Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (103149)	2/4/2009 8:22:39 PM
From: Sam	Respond to of 544137

The cost to create them was counted as part of the GDP. Measuring the GDP, and then the infrastructure value, double counts the economic activity. I'm not "double counting" anything. Of course it was part the economic activity. An important part of the economic activity, both then and later. Infrastructure spending (depending on how exactly you define it), has been higher in real terms in recent decades than in the 30s. I'm glad you added "(depending on how exactly you define it)". We had better have more infrastructure spending today than in the '30s. We have, for example, a great deal of communications and electrical infrastructure that didn't exist in the '30s, although other more stodgey utilities like water have been comparatively neglected in many cities. We are a much larger and wealthier country now, with almost 300,000,000 people now compared with 132,000,000 people in 1940. Overall you had essentially no growth through almost the entire decade. To say that ignores the huge dip between 1929 and 1933. There was plenty of growth between 1933 and 1937. But I am beating a dead horse here, we just keep repeating the same point over and over. Last time for me.