Two trillion baht infrastructure programme to spur Thai economy next year

[ggold]

The seven-year infrastructure programme alone will help increase the country’s GDP from Bt12 trillion baht to Bt150 trillion, he said.' Has to be a typo! however surely The GDP rise to 15trillion is the amount they want to borrow! and not part of production?

Or is he reffering to GROSS DOMESTIC PAYBACK!

[Thait Spot]

GDP is an interesting animal......

Spending governmemnt money on large infrastructure puts money into the economy by purchasing goods and purchasing services/manpower.

A lot of the loan is intended to be spent on a high speed rail system - and a lot on road improvements.

The caveats that I have are these:

Purchasing some goods will be good for Thailand - cement for example as it is domestically produced. Purchasing high speed rail components will only add to the already high import bill.

Purchasing manpower will depend on where it comes from and the majoprity of large and small construction projects are staffed by large numbers of foreIgn (Cambodian) workers that will send their money home as well as spend it in Thailand - another deficit to the balance of payments. Does Thailand even have a large enough skilled workforce to compete?

The loan will surely come from foreign banks - and the interest payments will therefore also impact the balance of payments. The loan is not a staged transaction, for some bizarrre reason it is to be sought up front - Abhisit and Korn have questioned this approach.

I have seen articles on how quickly the infrastructure work can be ramped up. There's lots to be done before the shovels hit the dirt

Even years down the line when the roads and rail are in use, the income from them will be either low or negligible

So anybody seeing this as the silver bullet for the Thai economy should spend some time considering the full metrics

[tingtongteesood]

Two trillion baht infrastructure programme to spur Thai economy next year have the usual 30 - 40 % siphoned off into PT MP's secret off shore bank accounts

[pedro01]

I am buying stock today. SET will go up.

Oxo or Bisto?

Definitely not Knorr, too salty.

One question.

This vast sum of money they are borrowing ...... who from?

Friends of Mr T perhaps?

[lostmebike]

The Thai government’s two trillion baht infrastructure development programme will help contribute to GDP the fat, Thai - Chinese poo yai's bank balances next year, Minister of Finance Kittiratt Na-Ranong said yesterday.

More appropriate I feel

[bkkgriz]

Mr Kittiratt admitted that the country’s grim economic growth performance this year is closely linked to many negative external factors.

Now remember students, when all else fails, blame the foreigners. Thai economics 101.

[bkkgriz]

was my first thought. then

first the

2 trillion stimulas will equal one new road and a fleet of new Mercedes for all the government employees. This looks more like a stimulas to the German economy. Maybe this is to make up for stepping out of the submarine deal.

then the

Even if they did spend the money on badly needed infrastructure, the EU, USA, Japan, and numerous other countries have already proved that government spending does nothing for the economy. this money comes from somewhere, the private (productive) sector. so they are going to tax efficent businesses 2 trillion baht extra and squander it away. how is this going to help the economy ?

if they want to help the economy then how about a crackdown on corruption. imagine all the businesses who would love to open up shop here if they didnt need to pay off politicians and police right and left. imagine if the roads were safe to drive on, or the trains were a safe method of transportation. how glorious it would be to rent a jet ski without being assulted when you return it. imagine a Thailand that doesnt have a protest in process. or if a foriegner could own his own land instead of the constant fear of a Thai person (partner or wife) confiscating it and kicking him back to his own country. if they want to stimulate the economy then start holding people accountable!

+100. Well said.

[virtualtraveller]

Understand this, the government is desperate to get their hands on this money and start dishing it out before the next election, since their rice scheme and others are starting to backfire. The economic indicators are increasingly looking shady, the warnings have come from several financial journalists, growth rate is flagging, exports are down, state coffers are getting empty to buy rice, they really need this money otherwise they are going to lose the next election. It's becoming critical timing, which is why suthep is going in for the kill to get them out before they have a chance to spend.

I think they should give this govt 3-6 months to really screw up, it will take that long to start the money train moving anyhow, we haven't seen the worst yet of the Yingluck policy making.

