Good point. The federal government also should not pay for local disasters-- which is almost all disasters. People in North Dakota shouldn't subsidize people who choose to live on the Florida hurricane coast. It is unfair and it gives the wrong incentives.
I like what you have identified to up to the/a role for the federal government. You imply that the federal government, a political entity, will function as an honest technocracy without political influence. That sounds nice, but is likely to work in practice as has socialism. The role of external auditor in our capitalist society falls to the media (formerly and more narrowly, newspapers) and academia to help keep the media on the more in-depth issues.
One can hope, as our ancestors who wrote the Constitution did, that we humans will be rational and honest when the structure is there to encourage us to be so.
I could see some benefit in a Federal Infrastructure bank for state and local projects. The benefit being that such an entity could better evaluate the financial and economic viability of such projects than private markets. It could also develop expertise in best practice in the policy environment and management of the built assets. For example, it might question whether rail is the better option over dedicated bus lines or the value of rail if local land use and building codes do not permit high-density development near rail stations.
A Federal infrastructure bank would still be politically controlled with all the problems inherent in political control. The market is not perfect but it remains the best neutral allocator of resources.
Use the best tool we have, the market, to make resource allocation decisions. Avoid the dirty thumb of the political butcher on the scale.
Good point. The federal government also should not pay for local disasters-- which is almost all disasters. People in North Dakota shouldn't subsidize people who choose to live on the Florida hurricane coast. It is unfair and it gives the wrong incentives.
At the very least, it should not finance rebuilding without adequate private insurance so there will not be a "next time."
I like what you have identified to up to the/a role for the federal government. You imply that the federal government, a political entity, will function as an honest technocracy without political influence. That sounds nice, but is likely to work in practice as has socialism. The role of external auditor in our capitalist society falls to the media (formerly and more narrowly, newspapers) and academia to help keep the media on the more in-depth issues.
One can hope, as our ancestors who wrote the Constitution did, that we humans will be rational and honest when the structure is there to encourage us to be so.
I could see some benefit in a Federal Infrastructure bank for state and local projects. The benefit being that such an entity could better evaluate the financial and economic viability of such projects than private markets. It could also develop expertise in best practice in the policy environment and management of the built assets. For example, it might question whether rail is the better option over dedicated bus lines or the value of rail if local land use and building codes do not permit high-density development near rail stations.
A Federal infrastructure bank would still be politically controlled with all the problems inherent in political control. The market is not perfect but it remains the best neutral allocator of resources.
Use the best tool we have, the market, to make resource allocation decisions. Avoid the dirty thumb of the political butcher on the scale.