The Best Part of Rachel Maddow's Obama Interview

Chatting with Rachel Maddow last night (see below), as Matt Yglesias just pointed out, Obama explained the critical role that national governments play in stimulating urban growth in the developing world and wondered why the United States isn't, in this period of economic decline, taking the hint:

I think we have to rebuild our infrastructure. Look at what China's doing right now. Their trains are faster than us, their ports are better than us. They are preparing for a very competitive 21st-century economy and we're not...if you're gonna run deficit spending, then it better be in rebuilding our roads, our bridges, sewer lines, our water systems, laying broadband lines.

What's China doing that we're not? Oh, just spending 9% of GDP on infrastructure while the U.S. spends 2.4%. Indeed, the Chinese spent $72.5 trillion on infrastructure projects between 1995 and 2005 and will invest $3.8 trillion in road and railroad projects alone over the next three decades.

Obama is onto something here when he argues for investment in transportation, communication, and information infrastructure -- this is what could drive American competitiveness going forward while ensuring economic and social fairness in our cities.

He surely heard the UN's "international alert" about U.S. cities. No, not a terrorist attack, or rising sea levels- instead, startling income inequality. The UN's State of the World's Cities report puts Beijing's Gini coefficient (a key measure of inequality), at 0.22, which is significantly lower than that of major American metros like Atlanta, Miami, and New York (with coefficients greater than 0.5). But it's not just that Beijing is beating us: the international alert line falls at 0.4!

Of course, this doesn't mean that people should pack their bags for Beijing, or for Freetown for that matter (Gini coefficient = 0.32). Poverty levels and standards of living are doubtless higher and lower, respectively, in those cities.

The real take-away from the report is that lower inequality results not from economic performance alone, but from "the regulatory, distributive and redistributive capacity of the national and local welfare states". Redistribution? Welfare? Uh-oh. Don't tell the McCain campaign, whose strategists only have time these days for abstract talk of "fixing crumbling infrastructure" without offering much in the way of specific proposals.

Infrastructure and inequality are clearly linked. Progressive infrastructure investment = progressive investment in cities = a more level economic playing field.

The UN report definitively shows that the main drivers of growth in cities in the developing world are policy decisions made at the national level. This is a global trend that makes our cities look woefully underdeveloped in comparison. Our mayors cannot go it alone, as they have been telling DMI's MayorTV throughout this presidential campaign.

Comments

[Spiro Agnew]

First!!!

[whatsthatsound]

If anything in this world deserves to be called "obscene", it is this country's bloated military budget. Patients die in hospitals, education gets gutted, accidents occur on unrepaired roads and bridges, and all sorts of bad things happen because this country is diverting far too much of its power and resources to the creation of things that cause harm. It is like cancer; the healthy and productive parts of the body die off while the malignant part siphons off the body's precious life force. The U.S. is sick with an illness that can easily destroy it. We spend way too much money, and employ too many talented engineers who could be doing such better things with their lives, making ugly, dangerous machinery.

[yasmeen]

we spend outrageously on defense and our soldiers lack everything. we need to cut defense spending %30 to pay for other things while making the military more efficient.

[erincnyc]

It is interesting to compare the United States with China in percentage of infrastructure improvements as a percentage of GDP. And I wholeheartedly agree with Senator (hopefully President-Elect) Obama that investments must be made for a whole host of reasons, most of which he has articulated. But one must be mindful of the fact that China disregards such preliminary issues as drinkable water, and drinkable milk, in striving to achieve dominance in industry. Even while the Bush administration is rolling back environmental regulations behind the curtain that is our compulsion to watch the frivolous chicanery of the McCain campaign, our country still has enormous infrastructure superiority that must be maintained at a cost. If you were too estimate that cost, of maintenance, plus infrastructure improvements, especially as proposed by the esteemed Senator from Illinois, at what percentage of GDP would that put us?

[RRonin]

It was so refreshing to watch two highly intelligent people talking about things that matter. It's been a long time since I've seen such a thing I'd forgotten it was possible.

[kendal]

Obama talks about a smart electricity grid--McCain talks about Obama;
Obama talks about building bridges and broadbands--McCain talks about Obama;
Obama talks about Pakistan and the Kashmir crisis--McCain talks about Obama;
Obama talks about policies and issues--McCain talks about Obama.
I would really like to see Rachel Maddow pitch the same questions to John McCain and see if she can get him to toss out anything remotely related to Barack Obama"s level of substance in his answers. People should be asking, "Who is John McCain?"
(And after that, she"d have to sit with Palin to see where she gainsays her running mate as I"m all the while asking, "What is Sarah Palin?")

