Could Significantly Upping Defense Spending Help the Economy Recover?

[CAC1001]

So I've been thinking, many on the left say we need massive economic fiscal stimulus to recover the economy. They say the reason fiscal stimulus hasn't worked in the past is not enough money spent.

However, they say WWII represents a time when the nation finally did spend the massive amount needed. Also the Reagan recovery. I know Republicans point to things like Reagan's tax cuts and deregulation, but Reagan also upped defense spending significantly. So could Reagan inadverdently have given a Keynesian-style economic push to the U.S. economy as well?

One thing I have been reading on military forums (I do not have any official source on this however) is that a major problem with the U.S. military's vehicles, such as Humvees for example, is that:

1) They were never meant to be driven the distances they have been used in Iraq and Afghanistan

2) They were never meant to be fitted with all that armor they have tacked onto them, which strains the engines and transmissions and causes blown transmissions, parts wear out far faster, etc...basically a lot of the military's equipment, or at least the Army and the Marine Corps's, is getting very worn out far faster than was ever intended.

Now Paul Krugman wrote an article in the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/glogin?URI=http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/28/opinion/28krugman.html&OQ=_rQ3D1&OP=298494f8Q2FQ5D3vwQ5DFQ3EQ60LGQ3EQ3EHWQ5DW)Q24)Q5D)Q2AQ5DWQ5EQ5DQ3EXdKdQ3EKQ5DWQ5E5GAEkCK@Q23Hko - you'll need an account there to read it though), discussing how he thinks we are on the verge of another depression, and that the worst thing to do now is cut spending, and he laments that is what Europe wants and what seems will start happening in America.

He says that yes, Greece is a major example of what happens with long-term deficits and debts, but in times of economic crisis, short-term deficit spending is good.

So my question is, would not upping defense spending a good deal be perfect for this scenario? Think about it:

1) It seems to have really worked at creating jobs in the past (WWII, Ronald Reagan)

2) Assuming the military's vehicles are worn out, the military, in particular the Army and Marine Corps, could really use it to a degree (new vehicles, like Humvees).

3) It would be short-term. Unlike stimulus spending that goes into bloated state bureaucracies or feeding demands of public employees unions or entitlement programs certain people in government want to create (which are impossible to end once began), you spend a bunch of money to replace worn out military hardware with brand-new military hardware, and then once done, you have no problem drawing down spending.

I am sure you'd have to fight to even sustain it for the length one might feel is needed. You just make sure the new vehicles will not require any substantially higher defense budget once replaced (if anything, if they have new parts that are easier to maintain, the budget might be able to be a bit less).

But for example if building the Air Force all the F-22s it wants would mean a substantially higher budget for the Air Force to maintain the F-22s, then one would probably need to be careful there I'd think (I have no clue if the F-22 is cheaper or more expensive to maintain then the F-16s and F-15s).

So such deficit spending on defense would be a short-term form of deficit spending, just as the Keynesians want, according to them it has worked in the past (WWII) (I can't imagine how it would not create lots of real jobs), and the military likely needs it right now (correct me if wrong).

What say you people?

 

[russ_watters]

I doubt many democrats would admit it, but if the goal is economic stimulus, defense spending is in many ways superior to the stimulus spending we just had. Here's three ways:

First, a substantial fraction of stimulus spending on renewable energy is going to foreing companies. This link says 79%: http://www.statesman.com/business/senators-focus-on-texas-wind-farm-in-criticizing-315293.html For defense spending, the vast majority would be domestic.

Next, the quality of the jobs produced by defense spending is substantially higher than in many forms of stimulus spending such as road work. Those funds paid for an extremely large increase in extremely low-end jobs that workers are overpaid for, for a very short time. It's just fluff - spending for the sake of spending with no long-term benefit for the workers. Defense spending creates high-end jobs with long-term needs.

And third, defense spending helps buoy our beleagured industrial base.

All that said, I'd still prefer no stimulus over defense-based stimulus.

 

[Office_Shredder]

How many shot-in-arms does it take before we really have an economic IV?

 

[CAC1001]

russ, When you say defense spending creates high-end jobs with long-term needs, do you mean in that after the defense spending gets scaled back down, those people then can leave the defense industry and go into other technology industries that will need those skills? Whereas with something like roadwork, once done, the labor can't find other jobs because it is fairly low-skilled work?