[yourauntbob]

was my first thought. then

first the

2 trillion stimulas will equal one new road and a fleet of new Mercedes for all the government employees. This looks more like a stimulas to the German economy. Maybe this is to make up for stepping out of the submarine deal.

then the

Even if they did spend the money on badly needed infrastructure, the EU, USA, Japan, and numerous other countries have already proved that government spending does nothing for the economy. this money comes from somewhere, the private (productive) sector. so they are going to tax efficent businesses 2 trillion baht extra and squander it away. how is this going to help the economy ?

if they want to help the economy then how about a crackdown on corruption. imagine all the businesses who would love to open up shop here if they didnt need to pay off politicians and police right and left. imagine if the roads were safe to drive on, or the trains were a safe method of transportation. how glorious it would be to rent a jet ski without being assulted when you return it. imagine a Thailand that doesnt have a protest in process. or if a foriegner could own his own land instead of the constant fear of a Thai person (partner or wife) confiscating it and kicking him back to his own country. if they want to stimulate the economy then start holding people accountable!

I am so glad that the USA didn't spend anything to stimulate their way out if recession. Just imagine how good it would have been if no one spent anything and unemployment was now 25% instead of 10%.

huh? if no one spent anything? i honestly dont understand your comment.

I partly agree and partly disagree with both of you.

I think the vast majority of economists would agree with Keynes that in a recession government stimulus spending can provide a boost to GDP. Where they would have differing views are over the extent of that boost, how quickly you reach diminishing returns and whether the benefits will be significant enough to overcome the negative impacts. To provide the stimulus the government borrows it does not tax more so they are not hitting efficient businesses by taxing them more. However government borrowing will increase interest rates and competing for lenders funds is likely to crowd out some private sector borrowing so efficient firms do find it harder to borow and may pay higher interst to fund their own investments.

The key word is can. If the funds are spent optimally to create new jobs, effectively upgrade infrastructure and provide business to efficient local businesses then there should be a benefit of well over the money spent (all the salaries, profits etc get spent providing further salaries and profits). Higher salaries and profits also mean higher taxes without increasing tax rates so that the debt can be paid off. Of course in the real world the money is not spent efficiently and large amounts are siphoned off, pumped into unproductive but well conected industries or provide bridges to nowhere and other useless infrastructure. In that case of course the benefits are negative and the proposed solution is to spend and skim more.

Wonder which scenario is likely in Thailand

i take no issue with most of your post. we dissagree on certain respects and thats ok.

you point on "o provide the stimulus the government borrows it does not tax more so they are not hitting efficient businesses by taxing them more."

now or later, the government must either collect this money from people and businesses or it must print more money. either way it strips buying power away from the populas. there is no such thing as a free lunch, sooner or later it must be paid for.

stimulas in times of crisis would, in my opinion, help settle the market. the problem is that by the time the government passes such a stimulas, the funds are appropriated, and the money finds its way into the system it is too late to have an effect on said crisis. there are monetary measures that would more quickly and efficently address the problem in times of crisis.

[Moruya]

GDP is an interesting animal......

Spending governmemnt money on large infrastructure puts money into the economy by purchasing goods and purchasing services/manpower.

A lot of the loan is intended to be spent on a high speed rail system - and a lot on road improvements.

The caveats that I have are these:

Purchasing some goods will be good for Thailand - cement for example as it is domestically produced. Purchasing high speed rail components will only add to the already high import bill.

Purchasing manpower will depend on where it comes from and the majoprity of large and small construction projects are staffed by large numbers of foreIgn (Cambodian) workers that will send their money home as well as spend it in Thailand - another deficit to the balance of payments. Does Thailand even have a large enough skilled workforce to compete?

The loan will surely come from foreign banks - and the interest payments will therefore also impact the balance of payments. The loan is not a staged transaction, for some bizarrre reason it is to be sought up front - Abhisit and Korn have questioned this approach.

I have seen articles on how quickly the infrastructure work can be ramped up. There's lots to be done before the shovels hit the dirt

Even years down the line when the roads and rail are in use, the income from them will be either low or negligible

So anybody seeing this as the silver bullet for the Thai economy should spend some time considering the full metrics

The whole scheme has been ill-considered - apart from the bit about where the money will go

[bigbamboo]

TCT says a 17 per cent increase in tourist numbers this year.

Do I hear 18 from TAT?

[Emptyset]

The loan will surely come from foreign banks - and the interest payments will therefore also impact the balance of payments. The loan is not a staged transaction, for some bizarrre reason it is to be sought up front - Abhisit and Korn have questioned this approach.

