I spotted this article from the Infrastructurist via the Skyscraperpage forum http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=193184 http://www.infrastructurist.com/2011/08/11/a-plan-to-save-u-s-infrastructure-that-might-actually-work/
QuoteThe report, "Falling Apart and Falling Behind" (pdf), is split into three sections, but as its title suggests it really centers on two themes: how American infrastructure has fallen apart in recent times, and how it can keep from falling farther behind. The first part examines how U.S. infrastructure dropped from 1st in global competitiveness in 2005 to 15th in 2010, in the cold numerical eyes of the World Economic Forum. Gladwellian rankings-are-meaningless disclaimer aside, the forum has a strong case. While America remains obsessed with its 20th-century highway system, other countries are expanding their balanced intermodal networks, argues BAF, which adds that what America does spend on transportation is not nearly enough. As a recent study by the Urban Land Institute noted, U.S. infrastructure spending as a percentage of gross domestic product has fallen steadily since the 1960s.
In sum, Building America's Future argues, the United States has failed to adopt a "forward-looking vision that could build a transportation network fit for a 21st-century economy." Not surprisingly, BAF also has a few ideas about what such a vision should focus on. In the short-term, BAF recommends a transportation reauthorization that looks like this:
- A six-year bill that devotes significant funding to the NextGen air-traffic control system, freight and transit transport, and high-speed rail lines in the Northeast Corridor, California, and Chicago region.
- A strong highway "maintenance" program (read: fix-it-first).
- A national infrastructure bank – a BAF favorite – to help leverage private investments.
In this political climate, I'm not holding my breath.
High speed rail does not pencil out at this time.
Seeing that infrastructure is essentially a state responsibility, I'd rather see how individual states stack up compared to other nations rather than the US as a whole. Or to see how the EU as a whole compares to the US.
Quote from: realjd on August 17, 2011, 08:11:33 AM
Seeing that infrastructure is essentially a state responsibility, I'd rather see how individual states stack up compared to other nations rather than the US as a whole. Or to see how the EU as a whole compares to the US.
The Interstates were a federal initiative, mostly federally-funded. The transcontinental railroad was a federal initiative. The National Road was a federal initiative. Things like Hoover Dam and all those TVA projects were federal initiatives. I don't think we can have the infrastructure we need if we leave it up to the states, and I believe history bears me out. But since a more-important-than-it-ought-to-be portion of our federal political leadership would be perfectly happy to see us sink into third-world status as long as their donors' taxes stay low, it may be moot.
Quote from: Michael in Philly on August 17, 2011, 09:12:17 AM
Quote from: realjd on August 17, 2011, 08:11:33 AM
Seeing that infrastructure is essentially a state responsibility, I'd rather see how individual states stack up compared to other nations rather than the US as a whole. Or to see how the EU as a whole compares to the US.
The Interstates were a federal initiative, mostly federally-funded. The transcontinental railroad was a federal initiative. The National Road was a federal initiative. Things like Hoover Dam and all those TVA projects were federal initiatives. I don't think we can have the infrastructure we need if we leave it up to the states, and I believe history bears me out. But since a more-important-than-it-ought-to-be portion of our federal political leadership would be perfectly happy to see us sink into third-world status as long as their donors' taxes stay low, it may be moot.
However, federal projects are only a small fraction of the infrastructure, and the interstates were built on the 90/10 formula, but intended to be maintained and improved when necessary by the states. For much of the US history that we have built roads, we usually did it by a state-federal partnership (including the interstates). Unfortunately, DC's lost sight of that.
The US has a really bad habit of whining about corporate and the ultra-rich's taxes. Most of these short term deficits are mostly because they're not getting the revenue needed because the lower and middle classes' wages have stagnated for the past 30 years.
So you have one side not growing and taking more of the burden (the lower/middle class) and you have one side shirking their responsibilities (the ultra rich/large corporations). It'll come back to bite them in the butt when they realize the lower and middle class is decimated and can't buy anything and the infrastructure is too damaged to deliver anything. But that's capitalism, it feeds itself on exploitation and short term profits. If the corporate stooges in the White House and Capitol Hill were smart, they'd be funding massive infrastructure improvements. But nope, the debt deal, Obamacare, all that, were corporate giveaways.
