Reply to: Thank you Kelvin

[SupremeSpod]

You should have found a larger one.
The thing with morons is that they usually get hang with their own petard, because they can't stop digging.

To mix a metaphor or three

[Bunk]

So you are claiming supply and demand is now bunk?

[sasguru]

So you are claiming supply and demand is now bunk?

Stand back everyone, years of well founded economic theory has been proven bunk because SAS has a hunch.

Thanks for proving my point that you are indeed both simplistic and moronic.

[Robinho]

Firstly, you can only measure negative and positive externalities with any real accuracy AFTER the investment has been made; any forecast is basically speculative; there might be a business case to build something, like a railway, but any business case is flawed, sometimes a little bit, sometimes a lot. Private sector investors can only take so much risk; the government's capacity to cover the risk of a flopped investment is generally much greater than private businesses, and that's one reason why most major infrastructure projects are carried out by governments.

Incredible how you have managed to spell out the inherant problem with government spending, but have failed to see the problem.

The government's capacity to cover flopped investment is exactly why government shouldn't be choosing the projects. Someone who can just steal from the tax payer if it goes wrong is not going to care as much how well they invest.

Secondly, you are viewing positive and negative externalities in a purely financial sense. Governments have the tricky job of considering other matters as well.

Such as? Pollution in the case of crossrail perhaps. But that is it and that is marginal.

Thirdly, you are assuming almost infinite wisdom and unlimited access to correct information on the part of the private sector. That's a completely wrong assumption. You need to consider that any business decision takes place with bounded rationality. The government doesn't have infinite wisdom either.

Both private sector and public sector basically muddle along with some successes and failures as they go; the thing is, the government can take a bit more risk and allow itself more failures than private companies. Up to a point, of course, and perhaps the UK's last government passed that point at some stage.

YES!! you said it!

[sasguru]

You should have found a larger one.
The thing with morons is that they usually get hang with their own petard, because they can't stop digging.

[Mich the Tester]

So you are claiming supply and demand is now bunk?

Stand back everyone, years of well founded economic theory has been proven bunk because SAS has a hunch.

[Mich the Tester]

It's slightly pathetic that now, instead of raising any intelligent points. You are cutting up my sentences in half and saying i'm contradicting myself.

Do you know how to stop him doing that?

Stop contradicting yourself.

[Robinho]

Economics is a social, not a physical science. Humans have learned enough about the latter to make some very useful theories, but no social science has reached that level yet, due to the complexity of human behaviour.
And certainly your simplistic, ignorant, moronic interpretation of economic theory has no value whatsoever.

HTH, BIDI.

So you are claiming supply and demand is now bunk?

Stand back everyone, years of well founded economic theory has been proven bunk because SAS has a hunch.

[Mich the Tester]

Again guys.

If think there is something wrong with anything i've said. Let's hear it.

Until then, just accept that you're wrong.

Clearly if the positive externalities were greater than the negative externalities, then we wouldn't have to subsidise anything because the people using the train would be happy to pay a high enough fare to fully cover the cost of construction and operation.

The fact that the government forcefully has to divert resources to build crossrail is proof enough that it's a waste of money, because if it made economic sense to build it, the private sector would voluntarily build it.

Firstly, you can only measure negative and positive externalities with any real accuracy AFTER the investment has been made; any forecast is basically speculative; there might be a business case to build something, like a railway, but any business case is flawed, sometimes a little bit, sometimes a lot. Private sector investors can only take so much risk; the government's capacity to cover the risk of a flopped investment is generally much greater than private businesses, and that's one reason why most major infrastructure projects are carried out by governments.

Secondly, you are viewing positive and negative externalities in a purely financial sense. Governments have the tricky job of considering other matters as well.

Thirdly, you are assuming almost infinite wisdom and unlimited access to correct information on the part of the private sector. That's a completely wrong assumption. You need to consider that any business decision takes place with bounded rationality. The government doesn't have infinite wisdom either.

Both private sector and public sector basically muddle along with some successes and failures as they go; the thing is, the government can take a bit more risk and allow itself more failures than private companies. Up to a point, of course, and perhaps the UK's last government passed that point at some stage.

[sasguru]

If think there is something wrong with anything i've said. Let's hear it.

.

Economics is a social, not a physical science. Humans have learned enough about the latter to make some very useful theories, but no social science has reached that level yet, due to the complexity of human behaviour.
And certainly your simplistic, ignorant, moronic interpretation of economic theory has no value whatsoever.

HTH, BIDI.

[Robinho]

And you then contradicted yourself by stating that

It's slightly pathetic that now, instead of raising any intelligent points. You are cutting up my sentences in half and saying i'm contradicting myself.

That must truely be a sign, that you haven't a clue.

[Robinho]

Again guys.

If think there is something wrong with anything i've said. Let's hear it.

Until then, just accept that you're wrong.

[Mich the Tester]

Where would he be without his A-Level ecocnomics textbook? His major problem is making some wild assumptions to fit the theory he likes best. If only life were so simple. Reducing everthing to it's monetary value is rather sad.

Umm, I only did GCSE eckonomicks and even that's more advanced than Robbie's nonsense.

[ZARDOZ]

Do you think anyone reads your drivel anymore?
Save yourself time by copying and pasting the quote above.

Where would he be without his A-Level economics textbook? His major problem is making some wild assumptions to fit the theory he likes best. If only life were so simple. Reducing everthing to it's monetary value is rather sad.

[pjclarke]

As i mentioned and as you seem to have ignored, inheritance does skew it somewhat and that's unfortunate

And you then contradicted yourself by stating that

'the only way you can get rich is by contributing a lot to society, via hard work, innovation, bettering the lives of others etc

Here's an extract from the wiki entry on the 3rd richest man on the ST Rich List, busy bettering the lives of others...

In 1995, Abramovich and Berezovsky acquired a controlling interest in the giant Soviet oil company Sibneft. Affiliates of Abramovich, with affiliates of Boris Berezovsky, purchased Russian oil company Sibneft for US$100.3 million (the company was worth US$2.7 billion at that time). Sibneft produces around US$3 billion worth of oil annually.[27][28] Abramovich established several fly-by-night firms and together with his friend Boris Berezovsky used them to acquire the stock of Sibneft. As a result, the tycoon managed to pay for the company 25 times less than the market price.[27] Bought for a total of US$200 million, Sibneft is now worth seventy five times as much.[29]

The Times claimed that he was assisted by Badri Patarkatsishvili.[30] This acquisition was under the controversial loans-for-shares programme initiated by then President Boris Yeltsin.[31][32][33] After Sibneft, Abramovich's next target was the aluminium industry. After privatisation the 'aluminium wars' lead to murders of smelting plant managers, metals traders and journalists as groups battled for control of the industry. Abramovich famously emerged winner in the aluminium wars.[30] The Times stated that in a BBC investigation into Abramovich's wealth, reporter John Sweeney noted that, after the oligarch (Abramovich) emerged at the top of the trade, the murders stopped

I guess stopping the murderous turf wars might just count as bettering the lives of others ...