Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:

UPS chief urges investment

The US must reinvest in its ageing, overused transportation networks or risk losing ground to the world's other leading economies, United Parcel Service's chief executive said.

Scott Davis told the Financial Times that the nation's private sector should seek out opportunities to partner with transportation authorities to help modernise the infrastructure that underpins the US economy.

We've got to work very closely with the government to look ahead and take a candid look at where we are," said Mr Davis, who took over as chief executive of UPS, the world's largest package-delivery company, in January. "It's so critical to the future competitiveness of the US that we build the transportation infrastructure that we need."

The US may need to spend $1,600bn in the next five years to restore its infrastructure to good condition, according to the American Society of Civil Engineers.




In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Tue Mar 25th, 2008 at 06:14:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]
That's a lot of money.

I think I'll have to convert it into currencies I can understand. $1,600,000,000,000=16000 Gripen fighter jets=320 big nuclear reactors=3,2 times the GDP of Sweden.

That is, this is a sh*tload of money.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.

by Starvid on Tue Mar 25th, 2008 at 08:40:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It's not $1.6tn, it's $1.6tn over 5 years or $320bn/yr.Jerome a Paris:
The US may need to spend $1,600bn in the next five years
That's about 3% of US GDP. Not an unreasonable Keynesian stimulus plan.

It'd be nice if the battle were only against the right wingers, not half of the left on top of that — François in Paris
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Mar 25th, 2008 at 08:55:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It's still immense. Consider what a huge effort it would be if the US built 320 big reactors at $5 billion each over the next 5 years.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
by Starvid on Tue Mar 25th, 2008 at 09:04:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]
3% of US GDP is immense in absolute terms, yes, but not in relative terms.

It does represent a few million jobs, though, maybe shaving a couple of percentage points from unemployment figures.

It'd be nice if the battle were only against the right wingers, not half of the left on top of that — François in Paris

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Mar 25th, 2008 at 09:49:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I guess that's what gives me hope on the energy issues. Even if we need to spend trillions, that'll just be a tiny part of the GDP over the next decade or three.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
by Starvid on Tue Mar 25th, 2008 at 09:57:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series