Government isn't bad inherently, a corrupted corporate government is though. The US briefly was able to focus on infrastructure after WWII but since then, many politicians have cut government down because it's bad and inefficient. No crap it's inefficient...these same people cut its legs off and are sucking the blood out. No institution can be efficient with that type of sabotage.
One way to quickly boost the aggregate demand of the Middle Class would be a big infrastructure jobs bill . The stimulus was too small on that and its tax cuts were like pushing a string.
Sadly DC just soes not get this at all.
I have made various postings on dealing with the sad realyity of more for less like Missouris swich to 3 lanes instead of 4 for lower volume rural corridors. Many posters have stated that
Sorry my web connection hiccuped.
.......were critical of MO But sadly the MODOT budget was cut in half . A few states like Indiana have been agressive and Illinois limps along but I really think Missouri may be the future we face.
We have also debated tolling in San Diego as well as the Illinois tollway and US 20 as a solution or as another failed option
I am very happy Stephene Dumas started this thread because I would like to hear ideas. Otheriwse I really think the only catagory is going to be fictional highways
What we need first is maintenance of roads and passenger railroads (do shipping channels need it too?). Once we ensure that our infrastructure will remain in a state of good repair, we can go about expanding it where necessary. 2-3 lane roads are a very good option for medium-traffic rural corridors in hard terrain. Eastern Kentucky is full of these, and West Virginia would do well to consider the same for projects like I-73/74 and Corridor H.
Quote from: 3467 on August 17, 2011, 09:42:29 PM
Sadly DC just soes not get this at all.
DC does not get this because they're not there to "get it". They're just paid mercenaries sent in to loot and plunder and create favorable legislation for their sponsors.
Quote from: NE2 on August 17, 2011, 09:58:39 PM
What we need first is maintenance of roads and passenger railroads (do shipping channels need it too?). Once we ensure that our infrastructure will remain in a state of good repair, we can go about expanding it where necessary. 2-3 lane roads are a very good option for medium-traffic rural corridors in hard terrain. Eastern Kentucky is full of these, and West Virginia would do well to consider the same for projects like I-73/74 and Corridor H.
Replace "passenger" with "freight" for rail, and you've got it. Passenger rail in the US is a joke, and will be as long as there are more efficient ways of getting place to place (outside the NE Corridor). Freight rail, on the other hand, is the backbone of our economy.
Er? Freight tracks are maintained well; it's construction of imporvements that may need public funds. As for passenger rail, I'm talking about the NEC as well as city transit systems; most other intercity lines are owned by freight companies.
Quote from: NE2 on August 17, 2011, 11:05:59 PM
Er? Freight tracks are maintained well; it's construction of imporvements that may need public funds. As for passenger rail, I'm talking about the NEC as well as city transit systems; most other intercity lines are owned by freight companies.
They need a lot of untangling, hence the CREATE (http://createprogram.org/) project here in Chicagoland. Currently, it takes a freight train 2 days to cross Chicago. The CREATE project will cut that to mere hours.
Quote from: 3467 on August 17, 2011, 09:42:29 PMOne way to quickly boost the aggregate demand of the Middle Class would be a big infrastructure jobs bill. The stimulus was too small on that and its tax cuts were like pushing a string.
I basically agree with this, as do most economists of sufficient repute to win a Nobel. Frankly we should never have had the Bush tax cuts in the first place, let alone the tax cuts which were part of the stimulus package, and the stimulus itself was too small. But, as I see it, there are two main problems with a second stimulus package.
* Countercyclical fiscal policy is based on the assumption that fiscal expansion will be followed in short order by an increase in business confidence, which increases demand in the private sector, which in turn increases tax receipts and allows the government to pay back the money it has had to borrow to expand spending. In practice this assumption usually holds true. However, we have been in a contractionary phase since 2007, we have had one stimulus bill and massive deficits for several years running, and a recovery in business confidence is nowhere in sight. We are in a hole and digging has so far failed to get us out of it, which makes it very difficult to argue for more digging.
* The tea party, which has considerable overlap with the well-established Grover Norquist tendency, wants to destroy the federal government's ability to carry out countercyclical fiscal policy because they see that as key to reducing the size of government as a proportion of GDP. They pursue what the media calls "hostage-taking tactics" in regard to raising the debt ceiling, passing spending bills, etc. because these also serve the purpose of preventing a recovery in business confidence and thus delegitimize countercyclical fiscal policy in general. When Rick Perry describes the Federal Reserve's plans for quantitative easing as "treasonous," that is straightforward hawking for tea party support.
