4 ms·

Very impressive. The economic angle is a bit confusing. Wonder why China thought this was a worthy investment. Guizhou is a poor part of China, without much int

by screye 1y ago

Very impressive. The economic angle is a bit confusing. Wonder why China thought this was a worthy investment. Guizhou is a poor part of China, without much international tourism or trade. Wikipedia indicates it is meant to increase tourism, but even China's most attractive regions (Beijing, Shanghai, Great Wall, Chengdu, Chongqing) are under-visited. I can't imagine that Guizhou will be on foreign tourist's agenda for at least a couple of decades. I think this is an attempt by the local govt. to get more internal tourism. It might work out. We'll see.

Liftyee 1y ago
The Wikipedia page currently also states that it reduces the gorge crossing time from 70 minutes to one minute. So it definitely serves a purpose - whether we each judge that to be worth it is another question.
tokioyoyo 1y ago
Bridge building in China is a way to flex for provinces right now. For better or worse, I guess, but infrastructure investment is cool.
epolanski 1y ago
> The economic angle is a bit confusing. We don't need an economic angle to build great things that help people. It's a bridge, it's meant to be a shortcut from point A to B. We aren't just cogwheels in an economic system, there's more to life and progress as humans.
- Hnrobert42 1y ago
  There is an opportunity cost.
  - dotancohen 1y ago
    I believe that the saving four hours (two hours each way) to travel from or to the city, multiplied by the amount of current and potential vehicles, is a clear opportunity benefit. Not to mention the fuel saved and pollution prevented. And increased economic development for the city.
    - Hnrobert42 1y ago
      No. The opportunity cost is that if you build a bridge to nowhere you can't build a bridge to somewhere else more useful .
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- nickpp 1y ago
  > We don't need an economic angle [...] We aren't just cogwheels in an economic system This kind of thinking is exactly how people go bankrupt. "But I deserve those shoes" "I need a Starbucks to get the day started" "This McMansion would make me happy" "I'd rather commute in a BMW than a Toyota"
  - Tade0 1y ago
    It's paradoxical really. On one hand this mindset leads to bankruptcies, on the other it creates demand necessary to grow an economy. There's probably a balance to be struck somewhere between the two approaches, but I wouldn't know where it is, as I stay firmly on the frugal side.
- stickfigure 1y ago
  Bridges are expensive to build and to maintain. Maybe people could be helped better other ways; economics is about making choices with limited resources.
  - arethuza 1y ago
    I've just finished "The Power Broker" about Robert Moses and it mentions a few times that bridges are actually fairly inexpensive to maintain?
  - SturgeonsLaw 1y ago
    Guess China's resources aren't as limited as some of their competitors
  - imtringued 1y ago
    That's not economics, that's optimization with inequality constraints.
sour-taste 1y ago
Having spent a lot of time in Japan, construction there was a way to provide money to poor regions. You build some big project and pay people good wages and encourage growth of local industry. Not saying it's good or bad but the economics may be secondary to these goals
NooneAtAll3 1y ago
> Wonder why China thought this was a worthy investment. Guizhou is a poor part of China I mean... that's exactly the reason? Government funds get used to improve poorer regions to spread development. Improving transport links is a good way to do that Plus it connects the country, which helps long-term stability Think of these as more of interstate highways kind of projects
maxglute 1y ago
> reduces travel time between the two sides of the canyon from two hours to two minutes. Think of it this way. Every 2 hours round trip to 2 minutes saves imported fossil. For trucking/freight that's like ~$80 of diesel both ways. PRC construction workers, though less abundant is cheaper than it ever will be. So best time to build infra is always now, especially one that reduces long tail imports. Every piece of infra that cuts time (apart from cutting X time) is basically frontloading (domestic) steel and concrete to reduce future oil imports (and emissions). Rough napkin math, 2B rmb construction cossts = ~3m barrels of oil, 2b kms of travel. Shaving off 2hrs (guestimate ~150km) and it pays itself off in imported fuel metric between ~10m trips (for freight , more for passenger). Guizhou has 40m people, if a fraction goes to see the bridge, do some tourist shit (induced demand) it would go a long way to basically subsidize a bridge that cut logistics times and wear on tear for the region.
- davedx 1y ago
  Fantastic analysis of the merits of infrastructure investment. Thanks for working the numbers.
- Fraterkes 1y ago
  Why is construction cheaper than it ever will be? Because wages are rising in China?
  - dspillett 1y ago
    > Because wages are rising in China? As an average, definitely. Whether that is relevant to the area in question I don't know. Materials and fuel costs are rising globally too, China's population-size based buying power shields them from that a little more than some places, far from completely.
  - maxglute 1y ago
    Undereducated workforce willing to do hard construction decreasing -> wagse rising. There's still big/experienced construction work force, build while it's cheap, build bigger and more than you have to etc.
  - 1y ago
AngryData 1y ago
Could not part of its poverty problem be caused by the restrictive travel time and rough terrain that this bridge avoids and could help them become prosperous? If you only build prosperous things for prosperous areas, poorer areas will never get better and could even get worse in comparison as competing becomes even harder. Its like if you put a dimensional portal across a Great Lake, even if neither side of the portal is currently not very prosperous, the fact that hours of ferry turned into minutes of travel would be a huge boon to both sides and gather attention, investments, and economic benefits that could turn both sides into prosperous cities.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
dyauspitr 1y ago
Because their philosophy is build the infrastructure and the wealth will follow. Fantastic philosophy if you ask me.
lijok 1y ago
> The economic angle is a bit confusing. Wonder why China thought this was a worthy investment. American mindset
- simianwords 1y ago
  No this is a very good question to ask.
  - raddan 1y ago
    Not the least of which is the fact that infrastructure needs to be maintained. The US has a lot of infrastructure and we are in a phase now where we are having to make hard decisions about what to keep. In my neck of the woods, which is mountainous, many bridges have closed and it looks like they may not come back. Presumably China understands the long-term costs of infrastructure so I wonder what their analysis is. It would be kind of crazy to build something like this on spec… Prior generations made these same decisions too. I’ve discovered that the area I live in used to have a fair number of electric trams. They all went away with the advent of the automobile.
- coderatlarge 1y ago
  having crossed one of these superlative Guizhou bridges i can attest to their ability to inspire a sense of wonder like other large-scale human accomplishments.
brnt 1y ago
Apart from what others already mentioned (build and improvements will follow): construction is the main tool the CCP uses in padding economic numbers. And that sectors has not been doing well for a while now, with all the unused ghost metropoles sitting idle. These projects are there not just to improve the local region, but also to keep the construction sector afloat.
ChrisMarshallNY 1y ago
I suspect that it's a "bragging rights" thing, more than anything else. Nations, companies, etc., build these things to "show off." It's nothing new, the Babylonians, Sumerians, and Egyptians did it.
lm28469 1y ago
> Guizhou is a poor part of China Look at Schenzen in the 70s... If you want your country to move forward you need infrastructure, otherwise poor parts stay poor
- screye 1y ago
  China's population boom has ended. The 70s boom can't be recreated without sufficient youth to move into the newly urbanized locations.
delfinom 1y ago
.....Are you why we don't have infrastructure in the US? If you want to uplift a region, you invest into it. A bridge that cuts travel time by 2 hours increases domestic trade, it can even increase domestic and international tourism long term.
- actionfromafar 1y ago
  Uplifting is woke in the US.
vjvjvjvjghv 1y ago
That's how you develop a country. If you always go by short term economics, nothing will ever get done.
dspillett 1y ago
> Wonder why China thought this was a worthy investment. Guizhou is a poor part of China, without much international tourism or trade. Could be part of a bit of internal “not leaving anyone behind” propaganda, rather than a concern for national or international trade. Less cynically, it could be a genuine attempt to help pull the area up economically. Lack of good transport infrastructure can be a major factor among those that hold areas back in that regard.
rayval 1y ago
[dead]

