3 ms·

> 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 fr

> 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.

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.