[philko]

People, please remember (and help Obama to remember) that this country's electric grid is part of thie "infrastructure" thing. Yes, we need to spend on roads, bridges, ports and even broadband. But upgrading our current patchwork power distribution grid is just as important - both economically and environmentally.


(For those wondering "why?": As an example, there are many parts of the US that are perfect places to site a large solar electic generation installation. Unfortunately, the power distribution lines don't exist to take this cheap electricity from the sunny portions of our country to the ones whose climate or population density are not suited to solar panel fields. If we had a grid that could do this, there's be less need for nuclear or "clean coal". There's also be less opportunity for market manipulation and price gouging.)

[Samalabear]

It's almost a shame it's too late for these interviews to take place. If nothing else it would be entertaining in a perverse way, one of those many things we hope we can start laughing about on November 5th.

[AbstractImp]

This is basic conservative philosophy, coupled with FDR motivation. Obama is the actual conservative in this election, and McCain is the radical fringe wingnut candidate (evidence: the Palin pick). We have always believed that it is the fiscal conservative you want running the banks. Ultra liberals I know who are voting for Obama agree with me on this. Obama is bringing America back on track. McCain would be contiinuing the disastrous "policies" that are sending us over the cliff, just as Yosama bin Laden had hoped. Obama points the way forward, and here Harry Moroz details reasons why this is so very important at this time. There are so many Americans who CAN'T WAIT TO GET TO WORK !!!

[joceeco]

This guy is so intelligent, I lived in Germany for 7 years and their infastructure was 21st century back in 1994 when I lived their. While we are spending money, sending our troops to other countries on the planet, they are investing their money in their children's education, updating their school, bridges, subways, other sources of fuel and they can do this, because we spend our tax payers dollars defending them and rebuilding their infastructure after we attack them and destroy it. They do not have to spend their money on national defense programs. We had to pay the German government for every tree that we destroyed while training in Germany. We need Barack and a Democratic House and Senate, if we are going to compete and survive as a 21st century nation.

[Shrinath]

Rachel actually asked him serious questions which he answered. And none of those were softballs. Infrastructure and mass rapid transportation is the need of the hour. The automobile industry has had a long time and never really bothered to invest in alternate fuel technology. And the governments did not question them as the price of oil was low. Just to throw a number - a small like Arab oil minister makes something like $6 million in a day. That is correct. In a day. And I am talking numbers when a barrel of crude was trading at $30.

So, if there has to be a revolution in the transportation field alone, the infrastructure has to start. That would translate into local jobs. Jobs that just cannot be outsourced. There will definitely be some outsourced element but that would reflect the competency of the organization in that field.

Great job Rachel. I am so looking forward to Nov.4th. Cheerio!

OBAMA-BIDEN!!

[Wildofski]

I think we've found a new host for "Meet the Press" ***featuring Rachael Maddow***

[myersbug]

I have to agree the interview was great. Rachel does such a good job and smiles doing it.
She is the best, she makes good points and does her homework. I live the Talk me Down sections.
She really explains things well. I like the football analagy of the ground game. Good Job Rach.

[mamacat]

This is not the first time that Obama's camp has said they want to drive the economy by fixing the nation's infrastructure. It sounds like a very good idea to me. And, as he said, what do we have to show for the trillions in debt Bush is going to leave us? Nothing, except the richer have gotten a lot richer, and every one else (and I do mean everyone) has seen their real income (adjusted for inflation) go down.

A question: what is going to be done about education? In California, education has been cut so far back that the only left to do is to start closing schools down.

[Paul]

I am hopeful that the Obama administration will not bail out auto companies but rather invest in mass transit.

Building the infrastructure will put people to sork, stimulate the economy and give us a system so good that you won't even have to own a car.

The US will cease sucking down 25% of the world's oil output and we can downsize our military accordingly.

Build mass transit - creat jobs and keep the money at home.

[Liberoservative]

He will do both... but he will hold the auto industry accountable to build the cars of the future and not of the past

[tomjones44]

he'd better help the auto companies out, it is a huge economic engine (no pun intended) for a large part of the country

[liseworks]

Great op-ed - thanks for delving further into this topic for us - !!