This apparently is a political question. I am not an expert on all types of infrastructure, or a financial expert, but I am somewhat of an expert on urban water infrastructure. The definition of infrastructure I typically use is from the Statement No. 34 of the Governmental Accounting Standards Board: Basic Financial Statements—and Management’s Discussion and Analysis—for State and Local Governments. Here is how it goes:

As used in this Statement, the term capital assets includes land, improvements to land, easements, buildings, building improvements, vehicles, machinery, equipment, works of art and historical treasures, infrastructure, and all other tangible or intangible assets that are used in operations and that have initial useful lives extending beyond a single reporting period. Infrastructure assets are long-lived capital assets that normally are stationary in nature and normally can be preserved for a significantly greater number of years than most capital assets. Examples of infrastructure assets include roads, bridges, tunnels, drainage systems, water and sewer systems, dams, and lighting systems. Buildings, except those that are an ancillary part of a network of infrastructure assets, should not be considered infrastructure assets for purposes of this Statement.

GASB 34

This seems like as good a definition as any. So Biden’s proposed bill is really a capital assets bill. Which doesn’t have much of a ring to it. But neither did infrastructure, it’s a bizarre word that we’ve just been saying a lot so it has started to sound less bizarre. Capital assets, I learned in my undergraduate economics classes, are the economy’s food, and as it consumes them we have to add more just to keep the amount of them level (maintain, repair, rehabilitate, or replace when the time comes). We can increase economic output up to a point by adding even more capital assets to increase the absolute level, although there is such a thing as adding too much (looking at you, old Soviet Union, and possibly modern Japan), and we are almost certainly way below the point that would be too much. It makes total sense to borrow at a reasonable interest rate and invest in capital assets that will provide a return on that investment, and if you can borrow at no interest or even a slight negative interest rate, and you are below that optimal level of capital assets, warm up those printing presses! You can also, in theory, incentivize the private sector to make appropriate capital investments on their side. Investments in education, training, research and development then round out the investment in capital assets by providing the work force and capacity to innovate that set the stage for long term investment. Oh, and you want to try to do all this without irreversibly fucking up the atmosphere and oceans. Easy peasy!

What infrastructure is definitely not is only roads, bridges, and highways. That has been the limit of imagination of many of our elected officials when talking about infrastructure. So good for this administration for taking a more expansive view, and seizing the initiative. We’ll see if this is the one big thing this administration manages to get done in its two year “grace period”. Why do we have a system where we can only do one thing every 8 years?