Who came up with the idea that infrastructure spending could create Jobs ?

Who came up with the idea that infrastructure spending could create Jobs and put money in people's pockets and create demand I don't think it was Keynes/FDR because I think the idea has been around for a lot longer ?

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by mikejohnson2006


If you mean in terms of our modern economy it was pushed first by John Maynard Keynes right after the post-war depression following WW1, and also proposed several major pan-European works projects during the Treaty of Versailles .. he was larger scoffed at, at first anyways. During the Great Depression and the collapse of the treaty in which he served as adviser to, several countries adopted his ideas. Particularly Britain and the United States. The belief was that if the State spent money to put people to work, the income generated through public works would be spent in the private sector and thus fuel economic growth through consumer spending. The idea, at the time, was revolutionary. Prior to his theories governments usually tightened spending through austerity and created intentional deflation. Never before had a nation been able to print money and make a real economy without actually producing something.

It with out a doubt creates jobs, but these jobs are in the form of sub-contractors, and wastful spending.

These jobs are always temporary, because the companies who facilitate the projects know the faucet will run dry, so they do everything they can to maximize their bottom line, which screws over the actual people doing the work.

Government involvement in infrastructure does not create sustanable quality jobs, it never has, demand does.

The government needs to keep its nose out of peoples A$$es and ease up on regulations / red tape so people can get back to work.

reply to post by mikejohnson2006


Anyone backing their economic knowledge with Keynesian beliefs.

Make work projects at its best.

My guess is that the original idea came from the interest groups and lobbyists representing the organizations that stand to make the most money from this . . . the movers and shakers in the construction sector.

They get to slurp the cream off the top and stash it away while those who get jobs making roads and the like get temporary jobs that go away after the projects are over.

The little guy is expected to go out, buy stuff and have no means to support it in the long run. The movers and shakers stash their dough and put it towards the hedge funds, stock market and other symbolic toilets of greed in this country and watch their riches siphoned out of the wallets of taxpayers grow exponentially.

Pretty much how I figure it all went down.

Originally posted by sicksonezer0
It with out a doubt creates jobs, but these jobs are in the form of sub-contractors, and wastful spending.

These jobs are always temporary, because the companies who facilitate the projects know the faucet will run dry, so they do everything they can to maximize their bottom line, which screws over the actual people doing the work.

Government involvement in infrastructure does not create sustanable quality jobs, it never has, demand does.

The government needs to keep its nose out of peoples A$$es and ease up on regulations / red tape so people can get back to work.

So what you're saying is that when the demand for a company's product increases, the company will build the roads and bridges necessary to transport their products to the given markets? Will the company build it's own power plant to supply itself energy to make it's products? Will the company build the sea ports needed to import the necessary raw materials to build it's products? Will the company build it's own dams to provide a reliable source of water to it's production facilities? etc..... Puuuuuuuulease!

You act like successful companies got that way all on their own and nothing could be further from the truth. If it were not for the public works infrastructure projects carried out on a collective basis by this nation in the past, America would only be a mere shadow of itself today and as our infrastructure crumbles, our economy crumbles along with it.

On top of that, would you rather just keep cutting unemployment checks or, would you rather spend that money actually employing someone and getting a repaired bridge or improved electrical grid etc., in return? I don't know about you, but I kinda like getting something in return for my money.

reply to post by sicksonezer0


The original Keynesian idea was not to have the corporate middle man, but the government be the direct employer (New Deal under FDR).

This neo-fascist idea is actually a perversion of Keynesian ideology, which as much as I hate Keynesian economics I have to admit this neo-fascist ideology is far, far worse. It creates the Tiered Economy Phenomenon, where gov spending sticks to the top tiered corporations involved in the projects and workers see very little .. the trickle down effect is nearly non-existent.

reply to post by Flatfish

There have been relatively few Federal infrastructure projects, usually the projects are taken on by states or cities.. in fact the last major infrastructure project was the Highway expansions in the 1980's. Everything else was completed by localities or corporations expanding their own business. The largest networks of our infrastructure are powerlines and telephone lines, which were completely built by corporations and still maintained by corporations, our power supply grid, again, privately built and maintained.. and the newest and potentially largest, the broadband/wireless infrastructure which is again .. privately built and maintained. Even our rail system is privately run, built and maintained. Well, Amtrack is technically a GSE. Also hospitals are usually privately owned, etc.. as are airports (or run by states/counties) And when a portion of forest is harvested around where I live who builds the roads to get the material, add turnouts and ramps onto highways etc? The corporations.



