Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It is true that infrastructure and education are the backbone of economic growth.
It is not true that public investment in infrastructure and education are the backbone of economic growth.
Look, long before the United States had really any public education investment, you had plenty of economic growth(the greatest in the world). You seem to be arguing that if the United States stopped publicly funding education, that our economic growth would stop, or possibly reverse.
I would argue the opposite. If the United States stopped publicly funding education, I think there would be far more economic growth.
Look at it this way. If you look at those industries in which a formal education is actually required. Almost everyone currently employed in those industries would have gotten an education regardless of if it was publicly provided or subsidized. Those who are CEO's and other executives of corporations, are almost always from wealthy families. And with or without publicly-funded education, nothing would change in the "upper tiers" of society, in which the vast majority of high-skilled workers come from.
The real concern in regards to public-education is thus not aimed at the "upper classes" or even the "middle-class". It is always aimed at the lower classes.
The reality is that, almost everyone from the lower classes would be educated to some level, regardless of the existence of publicly-funded education. And the vast majority of those from the "lower classes", stay in the lower class their entire lives. Even if you argue that there are some exceptions, in which many people from the lower classes do become highly successful, usually in relation to the existence of public education. The reality is that, with or without public education, those people still most likely would have been successful. And in the absence of a behemoth public-education system, you would still have charity-driven programs. And especially programs designed for those who are seemingly gifted(IE scholarships).
The problem with the public-education system, is that is creates a huge inefficiency in the economy. For really two reasons. First, it actually helps to keep people out of the market. And secondly, it is just ridiculously inefficient and expensive.
Look at it this way, a large percentage of the people who have gone to thirteen years of public school, then to college, don't even utilize their education for their employment, and never will. In the absence of mandatory public education, those people could enter the workforce at a much younger age, and be productive in the economy. Think of it like how there is a big "burst" of economic activity during the summer months, as the high-school kids and college kids enter the labor force during summer break.
Secondly, the cost of public education is simply ridiculous. In Washington D.C. for instance, the average public school student cost the system nearly $30,000 a year. The cost of college is even more expensive. The average graduate from public school in Washington D.C., would actually earn less in their entire lives from working, than they would if they just took the total combined cost of their entire education, and just invested that money and lived off the interest.
Furthermore, when we discuss poverty. You need to recognize that in the absence of the public-education system. You would not only have charity-based education. But you would also have more things like "apprenticeships", and other "business-funded" education programs. Sort of like how trucking companies will pay for you to go to truck-driving school and get your CDL, if you agree to work for them for a period of time.
Those apprenticeship programs, will provide far more opportunity for low-skilled workers. Would take far less time to complete, would be far less expensive, and thus would allow workers to be productive in the economy much more quickly.
So again, education and infrastructure are important for building an economy. But to assume that these things have to be publicly funded in order to work, is a fallacy.
We had the world you are describing. It didn't work.
Please show me the nation in which these things weren't publicly funded? This is a simple question.
It's based on reality. Are you actually saying that if the US government and state governments didn't invest in infrastructure and education we would still have the largest economy in the world?
Only a fool would say that.
I'm saying that the liberal ideals of infrastructure and education are antiquated. Bridges and high-speed rail don't power a services based economy. Investment in internet infrastructure, modernizing our power grid, etc. do.
Even economists don't believe that. Economists even conservative economists believe that a nation's government has a huge role to play in that nation's economic development.
Any idiot can look around the world and see that the nation's with the most inept and corrupt governments get no where. There are nation's where the government has very little authority. Those nation's are not hot beds of economic development.
Yup. I like to read conservative and liberal economists to get a wide range of views. The problem right now is that the GOP doesn't even listen to conservative economists. They operate on an ideology that believes all government is bad and anything the government does is bad. It's a fact free ideology and one that I'm looking forward to see losing more and more power over time.
I'm saying that the liberal ideals of infrastructure and education are antiquated. Bridges and high-speed rail don't power a services based economy. Investment in internet infrastructure, modernizing our power grid, etc. do.
