4 ms·

It seems like so many people feel that $5 billion just evaporates after the government spends it. The government spent it, it's gone. Poof. No. That $5B paid l

It seems like so many people feel that $5 billion just evaporates after the government spends it. The government spent it, it's gone. Poof. No. That $5B paid lots of people directly in their salaries, which then got spent in their local economies which then in turn went to construction workers building houses for those employees, the grocers selling the food those people eat, etc. It also went to go buy lots of actual raw materials, which once again employed lots of people and spurred those industries and all the secondary and tertiary spending that happens and what not. So in a way, that government spending on science is investing in those towns. And ultimately does lead towards more people being able to afford a home, put groceries on the table, etc. Growing up surrounded by NASA in Clear Lake it was quite obvious to me how important government spending was to the local economy, and how negatively it would affect people if the government decided it wouldn't be worth it to fund it anymore. How many blue-collar construction workers will do better when NASA gets funding to upgrade their 1960's facilities? Won't it help them afford housing? Won't it help ensure their kids don't go hungry?

s1artibartfast 2y ago
Simply spending money is not an investment. An investment is something that provides positive return over time. It is tied to net positive productivity and economic exports. Creating a dependent local economy or industry that consumes more than it produces is not an investment, it is welfare. While government can make investments, not all spending is an investment any more than all the purchases I make are investments.
- vel0city 2y ago
  Some percentage of that spending does turn into actual economic investments in those local towns. Infrastructure gets built because of it. Homes are built. Shops are built. Tax revenues get collected to build schools to educate new generations of citizens. New technologies are made, new industries grown, etc. So even with your specific definition of investment that spending did spur some of it. Land is improved. Positive productivity, economic exports. > An investment is something that provides positive return over time That's one definition, implying it will just continue to give a return. Like dividends. Another would be "an act of devoting time, effort, or energy to a particular undertaking with the expectation of a worthwhile result." A definition on Wikipedia is "commitment of resources to achieve later benefits". All the spending is investing in knowledge of space, material science, biology, and more, hopefully for a worthwhile result. One could say, "a student invested a lot of time studying for their sixth-grade math exam". Very much an acceptable statement to make, I don't think most would argue it is improper English. Is that strongly tied to positive productivity and economic exports? Did passing that test directly affect the GDP of the country? Either way, the people I'm replying to weren't trying to debate the semantic differences between "investing" and "spending", and that wasn't really my main point. I do agree there are differences in this, but that can often be a matter of opinion and perspective.
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    I agree that this isnt a point that can be decisively proven. I would just add the following thoughts. When discussing investment in terms of money, and especially government spending, the connotation is typically positive economic returns. Similarly, if we are being pedantic, a bad investment is still an investment, as in the case where the returns are less than the cost. I would categorize much of this spending as a bad investment, one that leaves the country worse off in the long run. I think the word is largely without meaning when used with the subjective definitions outside the economic context. It simply reduces it to "I like this thing". Buying beer is now an investment, because it will have some later "benefits", and I think getting hammered on a Tuesday night is "worthwhile" because I like doing it.
    - vel0city 2y ago
      > When discussing investment in terms of money, and especially government spending, the connotation is typically positive economic returns So, the only reason why a city should build a park or a library should solely based on positive economic returns. We should price out how much actual dollar value return the library directly gives to the town this quarter or the playground on the park. How much did adding that swing set really increase property values? I guess we shouldn't have done it. Otherwise, it is purely just wasteful spending. I would leave you with the following thought. Not everything needs to have an easily measurable economic/financial benefit to be a good thing. Having such a myopic view isn't a positive thing in my opinion. I agree there's still such a thing as waste even in (especially in?) the space programs of the last few decades, but acting like funding space programs in general is a waste because it didn't generate positive economic returns in an easily measurable fashion to be quite a shortsighted viewpoint. And as mentioned, it's not like the money evaporated. It moved. That money spent is in the communities. It's in the homes there. Its built businesses. Its grown entire cities. People went to college because of that spending. People planted crops because of that spending. That spending kept the velocity of money up instead of having it stagnate under someone's mattress.
      - s1artibartfast 2y ago

s1artibartfast 2y ago

Simply spending money is not an investment. An investment is something that provides positive return over time. It is tied to net positive productivity and economic exports. Creating a dependent local economy or industry that consumes more than it produces is not an investment, it is welfare. While government can make investments, not all spending is an investment any more than all the purchases I make are investments.

vel0city 2y ago
Some percentage of that spending does turn into actual economic investments in those local towns. Infrastructure gets built because of it. Homes are built. Shops are built. Tax revenues get collected to build schools to educate new generations of citizens. New technologies are made, new industries grown, etc. So even with your specific definition of investment that spending did spur some of it. Land is improved. Positive productivity, economic exports. > An investment is something that provides positive return over time That's one definition, implying it will just continue to give a return. Like dividends. Another would be "an act of devoting time, effort, or energy to a particular undertaking with the expectation of a worthwhile result." A definition on Wikipedia is "commitment of resources to achieve later benefits". All the spending is investing in knowledge of space, material science, biology, and more, hopefully for a worthwhile result. One could say, "a student invested a lot of time studying for their sixth-grade math exam". Very much an acceptable statement to make, I don't think most would argue it is improper English. Is that strongly tied to positive productivity and economic exports? Did passing that test directly affect the GDP of the country? Either way, the people I'm replying to weren't trying to debate the semantic differences between "investing" and "spending", and that wasn't really my main point. I do agree there are differences in this, but that can often be a matter of opinion and perspective.
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  I agree that this isnt a point that can be decisively proven. I would just add the following thoughts. When discussing investment in terms of money, and especially government spending, the connotation is typically positive economic returns. Similarly, if we are being pedantic, a bad investment is still an investment, as in the case where the returns are less than the cost. I would categorize much of this spending as a bad investment, one that leaves the country worse off in the long run. I think the word is largely without meaning when used with the subjective definitions outside the economic context. It simply reduces it to "I like this thing". Buying beer is now an investment, because it will have some later "benefits", and I think getting hammered on a Tuesday night is "worthwhile" because I like doing it.
  - vel0city 2y ago
    > When discussing investment in terms of money, and especially government spending, the connotation is typically positive economic returns So, the only reason why a city should build a park or a library should solely based on positive economic returns. We should price out how much actual dollar value return the library directly gives to the town this quarter or the playground on the park. How much did adding that swing set really increase property values? I guess we shouldn't have done it. Otherwise, it is purely just wasteful spending. I would leave you with the following thought. Not everything needs to have an easily measurable economic/financial benefit to be a good thing. Having such a myopic view isn't a positive thing in my opinion. I agree there's still such a thing as waste even in (especially in?) the space programs of the last few decades, but acting like funding space programs in general is a waste because it didn't generate positive economic returns in an easily measurable fashion to be quite a shortsighted viewpoint. And as mentioned, it's not like the money evaporated. It moved. That money spent is in the communities. It's in the homes there. Its built businesses. Its grown entire cities. People went to college because of that spending. People planted crops because of that spending. That spending kept the velocity of money up instead of having it stagnate under someone's mattress.
    - s1artibartfast 2y ago