Tee hee

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/10/31/fbis-comey-opposed-naming-russians-citing-election-timing-source.html

Add huma and carlos danger to that list

Do you think that infrastructural projects that benefit both businesses and the common people would be better off if they were handled off to private interests? Even the initial costs of such an enormous investment projects seem enormous enough to me to prevent much of any possible free market competition in the field. Meaning that competing infrastructural projects would seemingly be totally unfeasible. I'd think that infrastructural projects like that would effectively be monopolised. Currently they're mostly monopolised by governments.

Additionally, roads benefit both the private and the public parts of the society - so they could be seen as a sort of a common good.

The mere thought of signing infrastructure off to private investments makes me shudder. If an enemy nation was to suddenly start buying off a nation's infrastructure to suit their own ends then God knows what would happen.

I suggest perusing the article and commentary here: http://forums.d2jsp.org/topic.php?t=75189975&f=119

I do not see how this article answers any of the question that I posed. Perhaps some commentary about large scale infrastructural investments should rather be in order instead of talk about one isolated incident which supposedly is supposed to prove something. In the best case there could even be a comment or two about the actual realities of large scale infrastructural renovation and/or creation.

In any case - I'm more than willing to admit that I'd find it for the better if all communities were able to afford the living standards of middle class suburbs, if that is what you are referring to.

This post was edited by Gastly on Nov 1 2016 10:44pm

lol @people who think globalism is a choice that can be refused

It is. We just need to elect Kim Jung Trump.