by screye 1y ago

Liftyee 1y ago

The Wikipedia page currently also states that it reduces the gorge crossing time from 70 minutes to one minute. So it definitely serves a purpose - whether we each judge that to be worth it is another question.

tokioyoyo 1y ago

Bridge building in China is a way to flex for provinces right now. For better or worse, I guess, but infrastructure investment is cool.

epolanski 1y ago

> The economic angle is a bit confusing. We don't need an economic angle to build great things that help people. It's a bridge, it's meant to be a shortcut from point A to B. We aren't just cogwheels in an economic system, there's more to life and progress as humans.

Hnrobert42 1y ago
There is an opportunity cost.
- dotancohen 1y ago
  I believe that the saving four hours (two hours each way) to travel from or to the city, multiplied by the amount of current and potential vehicles, is a clear opportunity benefit. Not to mention the fuel saved and pollution prevented. And increased economic development for the city.
  - Hnrobert42 1y ago
    No. The opportunity cost is that if you build a bridge to nowhere you can't build a bridge to somewhere else more useful .
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
nickpp 1y ago
> We don't need an economic angle [...] We aren't just cogwheels in an economic system This kind of thinking is exactly how people go bankrupt. "But I deserve those shoes" "I need a Starbucks to get the day started" "This McMansion would make me happy" "I'd rather commute in a BMW than a Toyota"
- Tade0 1y ago
  It's paradoxical really. On one hand this mindset leads to bankruptcies, on the other it creates demand necessary to grow an economy. There's probably a balance to be struck somewhere between the two approaches, but I wouldn't know where it is, as I stay firmly on the frugal side.
stickfigure 1y ago
Bridges are expensive to build and to maintain. Maybe people could be helped better other ways; economics is about making choices with limited resources.
- arethuza 1y ago
  I've just finished "The Power Broker" about Robert Moses and it mentions a few times that bridges are actually fairly inexpensive to maintain?
- SturgeonsLaw 1y ago
  Guess China's resources aren't as limited as some of their competitors
- imtringued 1y ago
  That's not economics, that's optimization with inequality constraints.