 

[TubbaBlubba]

Uh... How about spending it on something useful instead? Stem cell research? Waste handling? Recycling? Renewable energy? God forbid, health care?

I mean, in the end, the idea must be to encourage production of something useful, right?

 

[drankin]

russ, When you say defense spending creates high-end jobs with long-term needs, do you mean in that after the defense spending gets scaled back down, those people then can leave the defense industry and go into other technology industries that will need those skills? Whereas with something like roadwork, once done, the labor can't find other jobs because it is fairly low-skilled work?

Not answering for Russ.

Myself, having been in the construction industry and now being involved in the defense industry (as well as commercial), I'd say absolutely. Having experience in military contracts requires a higher skillset due to higher standards of manufacturing that is transferable to positions in commercial industries that pay more than construction industries.

 

[CAC1001]

Uh... How about spending it on something useful instead? Stem cell research?

The idea is to create jobs on a large scale, I don't think that would quite do it.

Waste handling? Recycling?

How will spending money on waste-handling or recycling stimulate the economy?

Renewable energy?

The technology doesn't exist yet.

God forbid, health care?

It's to be temporary spending, healthcare is permanent spending. Also, healthcare spending isn't going to create jobs as I see it. Finally, people could afford to buy their own healthcare fine if government would apply some of the means to fix the private-sector healthcare system I'd think.

I mean, in the end, the idea must be to encourage production of something useful, right?

How is providing for the national defense not useful?

 

[apeiron]

Uh... How about spending it on something useful instead? Stem cell research? Waste handling? Recycling? Renewable energy? God forbid, health care?

Hah, the DoD healthcare budget is $50 billion and rising - about a tenth its base budget.

But you are right about the crazy thought processes here. The US already spends nearly as much as the rest of the world combined on military stuff (43%) and over six times its closest rival, China. So what the US really needs is more guns rather than better schools, better childcare, better all the other things that make the future worth caring about.

 

[Jack21222]

How is providing for the national defense not useful?

I don't think debates work that way. You need to prove how it IS useful, because it's not readily apparent.

The United States already spends a tremendous amount of money on the military. Nearly as much as the entire rest of the world combined.

I argue that the law of diminishing returns applies to military spending. Now, it's your turn to explain how that extra money IS useful. You've mentioned replacing the Humvees, but that won't be "significantly upping defense spending." In fact, you could replace the Humvees and simultaneously DECREASE defense spending by cutting out waste, closing down bases, and taking a less aggressive posture in the world.

The idea is to create jobs on a large scale, I don't think that would quite do it.

I think the list was intended to include all of the items in the list, not just one. You picked out one and said "doing this alone won't quite do it." However, that's a straw man, the poster never said "do stem cell research and nothing but."

How will spending money on waste-handling or recycling stimulate the economy?

In the same EXACT manner military spending would. It creates jobs.

The technology doesn't exist yet.

Nuclear energy doesn't exist yet? Solar power doesn't exist yet? Wind energy doesn't exist yet? Can you please explain what you meant by "the technology doesn't exist yet?"

 

[Phrak]

Uh... How about spending it on something useful instead? Stem cell research? Waste handling? Recycling? Renewable energy? God forbid, health care?

I mean, in the end, the idea must be to encourage production of something useful, right?

You've got the right idea. But who is doing the spending of whos labors and who gets the the stuff they want? You're items are not high on anyone's list for personal economic improvement beyond those who are selling these particular goods.

I see voodoo economics from the right and the left of the political spectrum here, as if daddy DC know better than I do what is best for my enhanced economic well-being.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

You've got the right idea. But who is doing the spending of whos labors and who gets the the stuff they want? You're items are not high on anyone's list for personal economic improvement beyond those who are selling these particular goods.

I see voodoo economics from the right and the left of the political spectrum here, as if daddy DC know better than I do what is best for my enhanced economic well-being.

Well, what does the US need? I doubt it's food. Education? Sure. But not more guns.

 

[Phrak]

Well, what does the US need? I doubt it's food. Education? Sure. But not more guns.

Education?? Education is a leverage over others competing for goods. In and of itself it has no value. And the majority is garbage.

Now, "guns" have value. Russ calls it defense. The value for individuals within the US is not though defense (The Canadians will not be invading anytime soon.), but through both economic intimidation and military conquest of resources. Not a very altuistic answer, but there is it.

