-American and pro-business to invest monies in the country's infrastructure. It would provide jobs, not only with the infrastructure project, it would also create jobs in the business sector as the business sector becomes more competitive on the world stage.
Didn't Ike build the US interstate system for those very reasons?

Not at all. The interstate system was intended to provide maximum mobility for military materials in the event of war.

All the other benefits are secondary.

Unintended consequences?

Some people are just not honest.

 

[Desperado]

I'd stop building other nations and start building ours...Dictating the middle east isn't our job.

If you can find a way to get both parties to stop sending money overseas I'm all for it.

Why? We don't spend that much and it is wise investment. Unless, that is, you are talking about our ridiculous military intervention.

Why is using tax payer money to build roads in a foreign country a wise investment?
Seems that it is a total waste of money for the US Tax payer.

 

[ScienceRocks]

If you can find a way to get both parties to stop sending money overseas I'm all for it.

Why? We don't spend that much and it is wise investment. Unless, that is, you are talking about our ridiculous military intervention.

Why is using tax payer money to build roads in a foreign country a wise investment?
Seems that it is a total waste of money for the US Tax payer.

Really stupid! Yet our roads and bridges are falling apart.

Train derails in Maryland, explosion reported

Time to invest a few trillion into our infrastructure.

 

[AmazonTania]

Why? We don't spend that much and it is wise investment. Unless, that is, you are talking about our ridiculous military intervention.

Why is using tax payer money to build roads in a foreign country a wise investment?
Seems that it is a total waste of money for the US Tax payer.

Really stupid! Yet our roads and bridges are falling apart.

Train derails in Maryland, explosion reported

Time to invest a few trillion into our infrastructure.

What the hell does an explosion have to do with transit infrastructure? This is the sort of miscalculation and misreporting which leads to mis-allocation of resource in the economy.

 

[ScienceRocks]

What's economic about building a third world Islamic shit hole? Why not invest within America and get our troops out.

That makes far more economic sense all the way around.

 

[AmazonTania]

What's economic about building a third world Islamic shit hole? Why not invest within America and get our troops out.

That makes far more economic sense all the way around.

Nothing. I don't see what this has to do with what you previously posted, but okay...

 

[Contumacious]

Time to spend money on Infrastructure

Bullshit.

There are a lot of countries we haven't invaded yet.

According to former Prez Wilson and his disciples, god has ordained that we take care of imperialism first.

Secondly, the more Americans die after the bridges collapse , the less of a strain on Obama Hellcare.

.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Time to invest in our country like Mexico, China, India, etc. Americans are going to die if we don't start rebuilding our nations infrastructure. Do you understand?

Let's set our goal at going back to at least 320 billion in 2009. Let's lead the world again!

Tell it to the GObP/t-pub traitors who obstructed/filibustered against it.

 

[eagle1462010]

Time to invest in our country like Mexico, China, India, etc. Americans are going to die if we don't start rebuilding our nations infrastructure. Do you understand?

Let's set our goal at going back to at least 320 billion in 2009. Let's lead the world again!

Tell it to the GObP/t-pub traitors who obstructed/filibustered against it.

LOL NICE GRAPH SHOWING CONSTRUCTION SPENDING, PRIVATE, STATE AND LOCAL SPENDING. Hey private construction companies, this LIB IS TELLING YOU TO SPEND MORE MOENY NOW GUYS................

LOL

Government Spending: Growth and Trend Charts of US Federal Spending by Year

Where the Money Goes
Total federal spending has grown 43 percent faster than inflation in just the past 10 years.
Some of the largest growth in federal spending has been in K–12 education, a state and local priority.
Food stamps and other nutrition programs also have more than doubled in the past 10 years. Food stamp participation rates also more than doubled, growing from 19.096 million recipients in 2002 to 44.709 million by 2011.
In 1993, Social Security surpassed national defense as the largest federal spending category, and remains first today.
Federal energy spending has increased steadily over the past decade with the government increasingly subsidizing activities like energy efficiency, energy supply, and technology commercialization. An unprecedented $42 billion was spent in 2009 as part of the stimulus, a nine-fold increase over the 2008 spending level.
Interest on the debt is the fifth largest federal spending category, even at today’s low interest rates.


Since 2002, DOT Spending has increased 61%.

 

[eagle1462010]

Construction Spending Definition | Investopedia

Definition of 'Construction Spending'
An economic indicator that measures the amount of spending towards new construction. Released monthly by the U.S. Department of Commerce's Census Bureau, it looks at residential and non-residential construction in the private sector, and state and federal at the public level.