I have no idea how such an organization gets funded, but I'm glad somebody has the time to think deeply about such matters.

This summary tickled a part of my brain that has had thoughts about how we pay for this stuff. Those thoughts run down a different avenue, but I'll share them here just because.

In the U.S. it seems common that infrastructure is funded in significant ways by the federal government. Witness the current Biden plan. But also, federal money funds local schools, health initiatives, law enforcement, on and on. Some years ago I remember an important bridge falling down in Minnesota or some such place and there was immediately work in the U.S. Congress to pass funding for replacement construction. When the Flint water scandal broke, local and state officials immediately turned their attention (and outstretched hands) to D.C. for help. New York or Florida or well, everybody, immediately lobby D.C. after any natural disaster.

At some level it makes sense that an entire nation can chip in to bail out unfortunate victims easier than the local residents could do so. But I actually think this is false because it isn't everybody helping out on one isolated incident, it is everybody helping out on every single incident. At that point, we might as well have all just paid for our own local incident. The money comes out the same.

Of course, 350 million people can raise $350 million in a day every day of the year for just $1/person/day. So it does improve liquidity. And there are probably other benefits.

But here's the huge downside. All that money flows from little dinky Anywhere, U.S. to Washington. Then it comes back to Anywhere in their time of need. Except that it doesn't all come back. A large chunk is consumed in the federal bureaucracy. And some is eaten by graft. And maybe those two losses would occur at a local or state level, too. But the big gotcha for me is that the money comes back with strings attached.

We'll give federal highway funding to Montana, but they have to comply with speed limits set by somebody from Chicago. Arizona can get funding for a hospital but they have to bow to some immigration policy set by people from Vermont.

The redistribution of the wealth is a source of enormous power and attracts the power-hungry. It is a design for corruption and manipulation. And because it centralizes such enormous money/power, it must be said that it is designed to attract corruption and manipulation on an enormous scale. So while the little hospital in Arizona might have attracted some small fish to take advantage of the opportunity if it were locally funded, federal funding subjects it to the biggest fish in the world.

To bring this back to the subject, imagine if city and state taxes went way up to pay for water distribution, pot hole repair, etc. and federal taxes went way down. Then, property taxes might actually cover regular city maintenance. And at no added cost to taxpayers. The city could reduce its federal lobby budget because they aren't going to get any federal aid so quit paying somebody to keep asking. If they need more money, they can raise local taxes.

I know that this is terribly naive in many ways, and just ignorant in other ways. I'd love to hear any criticism.