 

[russ_watters]

russ, When you say defense spending creates high-end jobs with long-term needs, do you mean in that after the defense spending gets scaled back down, those people then can leave the defense industry and go into other technology industries that will need those skills? Whereas with something like roadwork, once done, the labor can't find other jobs because it is fairly low-skilled work?

I'll give an example: I've heard that keeping up a skilled workforce and capacity is a significant problem for an aerospace company. So if the govt buys C-17s during a time when 747 orders are down, it enables Boeing to keep its skilled workfore, save downsizing/hiring/retraining costs, prevents them from having to mothball and reopen a factory and provides profit they can use to keep developing the 787.

A flagger on a paving project doesn't need training so
he can be rehired whenever, but stimulus funding isn't bridging a gap, it is creating a unique need that is gone once the stimulus has ended. And at least with Boeing of the 787 is a flop, those workers are positioned well for other manufacturing jobs. A flagger on a road crew has gained only money.

 

[russ_watters]

Also - the question of whether military spending is or isn't a good idea in the geopolitical sense isn't relevant to whether it provides a good stimulus benefit.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

Also - the question of whether military spending is or isn't a good idea in the geopolitical sense isn't relevant to whether it provides a good stimulus benefit.

It is, however, relevant to whether upping defense spending would be a good idea. You can't ignore an aspect just because it works against you.

 

[russ_watters]

Another area of defense spending that would dovetail nicely with stimulus goals is construction. Many of the military facilities I've seen are in dismal shape and upgrading or replacing them could reduce energy, improve living conditions and provide a bridge for construction companies until the market comes back.

Btw, it is called "defense" spending because that's the name of the department.

 

[CAC1001]

I don't think debates work that way. You need to prove how it IS useful, because it's not readily apparent.

It is useful in that it provides the nation with the ability to defend itself, maintain global order, keep the sea lanes open, project force (like if you need to invade a country), and send aid to where it is needed in times of crises around the world.

The United States already spends a tremendous amount of money on the military. Nearly as much as the entire rest of the world combined.

It isn't so much that the U.S. spends so much as everyone else spends so little and we carry much of the burden.

I argue that the law of diminishing returns applies to military spending. Now, it's your turn to explain how that extra money IS useful. You've mentioned replacing the Humvees, but that won't be "significantly upping defense spending." In fact, you could replace the Humvees and simultaneously DECREASE defense spending by cutting out waste, closing down bases, and taking a less aggressive posture in the world.

Humvee fleet, F-22s, tanks, etc...I don't know exactly what to spend it on, the basis of my question was simply whether upping defense spending for replacing legitimate hardware is needed. I'm not talking about upping it for various pie-in-the-sky proects that would take years, the idea for stimulus is you can draw down the defense spending again after awhile.

I think the list was intended to include all of the items in the list, not just one. You picked out one and said "doing this alone won't quite do it." However, that's a straw man, the poster never said "do stem cell research and nothing but."

For that part, I intentionally meant only stem cell research. I do not see how stem cell research will create jobs to grow the economy.

In the same EXACT manner military spending would. It creates jobs.

In what manner? What technical skills or manufacturing are needed for waste-handling or recycling that compare with what defense spending entails? Not understanding here

Nuclear energy doesn't exist yet? Solar power doesn't exist yet? Wind energy doesn't exist yet? Can you please explain what you meant by "the technology doesn't exist yet?"

I meant no viable alternative exists yet.

Nuclear energy is not going to create any immediate jobs. You run into all sorts of rules, laws, regulations, etc...just to build a nuclear plant. It takes years (over a decade I think) to get a nuclear plant constructed.

As for solar power, wind power, etc...those are technologies that are not viable right now. They only exist to the degree that they do due to heavy subsidies and make up a tiny fraction of the power base. Plus wind turbines kill birds. You aren't going to create any significant number of jobs with these technologies, they will not make much of any dent on the nation's power supply, and if anything you'd have to force them on people who do not want them.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Of course we should and will spend on defense what is necessary. What I understand you to mean is that we should spend more on defense than necessary. This works so well for the North Koreans, why not for the US.

 

[CAC1001]

Another area of defense spending that would dovetail nicely with stimulus goals is construction. Many of the military facilities I've seen are in dismal shape and upgrading or replacing them could reduce energy, improve living conditions and provide a bridge for construction companies until the market comes back.