Sorry for cutting the rest of your post TS, I just wanted to respond to this part as according to Kittirat it will in fact be a staged transaction. "Mr Kittiratt said the two trillion baht in loans would be secured gradually until the end of 2020. The government would maintain fiscal discipline to ensure that debt repayments each year would not exceed 15% of annual national expenditure." Via BKK Pundit.

What's the difference between the Democrat 2 trillion plan and the PT plan? Don't know the specifics, just that the proposed Democrat plan would come out of the budget. But like BKK Pundit says: 'There is no magic money from the budget. It is not as though if the money comes from a budget deficit that it is cheaper to borrow. Budget deficits have to be financed as well. Have heard multiple mentions by both the opposition and some parts of the media, but can someone somehow explain the budget deficit approach suddenly makes this cheaper or fiscally better? Yes, budget deficits are an alternative, but is it really that different?'

[Emptyset]

Mr Kittiratt admitted that the country’s grim economic growth performance this year is closely linked to many negative external factors.

Now remember students, when all else fails, blame the foreigners. Thai economics 101.

So what are the other reasons in your opinion? This is nothing to do with being Thai. Governments all over the world will point to external factors for poor economic performance. You'd have to look at each specific case to decide if that was true or not.

[Ricardo]

30% of 2.2 trillion Baht, now that would fill an awful lot of wardrobes, which their owners would have to go out and buy, thus expanding retail-sales and the GDP !

[Ulic]

The minister, however, said that the exchange rate is stable and the current tourism high season will help prevent further decline.

Again, how is it that tourism represents only 6% of Thai GDP if it's so very prominent in ALL discussions RE revenue? One must think it contributes significantly more than 6%. Perhaps even it's the one thing holding the country's economy afloat.

While I don't believe a word of most governments pronouncements from the Greek to my own Canadian , American etc. there are levels of

believability I guess. As for the tourism revenue in Thailand while it may not be more than 6% of Thai GDP it may be a disproportionate tax

revenue generator for the government. Also it is responsible for a huge percentage of foreign revenue generation. While domestic production

for domestic consumption will be a far greater percentage of Thai GDP it does not bring in foreign currency.

For me the big issue is the corruption. From what I have read 30% of a projects budget is paid toward bribes. The bigger the project the more money

to be misappropriated. With 2 trillion on the table a lot of people will get rich. The Thai debt will quickly pass 50% of GDP. This may be the

best chance for people to line there pockets. Once Thailand's debt passes 50% in will be harder to get the huge infrastructure feed troughs financed.

Edited November 19, 2013 by Ulic

[Mosha]

This type of thread makes me think of the Greek Bridge.

[timber]

I think that the effect of the two trillion baht depends on how much money the politicians recycle in Thailand.

The PM has spent an incredible amount of money on her trips outside of Thailand with her hangers on.

[Robby nz]

One question.

This vast sum of money they are borrowing ...... who from?

I have been wondering that too... Can it all be raised domestically? Surely no major international banking institutions or foreign governments will be willing to lend large sums for yet unspecified projects? At least I hope not!

For political concessions? Maybe from China in exchange for Thai backing in the South China Sea - but even with a worthless aircraft carrier and empty submarine pens, what possible use would Thailand's backing in the South China Sea be?

It's also worth noting that the Thai government has been trying to develop Dawei in Myanmar for their own advantage but wanted Japan to stump up the funds for it all. That has now been cut from under their feet, and a good thing too.

Where is the loan to come from? Maybe one of the more serious and intelligent Thaksin supporters on TV could enlighten us? That would, of course, limit the field to Fab4 or Hammered. Still, I'd like to hear...

Where will the money come from?

I have no link but remember it being said that 60% was expected to come from Thai Banks.

Then if I remember correctly Kitaratt said only last week that the Thai banks had enough liquidity to be able to fund the whole 2.2 trillion.

This would mean that if they cant get sufficient funding from elsewhere then they could turn to the Thai banks for the lot.

As they have already borrowed the 350 billion from Thai banks and the BAAC needs to borrow of another 140 billion to fund this years rice scheme.

And I read that at least 2 other Govt banks the SME bank and the Islamic bank are in a shakey position due to NLP's.

If Thai banks are expected to fund the lot then the whole banking system would not be in a good position.

What's the difference between the Democrat 2 trillion plan and the PT plan? Don't know the specifics, just that the proposed Democrat plan would come out of the budget. But like BKK Pundit says: 'There is no magic money from the budget. It is not as though if the money comes from a budget deficit that it is cheaper to borrow. Budget deficits have to be financed as well. Have heard multiple mentions by both the opposition and some parts of the media, but can someone somehow explain the budget deficit approach suddenly makes this cheaper or fiscally better? Yes, budget deficits are an alternative, but is it really that different?'

