this post was submitted on 06 Oct 2023
92 points (88.3% liked)
Videos
14313 readers
461 users here now
For sharing interesting videos from around the Web!
Rules
- Videos only
- Follow the global Mastodon.World rules and the Lemmy.World TOS while posting and commenting.
- Don't be a jerk
- No advertising
- No political videos, post those to !politicalvideos@lemmy.world instead.
- Avoid clickbait titles. (Tip: Use dearrow)
- Link directly to the video source and not for example an embedded video in an article or tracked sharing link.
- Duplicate posts may be removed
Note: bans may apply to both !videos@lemmy.world and !politicalvideos@lemmy.world
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The "it's not economical" argument is used very often for numerous topics and it always begs the question: not economical compared to what? Is the purportedly more economical choice accounting for every externality it creates? Is it only economical because it already exists? Are there reasons we should stop doing the economical option? Lastly, what unaccounted for benefits might materialize if the uneconomical choice was pursued anyway?
So in this particular situation, we're comparing the costs of building and operating high speed rail lines in the US to maintaining highways, hundreds of thousands of vehicles, airports, and planes. We should also account for the externalities created by using this infrastructure, so a shitload of carbon emissions plus the negatives of car culture and flying is just an awful experience.
We should also consider what may happen if high speed rail was built anyway. I bet there would be so much more medium distance travel, people would be going on day trips to cities they wouldn't have considered before. Previously unknown and forgotten areas of the country may be revitalized. Who knows what cool stuff could happen.
Anyway, it really sucks when people use the "iT,s nOt eCoNoMiCaL" argument because it's probably not true when everything is taken into account.
At the end of the day, if something is economical, it basically happens automatically in a market economy. For example: It would be pointless if the U.S. government started running car rental stores in every major population center... because -- duh -- that idea makes money and other people are already doing it.
From that perspective, you could argue that it's actually the government's job specifically to do uneconomical things. That's why running a government is hard; almost all ideas are uneconomical, so how does one manage to pick only the good uneconomical ideas? Good government policy requires the kind of foresight that can't be gleaned from a cost/benefit analysis.
This is an excellent point
Spoken like someone who thinks money grows on trees.
Wow what an excellent retort, I must now go back and reconsider my entire belief system and everything I've ever learned /s. But on a more serious note, money does practically grow on trees when viewed from the government's perspective.
But on a more serious note, money does practically grow on trees when viewed from the government's perspective.
:Looks at record inflation of the past two years: No, I’m pretty sure there is a cost that will eventually be paid.
Inflation was caused by a combination of supply chain disruptions (mostly this) and corporate profiteering (less this). It had little to nothing to do with government actions. Read some nonpartisan literature on the topic before you come back.
Wow you certainly cited some excellent sources there. Based on your well educated and certainly unbiased expertise I’m sure printing unlimited money by the government won’t have negative consequences. There can’t be any examples of real world bad monetary policy that has nothing to do with US partisan politics…
:Cough Argentina: :Cough Venezuela: :Cough Turkey:
Ohh sorry I must have had to clear my throat there.