Btw, it is called "defense" spending because that's the name of the department.

I agree on construction being helpful, but wouldn't construction be very similar to if we also created a bunch of infrastructure projects? Japan did a lot of infrastructure work, but it didn't seem to stimulate their economy much.

 

[CAC1001]

Of course we should and will spend on defense what is necessary. What I understand you to mean is that we should spend more on defense than necessary. This works so well for the North Koreans, why not for the US.

No no, I am saying we should spend more on defense (or certain areas of defense) because it is probably necessary anyhow due to the wars, which have led to the vehicle fleets and equipment being used up far more than they were intended to. Also the Air Force's aircraft fleet is aging.

So if it would provide good stimulus for the economy, why not do things like build a lot of the F-22s the Air Force wants, replace the Marine Corps M1A1 Abrams tanks with the newer M1A2s, replace the entire Humvee fleet with brand-new Humvees, replace the current gas-turbine in the Abrams tanks in both the Army and Marine Corps with the smaller, newer design gas turbine that has been offered for years, build new aircraft for the Navy where it needs them, any other types of vehicles the Army and Marines need, build them new ones if needed, build the Coast Guard a bunch of new boats and ships as they use some really old equipment, etc...basically burn a bunch of money on building all this hardware, create a bunch of jobs in the process, and then once complete, you (theoretically) have stimulated the economy and you can now draw down the spending back to the levels previously.

You only had to up spending to build/buy the new hardware, but once the military has said hardware, it's back to the usual budget to use and maintain what they have.

 

[Jack21222]

those are technologies that are not viable right now. They only exist to the degree that they do due to heavy subsidies

And the military is 100% subsidized. Do you really want to go down that road?

So if it would provide good stimulus for the economy, why not do things like build a lot of the F-22s the Air Force wants, replace the Marine Corps M1A1 Abrams tanks with the newer M1A2s, replace the entire Humvee fleet with brand-new Humvees, replace the current gas-turbine in the Abrams tanks in both the Army and Marine Corps with the smaller, newer design gas turbine that has been offered for years, build new aircraft for the Navy where it needs them, any other types of vehicles the Army and Marines need, build them new ones if needed, build the Coast Guard a bunch of new boats and ships as they use some really old equipment, etc

Please demonstrate this "need" for new equipment.

...basically burn a bunch of money on building all this hardware, create a bunch of jobs in the process, and then once complete, you (theoretically) have stimulated the economy and you can now draw down the spending back to the levels previously.

You can do the same for the energy industry. If you're just looking to "burn money" to create jobs, then you're not allowed to complain about "heavy subsidies" for cleaner energy sources.

 

[russ_watters]

It is, however, relevant to whether upping defense spending would be a good idea.

that really depends on why you are doing it. The government funds worthless projects purely for the economic benefit all the time. That's basically what "pork" is.

Anyway, since your objection is based purely on a philosophical objection to the military itself can I safely conclude that you agree that the economic benefit of military spending is real?

 

[apeiron]

Anyway, since your objection is based purely on a philosophical objection to the military itself can I safely conclude that you agree that the economic benefit of military spending is real?

There is a large literature on the guns vs butter debate and it would be fair to say that the answer for most countries is usually that such spending is a negative as it crowds out other valuing creating activities. The US is a country where military spending has the best chance of being a positive - except that it is already such a big spender that shovelling in extra dollars may produce diminishing returns.

http://carecon.org.uk/DPs/0902.pdf

Phrak was honest in saying the US could benefit from even more guns as it will bolster its ability to take resources from others.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/14/world/asia/14minerals.html

But rather than draining the last of the middle east oil, a crash research and construction programme in alternative energy projects would seem to be a better idea. Plenty of spin-off and hi tech job potential here. Or do you deny that?

Germany for example is way ahead of US on wind turbine technology and so is cornering that world market. China is pushing hard on PV. France and Russia are beating US on nuclear reactor contracts.

And when it comes to "philosophy", it does strike an odd note when people carp about state hand-outs to the undeserving, and yet think it would be great to support a major corporate like Boeing through a lean patch.

Same with the bank bail-outs. Free market philosophisers quickly change their tune when free market participants are deemed "to big to fail".

