THESE days, when national economic policy is discussed, there seems to be an almost universal agreement on rebuilding the “infrastructure.” This refers to the physical aspects of a country that support necessary services. This usually means such things as roads, bridges, public buildings, and so on. The advocacy of this policy is based upon the following. The expenses will be national, as opposed to international. That is American companies and American humans will receive the money.
Consider a bridge being built, or rebuilt, in Idaho. The raw materials are going to be purchased from American sources. It would be too expensive to import steel, etc, from China, etc. And the people who build the bridge, and later maintain it, will be residents of the USA. Of course, they may also be illegal aliens (but that is another issue). These workers will buy coffee and sandwiches from local vendors. To summarize: the money spent on this project will yield incomes spent within the USA.
Although demand, when generated from increased income to lower economic classes, can NOT help the economy in general, this delusion is widely accepted. The fact that it is common among politicians is one reason why the USA is still in recession. However, disregarding its ineffectiveness, let me comment on a related issue, that I offer as an alternative.
Why are many of the same politicians opposed to the wars in the Middle East, and/or elsewhere? The “infrastructure” for the military consists of vehicles, bullets, fuel, buildings, clothing, medical supplies, and so on. ALL of this stuff (with, maybe, a few insignificant exceptions) is produced in the USA. That is, this government spending supports American companies that support the employment of Americans AND the consumption of local resources. The wars are a never(?) ending demand for American products. A bridge, once rebuilt, stops being a source of employment. However, artillery shells are single use items, and need endless replacements. In other words whatever good would be done by building a bridge is done (over and over) during a war. Economically, even if there were not other reason, the wars should be kept going. With wars we also get dead terrorists, and terrified dictators.
The proper attitude should be a hope for---and policies to bring about--- another Hundred Years War. Heck, if the English and French could do that with the primitive infrastructure of the Middle Ages, American know-how should be able to exceed it by one half. We should not deny our grandchildren the benefits of endless war.
I remind you that a number of my books are available for sale on Amazon.com. Please go to that site, and search by my name. Thanks.
Comments