The Impact of Infrastructure

Featuring Rachel Ziemba

As the Fed normalizes monetary policy, investors across asset classes have begun to focus their attention on the fiscal side of the policy mix, with a special eye toward infrastructure spending and development. Economist Rachel Ziemba unpacks the relationship between infrastructure, growth, and inflation — and explains its relevance to investing decisions.

Published on
5 March, 2018
Topic
US Economy, Macro
Duration
30 minutes
Asset class
Equities
Rating
109

Comments

  • IZ

    Ignacio Z.

    12 4 2018 11:36

    0       0

    I think that we have been told were will the next bubble-bubble is going to happen.... infrastructure, keneysian way, with “multipliers”included!!!

  • KS

    Kathleen S.

    11 3 2018 15:54

    0       0

    Normalize monetary policy says it all --- The Fed can NEVER normalize monetary policy without the entire ponzi scheme falling down. What a joke.

  • MK

    Michael K.

    9 3 2018 19:53

    0       0

    100% waffle

  • SS

    Sam S.

    8 3 2018 15:21

    0       0

    The questions to Rachel seem to have a similar tone or a different way of asking the same question. She very knowledgeable, well spoken. I really didn't get the "keynesian" point Greg M is making, other than some debt discussion. Just have to stay tuned.

  • GM

    Greg M.

    8 3 2018 10:30

    2       3

    Keynesian non-sense. As hugh hendry said to stiglitz - excuse me, let me tell you how things work in the real world.

  • JV

    Jason V.

    8 3 2018 00:48

    3       1

    Very interesting, informative and timely. Thank you, Rachel.

  • T~

    Tshort63 ~.

    7 3 2018 16:34

    5       0

    I'm surprised by the number of thumb down votes. I think she was strong early on in explaining the benefits of Infrastructure spending and how it impacts COGs and the overall supply chain. Later on she started to generalize and wandered into the fringe away from her core strengths (IMO) but all in all a diversified conversation. Thumb up from me.

  • us

    ujjwal s.

    7 3 2018 04:55

    2       1

    Real vision, please keep the good work, diversity and various views that you being is great, don't get what actionable ideas people keep posting in comment.

  • EK

    Emil K.

    6 3 2018 19:26

    11       0

    A fair number of comments regarding the 'empty calories' of this particular video. Fair enough. But it is useful to hear what the inside-the-beltway / consensus / official / insider view is of the issues. This video is what is being offered to the masses BUT ALSO inside the halls of power. Meanwhile, the Steve Keen piece (same format, same allotted time, similar publish date) receives overwhelming thumbs up from Real Vision viewers BUT he's not allowed anywhere near decision makers. No wonder we're not getting anywhere and beginning our second lost decade.

  • ss

    sid s.

    6 3 2018 11:22

    3       3

    unnecessary non nutritional filler .

  • NR

    Nathan R.

    6 3 2018 11:22

    5       7

    I hate this format and the topics. The talking head not being actively interviewed and jagged editing cuts are distracting. I can feel myself switching off and feeling less engaged with Real Vision.

  • sm

    stephane m.

    6 3 2018 11:04

    3       4

    She lost me with this: "the tax cut is likely to increase the debt and deficit quite significantly". This is the king of things I'm earing every day on CNBC.

    Let's try it the other way... Tax increase is likely to decrease the debt ant deficit quite significantly! Ya right, 10 TRILLIONS of new debt in 8 years with the last guy who tried it!!

    How come economists don't like it when people have more money in their pocket?? Do they think it will be better spent by the government?!?!?

  • TT

    Tokyo T.

    6 3 2018 10:24

    5       5

    Wow, is it infrastructure or women in finance that is disliked?

    • ii

      ida i.

      6 3 2018 18:56

      0       2

      ?

  • CQ

    Colin Q.

    6 3 2018 09:56

    3       5

    Good to see some women full stop.

    • ii

      ida i.

      6 3 2018 15:11

      4       2

      ? why ? I'm a woman, what does that got to do with anything?

  • PU

    Peter U.

    6 3 2018 09:49

    7       1

    upon further reflection on the efficacy of this video . . . worthless

  • PN

    Paul N.

    6 3 2018 04:48

    6       0

    This piece could have used a lot more numbers and charts

  • YC

    Yves C.

    6 3 2018 02:41

    11       1

    Really a basic primer on subject. Rather theoretical, expected more concrete insights. Did not learn anything new

  • dw

    douglas w.

    6 3 2018 02:01

    5       5

    Wow! Tough crowd, video was fine, good to see some women that actually work in DC with an insight on economic government policy. Came away w/ infrastructure debt + qt + tradewar + interest rate increase =
    No Bueno.

  • PP

    Patrick P.

    6 3 2018 01:07

    15       0

    Did Rachel say growth has been good? Sorry, GDP since 2009 has been anemic. When you consider the ginned up numbers the government uses to calculated GDP, growth has been lousy. And if you remove all the increased debt since then to keep the party lights on....Oh well you get the picture....NO Rachel growth has not been good !!

  • JS

    John S.

    6 3 2018 00:12

    10       0

    Enough of the economists!

  • AP

    Armin P.

    5 3 2018 23:23

    10       0

    Empty talk!

  • DS

    David S.

