We are in the midst of the 148th anniversary of Sherman's march to the sea.

[MichaeltheGreat]

What, money deliniated for infrastructure pays off in economic well being? Incredible!

Who'da thunkit?

[DaShi]

http://archives.digitaltoday.in/busi...06/hinduja.htm

So?

[Aeson]

Uh, yes, I do. They are evil. I recognize that some of them might not realize it. Think about their ideology for a minute. It's completely antithetical to freedom, democracy, and peace, all things which I value very highly.

Since you are using "evil" as in something that unwittingly leads to a bad end, domestic Communists would not all be classified as evil. Most* of them would have (in your worst case hypothetical) unwittingly helped lead to a good end (civil rights) and not had much else in the way of influence on anything. (Unless you blame them for McCarthyism, which is like blaming a woman for being raped.)

*Obvious exceptions are obvious

[The Mad Monk]

What, money deliniated for infrastructure pays off in economic well being? Incredible!

Yes, but China's infrastructure is still pretty damn bad, with major roads that regularly host days long traffic jams. It's major positive is the willingness of its officials to smooth the way for work that needs doing, which allows everything else to happen -- including the building of infrastructure. Their advantage is not socialist or capitalist, its their ability to ruthlessly cut through the crap.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Yes, but China's infrastructure is still pretty damn bad, with major roads that regularly host days long traffic jams. It's major positive is the willingness of its officials to smooth the way for work that needs doing, which allows everything else to happen -- including the building of infrastructure. Their advantage is not socialist or capitalist, its their ability to ruthlessly cut through the crap.

Its basically both working in tandem - a market economy with a strong powerful government dedicated to ramming through what's best for business regardless of what the people really want (ie, who cares about clean air if business is making money, etc). That also means a massively increased infrastructure. And with a billion people, of course you are going to have ridiculous traffic jams, but without the infrastructure you don't really attract business (in fact the India article you quoted also listed lack of infrastructure as a dampener on business). People tend to forget that business isn't against big government if that government is on their side. After all in the US, the Whig party was the pro-business party who was for a bigger federal government who would support business interests. And also, lets not forget the economic boom in the US due to the construction of the Interstate Highway System.

Btw, the Interstate Highways System is the second longest highway network in the world. After, you guessed it, China's.

[kentonio]

The only ones who argue the no-true-scotsman case are the people who apologize for Communism. "It's not really communism, it's socialism! Marx said communism was clearly NOT evil!"

No, the onus is on you to make a case for communism being evil. Notice you need to show that communism is evil, not just that Stalin, Mao or others were evil. I look forward to your deeply considered and thorough response.

[regexcellent]

What, money deliniated for infrastructure pays off in economic well being? Incredible!

Ketchikan, Alaska's "Bridge to Nowhere" was money delineated for infrastructure.

[Jon Miller]

All states which do not provide money for infrastructure are failed states.

Obviously all money spent (Whether public or private) will have some waste/corruption/etc. Obviously this needs to addressed.

It isn't addressed by not providing money for infrastructure.

JM

[Jon Miller]

All states which do not provide money for infrastructure are failed states.

Obviously all money spent (Whether public or private) will have some waste/corruption/etc. Obviously this needs to addressed.

It isn't addressed by not providing money for infrastructure.

JM

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

What, money deliniated for infrastructure pays off in economic well being? Incredible!

I feel like it's deja-vu, talking about stimulus circa 2009 all over again. Infrastructure spending is beneficial primarily when it is most impactful. 3rd world nations getting roads, electrification, mass transit, etc. stand to see marked improvements whilst developed nations pumping monies into infrastructure have a much smaller effect on matured infrastructural systems. Thus comparing the effect of what China has recently accomplished or what the US was capable of achieving in WWII via depression era investment/spendings or even the Highway projects of Eisenhower is apples and oranges comparisons. Making carte blanche "infrastucture good" statements is idiotic without a realistic understanding of returns and opportunity costs.

[Imran Siddiqui]

You realize that we were discussing how China advanced, right? And what would have happened had it not had such a strong central government after 1949?

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Move along then. I reserve this arguement for the next round of stimulus circa 2013.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Though, I will say that electronic improvements (such as fiber optic cable laying, etc) are infrastructure improvements as well which can pay off handsomely in the economic long run.

[Sava]

Emancipation Proclamation

i dont listen to hip hop

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

But the returns on those kinds of investment are readily apparent hence the historical bipartisan funding. Much less so the craptastic claims made for green energy, high speed rail, and the associated dog and cats (ie. pet projects) represented in Stimulus 2009 and the fall back claim that if you didn't support the monstrosity as a whole you didn't believe in infrastructure spending.