Obama claimed he'd throw money into shovel ready jobs. Roosevelt did and we are still benefitting from his programs. Obama... not so much.
"Those shovel ready jobs, weren't so shovel ready" - Obama
The truth is, there were plenty of shovel ready jobs. It was Obama, and the Obama money bunch that weren't ready to create and fill them.
This is an extremely deceptive way to phrase something. Investment in infrastructure is essential to bring an economy from a developing status to an emerging status, however does little to nothing in terms of bringing countries from an emerging status to developed. The worldbank does not use the exact terms 'developing' vs 'emerging', but rather uses four income groups, based on gross national income / capita. Infrastructure spending helps countries move from group 1 to the low end of group 3 in terms of GNI/Capita, however government spending does little to nothing to move countries from group 3 to group 4. That move to get GNI/cap from $4k to above the $12k is really only accomplished by capitalistic systems. It is also interesting to note that many group 1 countries (african in particular) are moving higher in terms of GNI/capita solely from charitable spending instead of government interaction.
- Group 1: $1,025 or less
- Group 2: $1,026 to $4,035
- Group 3: $4,036 to $12,475
- Group 4: $12,476 or more
As usual, the real answer is more complex than the blindly partisan liberal or conservative wants to admit.
What is extremely deceptive? You went off on a tangent with the world bank. I didn't say that government spending will move anything. This has nothing to do with liberalism.
I didn't say anything about charity pro or against. By the way who is against charity and thinks it does nothing to help. I give to charities. So I don't get your point.
I wrote that our history shows that government spending in building infrastructure helped lead to economic booms. This is objective American history. Either you dispute this or you don't.
I'm saying that the liberal ideals of infrastructure and education are antiquated. Bridges and high-speed rail don't power a services based economy. Investment in internet infrastructure, modernizing our power grid, etc. do.
Bridges still play a huge and vital role in our economy. I'm glad to see that you have come around to our public investment in technology.
Yup. I like to read conservative and liberal economists to get a wide range of views. The problem right now is that the GOP doesn't even listen to conservative economists. They operate on an ideology that believes all government is bad and anything the government does is bad. It's a fact free ideology and one that I'm looking forward to see losing more and more power over time.
So, if I'm reading this correctly; you either want a one party government, or for Republicans to become liberal.
I'd like to see libertarians gobble up the disenfranchised moderates from both parties. Then we'd get the best of both sides working together for the common good, Constitutionally.
Yup. I like to read conservative and liberal economists to get a wide range of views. The problem right now is that the GOP doesn't even listen to conservative economists. They operate on an ideology that believes all government is bad and anything the government does is bad. It's a fact free ideology and one that I'm looking forward to see losing more and more power over time.
It is very disturbing because there is no way to have a debate with someone who will ignore history and reality. We have a history that shows that these public investments helped this nation advance economically.
This isn't an ideological reading of history, but objective reality and even conservative economists accept this.
I don't know where conservatism is going, but it is getting more and more anti-American and untethered from reality.
We had the world you are describing. It didn't work.
Please show me the nation in which these things weren't publicly funded? This is a simple question.
Globally, infrastructure mutual funds are a $20B+ industry. A great deal isn't publicly funded.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iamme73
What is extremely deceptive? You went off on a tangent with the world bank. I didn't say that government spending will move anything. This has nothing to do with liberalism.
I didn't say anything about charity pro or against. By the way who is against charity and thinks it does nothing to help. I give to charities. So I don't get your point.
I wrote that our history shows that government spending in building infrastructure helped lead to economic booms. This is objective American history. Either you dispute this or you don't.
I hardly went on a tangent. I am trying to get you to understand that it is not a one-or-the-other comparison. Investment in infrastructure plays an important part in a very specific part of a country's development, and has historically been something heavily covered by a public sector. This has changed dramatically starting in the early 1990's when private infrastructure mutual funds began to be a viable investment vehicle.
The fact that you think I went on a 'tangent' shows how little you know about this.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