It doesn't necessarely make it cheaper emtyset .

What it does do is make it more transparent as the budget has to be reported each year and is there for parliamentary and public scrutiny.

Whereas off budget spending has no scrutiny and therefor no accountability.

[Thai at Heart]

was my first thought. then

first the

2 trillion stimulas will equal one new road and a fleet of new Mercedes for all the government employees. This looks more like a stimulas to the German economy. Maybe this is to make up for stepping out of the submarine deal.

then the

Even if they did spend the money on badly needed infrastructure, the EU, USA, Japan, and numerous other countries have already proved that government spending does nothing for the economy. this money comes from somewhere, the private (productive) sector. so they are going to tax efficent businesses 2 trillion baht extra and squander it away. how is this going to help the economy ?

if they want to help the economy then how about a crackdown on corruption. imagine all the businesses who would love to open up shop here if they didnt need to pay off politicians and police right and left. imagine if the roads were safe to drive on, or the trains were a safe method of transportation. how glorious it would be to rent a jet ski without being assulted when you return it. imagine a Thailand that doesnt have a protest in process. or if a foriegner could own his own land instead of the constant fear of a Thai person (partner or wife) confiscating it and kicking him back to his own country. if they want to stimulate the economy then start holding people accountable!

I am so glad that the USA didn't spend anything to stimulate their way out if recession. Just imagine how good it would have been if no one spent anything and unemployment was now 25% instead of 10%.

huh? if no one spent anything? i honestly dont understand your comment.

"countries have already proved that government spending does nothing for the economy"

I think, particularly in the case of the USA, if they had not turned on the taps in the USA, the world would be staring possibly at complete and utter financial oblivion. If the American consumer was out of work to the level he might have been had there been no stimulus whatsoever, it would have taken a much longer time to get the USA back to a point of GDP growth.

It is the lesser of two evils.

[Emptyset]

What's the difference between the Democrat 2 trillion plan and the PT plan? Don't know the specifics, just that the proposed Democrat plan would come out of the budget. But like BKK Pundit says: 'There is no magic money from the budget. It is not as though if the money comes from a budget deficit that it is cheaper to borrow. Budget deficits have to be financed as well. Have heard multiple mentions by both the opposition and some parts of the media, but can someone somehow explain the budget deficit approach suddenly makes this cheaper or fiscally better? Yes, budget deficits are an alternative, but is it really that different?'

It doesn't necessarely make it cheaper emtyset .

What it does do is make it more transparent as the budget has to be reported each year and is there for parliamentary and public scrutiny.

Whereas off budget spending has no scrutiny and therefor no accountability.

Yes, I can see that side of things. Still there will no doubt be endless commitees, study groups and the like before each individual project goes ahead. This issue seems to be the only real difference between the sides to me, both the Democrats and PT are commited to spending 2 billion on major infrastructure projects, only significant qs are regarding transparency and accountability, not that the money needs to be spent.

[Robby nz]

Yes, I can see that side of things. Still there will no doubt be endless commitees, study groups and the like before each individual project goes ahead. This issue seems to be the only real difference between the sides to me, both the Democrats and PT are commited to spending 2 billion on major infrastructure projects, only significant qs are regarding transparency and accountability, not that the money needs to be spent.

Another difference emptyset could be just what the money should be spent on and what are the priorities.

I have not seen anything from the Dems to say what they see as the first and most important.

Yet PT seem to be pushing HSR before all else. As this is a completely new project then it should start from the bottom with all the reports and surveys.

Whereas double tracking the existing system and bringing it up to standard would be easier to get underway as I have read that the railways has already done a fair bit of the preliminary work.

It should also keep more of the money within the country.

[bigbamboo]

Mr Kittiratt admitted that the country’s grim economic growth performance this year is closely linked to many negative external factors.

Now remember students, when all else fails, blame the foreigners. Thai economics 101.

So what are the other reasons in your opinion? This is nothing to do with being Thai. Governments all over the world will point to external factors for poor economic performance. You'd have to look at each specific case to decide if that was true or not.