I am fairly sanguine about the Highway Trust Fund weathering this storm, and so federal funding for highways and transit will continue at some level, but I don't see a transportation reauthorization bill coming anytime soon--let alone one which increases funding in real terms or raises marginal taxes on motor fuel. Toll roads are not going to pick up the slack either. There are too many proposed roads quite far along in the planning process whose social returns would pay their way if they were built as free roads but which would be commercial failures if they were developed as toll roads. Few toll road agencies have enough surplus revenue from their existing roads to finance the construction of new ones. Downgrading of US Treasury debt will eventually raise borrowing costs for infrastructure (in fact they are very low right now, to the point where some commentators have said we should borrow like mad so we can build, but I don't think this will persist for long, especially if we actually take advantage of those low rates and actually issue debt). I think Obama's infrastructure bank plan is a dog that won't hunt. It will take too long to set up, by which time the borrowing costs will be impossible. Its megaprojects-only mandate will squeeze out private funding because megaprojects have enormous downside risks and it will not fund projects in sectors where the likely revenue streams would attract private-sector interest. Basically, it is an uncharacteristically dumb idea, which I feel Obama trotted out during the 2008 campaign just so he could prove that he does not think corporate profit is evil.
Put simply, I believe we are four years into the longest and deepest funding drought for highways since 1945-56. I remain confident of funding increases, and even an increase in marginal tax rates on motor fuel (though perhaps not the tripling which I would recommend), but it's going to be a l-o-o-o-ng wait.
I agree with JN Winkler on ,well,all his points.
With a mile of interstate type road running from 10 million and up per mile ,I sure dont see a lot of miles being built except by Toll Authorities that have market acess like Illinois. Like Illinois i expect they wont be very daring and build only immediate cash flow generators.
Missouri not Indiana looks like the future(further discussion in Indiana indicates that the current construction is a one off event)
Meanwhile I see congress has let FHWA pick projects. I see FHWA is handing out 3.6 million to study the I-66 project in Illinois(Ohio Valley)
I'll politely disagree with Winkler here (I usually agree). The debt ceiling has been held hostage by both sides, lest we forget our current President who was against raising the debt ceiling in the Senate, and now he was all for it. Party politics are played by both sides, but the Tea Partiers, even though their way getting the message across is so-so, have a point. To crib form a former President, "It's the debt, stupid." With this much debt, how can we afford to do more about our infrastructure in the future? More taxes won't help, something's got to be cut, and we need to make some very hard and cold choices as to what to cut.
Quote from: NE2 on August 18, 2011, 08:13:20 PM
Quote from: Brandon on August 18, 2011, 07:53:06 PM
More taxes won't help
Here we go again...
Do you want to pay more taxes? I certainly don't. A reform of the tax system would be better, IMHO. As for cuts, there are lots of cuts we can make, starting with curbing Medicare fraud (there's a shload of it) and pulling back our military from Europe (why do we need to defend them anymore? Germany and France can take care of themselves). We got ourselves into this problem by overspending to begin with (for decades, I might add, it wasn't done overnight), and like the guy who has spent too much on his credit cards with almost no hope of a raise, we need to make some choices.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F30.media.tumblr.com%2Ftumblr_lp2ugaFMLJ1qzr73ro1_r1_500.png&hash=ff9deb3f44e2b292a20287b87be9aa05497a07e3)
http://ilovecharts.tumblr.com/post/8216001731/pantslessprogressive-how-the-debt-accumulated
Quote from: realjd on August 19, 2011, 09:38:42 AM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F30.media.tumblr.com%2Ftumblr_lp2ugaFMLJ1qzr73ro1_r1_500.png&hash=ff9deb3f44e2b292a20287b87be9aa05497a07e3)
Do you have a link for that?
Quote from: Michael in Philly on August 19, 2011, 09:56:14 AM
Do you have a link for that?
I meant to include it originally. I've updated my post to have a source now. I saw it on a blog, but I think the original source is the NY Times.
So wait, a significant chunk of the debt is money that the government owes to...itself? Why doesn't it just forgive its own debt?
Quote from: Brandon on August 18, 2011, 10:54:22 PM
Quote from: NE2 on August 18, 2011, 08:13:20 PM
Quote from: Brandon on August 18, 2011, 07:53:06 PM
More taxes won't help
Here we go again...
