Lawmakers did a good thing by passing a bi-partisan infrastructure plan to increase the economy and improve upon the overall development our our economic platforms. More bi-partisan activities will be needed at some point as our system becomes increasingly digitizes and legislation/government seeks to catch up to the changes (Yep! The digital world doesn't fit well into prior systems). When we pass solid legislation we create net positives where business interests, labor needs, and government wins through increased economic activity.
It should be remembered that one of the benefits of infrastructure investments is that it increases efficiency of transactions for commerce and improves transference of ideas. For example, having a new port may allow for stronger import/export servicing of Great Lakes industries improves the cost/profitability of shipping as well as raises the prospects of future commerce in the region (as other companies seek to compete). See Delta County Shipping.
Our government and business leaders will want to create as many net positives as possible as we seek to navigate a new Information Era (think digital renaissance). Government shouldn't be thought of as spending but as the management of a larger economic system where resources (inputs and outputs) must be managed in a way that the system continues to improve.
This is one of the reasons why I support developing clusters where specific industries must innovate to solve problems and in turn create larger net positives throughout the economic supply chain (beyond the initial products they develop). Locating the R&D of companies into the same proximal physical and digital space allows for stronger innovation of those participating industries because they share resources (i.e. banking, resources, information, ideas, etc...) See Transactional Cluster Theory.
(I'm starting to like CNBC because they put some solid articles together that seem to contain beneficial information. No need to rewrite. The only thing I will say is it would be nice if news agencies linked out to the actual government reports Yikes! I'm lazy like a lot of people 🤯). See CNBC Infrastructure Article.
What you do notice is that we don't have great metrics on how infrastructure improves business functioning and that in turn creates other things like taxes (that pays for improving our environment, roads, public health, etc...). Its not that we don't have the ability to calculate it but that government is often behind the 8 ball on emerging statistical systems. If we can't measure more accurately we won't know how much should be funneled back into the system (i.e. Great Lakes, infrastructure, etc...) to keep them developing and growing so the next generation has even more value (versus the old model of depleting resources. We are out of the "conquer the wilderness" mindset and should look to improving our environment, increasing performance/efficiency and what is beyond our atmosphere.) See Perpetual Sustainable Development Model.
Key Points from the Wharton's School of Business publication 'BIPARTISAN SENATE INFRASTRUCTURE DEAL: BUDGETARY AND ECONOMIC EFFECTS'
A bipartisan group of senators reached agreement with the White House on $1.2 trillion in infrastructure spending, representing a $579 billion increase from the current policy baseline.
That new spending would be financed with a mix of additional deficits (relative to current policy), user fees, and other tax provisions.
PWBM estimates that the proposal would decrease debt by 0.9 percent and increase output by 0.1 percent in 2050.
There is podcast one of the researchers did on the topic. See Podcast Economics
You may also take a look at White House Infrastructure Fact Sheet.
No comments:
Post a Comment