Ever wonder why the Tea Party hates building green?

[Trakar]

If high speed rail is not a category of infrastructure, how was "Funny that economic conservatives need to be reminded what an investment is, especially one as safe a bet as infrastructure improvement" relevant to this discussion? If high speed rail is variety of infrastructure that is exempt from the general principle that infrastructure is a "safe bet" as an investment, perhaps you could explain this exemption to Travis and Trakar.

Red-on-red is so much fun to watch.

I have no problem with Tyr's distinction, it is the same one I referred to earlier. I might easily be persuaded that a HSR track system could and should be considered an infra-structure system, but unless the finished transport system is intended to be government run and fully funded by taxes while being free to all who wish to ride the system, I'd have a hard time with qualifying it as a general public infrastructure system.

 

[dc1971]

Yepster. And that high speed rail project in Cal?

Yes it is stupid.

http://www.blogrunner.com/snapshot/...in_projected_cost_wont_be_ready_for_22_years/

Actually, no it's not stupid at all!

 

[dc1971]

No. Leave aside the innuendo please. I'm NOT SAYING that high sped rail or light rail etc is good or bad. I'm saying HERE is a project 4x cost over run, 13 years lagging on schedule, expected fed help vanished. As a project, it looks like well, it's a sure loser. I'm asking why are you in favor of something with such a high cost over run?

Would YOU be paying for it?

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

...outlier exceptions do not disproof generally applied and widely supported basic principles of economics.

Reminds me of the joke: Someone asserts "All odd integers greater than 1 are prime". The mathematician says: "Three is prime. Five is prime. Seven is prime. Nine is not prime. The assertion is false." The physicist says: "Three is prime. Five is prime. Seven is prime. Nine is composite. Eleven is prime, Thirteen is prime. Nine is probably an error. The generalization is probably true." The engineer says: "Three is prime. Five is prime. Seven is prime. Nine is prime..."

Any "outlier" counter-example disproves an unqualified universal statement.
No "basic principles of economics" support the generalization that tax-funded infrastructure projects generate positive returns. Your examples are laughable. The first: a study funded by the construction industry! Really?
...

In the interest of reciprocity, however, where do the examples of the US Interstate highway system, various road and highway projects, bridges, dams, parks, federal/state/local law enforcement agencies, Clean air and water regulations, -many more-, fall within your considerations?¹ You said we were to discuss "tax-funded infrastructure, not for-profit projects undertaken by non-state actors," and then you begin listing a few examples of public-private corporate ventures (professional sports arenas and convention centers) and quasi-governmental corporations (AMTRAK) none of which would, at first blush, even seem to qualify as infrastructure, yet alone tax-funded infrastructure.²
In the choice of the White Sea/Baltic canal I sense a leap once more to hyperbole and distortion in an appeal to pathos more than logos³.

1. That would depend on the road, bridge, dam, park, etc. Some air, water, food, equipment, etc. regulations are cost-effective. Some are not.
2. If we have to define "infrastructure" (and we do), then it's clear that details matter. Is a park "infrastructure"? Why is this obvious, if a sports arena is not so clearly "infrastructure". I would direct your attention to the Eduardo Zambrano quote that I supplied earlier in this discussion.
3. Why is not the White Sea/Baltic canal "infrastructure"? For that matter, why is not a special regime Kolyma lead mining camp "infrastructure"? Some government created them and ran them. That should be certification enough that such a project expresses the will of the people, for some of the government enthusiasts around here.

p.s., The moonbase promise is a major consideration against Gingrich. It indicates a fondness for grand projects and a desire to display himself thinking big thinks for us little people to admire. Just like grand irrigation projects, rural electrification projects, or public housing projects.

 

[WildCat]

Not according to my survey of the historic data available, but please, do feel free to offer supporting evidence that investments in infrastructure, in general, do not yeild positive returns.

Ever heard of the term "white elephant"?

HSR would be the biggest white elephant ever. Has California no other needs to spend money on?

 

[WildCat]

They will be the as well, but I can't see the type of long range commuter behavior we see now persisting.

We'll still have airplanes.

 

[tyr_13]

If high speed rail is not a category of infrastructure, how was "Funny that economic conservatives need to be reminded what an investment is, especially one as safe a bet as infrastructure improvement" relevant to this discussion? If high speed rail is variety of infrastructure that is exempt from the general principle that infrastructure is a "safe bet" as an investment, perhaps you could explain this exemption to Travis and Trakar.

Red-on-red is so much fun to watch.

If I said, 'it's a safe bet houses are safe' and then some says, 'yeah, well that house over there isn't safe', I'd be right to point out that that wasn't what I said and that it doesn't disprove my initial statement. Likewise I wasn't talking about HSR specifically and certainly not that specific HSR project. Some HSR projects would be safe bets but not all are. HSR is a VERY small part of all infrastructure.

General to the specific, and specific to the general fallacy don't yield the best public policy results. This cup of water couldn't put out that fire, therefore water can't put out fire. Fire is put out by water, but this wasn't, therefore it can't be fire.

