Lots to like in the #InfrastructureBill, esp that public investment is back.
For me, the Q is always about scale & direction.
E.g.
-US school bus fleet 480,000
-Cost per bus $100,000-$300,000 (electric cost more)
-Fleet replacement cost $48b-$144b +
-Infrastructure bill: $7.5b🧵
Allocation to address inequities from gentrification and the highway system: $1b
That's approx what it costs to build 100-200miles of highway. I.e., a very small amount to redress decades of legacy investments in an interstate hwy system that ripped through many communities.
$1.25b appropriated for Appalachian Development to connect remote communities from 13 Appalachian states from NY to AL. Given above hwy building costs, you know that funding is a drop in the bucket, given objectives.
Bridge Grant program: $36.7b. Sounds good, until you look up American Society of Civil Engineers estimates: $125b bridge repair backlog and an estimated $22.7b of new spending needed ANNUALLY.
The $36.7b in the bill is to be spent over 5yrs.
Given decades of public disinvestment & neglect, seems other appropriated amounts fall short too. Maybe broadband funding will make a real difference.
Ofc, the bill's many components will add up to overall improvement in economic conditions.
All very welcome, but let's be clear-eyed.
If the goal is rehabilitation, development and equity: we need a lot more funding.
If the goal is green transition, we need much more and faster.
The infrastructure bill doesn't make any of the needed transformative investments.
We knew the 'bipartisan route' could not deliver the scale or direction of required investments. Which is why the next reconciliation bill is so important. And then the next one, and the next (if Dems keep their lead and handle the party obstructionists). nytimes.com/interactive/20…
Unfortunately, as the IPCC report reminded us, this amounts to playing in the sandbox, while the home is burning down. We need to change EVERYTHING.
For that, we need to redefine very quickly what constitutes big and bold public investment. theatlantic.com/science/archiv…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
There was a recent exchange on whether MMT prescribes a certain size deficit. As @KarlWiderquist argues here, the answer is no. But I would go even further.
MMT does not prescribe or aim to estimate a specific size of 'desirable' govt deficit for several reasons.
🧵
The deficit is not under govt's control. Govt can appropriate budgets, but cannot control actual spending. Some line items are automatic. Govt can set tax rates, but cannot control size of tax collections. They are endogenously determined by changing incomes, profits, etc.
Deficit are countercyclical and must change with conditions. Goal is to design effective automatic stabilizers, not hit a specific deficit size in any given accounting period.
Quick comments:
Postwar "Keynesianism" prioritized govt support for private industry & dropped the direct govt employment efforts after the New Deal/WWII. This was a mistake. No direct job creation featured here though there's potential in Biden's platform nytimes.com/2021/02/11/mag…
If "bold efforts" end up meaning only large govt spending, be prepared to be disappointed.
While green manufacturing is critical, manuf employs only 8% of workers. Double it. Impact will still be small. Service sector employs 80%. Tis where the pain is: unstable, poorly paid jobs
if we're going to transform the labor market, services have to be the focus. Where is the plan for stable, well paid service sector jobs? They are what most people live on.
(btw not even China can count on manuf for EMPLOYMENT growth)
$600/wk Unemployment Insurance cannot deliver the benefits of a $600/wk Job Guarantee. From the outset, I should say JG is not a replacement for UI, no matter what you may have heard. I’ll get to this later, but read this long 🧶 w/ that in mind.
Automatic stabilization: Both $600/wk UI and JG will provide counter cyclical spending. But UI will be weaker. Counter-cyclical stabilization is not just about the absence of income. It is also about the transmission and structure of economy
Firms don't like to hire the unemployed. Mass and long-term unemployment make the problem worse. JG would recover labor markets much faster than a UI of the same amount, both b/c of the higher direct, induced & tertiary employment effects & b/c of private firm hiring preferences.
Have you heard that it's hostile or antithetical to welfare or unions? Let me try to help.
1. The JG is a missing piece of the welfare safety net, an add-on, not a replacement. We
strengthen the welfare system by adding an "employment option". I have a whole book about it: amazon.com/Case-Job-Guara…
2. If folks have no retirement income, we guarantee it (SocSec)
If kids need access to education, we guarantee it (pub educ)
If someone wants a job, training and UI aren't enough, We should guarantee that a basic job is avail.
(we need other guarantees too: housing, m4a)
"The private sector always does things 'better' than the public sector" is a perennial and pernicious argument. There is of course no 'natural law' that makes this so. But defending it often rests on a confusion between Administration and Purpose.
FedEx is 'better' than #USPS, private charter schools are 'better' than public schools, a private payments system is 'better' than one run by the Fed, private banking is 'superior' to public banking... you get the gist
The idea is that the public sector cannot manage admin complexity, which is nonesense (Military, anyone?).
The fundamental fact is that some services must be guaranteed to ALL. Full stop. And guarantees can only be provided by the public sector that holds the public purse strings