Discussion about this post

User's avatar
RoosterRoy's avatar

How much of this capital spending problem would be addressed if all these capital projects (probably impoosible for a lot of them, but bear with me) actually charged for their services? Pay per mile road charging, explicit tolls, if hospitals paid market rents (I presume they don't) etc?

The reason I ask is, if capital projects paid rent / fees / etc, then they would be genuine investment assets. Treasury would have at least some incentive to build them. If arranged appropriately, there would be some competition between the infrastructure so there would be an incentive to keep them operating properly ie. to keep up their spending. Perhaps there might even be a sinking fund for this purpose (heaven forfend!).

More than that, if there was an interest payment coming out of this investment, you could get a lot of the funding from insurance companies and pension funds. The government would need to take the equity stake for ownership purposes but also so it was the government that absorbed the cost overruns, but a lot of it could simply be funded privately.

Is it actually quite simple...and the Treasury can't see it or am I missing something very large (and possibly elephant shaped)?

Expand full comment
2 more comments...

No posts