5 ms·

> The 2024 budget was $9.3b [1] versus $5.1b in 2011 [0] For context: Just keeping up with inflation puts the 2011 budget at $7.1b in 2024. They also claim to

by Swizec 2y ago

> The 2024 budget was $9.3b [1] versus $5.1b in 2011 [0] For context: Just keeping up with inflation puts the 2011 budget at $7.1b in 2024. They also claim to have "13 billion dollars contributed to the U.S. economy by visitor spending each year"[2]. Investing $9b into $13b of revenue sounds like a great use of government funds to me. [2] https://www.fs.usda.gov/about-agency/newsroom/by-the-numbers https://www.fs.usda.gov/about-agency/newsroom/by-the-numbers

sandworm101 2y ago
>> Investing $9b into $13b of revenue sounds like a great use of government funds No. By math alone, it is a horrible waste. It would be a good investment if those funds generated economic activity resulting 9+b in tax dollars. But this is about parks, not simply stimulating the economy. The value of parks cannot be expressed in dollars.
- meowster 2y ago
  How many people buy tents, hiking boots, RVs, etc to use at parks?
  - sandworm101 2y ago
    No doubt they spend lots of money, but if net economic activity was quantizable then we wouldn't need to spend tax dollars. We could charge use fees and have the RV producers and hiking boot makers contribute in order to safeguard their business. But parks have value beyond the economic. They are valuable as cultural centerpieces. They define national identity. Without Yellowstone, the US would be less of a country. Without Central Park, New York would not be as iconic a city. These things need to be funded without regard to economic activity. They are beyond math. References to economic activity in relation to parks can be dangerous. Once we see them as engines of economic activity, then we will seek to maximize that activity. A national forest should not be described as a source of timber fees and tourist dollars. Down that road comes drilling for oil in parks, more roads, more hotels and the inevitable conversion of wild fields into condos.
  - surgical_fire 2y ago
    This is so frustrating. Even if it makes financial sense, the fact that we can only quantify a public good in USD (or any other currency) is a tragedy. Not all things have a monetary amount associated to them, but they are still somehow valuable.
    - robertlagrant 2y ago
      > the fact that we can only quantify a public good in USD (or any other currency) is a tragedy Money is the way we quantify the relative value of anything vs anything else. That's all money is. I think because it's state-run, the "value" is extremely hard to quantify, in many directions. It might be over-valued, as people who've never seen it have to pay for it, or under-valued, as money that people might've paid to visit the park has already been taken from their paycheques.
      - Tostino 2y ago
        And without that funding and government running the parks, they simply wouldn't exist for anyone to use. I dislike your framing of this.
        robertlagrant 2y ago
        Any reason why?
      - sandworm101 2y ago
        >> because it's state-run, the "value" is extremely hard to quantify The value of a privately-operated park would be no less difficult to quantify. National forests are not theme parks. They have a value even if nobody ever sets foot inside.
        robertlagrant 2y ago
        Probably true, but I think if you offered a billion dollars for a square foot of national park, you might be able to buy that square foot. There is a value somewhere in it that's negotiable between the people who have it and the people who might want to buy some of it. A billion dollars (as an obviously extreme example) could set up a lot of conservation elsewhere in the park, or elsewhere in the country.
- specialist 2y ago
  Obviously, I wholly agree with your preference for moral and values based justifications. But I also acknowledge ROI does help fend off alternate agendas. My state's investments in birdwatching, vineyards, hunting/fishing/gaming. etc have huge ROI. Thereby empowering the conservationsists in those never ending policymaking slap fights. Adjacently, I've seen (local) budgets for pre-K get over the hump because of their outsized economic impact. Some people only see the world thru dollars signs. Framing with positive ROI helps moot the "we can't afford it" zero sum scarcity mindset. Like exposing NIMBYs. Based on the ROI, we can't afford TO NOT invest in our national parks. Taking away the economic counter arguments shows the opponents just don't want to. For reasons.

by Swizec 2y ago

sandworm101 2y ago

>> Investing $9b into $13b of revenue sounds like a great use of government funds No. By math alone, it is a horrible waste. It would be a good investment if those funds generated economic activity resulting 9+b in tax dollars. But this is about parks, not simply stimulating the economy. The value of parks cannot be expressed in dollars.

meowster 2y ago
How many people buy tents, hiking boots, RVs, etc to use at parks?
- sandworm101 2y ago
  No doubt they spend lots of money, but if net economic activity was quantizable then we wouldn't need to spend tax dollars. We could charge use fees and have the RV producers and hiking boot makers contribute in order to safeguard their business. But parks have value beyond the economic. They are valuable as cultural centerpieces. They define national identity. Without Yellowstone, the US would be less of a country. Without Central Park, New York would not be as iconic a city. These things need to be funded without regard to economic activity. They are beyond math. References to economic activity in relation to parks can be dangerous. Once we see them as engines of economic activity, then we will seek to maximize that activity. A national forest should not be described as a source of timber fees and tourist dollars. Down that road comes drilling for oil in parks, more roads, more hotels and the inevitable conversion of wild fields into condos.
- surgical_fire 2y ago
  This is so frustrating. Even if it makes financial sense, the fact that we can only quantify a public good in USD (or any other currency) is a tragedy. Not all things have a monetary amount associated to them, but they are still somehow valuable.
  - robertlagrant 2y ago
    > the fact that we can only quantify a public good in USD (or any other currency) is a tragedy Money is the way we quantify the relative value of anything vs anything else. That's all money is. I think because it's state-run, the "value" is extremely hard to quantify, in many directions. It might be over-valued, as people who've never seen it have to pay for it, or under-valued, as money that people might've paid to visit the park has already been taken from their paycheques.
    - Tostino 2y ago
      And without that funding and government running the parks, they simply wouldn't exist for anyone to use. I dislike your framing of this.
      - robertlagrant 2y ago
        Any reason why?
    - sandworm101 2y ago
      >> because it's state-run, the "value" is extremely hard to quantify The value of a privately-operated park would be no less difficult to quantify. National forests are not theme parks. They have a value even if nobody ever sets foot inside.
      - robertlagrant 2y ago
        Probably true, but I think if you offered a billion dollars for a square foot of national park, you might be able to buy that square foot. There is a value somewhere in it that's negotiable between the people who have it and the people who might want to buy some of it. A billion dollars (as an obviously extreme example) could set up a lot of conservation elsewhere in the park, or elsewhere in the country.
specialist 2y ago
Obviously, I wholly agree with your preference for moral and values based justifications. But I also acknowledge ROI does help fend off alternate agendas. My state's investments in birdwatching, vineyards, hunting/fishing/gaming. etc have huge ROI. Thereby empowering the conservationsists in those never ending policymaking slap fights. Adjacently, I've seen (local) budgets for pre-K get over the hump because of their outsized economic impact. Some people only see the world thru dollars signs. Framing with positive ROI helps moot the "we can't afford it" zero sum scarcity mindset. Like exposing NIMBYs. Based on the ROI, we can't afford TO NOT invest in our national parks. Taking away the economic counter arguments shows the opponents just don't want to. For reasons.