Now do the Federal Reserve.
1955 Tappan Zee bridge: $55 million.
2013 Tappan Zee bridge: $4 billion for basically the same bridge. Due in part to the destruction of the USD caused by the Fed.
1955 Tappan Zee bridge: $55 million.
2013 Tappan Zee bridge: $4 billion for basically the same bridge. Due in part to the destruction of the USD caused by the Fed.
Hacker News discussing economics is like arguing geopolitics with someone on peyote.
- The new bridge is designed to handle a much larger capacity than the old one, which was built starting in 1952, when there were many fewer commuters from distant suburbs trying to get to the NYC area.
- The new bridge has a bicycle/pedestrian path.
- The new bridge had to be built while the old bridge was still standing. Its construction costs presumably included the demolition of the old bridge and the rerouting of the highway, first from the old bridge to the first completed span of the new bridge (which initially handled traffic in both directions), then to the second span when that was completed.
- The old bridge was designed with a a life-span of only 50 years, so it was built using cheaper materials. 50 years seems like a very short life-span for a bridge. For example, the Brooklyn Bridge, opened in 1883, is now well into its second century of operation (although it has undergone various renovations, it hasn't required demolition).
Reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tappan_Zee_Bridge_(2017%E2%80%...
Although I don't think it's fair to put all the blame on the Fed. The same thing has happened in the UK and many other places.
Only if you’re optimizing for cost, which public infrastructure very obviously isn’t. It’s optimizing for safety.
Would it be an improvement to build my car out of wood rather than steel? It'd certainly make it a LOT cheaper!
Speculation is a good thing, it's a form of entrepreneurship.
Example of historic deflation: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Deflation
Stake: 0.05 BTC, 1.2 ETH
But they don't. Not if it's things they need now, like food, or want now: electronics have been deflationary for the last 70 years or so -- when you bought the device you typed your comment on, you knew full well that a year later you would get a better one for cheaper, and yet you didn't hoard your currency. Trade in electronics doesn't seem to be grinding to a halt.
Useless crap people don't actually need? Sure, that might suffer from deflation. But ideally the world economy wouldn't be founded on useless crap that people don't actually need.
Stake: Held some Bitcoin ca. 2011-2021, just enough to buy a nice (not fancy) apartment slightly below market price. Divested now. Miniscule amounts of Monero and Tezos, basically written off.
>prices of goods, materials and labor decreased, although at a low rate of less than 2% annually
you can deal with. Crypto style 50% drop in months type deflation would make debts in that currency unpayable.
Otherwise I think we can safely ignore it.
Stake: 0.05 BTC, 1.2 ETH
(I have no stake in anything crypto related, so hopefully my argument won't be dismissed. But maybe I'm lying.)
Oil companies can say 100% factual things about climate change too. You'd still put their arguments under more scrutiny than a non-profit panel of scientists.
Do you need to own other humans to form an opinion on slavery? Do you need to eat meat to form an opinion on being a vegetarian? Do you need to be in Congress to opine on its dealings? Why is cryptocurrency any different?
I’m responding to your very clear subtext, by the way.
Homosexuality.
It's such a common thing for people that are extremely vocal against homosexuality to end up being found having a same-sex affair, that I start to assume anybody who is extremely homophobic is actually just a deeply-closeted gay.
When someone comes out against crypto and I find out they have just sold their stake, that seems really suspect to me.
If I told you I earned $1M a year, you should keep that in mind when I say that we should lower income taxes for the betterment of the poor.
It's a suspiciously self-serving conclusion for me to have, wouldn't you say?
That’s why people who act selflessly are notable. You’ve got this backwards. Selflessness is notable. Selfishness is par until all of Maslow’s is handed to you free of charge. Noticing someone is advocating for an improvement to their situation, even disingenuously, is equally pointless with that in mind.
People do things in their interest because that’s how we have built human civilizations that pay any respect to the concept of freedom. If the suggestion benefits others, maybe go with it? Or build a civilization where everyone can be selfless all the time and have no self-serving motives; that sounds pretty great until you get to the “how to direct an economy” part of the equation.
Not totally, no. We are social animals. Also look at people who vote against their own financial benefit. I do.
But also it's not as direct. If I pay some more in taxes (along with everyone else) the idea is that I'll get to live in a better society. Something I could not otherwise buy.
> Discounting the argument that it would help the poor (objectively)
That's not what I said. I said take it into consideration. You're being hyperbolic.
In real life I want to reduce inequality because it's the right thing to do. If you don't believe that you can say that it's because I want to reduce the risk of me personally being victim of crime, and inequality breeds crime.
Are you honestly unaware of the concept of "conflict of interest"?
I'll throw you back another name: Occam. If you are arguing lowering taxes, because of a complicated Goldberg machine of an explanation on how it'll help the poor, maybe after having considered it all I'll find the explanation "and you'll gain $100k a year from it" to be a more plausible reason, and I'll be less likely to take the parts of the Rube Goldberg machine I didn't understand, or am hesitant about, at your word.
In small part. Inflation from 1955 to 2013 is almost exactly 9 times. That accounts for $495 million.