    5 3 2018 20:43

    3       1

    I would like to have follow-ups analyzing and identifying what companies, foreign and domestic, will benefit from the infrastructure build out in the US and worldwide by investors. An economic general discussion is only the beginning. DLS

  • PU

    Peter U.

    5 3 2018 20:36

    13       1

    nothing new in this video. It is a filler video.

  • JS

    Jim S.

    5 3 2018 18:00

    2       0

    Not necessarily a critique of this piece, but I am always curious/wary when economists refer to their judgment of any specific investment's "multiplier" (especially w/r/t public sector spending). Seems to invite massive economic/political bias without much supporting disclosure.

    It would be useful for any economist's audience to get the speaker's baseline multipliers across a variety of capital expenditure categories, along with corresponding ranges from the broader economic community. Shouldn't be hard to come up with basic disclosure to mimic an analyst's multiple assumptions, allowing the audience to understand if/how much the economist differs from broadly used multiplier ranges (or the listener's opinion of those ranges).

    In general, I do agree that WISE capital investment/allocation can have a significant positive impact on an economy (infrastructure) as it would on a company (capital spending/R&D).

    However, there is so much unwise spending in both areas that I wonder if a more detailed discussion of historical actual return/multiplier rates by category for public & corporate (& their quantitative justification) might be of value? Perhaps this exists in an easily consumable format already & RV could highlight?

    • RZ

      Rachel Z.

      7 3 2018 16:07

      0       0

      Great points! I was drawing on research that I had done in the past that looks across countries and sectors based on growth impact. Digging deeper into what I meant by that would be useful. Happy to share it if useful with RV subscribers.

      Of course, what generates growth is not the only or best measure of value to a community, country or investor. Entities like the WB and other investors are now coming up with new metrics - very important given the long life of these projects. Thanks!

    • RZ

      Rachel Z.

      7 3 2018 16:07

      0       0

      Great points! I was drawing on research that I had done in the past that looks across countries and sectors based on growth impact. Digging deeper into what I meant by that would be useful. Happy to share it if useful with RV subscribers.

      Of course, what generates growth is not the only or best measure of value to a community, country or investor. Entities like the WB and other investors are now coming up with new metrics - very important given the long life of these projects. Thanks!

  • GF

    George F.

    5 3 2018 16:42

    3       0

    I personally was hoping she would address the pension crisis in state government. For example in New Jersey, former governor Christie bragged about increasing pension contributions. One place the money came from was the state-operated railroad.

    New Jersey Transit’s Hidden Danger: Bad Brakes, Bare Wires, Rotten Parts
    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-02-21/nj-transit-s-hidden-danger-bad-brakes-bare-wires-rotten-parts

    I also think you cannot discuss funding anything in the US without talking about the military budget and possible future increases or decreases. As an aside I read that China is building commuter railroads in Nigeria.

  • RP

    Raoul P.

    5 3 2018 16:01

    22       0

    We do an intro so that you can efficiently assess the suitability of the piece as each one is a time investment and your time and return on it is important.

    • EF

      Eric F.

      5 3 2018 16:13

      6       0

      Makes sense, please keep.

    • RT

      Rune T.

      8 3 2018 01:13

      2       0

      Which is a great thing RP - however I'd still like to get a "skip intro" option. I've already decided (at least until further notice) that all videos are worth my time - even the few less good ones. I understand other people might be racking in millions during the 30 minutes they would have otherwise "wasted" on RV but I'm fortunate enough to have plenty of time watching and learning what others make of the world/markets. I guess one could argue that I'd survive the intro and repetitions then, but to me they are a waste of time. If I need things repeated, I'll just hit the 15sec rewind.

  • RT

    Rune T.

    5 3 2018 13:23

    23       14

    We need a "skip intro" button - it's almost like watching regular TV where everything is repeated... which is a complete waste of time and it certainly kills my focus, I simply drift off into other thoughts when the repeat-bits start...

    • JW

      Joel W.

      5 3 2018 15:53

      7       2

      I agree. The less time spent on intro the better. On a similar note, I do appreciate having the interview questions written on the screen because of how much faster it is to read than have someone speak and how it keeps focus on the guest.

    • EF

      Eric F.

      5 3 2018 16:12

      15       0

      Jeez, the intro is like seconds! It makes sense to keep it as provides context. Having the questions spoken is preferable for audio only listeners too.

    • DS

      David S.

      5 3 2018 20:54

      1       1

      Normally the tease does not provide context. The written explanation given on each video is much more useful. DLS

    • CO

      Craig O.

      6 3 2018 04:16

      1       0

      When I know I want to watch a piece I usually hit the button to skip ahead 15 seconds until I'm at the meat. I like the intro for the times I'm not sure where the piece is going.

    • MB

      Matthias B.

      6 3 2018 09:51

      1       0

      I thought that the introduction of the intro at RV was a much welcomed step as it provided a hint about what is to come; I do not think that the length of it is overly expensive so time/benefit aspect is favorable for me to keep it.

    • OB

      Olivier B.

      16 3 2018 01:12

      1       0

      I agree with others that the intro is just annoying and a loss of time. I loved in the first days of RV when you would get straight into the interview and things were less «structured». It was added 9/12 months after I never understood why. I 'm not asking you get back to the old days but at least provide a skip intro button.