Let's see. Can't blame the foreign tourists because they've been doing their bit and more coming to Thailand and spending more than ever. Can't blame foreign customers because exports are up. Can't blame the investors because Thailand is now the most attractive place to invest in the world and money has been pouring in all year due to the confidence in the government generated by Yingluck on her world tour. And it can't be the Chinese because they run the country anyway.

So what could it be?

It has to be the leader's rice scheme. Those pesky foreigners won't pay inflated Thai prices.

[waza]

Yes, I can see that side of things. Still there will no doubt be endless commitees, study groups and the like before each individual project goes ahead. This issue seems to be the only real difference between the sides to me, both the Democrats and PT are commited to spending 2 billion on major infrastructure projects, only significant qs are regarding transparency and accountability, not that the money needs to be spent.

Another difference emptyset could be just what the money should be spent on and what are the priorities.

I have not seen anything from the Dems to say what they see as the first and most important.

Yet PT seem to be pushing HSR before all else. As this is a completely new project then it should start from the bottom with all the reports and surveys.

Whereas double tracking the existing system and bringing it up to standard would be easier to get underway as I have read that the railways has already done a fair bit of the preliminary work.

It should also keep more of the money within the country.

The Dems have publically outlined there vision for an alternative infrastructure plan......

"The plan is a response to the government's proposed Bt2-trillion in projects to develop Thailand's transportation infrastructure. Abhisit said his party wanted to offer a choice for the future. It criticised the government's Bt2-trillion plan for the next seven years as being based on a belief that the Kingdom's road and rail system was inadequate."

A more indepth list of their plan is here...........

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Democrats-offer-alternative-to-govt-Bt2-tn-infrast-30215510.html

[yourauntbob]

was my first thought. then

first the

2 trillion stimulas will equal one new road and a fleet of new Mercedes for all the government employees. This looks more like a stimulas to the German economy. Maybe this is to make up for stepping out of the submarine deal.

then the

Even if they did spend the money on badly needed infrastructure, the EU, USA, Japan, and numerous other countries have already proved that government spending does nothing for the economy. this money comes from somewhere, the private (productive) sector. so they are going to tax efficent businesses 2 trillion baht extra and squander it away. how is this going to help the economy ?

if they want to help the economy then how about a crackdown on corruption. imagine all the businesses who would love to open up shop here if they didnt need to pay off politicians and police right and left. imagine if the roads were safe to drive on, or the trains were a safe method of transportation. how glorious it would be to rent a jet ski without being assulted when you return it. imagine a Thailand that doesnt have a protest in process. or if a foriegner could own his own land instead of the constant fear of a Thai person (partner or wife) confiscating it and kicking him back to his own country. if they want to stimulate the economy then start holding people accountable!

I am so glad that the USA didn't spend anything to stimulate their way out if recession. Just imagine how good it would have been if no one spent anything and unemployment was now 25% instead of 10%.

huh? if no one spent anything? i honestly dont understand your comment.

"countries have already proved that government spending does nothing for the economy"

I think, particularly in the case of the USA, if they had not turned on the taps in the USA, the world would be staring possibly at complete and utter financial oblivion. If the American consumer was out of work to the level he might have been had there been no stimulus whatsoever, it would have taken a much longer time to get the USA back to a point of GDP growth.

It is the lesser of two evils.

since there is no way to run a exact side by side comparision, there is no way to know for sure. but as i stated in another post, by the time the "stimulas" kicks in it is already too late. the governments own fingures showed that it costs millions of dollars per job created and many (including myself) believe that was an exageration on their part to make it look better.

when they talk about "turning on the taps" they are referring to monetary policy, not fiscal. the fed (federal reserve) lowers interest rates and pushes money into the system in the hopes that it generates borrowing to stimualate transactions. i do believe this was the right call at the time, i also believe its about time they turn off the taps. inflation is grossly understated and i see a monetary bubble forming (i know, another bubble). many large companies and the 1% are sitting on large piles of cash, until the economy recovers they will continue to hoard it. there is going to be a real problem when all this cash decides to enter the main stream.

but i regress, this is about Thailand and the foolishness of this policy. lets hope some not so common sense prevails. they are in a bit of a slump, not a crisis. they should buget some money to improve infrastructure and put a bit less in their pockets and we will all be fine. unemployment is at a wopping 1%

[Bpuumike]

was my first thought. then

first the

2 trillion stimulas will equal one new road and a fleet of new Mercedes for all the government employees. This looks more like a stimulas to the German economy. Maybe this is to make up for stepping out of the submarine deal.

