Originally posted by telerion
In two ways:
1) You might not spend enough to do much of anything. This is what Paul has been repeating and repeating. I would like to know just how much he thinks should be spent. "Enough," is not an acceptable answer.
2) You spend too much. A lot of labor is hired for the projects so new workers spend time building roads/bridges/whatever (whethe our best economics, that this will be the case.
I think it's just a very big gamble.
A related question is whether there is infrastructure whose economic benefit would justify the costs (even if enormous), but that will likely
not be built at all absent government funding (the public goods issue again). I have a difficult time believing that there are none, given the age and general repair of much of our infrastructure (and for some of which, the costs of continual “patch and repair” may justify the costs of a complete rebuild.
Even if the delay in implementing such projects is problematic from the point of view of short-term stimulus, projects that it makes sense to build—well, it makes sense to build them. I would think that betting on a sufficient improvement in the economy and employment to worry about “siphoning” jobs to better-compensated ones in the private sector would also be taking a big gamble. None of which is to say that there aren’t better short-run stimulus projects. But I think it would be a
huge gamble to assume that such projects are going to get any more traction at this point, politically. By the time infrastructure contracts begin having a significant impact, the short-term (6 months to a year?) may well have become the medium term (or the medium-term is now the new short-term?).
In sum, I would suggest that the positive fiscal impact of publically-funded infrastructure building adds to the incentive to get the ball rolling
for otherwise justifiable projects sooner rather than later.
[The debate over high-speed rail seems to be mostly centered on the microeconomics: which, if any, of the proposals enhance transportation efficiency. You corrected me on the principle of excludability last time we talked about this (both generally, and with regard to HSR in particular), but I’m not sure that are not what might be called “quasi-public goods” that would fit the above description even if they are generally excludable. Think of that as a question….]