If society must provide a safety net at one end of the scale, then how can there be any complaint that it also provides one at the other?

 

[CAC1001]

And the military is 100% subsidized. Do you really want to go down that road?

The military is not subsidized, as it is not a business.

And the government does not subsidize the military contractors. Military contractors are dependent on the government for contracts, sure, but they must compete with one another and strive to earn a profit just like every other private-sector corporations. The technology they need is viable and works and the government buys it because it fulfills their needs.

Alternative energy sources are not viable. Solar power, wind power, etc...cannot compete with the likes of coal, oil, natural gas, etc...for our energy needs at the moment because they just are not reliable enough or viable forms of energy.

Please demonstrate this "need" for new equipment.

I am no expert, but I am sure there are plenty of them. The Marines, they always operate with old equipment. During the original Gulf War, they went into Iraq with M60 tanks for example (although they also had some M1 Abrams). Today they have the older M1A1 models while the Army has the M1A2, soon the M1A3. And many of their aircraft are old. I believe they still use the old Harrier jump jet aircraft as well.

There is a smaller, more simpler-to-maintain variant of the gas-turbine the Abrams tank uses, that has been offered, but the Army hasn't bought it so far (I am guessing because of the money it would take to buy engines for the whole tank fleet and then replace the older engine with the new).

The Humvees as said could use replacing. The Coast Guard is reknowned for operating with old boats and ships, so one could buy them a bunch of new stuff.

Again, my main point was in a time of recession, when certain economists want government spending to create stimulus for the economy, when the nation is fighting wars (and will be for some time), the equipment could use replacing, and historically it does seem defense spending stimulates, why not?

You can do the same for the energy industry. If you're just looking to "burn money" to create jobs, then you're not allowed to complain about "heavy subsidies" for cleaner energy sources.

You could construct a lot of coal plants and engage in more domestic oil drilling I am sure, which I bet would create quite a few jobs (and tax revenue), and make us less dependent on foreigners for oil longer-term. Plus energy needs are increasing. Blowing money on alternative energy sources like wind and solar just is not going to create the same degree of jobs, as it is too small a portion of the energy supply, and in the end the technology isn't very useful.

A problem with the coal plants, oil drilling, or wind farms, solar panels, etc...all of them, is you might have to force them on people. You'd only be able to do stuff that's pre-approved to get jobs quickly.

 

[CAC1001]

There is a large literature on the guns vs butter debate and it would be fair to say that the answer for most countries is usually that such spending is a negative as it crowds out other valuing creating activities. The US is a country where military spending has the best chance of being a positive - except that it is already such a big spender that shovelling in extra dollars may produce diminishing returns.

Shoving in extra dollars I'd say produces diminishing returns if you start going for a bunch of pie-in-the-sky projects that are not needed. Like say designing a whole new battle tank that is a world's above the Abrams. Could we do it? Sure. Should we? I don't see why, I mean what's the need, the Abrams is already one of the best tanks in the world, and we aren't competing in the Cold War or anything.

Phrak was honest in saying the US could benefit from even more guns as it will bolster its ability to take resources from others.

The U.S. doesn't take resources from others though. That's countries like Russia.

But rather than draining the last of the middle east oil, a crash research and construction programme in alternative energy projects would seem to be a better idea. Plenty of spin-off and hi tech job potential here. Or do you deny that?

Many people say, "We put a man on the Moon, why can't we create viable alternative energy sources?"

Well the reason is just that the tech doesn't exist right now. No one knows how to do it. It's like cancer or AIDS. We've been researching them for decades, but no one has any 100% cure or prevention for cancer or AIDS.

Germany for example is way ahead of US on wind turbine technology and so is cornering that world market. China is pushing hard on PV. France and Russia are beating US on nuclear reactor contracts.

If these technologies become profitable and viable, big (and small) companies in the U.S. will enter into the market and begin competing.

And when it comes to "philosophy", it does strike an odd note when people carp about state hand-outs to the undeserving, and yet think it would be great to support a major corporate like Boeing through a lean patch.

State handouts to those who don't work is different then redistributing tax money to corporations to have them build the hardware needed for the nation to protect itself. Welfare for said big companies is if you give them contracts for projects that aren't needed (or direct subsidies).

Same with the bank bail-outs. Free market philosophisers quickly change their tune when free market participants are deemed "to big to fail".