 

[tyr_13]

Yes, most of them. But the thing is, that's not the right criteria for judging military expenditures, and it's absurd to even suggest that it should be. Military expenditures are a form of insurance. And insurance always has a negative expected return. That doesn't make it a bad idea. But it's not an investment. I'm sure you knew that, but I'm left wondering why you thought anyone else might not know that.

Actually my line of thinking was that cost over-runs and delays are not what prove if an investment is worth the cost, it's if the benefits still overcome the costs. That's how military projects that over run and delay are like some infrastructure projects that over run and delay; they still might be worth the cost.

But this is getting further and further away from the points the OP was making. Do you support the criteria they were using to oppose 'green' building? Do you believe the opposition to spending on even basic infrastructure, such as expanding travel hubs, bridge replacement, and water projects from some wings of the Tea Party Republicans is warranted?

 

[lomiller]

[*]Aerospace prizes are only given out in the case of success
[/LIST]

Financial commitments have value even if the funds never end up being paid out.

In the private sector if you wanted to create such a prize for some feat like kicking a 60 yard field goal at halftime of your football game, what you could do is buy insurance against someone winning the prize. What you paid for the insurance becomes your cost.

Of course the cost in real terms could be much higher, because if anyone is stupid enough to peruse that prize capital that would otherwise be going towards things of real value would get drained off and used inefficiently, so you've lost all the private sector activity that capital would have created.

 

[TimCallahan]

I'm familiar with the documents promulgated by the UN to the mayors,thank you. I don't need your, or some exaggeration of the facts, by a journalist, or any actual mis interpretation of the facts by a Tea partier, to help me understand the issue. What Travis did was create an argument in generality of ridicule, to help provide cover for the specific problems the Tea Party has with the CA rail project. Looks to me like they are pretty much right on concerning that project.

Concerning the hilited area: Would you care to share these documents? Do you really believe the U.N. is behind green architecture, energy solutions, etc.?

As for resources on the moon, yes, there are a lot of them. What's needed is extensive surveying. We know their are several interesting craters on the N Pole with areas of constant sunlight, such as would be preferred for industry. We know also, there are areas with constant darkness. These, also, have uses. But how are easily retrieved mineral deposits located relative to these locations?

There is quite a bit of work to be done before the best siting of one or several moonbases should be done, if they are to yield profits commercially. I'd rather see this work done properly, than a rushed project. That'd be well, sort of like hurrying to dig a gold mine. The exploration, sample drilling, and surveying come first. Arguably a moonbase would do this as it's primary and initial job, but these should be largely done by robotics.

So, the question remains: Do you think private industry is willing to spend money on this?

 

[lomiller]

We'll still have airplanes.

Yes, but fewer of them than we have now

 

[Trakar]

Reminds me of the joke: Someone asserts "All odd integers greater than 1 are prime". The mathematician says: "Three is prime. Five is prime. Seven is prime. Nine is not prime. The assertion is false." The physicist says: "Three is prime. Five is prime. Seven is prime. Nine is composite. Eleven is prime, Thirteen is prime. Nine is probably an error. The generalization is probably true." The engineer says: "Three is prime. Five is prime. Seven is prime. Nine is prime..."

Any "outlier" counter-example disproves an unqualified universal statement.
No "basic principles of economics" support the generalization that tax-funded infrastructure projects generate positive returns. Your examples are laughable. The first: a study funded by the construction industry! Really?

Arguments via disconnected anecdote as well as those from personal incredulity and unsupported but implied source bias are generally without merit or measurable weight, ...again, you seem stuck in pathos with no substantive logos in your position.

Care to try citing supporting facts and figures as originally requested?

1. That would depend on the road, bridge, dam, park, etc. Some air, water, food, equipment, etc. regulations are cost-effective. Some are not.

I'm not sure that "cost effective" was ever an issue of discussion, but I would be interested in your definition and consideration of this qualification. The issue being discussed is whether or not there is a positive return on investment to the public from general public infrastructure projects, and whether or not public infrastructure projects in general are an effective stimulus to the economy.

2. If we have to define "infrastructure" (and we do), then it's clear that details matter. Is a park "infrastructure"? Why is this obvious, if a sports arena is not so clearly "infrastructure". I would direct your attention to the Eduardo Zambrano quote that I supplied earlier in this discussion.

I know little about professor Zambrano's expertise or body of work, but the quote you provided seems completely disconnected from anything being discussed and is apparently directed at command economy issues in a totalitarian type governmental system headed by an incompetent authoritarian head of state. As to the definition of infrastructure, I am comfortable with the standard economic definition:

"Infrastructure for the 21st Century" - http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=798&page=2
Infrastructure – highways, streets, roads, and bridges; mass transit; airports and airways; water supply and water resources; wastewater management; solid-waste treatment and disposal; electric power generation and transmission; telecommunications; and hazardous waste management – and the combined system these modal elements comprise. A comprehension of infrastructure spans not only these public works facilities, but also the operating procedures, management practices, and development policies that interact together with societal demand and the physical world to facilitate the transport of people and goods, provision of water for drinking and a variety of other uses, safe disposal of society's waste products, provision of energy where it is needed, and transmission of information within and between communities.