Do you want to pay more taxes? I certainly don't. A reform of the tax system would be better, IMHO. As for cuts, there are lots of cuts we can make, starting with curbing Medicare fraud (there's a shload of it) and pulling back our military from Europe (why do we need to defend them anymore? Germany and France can take care of themselves). We got ourselves into this problem by overspending to begin with (for decades, I might add, it wasn't done overnight), and like the guy who has spent too much on his credit cards with almost no hope of a raise, we need to make some choices.
You are not the ultra-rich or the corporations who creatively loophole their way out of taxes. Stop pretending you are and stop pretending they deserve their money - most of it is ill-gotten via exploitation (of labor, use of inferior goods/services, other countries) breaking the law or pure luck. If they're not paying their fair share, guess who bears the brunt of the taxes? The lower and middle class. Republicans (Tea Party or not), Democrats, they're all pro-big business cronies who either have campaign donations from them (like Obama), were employed by them or will be employed by them.
Also most of the country needs to learn marginal tax rates and marginal utility. But that's not usually taught to the general populace, because those with economic power benefit from the large, undereducated masses.
QuoteSo wait, a significant chunk of the debt is money that the government owes to...itself? Why doesn't it just forgive its own debt?
I highly doubt the millions of Americans who have PAID INTO social security would be OK with the government just forgiving $3 trillion worth of debt to that fund. I know I wouldn't be.
Quote from: corco on August 19, 2011, 03:34:02 PM
I highly doubt the millions of Americans who have PAID INTO social security would be OK with the government just forgiving $3 trillion worth of debt to that fund. I know I wouldn't be.
I have paid into it with the full assumption that I will never see a penny of it. it's a Ponzi scheme.
Social Security has been a huge funder of the rest of the government and you wouldnt want monetize those holdings but I see no reason that the fed couldnt monetize its debt. We are in a crises and I would just turn the printing press on to do somthing useful like build and fix roads.
The NYT Chart is accurate on where the debt came from and who owns it. Foreign ownership is minor . If China doesnt like it they are free to stop selling stuff to us ,taking dollars and buying our bonds. The crisis is our economic stagnation. The debt thing is some beltway lunacy. We mostly owe ourselves and we owe others in dollars and we have a printing press.
Quote from: 3467 on August 19, 2011, 05:27:16 PM
Social Security has been a huge funder of the rest of the government and you wouldnt want monetize those holdings but I see no reason that the fed couldnt monetize its debt. We are in a crises and I would just turn the printing press on to do somthing useful like build and fix roads.
The NYT Chart is accurate on where the debt came from and who owns it. Foreign ownership is minor . If China doesnt like it they are free to stop selling stuff to us ,taking dollars and buying our bonds. The crisis is our economic stagnation. The debt thing is some beltway lunacy. We mostly owe ourselves and we owe others in dollars and we have a printing press.
I could go for some hyperinflation right now. It would help pay off my mortgage. Just let me know before the printing presses start so I can go buy an expensive car on a nice long loan.
I could go for high interest rates right now, since I don't carry debt.
Quote from: Brandon on August 17, 2011, 11:24:22 PM
Quote from: NE2 on August 17, 2011, 11:05:59 PM
Er? Freight tracks are maintained well; it's construction of imporvements that may need public funds. As for passenger rail, I'm talking about the NEC as well as city transit systems; most other intercity lines are owned by freight companies.
They need a lot of untangling, hence the CREATE (http://createprogram.org/) project here in Chicagoland. Currently, it takes a freight train 2 days to cross Chicago. The CREATE project will cut that to mere hours.
I would love to see a way found to convert the railroad network in North America to 'open access', much like how all of the other transport infrastructure modes operate, where anyone can go anywhere, provided that their operating personnel are properly qualified, the equipment meets minimum technical standards and they are willing and able to pay the necessary fees and tolls. If tax money is going to go into upgrades of rail lines (freight and passenger), then anyone should be able to use them.
Mike
Unfortunately, Mike, the Feds have been extremely slow to release the tax money for CREATE, so the railroads have gone and done it themselves, with their own money (one, CN, bought out a local short line, EJE, to make its own bypass). I get the feeling the Feds would rather spend on the "high-speed" passenger rail boondoggle than invest in what rail in North America does best - move freight. I'd love o see this passenger rail money be spent on improving Metra rather than a "high-speed" line between Chicago and St Louis. Who the heck is going to use such a line? Outside the NEC, this is a lot less densely populated than Europe (with 360 million over the US and Canada as opposed to about 600 million in an area no bigger than the Midwest and Northeast combined). It's easier to fly for the longer distances, and the shorter ones tend to be too dispersed for rail.
