Entrevista bem bacana sobre o pacotão do Obama e como, dentro de pelo menos 1 ótica racional, ele talvez não seja um fracasso monumental. Um ponto interessante é a visão a longo prazo do autor do argumento, que sustenta, por exemplo, que consertar estradas velhas é reduz gastos no longo prazo, ao passo que construir novas aumenta gastos.
Most of the money in the stimulus went to unsexy stuff designed to prevent a depression and ease the pain of the recession: aid to help states avoid drastic cuts in public services and public employees; unemployment benefits, food stamps, and other assistance for victims of the downturn; and tax cuts for 95 percent of American workers. And the money that did flow into public works went more toward fixing stuff that needed fixing—aging pipes, dilapidated train stations, my beloved Everglades—than building new stuff. In its first year, the stimulus financed 22,000 miles of road improvements, and only 230 miles of new roads. There were good reasons for that. Repairs tend to be more shovel-ready than new projects, so they pump money into the economy faster. They also pass the do-no-harm test. (New sprawl roads make all kind of problems worse.) And they are fiscally responsible. Repairing roads reduces maintenance backlogs and future deficits; building roads add to maintenance backlogs and future deficits.
If you enjoyed this article, please consider sharing it!
Mulher, Cerveja & Futebol
-