Government is not the answer...

reply to post by GoalPoster

The little guy is expected to go out, buy stuff and have no means to support it in the long run. The movers and shakers stash their dough and put it towards the hedge funds, stock market and other symbolic toilets of greed in this country and watch their riches siphoned out of the wallets of taxpayers grow exponentially.

They've been doing that for thousands of years.

The local resources get depleted.

The wealth gets transfered and never seems to return to the local areas.

Kadaffi did just that for the 40 years he was in power.

Libya's assets were/are all sitting in investment holding tanks in foreign countries.

Originally posted by Rockpuck
reply to post by Flatfish

 

There have been relatively few Federal infrastructure projects, usually the projects are taken on by states or cities.. in fact the last major infrastructure project was the Highway expansions in the 1980's. Everything else was completed by localities or corporations expanding their own business. The largest networks of our infrastructure are powerlines and telephone lines, which were completely built by corporations and still maintained by corporations, our power supply grid, again, privately built and maintained.. and the newest and potentially largest, the broadband/wireless infrastructure which is again .. privately built and maintained. Even our rail system is privately run, built and maintained. Well, Amtrack is technically a GSE. Also hospitals are usually privately owned, etc.. as are airports (or run by states/counties) And when a portion of forest is harvested around where I live who builds the roads to get the material, add turnouts and ramps onto highways etc? The corporations.

Government is not the answer...

Oh, Really? Ever heard of railroad land grants? Here's a little article that may enlighten you as to the real history behind who actually paid for the construction of our first transcontinental railroad;
www.coxrail.com...

The first large land grants came about with the Pacific Railroad Act of 1862
As best I can tell, the first major railroad land grants originated with the 1862 legislation that enabled the transcontinental railroad. At that time, the Union Pacific and Central Pacific railroads were granted 400-foot right-of-ways plus ten square miles of land for every mile of track built.

For the land grant system to work as planned, the government wanted railroads to sell their land to help pay for the construction of rail lines.

To further help with construction, the government loaned 30-year bonds to the companies which they were required to repay with interest. The government set up a scheme where the companies would be loaned $16,000 per mile for construction across flat land, $32,000 per mile for hilly terrain, and $48,000 per mile for mountain construction.

The Pacific Railroad Act of 1864
It became apparent almost immediately that parts of the 1862 law needed reworking. Because the railroad was so absolutely crucial to the United States, Congress somehow revised the law in the middle of the Civil War.
The Act of 1864 revised several problematic issues, the land grants among them. The 1864 act enlarged land grants from ten to twenty miles of alternating sections on either side of the tracks. Next, it granted full rights to all the minerals underneath all that land.

Over time, parts of most of the land grants became immensely valuable. As western Nebraska was settled, and as the Sierras were developed, both the UP and the CP benefited enormously from selling their land grants. And the Union Pacific benefited dramatically from the huge coal reserves it acquired in Wyoming. Until dieselization in the mid-1950s, the UP mined large tonnages of coal for use in its own steam engines.

Or, how about the "Gadsden Purchase," ever heard of that?

en.wikipedia.org...

The Gadsden Purchase (known as Venta de La Mesilla, or Sale of La Mesilla, in Mexico[2]) is a 29,670-square-mile (76,800 km2) region of present-day southern Arizona and southwestern New Mexico that was purchased by the United States in a treaty signed by James Gadsden, the American ambassador to Mexico at the time, on December 30, 1853. It was then ratified, with changes, by the U.S. Senate on April 25, 1854 and signed by President Franklin Pierce, with final approval action taken by Mexico on June 8, 1854. The purchase was the last major territorial acquisition in the contiguous United States, adding a large area to the United States.
The purchase included lands south of the Gila River and west of the Rio Grande. The Gadsden Purchase was for the purpose of the US's construction of a transcontinental railroad along a deep southern route.

Also, I'm having trouble tracking down which private power company built the Hoover Dam, could you help me with that one? Or maybe you could provide me with the name of an american nuclear power plant that's not insured by the federal government. (because no one else will take on the liability)

Like Elizabeth Warren said, none of these big companies got where they are by themselves.

uh guys. Don't you realize that building anything (infrastructure, holes, bridges, treehouses, etc.) creates jobs. Someone has to do the work. It's a no brainer. Work makes jobs.

What is a no brainer is "infrastructure" are local and state resonsibilities why punish 49 state's and steal money from them to pay for 1 state and those 49 will never see any benefit from them.

Who push's this? The current adminstration and his party which fundamentally is bailing out the unions yet again which ramp up the cost and add years to any project.

It does and unlike manufacturing or mining these are jobs that cannot be outsourced. Infrastructure jobs are in the group of being "recession proof" jobs as something is always broken somewhere that requires fixing or replacing.

