At the core of the dissatisfaction driving support for Brexit, Donald Trump (and Bernie Sanders) is economic dislocation that reduced the jobs and wages of those who worked in the manufacturing and construction industries. The solution is NOT to return to retail manufacturing, where the U.S. can’t compete with China; nor is it to extract more fossil fuels in a highly volatile energy market or to build houses for another financial bubble. Instead we can address their needs while solving a different crisis–fixing our crumbling infrastructure, and even get some other ancillary benefits. We would have both construction and heavy manufacturing jobs with good wages, aimed right at the Brexit/Trump constituencies. And there would be little foreign competition while we put the U.S. economy on better footing to compete in other sectors.
The American Society of Civil Engineers estimate that America needs $3.6 trillion of investment in replacing our infrastructure such as roads, waterworks, power and gas lines and the rest that makes American go. This sounds like a big number, but it’s only a bit more than half of what all federal, state and local governments spend annually. Of course, we would never pay for all of this at once. In our current low-interest environment, at 3% bond financing over 30 years, the annual cost would be $180 billion, which is less than 3% of total spending.
The key is to use disciplined deficit spending, i.e., bonded indebtedness, to finance this program. Funds should be earmarked specifically for this program at the federal, state and local levels. One source of funds could be a wealth tax. A tax rate of 0.2% (yes, two tenths of a percent) on registered securities and real estate could cover the annual debt repayments.
We could tie this program to two other possible goals:
- To ensure that the income from holding the bonds accrue to a wider segment of the population, we could limit purchase of the bonds to the Social Security Administration and widely-held municipal bond mutual funds.
- We could staff the program with young people serving in a compulsory national service. The national service would give 18-20 year olds their first jobs and bring together a mix of different backgrounds and cultures. As the draft did in World War II, they could gain a better understanding of others beyond their current experiences.
Here’s a study on the effects of our aging infrastructure: http://www.rff.org/blog/2016/cost-aging-water-infrastructure-traffic-congestion
Here’s an NRDC blog on the topic: https://www.nrdc.org/experts/douglass-sims/bridges-water-pipes-doing-infrastructure-ways-boost-economy-people-and-places
Of course, US investment in infrastructure will not affect Brexit. The UK is, in fact, investing in infrastructure. (I returned last month from spending four months visiting Highways England to study their pavement efficiency program. They very kindly allowed me to attend and participate in many of their meetings about how to address the investment challenge.)
Nigel, is the UK investing at the high rate needed to catch up with its infrastructure replacement deficit? Of course, the US is investing in infrastructure as well, but not at the replacement rate.
(And BTW, the reference to Brexit is simply an acknowledgement that the same concerns are driving the support for Brexit and Trump on both sides of the Atlantic.)
I like your “solution” to our economic difficulties.
How can we can the politicians to take this approach?