[netcan]

The $1trn headline makes me expect something to excite the imagination... A roman aquaduct wow factor. Something to marvel at.

Am I being shallow? Does it make bad sense to cut a $100bn slice for something epic? A hypersonic monorail perhaps?

[_jal]

The headline price is an artifact of congressional accounting. It is an estimate of the 10-year cost.

The MSM uses that number when their corporate masters want you to be against the spending. They actually explain why it is a fairly meaningless number when they want the spending.

[nerdponx]

$100bn/year is still an astronomical amount of money.

[Brian_K_White]

It's $300 per person per year.

Even factoring that I will have to cover for several other people who can't pay, all I say is, well we have an astronomical amount of infrastructure and it's been neglected for decades, and, as long as I get something for it.

I don't care that it's 100bn, that was going to be collected and spent on something regardless. I care far more about what it's spent on.

Maybe it will add incentive down the road to close the loopholes on the Bezos's of the world a little.

[s1artibartfast]

I like your optimism that it was going to be covered anyways and that you'll get something out of it

[ralfn]

For a person: yes.

For 330 million people: no.

To compare: the US occupation of Afghanistan cost about this much per year, but that budget has been freed up.

I live in Europe and I see the same lack of basic understanding of finance. People claim the EU costs a lot of money. And it does. But not per person. Not at all.

And any reporter that talks about macro economic numbers like this without normalizing it per capita is either an idiot or is intentionally manipulating.

[garmaine]

> To compare: the US occupation of Afghanistan cost about this much per year, but that budget has been freed up.

It has not. Do you think we downsized our military after leaving?

[wolfram74]

100E9/300E6~=333 that's ~2 netflix subscriptions per US citizen. Outlandish!

[nerdponx]

Yes, everything at the scale of 300+ million people all seeking a comfortable modern living standard is outlandish. That's my point!

[TigeriusKirk]

It's still a bill authorizing a trillion dollars in spending. Of course it's spread out over time as it's for things that will need money over time rather than all at once.

But it's still a trillion dollars.

[ianai]

It gives the DOE secretary a mandate and budget to commission projects for new, smaller nuclear plants (300MW). Unless that got removed…

[rsj_hn]

This would be really cool! Unfortunately I have no idea how to even tell what's in this bill -- do you?

[ianai]

Discussed and linked here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28047538

[garmaine]

You can read it. It is a public document.

[rsj_hn]

California high speed rail will run $100bn. If we're lucky. Is that sexy enough?

[netcan]

Depends. How fast? How cool?

[ur-whale]

> The $1trn headline makes me expect something to excite the imagination

A country running out of money and going into hyperinflation via money printing ?

Exciting enough for you ?

[anm89]

The dollar is incredibly unlikely to hyper inflate. There is a big middle ground of damaging inflation that is not hyperinflation though

[adam_arthur]

I'm definitely personally on the more hawkish side, re inflation.

But this bill may help reduce longer term inflation if it's actually spent wisely.

e.g. if port throughput/efficiency increases, we could process imports more cheaply.

I'm not an expert on the bill, but the skew in the numbers seem a bit strange. Personally I think the cost should have been weighted much more heavily towards logistics/energy aspect of infrastructure, rather than repairs.

I'll have to read the fine print, but the money for "bridges" seems kind of wasteful unless they're actually building net new bridges.

Are the bridges in poor condition actually on the verge of structurally failing? Or just older but serviceable.

E.g. a second bridge connecting VA and MD over the Potomac would be pretty awesome, and greatly alleviate congestion.

[ur-whale]

> if it's actually spent wisely.

Precisely.

A spending bill is like any other kind of investment: for it to pay back, it has to be made carefully and thoughtfully, and must be watched over like milk on fire until it actually bears fruit.

That's what the private sector and private capital does best, because in that space, failure spells death.

For a govt, failure means nothing - to quote PT barnum - there's a sucker (or taxpayer in that case) born every minute. All you have to do is survive the next election cycle, and doing that these days has pretty much nothing to do with how well you actually invest taxpayer dollars and everything to do with how good a PR firm you hire.

Sadly, the US govt (like most govts) are neither good at investing nor at babysitting their investments: they are one of the most wasteful human organization on the planet, both unwittingly (bureaucracy and thousands of federal employees who serve no actual purpose whatsoever) and willingly (corruption and pork).

The trillion dollar that is being spent in this bill will neither improve the infrastructure of the country, nor go to the pockets of people who need it to help them lift themselves out of poverty.

It will just be wasted, like most of the rest of your tax money.

Oh, and - minor detail - it's a trillion dollar the government doesn't have.

It is therefore going to take on additional debt.

But, I mean, at this point who's counting anymore?

https://www.usdebtclock.org/

[rsj_hn]

> But this bill may help reduce longer term inflation if it's actually spent wisely.

Absolutely! And it's a shame that the USG is using this type of cash-based accounting instead of depreciating long term assets like any other business.

At the same time, anything to do with infrastructure is so wasteful that I am always a little afraid whenever these infrastructure bills come up.

Good discussion here: https://www.wbur.org/onpoint/2021/08/02/why-does-infrastruct...