The high speed rail project will put like 5 Million to work and keep them employed long range/

Originally posted by neo96
What is a no brainer is "infrastructure" are local and state resonsibilities why punish 49 state's and steal money from them to pay for 1 state and those 49 will never see any benefit from them.

Who push's this? The current adminstration and his party which fundamentally is bailing out the unions yet again which ramp up the cost and add years to any project.

edit on 26-10-2011 by neo96 because: (no reason given)

and as usual,

only a small portion of the population will benefit positively.

reply to post by xuenchen


Yeah the big boys get all the funds and the rest will be left blowing in the wind there was a state highway near where i live they call it a strip was a major shopping district.

It was in major disrepair and the local boys asked for state for permission to revamp it they gave up ownership rights and the city did one hell of a job of reconstruction.

All footed by them and not the Feds which makes the biggest point of this post the people dont own the roads and bridges and what not the State Government does which means just another bailout for the state off the backs of people who do not even live there.

This is maddening.

reply to post by Flatfish

Oh, Really? Ever heard of railroad land grants? Here's a little article that may enlighten you as to the real history behind who actually paid for the construction of our first transcontinental railroad;

Yes, the Government granted then land with no intrinsic value (never been settled, unreachable) and granted LOANS to have the railroad built, which were repaid.

Or, how about the "Gadsden Purchase," ever heard of that?

What does that have to do with infrastructure? We also purchased much of the Western United States, we also purchased Alaska. Mmkay, and?

Also, I'm having trouble tracking down which private power company built the Hoover Dam, could you help me with that one?

It was built by a company called Six Companies, Inc

Morrison-Knudsen Co., Utah Construction Co., J. F. Shea Co., Pacific Bridge Co., MacDonald & Kahn Ltd. and a joint venture of W. A. Bechtel Co., Henry J. Kaiser, and Warren Brothers. The reason these construction companies got together was simple: no single construction company could raise the $5 million needed to secure the performance bond.

The Hoover Dam itself was actually mortgaged to rate users, at a cost of $140 million dollars, the rates of home owners and businesses that get power from the dam paid a portion of the rate to the Treasury .. it was paid off in 1987.

Or maybe you could provide me with the name of an american nuclear power plant that's not insured by the federal government.

It's insured and regulated by the Government because of how dangerous the facilities can be.. hypothetically if a plant had a meltdown that company would cease to operate?

Anyways, yes the Government in the past has LOANED money for a major infrastructure projects.. but NEVER in our history have we thrown money at so many projects in the form of grants .. it is the height of asinine stupidity. I wouldn't have a problem with it at all if the cities and states that benefit from this had to repay it, but then again cities and states wouldn't likely take the debt burden just to repave a road that in all likeliness doesn't even need to be repaved.

Economically, that is economic principles, the governments actions make no sense at all.

Infrastructure spending does have an overall stimulative effect, but it is just like a tax cut the effect is temporary. All that being said the Presidents jobs bill, will not work. It puts construction workers to work and that is a good thing but ultimately all the money that gets spent will do nothing to increase jobs in manufacturing. Until you address our bad trade policy, anything else you do to stimulate the economy will put us further in debt, and stimulate China's economy.

Yup. A lot longer is right. Augustus Caesar was pretty much the first guy to fully implement this idea.

The contribution of Augustus to the consolidation and stabilization of the 'Empire' from a governing and military perspective was immense, but the legacy of the man is perhaps best exemplified in his contribution to public works and infrastructure. While Augustus was a necessity to the success of the new imperial government, veiled as a continuation of Republican ideals, without his other contributions, its continuing success may have been in jeopardy. His reinstitution of conservative policy and wide scale public improvements helped to not only bring Rome out of the ashes of a century of civil war, but established Augustus as the unassailable and unchallenged ruler of the Roman world for nearly half a century.

See, once this guy took the helm, things settled down military action-wise. And you subsequently had a whole lot of vets and not enough land to foist them off onto. So, Augustus instituted a wide-scale public works initiative; including road building and improvement, aqueduct construction, public buildings construction, etc. All with the goal of job creation.

no mention of the TVA (Tennessee Valley Authority)

it got a lot of hillbillies in the Appalachia working for honest wages, who then moved on & bought cars and such.

a lot of hydroelectric production, lots of terrain put to a new use instead of harboring moonshine stills, etc

TVA & Hoover dam were two positive projects...
as for the CCC (civilian conservation corps) i heard it was another make-work project, which is still a lot better than just passing out a boatload of Food-Stamps as entitlements