We generally take the concept of infrastructure spending to be a good idea.
Building a bridge, preventing a river from flooding, constructing a new runway to provide added transit capacity, these are things that make life better for our children. But inherent in the very concept of infrastructure is the idea of physical things. The rising progressive demand for investment in “social” infrastructure is to co-opt the word “infrastructure” and redefine it. The actual plan of social infrastructure is to send more money to particular voting groups. This is not infrastructure.
The other misuse of meaning is investment. Investment means a one-off expense we bear which then produces a return over time. But investments in social infrastructure are not those once-off payments and costs. They are the creation of new and never-ending streams of income. That is, social investment is not investment at all, it’s a commitment to new programs of current spending.
The progressive word game is clever. We are conditioned to think of both investment and infrastructure as things that will make the future better. But what progressives are actually doing is expanding the welfare state. The word games are not accidental. Progressives use this language of infrastructure and investment not because they’re stupid enough to believe it but rather because they can use their new speaking forms to fool you.
But the economic dictionary is clear. Investment in social infrastructure is neither investment nor infrastructure. It’s current spending, more taking of money from taxpayers to give to client voting groups. If progressives thought we would agree to that wealth transfer, then they would honestly describe it as much. But they’re not. Which tells you something, doesn’t it?