^^I'm not sure Europe's that small, but it doesn't matter. Even in the Northeast Corridor... I lived in central Philadelphia for over a decade without owning a car, and am as transit-friendly as anyone. But I do own a car now, and even though I'm within walking distance of 30th Street Station (I sometimes use it for things like the ATM and the food court), I haven't been on a train for three years, except once last winter when I needed to go to the suburbs for a work thing and my car was too snowed-in. I used to go to Washington by train all the time. But Amtrak's fares are too high. Why should I pay well over $100 round trip, when I can essentially use a tank of gas and end up exactly where I want in Washington and on my own schedule? (I haven't seen any demographics on Amtrak users, but I wonder if Northeast Corridor rail isn't in fact a bit of a luxury item for the relatively well off.)
So, while I definitely think, as a policy matter, rail should continue to be available in the Northeast - we can't continue to pump carbon into the air indefinitely or assume it'll be cheap to do so - I'm not convinced it's realistic to pump lots of money into corridors where it doesn't exist in the expectation it'll seriously compete with the roads. Because I'm as well-positioned as anyone in the country to be carless, but I don't find rail competitive with the roads. And, since I'm as well-positioned as anyone in the country to be carless (setting aside the very important factor of the cost differential), but drive for nearly everything I do beyond walking distance, I'm not going to be so hypocritical as to tell other people they should do otherwise.
Quote from: Michael in Philly on August 16, 2011, 05:55:43 PM
In this political climate, I'm not holding my breath.
Sadly, I concur. Too much time spent on "personal agendas".
Quote from: yanksfan6129 on August 19, 2011, 02:33:58 PM
So wait, a significant chunk of the debt is money that the government owes to...itself? Why doesn't it just forgive its own debt?
Social security actually runs a separate budget. The Federal Reserve isn't actually part of the government; it's only connection to it is that its top members are appointed by the president and confirmed by the senate. It is otherwise a private organization, as the bankers wanted it to be.
Quote from: corco on August 19, 2011, 03:34:02 PM
I highly doubt the millions of Americans who have PAID INTO social security would be OK with the government just forgiving $3 trillion worth of debt to that fund. I know I wouldn't be.
What you "pay into" is actually just another tax. Social security is a pay-as-you-go system; always has been. There is no account waiting for you when you retire, and there never has been.
Quote from: Steve on August 19, 2011, 10:51:09 PM
I could go for high interest rates right now, since I don't carry debt.
Same here. Hyper-inflation only benefits the irresponsible and those with really good timing.
Quote from: deanej on August 20, 2011, 12:25:55 PM
Quote from: yanksfan6129 on August 19, 2011, 02:33:58 PM
So wait, a significant chunk of the debt is money that the government owes to...itself? Why doesn't it just forgive its own debt?
Social security actually runs a separate budget. The Federal Reserve isn't actually part of the government; it's only connection to it is that its top members are appointed by the president and confirmed by the senate. It is otherwise a private organization, as the bankers wanted it to be.
Quote from: corco on August 19, 2011, 03:34:02 PM
I highly doubt the millions of Americans who have PAID INTO social security would be OK with the government just forgiving $3 trillion worth of debt to that fund. I know I wouldn't be.
What you "pay into" is actually just another tax. Social security is a pay-as-you-go system; always has been. There is no account waiting for you when you retire, and there never has been.
Quote from: Steve on August 19, 2011, 10:51:09 PM
I could go for high interest rates right now, since I don't carry debt.
Same here. Hyper-inflation only benefits the irresponsible and those with really good timing.
- And that's why they're ineffective...they can't regulate themselves. It's letting the fox guard the hen house.
- And all that blathering about SS being a drain...any shortfall won't pop up for another 25-30 years and even that can be corrected by the SS cap being removed. (Likewise, the blathering about the debt is another one of these decades down the line what-if scenarios that can be fixed without going into austerity.)
