There may be a problem here

[andrewducker]

From

Comments

[johnbobshaun.livejournal.com]

I agree with the general point of the article but that graph strikes me as...a bit fishy. I'm guessing that if you plotted total amount invested adjusted for inflation it would be a sharp rise. Could even be a rise if you also looked at it per capita.

Also, I don't know what the definition of infrastructure is and I don't know what infrastructure investment is handled at a state level.

[andrewducker]

Why would you need to account for inflation when it's as percentage of GDP, which rises along-ish with inflation?

The second part I'll give you.

[philmophlegm.livejournal.com]

I don't think the graph in itself tells you a lot.

What's so special about central government 'investment' that makes it better than state / county government investment?

It ignores private sector investment completely.

It ignores negative aspects of any government 'investment' (i.e. the crowding-out effect).

Quite possibly investment needs were more urgent in the 1950s and 1960s - watch old American TV and movies and it's clear that most local roads weren't tarmac back then for example. Maybe most of the bridges and railway lines that the country needs have been built.

'Investment' is a measure of expenditure, not of value created.

[skington.livejournal.com]

In the context of major federally-paid-for suspension bridges falling down, it's worrying. It's the Eisenhower-era Interstates that are crumbling, and maintenance isn't being done on those.

[philmophlegm.livejournal.com]

It's not immediately clear whether 'investment' includes maintenance in this graph. I'd normally assume that 'investment' would be capital expenditure and maintenance would be non-capital expenditure, but that might be me being a naive private sector accountant.