then the

Even if they did spend the money on badly needed infrastructure, the EU, USA, Japan, and numerous other countries have already proved that government spending does nothing for the economy. this money comes from somewhere, the private (productive) sector. so they are going to tax efficent businesses 2 trillion baht extra and squander it away. how is this going to help the economy ?

if they want to help the economy then how about a crackdown on corruption. imagine all the businesses who would love to open up shop here if they didnt need to pay off politicians and police right and left. imagine if the roads were safe to drive on, or the trains were a safe method of transportation. how glorious it would be to rent a jet ski without being assulted when you return it. imagine a Thailand that doesnt have a protest in process. or if a foriegner could own his own land instead of the constant fear of a Thai person (partner or wife) confiscating it and kicking him back to his own country. if they want to stimulate the economy then start holding people accountable!

I am so glad that the USA didn't spend anything to stimulate their way out if recession. Just imagine how good it would have been if no one spent anything and unemployment was now 25% instead of 10%.

Dig beyond the Gov BS and it's reckoned to be 23%

[Bpuumike]

I am buying stock today. SET will go up.

Oxo or Bisto?

Definitely not Knorr, too salty.

One question.

This vast sum of money they are borrowing ...... who from?

Just print it like the rest of the world.

[cigar7]

I hope that budget includes a few things for Pattaya, like cleaning out the sewers, enlarging the sewers to carry storm water, and making flat sidewalks, at least 1 meter wide, on all streets.

[thaicbr]

 

What's the difference between the Democrat 2 trillion plan and the PT plan? Don't know the specifics, just that the proposed Democrat plan would come out of the budget. But like BKK Pundit says: 'There is no magic money from the budget. It is not as though if the money comes from a budget deficit that it is cheaper to borrow. Budget deficits have to be financed as well. Have heard multiple mentions by both the opposition and some parts of the media, but can someone somehow explain the budget deficit approach suddenly makes this cheaper or fiscally better? Yes, budget deficits are an alternative, but is it really that different?'

 

 

It doesn't necessarely make it cheaper emtyset .

 

What it does do is make it more transparent as the budget has to be reported each year and is there for parliamentary and public scrutiny.

 

Whereas off budget spending has no scrutiny and therefor no accountability.

 

 

Yes, I can see that side of things. Still there will no doubt be endless commitees, study groups and the like before each individual project goes ahead. This issue seems to be the only real difference between the sides to me, both the Democrats and PT are commited to spending 2 billion on major infrastructure projects, only significant qs are regarding transparency and accountability, not that the money needs to be spent.

 

But who elects and sits on the committees?

When they were discussing this a committee wanted to have a bit in the legislation that each loan section be attributed to a particular project that was overruled as it was stated that SOME of the projects may not progress as they may fail environmental reviews etc

If thats the case. Why are they looking at a blanket loan for projects that haven't even got far enough to even start. Let alone finish?

Sent from my phone with the app thingy.

[Thaddeus]

What's the difference between the Democrat 2 trillion plan and the PT plan? Don't know the specifics, just that the proposed Democrat plan would come out of the budget. But like BKK Pundit says: 'There is no magic money from the budget. It is not as though if the money comes from a budget deficit that it is cheaper to borrow. Budget deficits have to be financed as well. Have heard multiple mentions by both the opposition and some parts of the media, but can someone somehow explain the budget deficit approach suddenly makes this cheaper or fiscally better? Yes, budget deficits are an alternative, but is it really that different?'

It doesn't necessarely make it cheaper emtyset .

What it does do is make it more transparent as the budget has to be reported each year and is there for parliamentary and public scrutiny.

Whereas off budget spending has no scrutiny and therefor no accountability.

Yes, I can see that side of things. Still there will no doubt be endless commitees, study groups and the like before each individual project goes ahead. This issue seems to be the only real difference between the sides to me, both the Democrats and PT are commited to spending 2 billion on major infrastructure projects, only significant qs are regarding transparency and accountability, not that the money needs to be spent.

But who elects and sits on the committees?

When they were discussing this a committee wanted to have a bit in the legislation that each loan section be attributed to a particular project that was overruled as it was stated that SOME of the projects may not progress as they may fail environmental reviews etc

If thats the case. Why are they looking at a blanket loan for projects that haven't even got far enough to even start. Let alone finish?

Intent to deceive is the usual reason.