- Hyperinflation is damn near impossible: (http://nontrivialpursuits.org/trade_policy.htm) "There is actually a zero percent chance that a moderately-high inflation rate could ever balloon into hyperinflation in any economically advanced nation that is willing to impose intelligently-designed credit controls. If banks are allowed to lend only a fixed quantity of money in particular loan categories, then it is categorically impossible for a moderately-high inflation rate to blossom into a "runaway" hyperinflation event."
Quote from: nyratk1 on August 21, 2011, 06:16:29 AMHyperinflation is damn near impossible: (http://nontrivialpursuits.org/trade_policy.htm) "There is actually a zero percent chance that a moderately-high inflation rate could ever balloon into hyperinflation in any economically advanced nation that is willing to impose intelligently-designed credit controls. If banks are allowed to lend only a fixed quantity of money in particular loan categories, then it is categorically impossible for a moderately-high inflation rate to blossom into a "runaway" hyperinflation event."
While Hyperinflation isn't going to happen, 'stagflation' is a threat - where stagnation in the economy and inflation in prices still going on (as the currency loses value) meaning that people can't afford stuff (especially exports).
The policy of low interest rates and quantitative easing helps those in debt as their loans become easier to pay back (as there's less interest to pay and the amount is worth less as the dollar/pound becomes worthless). However it doesn't help those that are financially prudent as wages and savings lose their relative value.
Quote from: english si on August 21, 2011, 09:02:43 AM
Quote from: nyratk1 on August 21, 2011, 06:16:29 AMHyperinflation is damn near impossible: (http://nontrivialpursuits.org/trade_policy.htm) "There is actually a zero percent chance that a moderately-high inflation rate could ever balloon into hyperinflation in any economically advanced nation that is willing to impose intelligently-designed credit controls. If banks are allowed to lend only a fixed quantity of money in particular loan categories, then it is categorically impossible for a moderately-high inflation rate to blossom into a "runaway" hyperinflation event."
While Hyperinflation isn't going to happen, 'stagflation' is a threat - where stagnation in the economy and inflation in prices still going on (as the currency loses value) meaning that people can't afford stuff (especially exports).
The policy of low interest rates and quantitative easing helps those in debt as their loans become easier to pay back (as there's less interest to pay and the amount is worth less as the dollar/pound becomes worthless). However it doesn't help those that are financially prudent as wages and savings lose their relative value.
In other words, welcome back to the 1970s. Where's your WIN* button? :ded:
*Whip Inflation Now
Quote from: nyratk1 on August 21, 2011, 06:16:29 AM
- Hyperinflation is damn near impossible: (http://nontrivialpursuits.org/trade_policy.htm) "There is actually a zero percent chance that a moderately-high inflation rate could ever balloon into hyperinflation in any economically advanced nation that is willing to impose intelligently-designed credit controls. If banks are allowed to lend only a fixed quantity of money in particular loan categories, then it is categorically impossible for a moderately-high inflation rate to blossom into a "runaway" hyperinflation event."
That would require that we actually regulate the banks.
Quote from: deanej on August 21, 2011, 10:36:58 AM
Quote from: nyratk1 on August 21, 2011, 06:16:29 AM
- Hyperinflation is damn near impossible: (http://nontrivialpursuits.org/trade_policy.htm) "There is actually a zero percent chance that a moderately-high inflation rate could ever balloon into hyperinflation in any economically advanced nation that is willing to impose intelligently-designed credit controls. If banks are allowed to lend only a fixed quantity of money in particular loan categories, then it is categorically impossible for a moderately-high inflation rate to blossom into a "runaway" hyperinflation event."
That would require that we actually regulate the banks.
Still need other triggers for it and we're not Weimar Republic Germany where they had to pay massive reparations. And currently we're probably trending from slight inflation to slight deflation. But supply-side economics is not the solution and is just a finely crafted way to funnel money from the lower and middle class to the extreme upper class. If the lower and middle classes wages have been stagnant for 30 years, we don't funnel money to the top where the mega-corporations and extreme upper class just stash pretty much all of it away. There's no flow occurring.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-21/wall-street-aristocracy-got-1-2-trillion-in-fed-s-secret-loans.html
This hasnt caused inflation. It hasnt helped to keep these zombies around. It would be much better to spend on infrastructure or just about anything else for that matter. next time you hear we cant afford that road.......
ITT: Nobody is an economist yet everyone has economic theories and Politics.™ This is pretty far off topic and has the danger of turning into RED! BLUE! RED! BLUE! if it goes much farther so I think it would be wise to just end it before we get to that point.