[bobthepanda]

> I also never made the claim that the counterfactual of no stimulus would have been better

To be fair, that wasn't the only option. There was the debate in 2007/08 about how much of the stimulus should be monetary vs handouts directly to taxpayers vs infrastructure. There's some who believe that the "infrastructure" portion was too small of the pie, hence the stomach for things like "Infrastructure Week" from Trump or "Green New Deal" from the left wing of the Democrats.

[mrosett]

In the abstract, I liked the idea of spending it on infrastructure, but over the ensuing decade I’ve become deeply skeptical of the ability of the US government to effectively spend more money. California high speed rail and the NY subway are exhibits a and b.

[yamoriyamori]

I agree with you (to your point) about California high speed rail: a solution looking for a problem. But NY subway is arguably something that could generate huge returns if the capex was committed to modernizing and automating the public transport of the biggest city in the USA and a major financial capital.

[bobthepanda]

CAHSR is mostly proof of a few things that America gets wrong

- heavy reliance on consultants is not a financially prudent exercise compared to building up a competent civil service, particularly since consultants want to keep the gravy train running

- sustained funding for projects is the way to build up a civil service that can push out projects; conversely, "get a ballot measure passed first and ask questions later" is a very bad model.