I consider parks and preserves to be essential to maintaining and providing natural recreational value, but also because they help maintain some persistence of the the core biological diversity that is essential for sustained, qualitative life upon our planet. If your definition of "parks" is limited to a quarter acre playground or public garden, I might be persuaded to reconsider their inclusion.

Sports arena's and convention centers, primarily because these are almost always joint ventures between private capital and public support with private profit goals in the use of such facillities and private investment through matching special issue bond measures, I'm not sure that these meet your own qualification of public infrastructure. In general, I would agree that such venues often stimulate microcosms of economic growth and value and can occassionaly broaden and attract greater economic benefit to a city through cultural and business enrichment.

3. Why is not the White Sea/Baltic canal "infrastructure"? For that matter, why is not a special regime Kolyma lead mining camp "infrastructure"? Some government created it. That should be certification enough that such a project expresses the will of the people, for some of the government enthusiasts around here.

p.s., The moonbase promise is a major consideration against Gingrich. It indicates a fondness for grand projects and a desire to display himself thinking big thinks for us little people to admire. Just like grand irrigation projects, rural electrification projects, or public housing projects.

Primarily, the problem is with "Public" infrastructure. In the US Public = Government ("...of the people, by the people, for the people,..."), this isn't true in many (if not most) other nations. If you are seriously offering these examples as legitimate public infrastructure projects that should be highlighted in any examination of the value of public works and infrastructure projects, then there is little sense in making any further attempts at achieving a rational discourse on this issue.

 

[Ladewig]

True. The major differences are:

• The CA rail taxpayers pay whether it fails in practice, or is abandoned before completion
• Aerospace prizes are only given out in the case of success

I'll accept your correction of my phrase "strictly private funding", though.

A valid point that I hadn't considered.


ETA: also schedule slippages do not add to taxpayer costs under Mr. Gingrich's plan.

 

[Ziggurat]

Actually my line of thinking was that cost over-runs and delays are not what prove if an investment is worth the cost, it's if the benefits still overcome the costs.

OK, that makes much more sense than the way I was reading it. Yes, an overrun doesn't by itself mean that a project is automatically no longer worthwhile, but it certainly can tip the balance. And cost overruns often do lead to cancellations or decreases in military projects.

But this is getting further and further away from the points the OP was making. Do you support the criteria they were using to oppose 'green' building? Do you believe the opposition to spending on even basic infrastructure, such as expanding travel hubs, bridge replacement, and water projects from some wings of the Tea Party Republicans is warranted?

Well, I don't really trust the NYT to accurately capture the scope and significance of this particular viewpoint. But with that caveat (and it's a large one), categorical opposition to public transportation, infrastructure, and efficiency increase is as silly as categorical support. And while I think the UN's efforts to push environmentalism are largely a waste of resources, I don't feel threatened by it either. The problematic environmentalism I worry about is closer to home.

 

[Trakar]

Ever heard of the term "white elephant"?

"an inconvenient thing that can't be got rid of," I'm not sure that issues of convenience are more than relative, nor are they of particular primacy to this discussion.

HSR would be the biggest white elephant ever. Has California no other needs to spend money on?

I'm sure that California and most of the rest of the nation have a lot of needs right now, but I'm not sure that in the balance of all such considerations that rejecting federal funds to move forward with their HSR project is a necessary or wise trade-off.

 

[Ziggurat]

"an inconvenient thing that can't be got rid of," I'm not sure that issues of convenience are more than relative, nor are they of particular primacy to this discussion.

The original meaning is more than simply inconvenient, but costly.

 

[Trakar]

The original meaning is more than simply inconvenient, but costly.

Originally, "ruinously expensive to maintain." That may have some relevance but only if there were compelling evidence that such is indeed the case with the California HSR project. I have heard arguments that some estimates of profittability are exagerated, but nothing I would consider compelling evidence of "ruinously expensive."

 

[WildCat]

Yes, but fewer of them than we have now

Why?

 

[mhaze]

Would YOU be paying for it?

Do you have a point to make?

 

[mhaze]

Why?

I see you don't comprehend the World of LoMiller.

It's quite a fascinating place...not.

Financial commitments have value even if the funds never end up being paid out.

In the private sector if you wanted to create such a prize for some feat like kicking a 60 yard field goal at halftime of your football game, what you could do is buy insurance against someone winning the prize. What you paid for the insurance becomes your cost.

Of course the cost in real terms could be much higher, because if anyone is stupid enough to peruse that prize capital that would otherwise be going towards things of real value would get drained off and used inefficiently, so you've lost all the private sector activity that capital would have created.

X - type prizes are set forth because it has been widely believed (eg 100 years +) that the public good resulting from these stretch the envelope type efforts far outweighs whatever negative effects might be cited.

You disagree.

You are pretty alone over in that corner.