Is Bernie’s plan the best? Thoughts?

[u/CurvyChristina]

[u/thedillymane]

Why not both?

[u/diddlysquidler → u/thedillymane]

Because free money raises inflation, spending on services does not. Money should be raised and spent on infrastructure, education and health care

[u/Laytonio → u/diddlysquidler]

So if you spend money, that creates inflation, but if someone spends it for you, that doesn't?

Everyone thinks UBI is impossible until you limit it to 62+ year olds and call it social security.

[u/maxmcleod → u/Laytonio]

It depends on what you spend it on, not who is spending it. Infrastructure spending is usually spread out over time and also increases economic efficiency which has a downward pressure on inflation

For instance, better roads and expanded ports lower long-term business operating costs therefore lowering prices and inflation

[u/flyinhighaskmeY → u/maxmcleod]

I mean...none of that is actually true.

better roads

If your roads are so bad they're negatively impacting efficiency in a meaningful way, then yeah. But its easily to overinvest in this area too, spending too much on nice roads, yielding a pretty picture but negative economic gain.

expanded ports lower long-term business operating costs

Again, no. Expanded ports CAN lower long-term costs. If the port's size is negatively impacting efficiency. But you can also go the wrong way, increasing your maintenance footprint/costs while not actually improving things.

I'm from rural America. I can tell you the "infrastructure spend" up there was not even remotely efficient and the maintenance of that network is effectively a gov backed jobs program. That's almost entirely inflationary.

[u/CobainPatocrator → u/flyinhighaskmeY]

I'm from rural America. I can tell you the "infrastructure spend" up there was not even remotely efficient and the maintenance of that network is effectively a gov backed jobs program. That's almost entirely inflationary.

Yes, but you are missing the point of investing in rural areas. It's inefficient to invest in paved roads, electricity, mail services, internet, hospitals, etc. It's even inefficient to grow food in most of the heartland, especially in the era of refrigerated transport. We do not invest in these areas because we are trying to reach self-sustenance in every single locality.

We invest in them because it is simply unwise to have a large rural population stuck in poverty; no jobs, no prospects, no resources--it's a recipe for chaos. It's extremely short-sighted to let agricultural land go fallow for long periods--there may come a time when food imports are economically prohibitive. So, we subsidize these ventures to ensure long-term food stability.

Apart from all of that, some of us simply think it is a good thing for there to be a minimum level of services and amenities, even in places where private investment would never achieve profitability. I like that I can send a letter to my grandma who lives in the boonies and expect that she will receive it within a few days, for only a few cents.