" Franklin Roosevelt, 1930's, he and later Eisenhower 1950's adopted their versions of future funds to build American infrastructure. "

Rubbish. They certainly built infrastructure but not by using a 'future fund' model. They just built it. Roosevelt during a depression as a way to provide work. Eisenhower to just spend money when the US was proportionately the richest nation the world had ever seen and wanted to provide work to those at home and struggling allies.

"Who should we take notice of,"

I think we need to follow the unbelievably successful future fund model of Rex Connor.

AC,

The dictators love their show pieces. The trains are a technical marvel just a pity that they are losing vast amounts of money with some lines not even covering their running costs let alone the maintenance and capital costs.

The train speed technology available is not in synch with cost recovery ! Is there really such a need for that much speed ?
Just because it is technically possible is not enough reason to build it when the majority of people are struggling to house & feed themselves.
As great as much of technology is, there is more than enough evidence that a huge part of it is actually detrimental to society.

mehaze,

You say "rubbish" but as usual provide no evidence. Roosevelt's 'New Deal';

"At the center of Roosevelt's New Deal was the Reconstruction Finance Corporation (RFC), an independent agency within the federal government that set up lending systems to channel private capital into publicly desirable investments." Eisenhower's National Highways, was similar, private investment was channelled into publicly owned works, with government guarantees.

"The Eisenhower administration proposed financing the interstate highway system (Federal Highways Act) through a federal bond issue, and State and local input."

As I said both, Franklin Roosevelt, 1930's, he and later Eisenhower 1950's adopted their versions of future funds to build American infrastructure. "

But but ....they weren't FUTURE funds. They got the money and spent it.

The overriding feature of the FUTURE fund is to get the money, invest it and spend the profits LATER. They are very different ideas as compared to what Roosevelt did. The problem with the future fund notion is the expectation that there will be profits. Remember, we are talking about government here. Generating profits isn't their defining feature, to say the least.

mhaze,

Say what you like with your anti Labor bias, but the fair minded can see the benefits of borrowing and investing, using our AAA credit rating to our advantage, then investing the surplus profits into worthwhile social benefits. The fact is the incompetent Coalition left us with two problems, one a woefully inadequate housing situation, backed up by two, a trillion dollars of debt, with nothing to show for it. Labor is trying to tackle both without increasing Australia's debt situation. The key is unlike the Coalition debt this is not a burden on the taxpayer.

What do you suggest the government should do?