The radical free-market types were against the bail-out, on the belief that no matter what, you let them fail. Others who hold the view that the free-market isn't perfect, and can have flaws, and can fail occasionally, you may occassionally need a bailout if it's the financial system.

Also remember the free-market didn't exactly lead to the collapse of Wall Street, a good contributor to that was Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, government-sponsored corporations (GSEs) which free-market types don't like.

If society must provide a safety net at one end of the scale, then how can there be any complaint that it also provides one at the other?

Remember a social safety net is different than a social welfare state.

 

[apeiron]

Many people say, "We put a man on the Moon, why can't we create viable alternative energy sources?"

Well the reason is just that the tech doesn't exist right now. No one knows how to do it. It's like cancer or AIDS. We've been researching them for decades, but no one has any 100% cure or prevention for cancer or AIDS.

You are talking such nonsense its not worth responding.

Of course the technology exists.

Yes, it needs refinement. And it is a disgrace a rich country like the US is not pulling its weight here.

And as for "financial viability", fossil fuels only look cheap because of the way we account for their costs. They certainly were cheap last century even after social and environmental costs were factored in. But this century, quite a different story.

I wonder if you will be singing the same tune in a few years when oil is constrained, ordinary citizens and their SUVs are being rationed, and the good stuff is being held back for fighter jets burning kerosene at a gallon a second.

 

[CAC1001]

You are talking such nonsense its not worth responding.

Of course the technology exists.

It does? I don't know of anyone who can power a city with solar panels or a windfarm.

Yes, it needs refinement. And it is a disgrace a rich country like the US is not pulling its weight here.

I think it needs something revolutionary. It needs an advancement similar to what the microchip did for the computer. Alternative energy right now is kind of like the computer in the 1940s and 1950s. A great idea, but "refinement" won't cut it, it has tremendous potential to reform the nation if we can revolutionize it. The microchip did that for the computer.

And as for "financial viability", fossil fuels only look cheap because of the way we account for their costs. They certainly were cheap last century even after social and environmental costs were factored in. But this century, quite a different story.

Fossil fuels are cheap because they contain extremely high amounts of energy and are easy to transport as well.

I wonder if you will be singing the same tune in a few years when oil is constrained, ordinary citizens and their SUVs are being rationed, and the good stuff is being held back for fighter jets burning kerosene at a gallon a second.

Why will oil be constrained and what do you mean the government will ration ordinary citizens?

 

[turbo]

Btw, it is called "defense" spending because that's the name of the department.

IMO, it ought to be changed back to the Department of War, because we have had precious little need for defense for a long time.

I'd like to see stimulus money directed toward improving our infrastructure. We have interstates, bridges, secondary roads that are the veins and arteries of our commerce, and they are in pitiful condition. Some people look at infrastructure projects and see short-term jobs. I look at them and see crane-operators, concrete specialists, etc that can have years of productive employment. Nay-sayers like to highlight the short-term jobs like paving and painting the finished projects, but building heavy infrastructure can often take years. Bridges and overpasses don't get thrown up overnight. Best of all, they don't get "consumed" half-way around the world like smart bombs and drones.

 

[DnD Addict]

IMO, it ought to be changed back to the Department of War, because we have had precious little need for defense for a long time.

I'd like to see stimulus money directed toward improving our infrastructure. We have interstates, bridges, secondary roads that are the veins and arteries of our commerce, and they are in pitiful condition. Some people look at infrastructure projects and see short-term jobs. I look at them and see crane-operators, concrete specialists, etc that can have years of productive employment. Nay-sayers like to highlight the short-term jobs like paving and painting the finished projects, but building heavy infrastructure can often take years. Bridges and overpasses don't get thrown up overnight. Best of all, they don't get "consumed" half-way around the world like smart bombs and drones.

Why is it always roads&bridges that get all the attention? There is all sorts of different sectors that fall under "US Infrastructure" that has nothing to do with automobiles.

 

[Office_Shredder]

Visibility. People don't spend all day thinking "jeez, that old pipe under Main street needs resealing" because they don't see that pipe three times a day

 

[turbo]

Why is it always roads&bridges that get all the attention? There is all sorts of different sectors that fall under "US Infrastructure" that has nothing to do with automobiles.

