To the extent that it is done by digging holes to fill them again, it is a net loss to the real economy and detrimental. To the extent it is an investment with net gain (and preferably the optimized net gain from the options available to fund…) then it is beneficial and a good thing.

BTW, folks in government like to forget the second half of Keynes: When demand is in surplus and money velocity too high: governments are supposed to reduce spending and save more to dampen the bubble… Keynes cuts both ways, but government policies only swing left. This leads to inflation and the destruction of monetary value in subsequent swings as the spiral begins…

Per solar and wind ‘creating jobs’: There is a major presence of solar manufacture in China already. The basic materials for wind turbines is energy intensive and cost pressures are driving chemical and metals makers to lower cost markets. The ability of America to be the continued low cost producer of these products is put seriously in doubt by Carbon Cap and Tirade policies. They, like all industrial goods, will be subject to the same cost driven outsourcing pressures; they are not immune…

So the end game will be that mandates for solar and wind may have a short term blip in manufacturing jobs, but very very quickly we will be buying solar panels and turbines from China and India. So much for ‘green jobs’… A panel gets bolted to a roof once every 20 years or so (if they work as advertised) and that takes a few hours. Not exactly a strategy for long term high employment and not exactly a high paying job.

The key for energy projects is the “something of long lasting value,” the vital element missing if the project requires, as does wind, continuing subventions by government to maintain its viability.

In the meantime, there is a lot of idle capital sitting with energy companies that can be deployed profitably if obstacles to investment are swept away. The economy is far better off relying mainly on these private investment to provide energy infrastructure than on government programs that cannot generate enough extra output in the economy to pay for themselves.

But are you that deeply anti-Keynsian? I’m no economist, but from what I gather the only known way to create growth in a down economy is for the government to spend a lot of the tax dollars it’s collected (or just run up the debt) on hiring people or contracting to businesses who will hire people. Isn’t that part of the point of the “green jobs” agenda?

Also, do you have no interest in seeing the price of solar and wind come down? Both would benefit greatly from economies of scale and the potential innovation that solar technology companies could create with the resulting capital.

Finally, isn’t there benefit to increasing the number of low-skilled jobs? I’m with you all the way when it comes to increasing productivity, but you still have to keep the whole country employed, and you’re never going to get everyone a college education and a high-paying white-collar “information worker” job. Isn’t it helpful to have enough jobs around for those without a degree that they have reasonable options and don’t have to turn to lucrative but damaging gray and black market?