3 ms·
> The logic for starting in the middle is that it created economic assistance (as a side effect) in an area with a jobs problem. Why not start that part sooner
by rocqua 10y ago
> The logic for starting in the middle is that it created economic assistance (as a side effect) in an area with a jobs problem. Why not start that part sooner rather than later?
This is much like the broken-window-fallacy. The reason not to start in the middle is because the middle (especially on its own) doesn't have a lot of inherent value.
Heck, if the train here (minus wages) costs more than it is worth this is a straight-up broken-window-fallacy.
- hueving 10y ago>Heck, if the train here (minus wages) costs more than it is worth this is a straight-up broken-window-fallacy. Not really. Lots of projects can start out in the red and then provide more value longer-term. This is particularly true when talking about improving transit to impoverished areas.
- ubernostrum 10y agoCongratulations! You've proved you can type the phrase "broken-window fallacy". Just be careful -- if you do it three times in a single comment, a ghost will appear in your bathroom mirror. Meanwhile... if you're going to build a high-speed line from SF to LA, why not start the project by 1. In locations which already have rail infrastructure, upgrading that infrastructure to the required standard, and 2. In locations which lack existing infrastructure or connections to the planned stops of the line, get the construction on that going And if as a side effect it boosts the economies of the places in (2), well, that's a nice side effect. But "we were going to do this anyway, doing it in this order gets this side effect that's useful" is not the broken-window fallacy. Plus, you know, infrastructure isn't generally built for its high profit margins; it's built because of the profit it generates in other sectors.