Comments on: The Infrastructure Privatization Bank http://blogs.reuters.com/muniland/2011/09/10/the-infrastructure-privatization-bank/ Bridges, budgets, bonds Mon, 24 Nov 2014 00:29:08 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.5 By: politicaljules http://blogs.reuters.com/muniland/2011/09/10/the-infrastructure-privatization-bank/comment-page-1/#comment-462 Tue, 20 Sep 2011 19:45:41 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/muniland/?p=3719#comment-462 Let’s not overlook the part where the article states private lenders lend their money for the projects which is backed by public funds. JUST LIKE FANNIE AND FREDDIE!

When this industry is set up to fail, or too big to fail, you and I are on the hook to pay back those private lenders back their money! And the government gets to own another industry!

Not only is this a huge money laundering scheme (soylendra anyone), but behind our backs, with eyes wide shut, we are becoming Cuba.

The American Infrastructure Financing Authority will launder the tax payers money just like every government program put in place over the last several decades. This is not going to end well for us.

]]>
By: TomTee http://blogs.reuters.com/muniland/2011/09/10/the-infrastructure-privatization-bank/comment-page-1/#comment-437 Tue, 13 Sep 2011 20:51:28 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/muniland/?p=3719#comment-437 A group of concerned citizens in Chicago are organizing to oppose privatization and the aggressive incursion and pawning of the public commons. We seek allies and Public Defenders across America. Tell us your story of privatization efforts and how they were fought.
http:www.publicassets.us – tom@tresser.com

]]>
By: beowulf_ http://blogs.reuters.com/muniland/2011/09/10/the-infrastructure-privatization-bank/comment-page-1/#comment-436 Tue, 13 Sep 2011 19:52:32 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/muniland/?p=3719#comment-436 Hmm, why does the name “Thomas Edison” suddenly come to mind, oh yes….
“Look at it another way. If the Government issues bonds, the brokers will sell them. The bonds will be negotiable; they will be considered as gilt edged paper. Why? Because the government is behind them, but who is behind the Government? The people. Therefore it is the people who constitute the basis of Government credit. Why then cannot the people have the benefit of their own gilt-edged credit…”
http://prosperityuk.com/2000/09/thomas-e dison-on-government-created-debt-free-mo ney/

The proper legal term for “public-private partnership” is Major Fraud Against the United States (18 USC 1031). Congress can use its seigniorage powers to fund infrastructure at any time without adding a penny to the deficit (or wasting more billions on corporate welfare for Obama’s Wall Street buddies). There was a bipartisan bill offered by two Ohio Congressmen a few years ago to do just that, allowing states to borrow at near-0 interest to fund infrastructure projects.

“The bank, as an extension of the Federal Financing bank under the Treasury Department, would establish zero-interest mortgage loans for states and local governments to use to fund specific projects. The loans would bear a small fee of one-quarter of one percent of the loan principle to cover the administrative costs of the FBIM. The bill would not require Congress to appropriate any funds…”
http://www.house.gov/list/press/oh14_lat ourette/bank.html

]]>
By: gringcorp http://blogs.reuters.com/muniland/2011/09/10/the-infrastructure-privatization-bank/comment-page-1/#comment-432 Tue, 13 Sep 2011 09:24:46 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/muniland/?p=3719#comment-432 The Preqin number you mention is almost certainly an exaggeration, but it refers for the most part to EQUITY, not DEBT. In other words, the guys that get paid back after bondholders/lenders. And private equity investors have had to take their lumps in US infrastructure. Exhibit A would be the South Bay Expressway collapse, where a government lender (USDOT) recovered a whole bunch more than the owners. As for the use of private money, the argument goes something like this. Parking the debt obligations for new investments with the municipality is not always feasible (or desirable), so these investments should be structured to be self-supporting, for instance by tolls. Bonds that lack full backing from government are somewhat prone to falling victim to the economic cycle (for instance with falling toll revenue). So private equity investors can take the cyclical lumps in return for, yes, high single-digit, low double-digit returns. Now whether handing off some of these risks in return for leaving some (not necessarily all) revenue with private sector is a decision for local governments to take. Raising taxes, charges, or increasing outstanding GO debt are all options too.

]]>
By: Laster http://blogs.reuters.com/muniland/2011/09/10/the-infrastructure-privatization-bank/comment-page-1/#comment-431 Tue, 13 Sep 2011 00:21:31 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/muniland/?p=3719#comment-431 Thank you for putting into print the questions I had concerning this infrastructure bank.
I have more questions relating to the infrastructure bank which i won’t pose at this time as i think they might get ahead of a future story.
Would it be possible to email the author and circumvent the comments section?

]]>