sour-taste 1y ago

Having spent a lot of time in Japan, construction there was a way to provide money to poor regions. You build some big project and pay people good wages and encourage growth of local industry. Not saying it's good or bad but the economics may be secondary to these goals

NooneAtAll3 1y ago

> Wonder why China thought this was a worthy investment. Guizhou is a poor part of China I mean... that's exactly the reason? Government funds get used to improve poorer regions to spread development. Improving transport links is a good way to do that Plus it connects the country, which helps long-term stability Think of these as more of interstate highways kind of projects

maxglute 1y ago

> reduces travel time between the two sides of the canyon from two hours to two minutes. Think of it this way. Every 2 hours round trip to 2 minutes saves imported fossil. For trucking/freight that's like ~$80 of diesel both ways. PRC construction workers, though less abundant is cheaper than it ever will be. So best time to build infra is always now, especially one that reduces long tail imports. Every piece of infra that cuts time (apart from cutting X time) is basically frontloading (domestic) steel and concrete to reduce future oil imports (and emissions). Rough napkin math, 2B rmb construction cossts = ~3m barrels of oil, 2b kms of travel. Shaving off 2hrs (guestimate ~150km) and it pays itself off in imported fuel metric between ~10m trips (for freight , more for passenger). Guizhou has 40m people, if a fraction goes to see the bridge, do some tourist shit (induced demand) it would go a long way to basically subsidize a bridge that cut logistics times and wear on tear for the region.

davedx 1y ago
Fantastic analysis of the merits of infrastructure investment. Thanks for working the numbers.
Fraterkes 1y ago
Why is construction cheaper than it ever will be? Because wages are rising in China?
- dspillett 1y ago
  > Because wages are rising in China? As an average, definitely. Whether that is relevant to the area in question I don't know. Materials and fuel costs are rising globally too, China's population-size based buying power shields them from that a little more than some places, far from completely.
- maxglute 1y ago
  Undereducated workforce willing to do hard construction decreasing -> wagse rising. There's still big/experienced construction work force, build while it's cheap, build bigger and more than you have to etc.
- 1y ago

AngryData 1y ago

Could not part of its poverty problem be caused by the restrictive travel time and rough terrain that this bridge avoids and could help them become prosperous? If you only build prosperous things for prosperous areas, poorer areas will never get better and could even get worse in comparison as competing becomes even harder. Its like if you put a dimensional portal across a Great Lake, even if neither side of the portal is currently not very prosperous, the fact that hours of ferry turned into minutes of travel would be a huge boon to both sides and gather attention, investments, and economic benefits that could turn both sides into prosperous cities.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

dyauspitr 1y ago

Because their philosophy is build the infrastructure and the wealth will follow. Fantastic philosophy if you ask me.

lijok 1y ago

> The economic angle is a bit confusing. Wonder why China thought this was a worthy investment. American mindset

simianwords 1y ago
No this is a very good question to ask.
- raddan 1y ago
  Not the least of which is the fact that infrastructure needs to be maintained. The US has a lot of infrastructure and we are in a phase now where we are having to make hard decisions about what to keep. In my neck of the woods, which is mountainous, many bridges have closed and it looks like they may not come back. Presumably China understands the long-term costs of infrastructure so I wonder what their analysis is. It would be kind of crazy to build something like this on spec… Prior generations made these same decisions too. I’ve discovered that the area I live in used to have a fair number of electric trams. They all went away with the advent of the automobile.
coderatlarge 1y ago
having crossed one of these superlative Guizhou bridges i can attest to their ability to inspire a sense of wonder like other large-scale human accomplishments.

brnt 1y ago

Apart from what others already mentioned (build and improvements will follow): construction is the main tool the CCP uses in padding economic numbers. And that sectors has not been doing well for a while now, with all the unused ghost metropoles sitting idle. These projects are there not just to improve the local region, but also to keep the construction sector afloat.

ChrisMarshallNY 1y ago

I suspect that it's a "bragging rights" thing, more than anything else. Nations, companies, etc., build these things to "show off." It's nothing new, the Babylonians, Sumerians, and Egyptians did it.

lm28469 1y ago

> Guizhou is a poor part of China Look at Schenzen in the 70s... If you want your country to move forward you need infrastructure, otherwise poor parts stay poor

screye 1y ago
China's population boom has ended. The 70s boom can't be recreated without sufficient youth to move into the newly urbanized locations.

delfinom 1y ago

.....Are you why we don't have infrastructure in the US? If you want to uplift a region, you invest into it. A bridge that cuts travel time by 2 hours increases domestic trade, it can even increase domestic and international tourism long term.

actionfromafar 1y ago
Uplifting is woke in the US.

vjvjvjvjghv 1y ago

That's how you develop a country. If you always go by short term economics, nothing will ever get done.

dspillett 1y ago

> Wonder why China thought this was a worthy investment. Guizhou is a poor part of China, without much international tourism or trade. Could be part of a bit of internal “not leaving anyone behind” propaganda, rather than a concern for national or international trade. Less cynically, it could be a genuine attempt to help pull the area up economically. Lack of good transport infrastructure can be a major factor among those that hold areas back in that regard.

rayval 1y ago

[dead]