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
US Economy, Macro
30 minutes
Asset class


  • 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?

  • CQ

    Colin Q.

    6 3 2018 09:56

    3       5

    Good to see some women full stop.

  • 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?

  • 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

    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.

  • 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...