Obama's investment strategy
As a short addendum to my previous post, and to indicate exactly why Obama is not going to address the fundamental problems facing America — and the wider world — this article over at the BBC contains a revealing quotation from the man himself.
Now, let me preface this by pointing out that his plan for massive government investment in infrastructure projects is a sound one. The problem comes when you analyse the type of projects he wants to invest in.
We’ll invest your precious tax dollars in new and smarter ways, and we’ll set a simple rule — use it or lose it. If a state doesn’t act quickly to invest in roads and bridges in their communities, they’ll lose the money.
“New and smarter”. “Roads and bridges”.
Because that’s what America needs in an era of decreasing oil availability. More roads.
I only hope he was being metaphorical. But he wasn’t, was he…?
December 8th, 2008 | 1:53pm
by Dave P.
Having since checked out the full text of his statement, it was heartening that he did at least mention “upgrading local public transport infrastructure”. But that wasn’t exactly emphasised. Whereas there was much talk of investing in roads. Now, I’m kind of assuming (hoping!) that he was talking about the upgrade and maintenance of existing roads. Still a massive waste of resources, of course, but better than a huge new road-building program.
I guess we’ll have to wait and see. So far there’s been plenty of rhetoric and very little fine detail.
What’s that you say? “Politics as usual”? Oh, don’t be so cynical…
December 8th, 2008 | 2:09pm
by Jim Bliss
Hmmm, as a fanatical cyclist I’m all for the ‘upgrade and maintenance of existing roads’. Preferably using recycled materials of course… I hear runways are made of good quality material.
December 9th, 2008 | 3:33pm
by Dave P.
Well, if we took most of the cars off the roads and turned them over to public transport, emergency vehicles and bikes then they’d need far less maintenance in the long-run. Also, “upgrading roads” tends to translate into “widening” them which — unless you’ve put on a hell of a lot of weight since last we hung out — probably isn’t a priority.
December 9th, 2008 | 7:28pm
by Jim Bliss
Railroads?
December 14th, 2008 | 3:34pm
by Neil
Obviously taking as many cars off the roads as possible is a good thing but the truth of the matter is that the vast majority of road damage/wear requiring maintenence is caused by HGVs and buses and buses are the only viable form of public transport I’m aware of that use roads. The congestion charge in the city of London has done nothing to reduce the wear on the roads as the actual tonnage of vehicles going through the city appears, at least to me, to have increased. (Add to that the difficulty of cycling in and amongst buses and I’d dare to say that cycling in the city is now more dangerous than it was before. At least you can see over cars). Ho hum, everyone should be on bikes anyway!
Sorry Neil, I don’t think that’s what Obama was referring to. As the US rail network is fully privatised it’s unlikely to be the target of any federal spending. And they’re called railways in proper English!
December 14th, 2008 | 6:35pm
by Dave P.