There are only two stereotypical places I can think of it being "squandered". The first is the military which, who knows, could be NPV if you consider what the world could be like without it. Ultimately its unknowable. The second is the money not taxed. Which is a particularly frustrating mindset that I encounter on the internet.
In either case, we're not "squandering" money anywhere. You may disagree with the allocation of some resources but that doesn't mean its been squandered.
...haha what was I thinking never mind. Also what does net present value have to do with any of this?
Hah! I didn't say you couldn't have an opinion on it. Only that you can't know the world that "could have been".
> Also what does net present value have to do with any of this?
Squander is a word which means to waste. If a government project has a net economic (or public health) benefit then by definition the money was not squandered.
Just want to point out that this statement doesn't account for opportunity cost. if it could go to something of greater net benefit, the difference between the two could be considered squandered.
I imagine it'd be a lot more like the conflicts in the rest of Africa.
> It's not "unknowable";
Yes it is, unless you have a time machine.
> we just have to start voting...
Ah see, but we already do that. The US votes to keep a massive, mighty military.
Voting just isn't all it's cracked up to be!