They get mentioned because they are critical to our economy. The US has practically abandoned public transportation for anything outside of cities and hubs and a couple of critical corridors, so we need to maintain and upgrade highway infrastructure. For instance, Maine desperately needs a robust east-west corridor. We have trading partners in NB and PQ that end up running heavy loads over secondary roads like Route 9 and Route 2. Original roads here were built along river valleys, which run generally N-S. An E-W corridor, continued through NH and VT and connecting with highways in the Hudson valley and the St.Lawrence valley would make shipping and trading FAR more efficient, so siting industries like quarries, kilns, sawmills, etc would be more viable and produce more long-term jobs out here in the boonies.

 

[Char. Limit]

Why will oil be constrained and what do you mean the government will ration ordinary citizens?

Well, the thing about non-renewable energy is that it's not renewable. Oil will run out. And at the rate we're gulping it down, which is only showing signs of increase, it's going to run out soon. Now, when people go to the gas stations across America, only to hear "Sorry, we have no gasoline, you greedy people went through the world's reserves too fast", the government will have to start rationing oil, keeping it for their fighter jets and tanks. For the national defense, I'm sure you understand. Sacrifice everything for the military and all that.

And here's some links to support my argument:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/warning-oil-supplies-are-running-out-fast-1766585.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2010/feb/10/oil-crunch-peril
http://www.countercurrents.org/porter090110.htm

That'll do for now, a quick Google search will find others.

 

[CAC1001]

They get mentioned because they are critical to our economy. The US has practically abandoned public transportation for anything outside of cities and hubs and a couple of critical corridors, so we need to maintain and upgrade highway infrastructure. For instance, Maine desperately needs a robust east-west corridor. We have trading partners in NB and PQ that end up running heavy loads over secondary roads like Route 9 and Route 2. Original roads here were built along river valleys, which run generally N-S. An E-W corridor, continued through NH and VT and connecting with highways in the Hudson valley and the St.Lawrence valley would make shipping and trading FAR more efficient, so siting industries like quarries, kilns, sawmills, etc would be more viable and produce more long-term jobs out here in the boonies.

The only problems I can see with working on infrastructure are:

1) Possible eminent domain problems for building new highways (?)

2) Environmental regulations getting in the way (how will building this new highway through said area affect it?)

3) Corrupt contractors who decide to stretch the construction period out as long as possible (I heard there's one highway where they've been working on the construction like twenty years or something!?)

 

[CAC1001]

Well, the thing about non-renewable energy is that it's not renewable. Oil will run out. And at the rate we're gulping it down, which is only showing signs of increase, it's going to run out soon. Now, when people go to the gas stations across America, only to hear "Sorry, we have no gasoline, you greedy people went through the world's reserves too fast", the government will have to start rationing oil, keeping it for their fighter jets and tanks. For the national defense, I'm sure you understand. Sacrifice everything for the military and all that.

And here's some links to support my argument:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/warning-oil-supplies-are-running-out-fast-1766585.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2010/feb/10/oil-crunch-peril
http://www.countercurrents.org/porter090110.htm

That'll do for now, a quick Google search will find others.

Well sure plenty have been saying that, but people have been claiming this for years. I am no expert, but the subject of peak oil is a complex one that involves many variables. For example, I think scientists right now say there are about three trillion recoverable barrels of petroleum out there, and so far we've taken around one trillion. Some believe there could be as much as ten trillion out there.

But even if there's about three trillion, there's issues like technology, economic growth, etc...that come into play.

Then there's natural gas, there's shale oil and tar sands (which are expensive and difficult to get to, but I am sure in time the technology, especially if necessary, would make it easier and more profitable, and if petroleum ever does start coming in shorter supply, it's increasing price will make shale and tar sands profitable).

There's also coal. The United States alone is a Saudi Arabia of coal, and you can convert coal into oil.

So I highly doubt fossil fuels will run out soon, although finding a replacement to significantly reduce our usage of them is something we very much want to do. But the fact is that solar and wind power just are not going to do it right now.

 

[turbo]

The only problems I can see with working on infrastructure are:

1) Possible eminent domain problems for building new highways (?)

2) Environmental regulations getting in the way (how will building this new highway through said area affect it?)

3) Corrupt contractors who decide to stretch the construction period out as long as possible (I heard there's one highway where they've been working on the construction like twenty years or something!?)

Please give some decent documentation for claim 3). I doubt that you can substantiate it.