Funding gaps and black holes

Lots of people building extensions has limited impact beyond a housing bubble, building hospitals has much wider economic benefit from all the high quality jobs, the better health of the population letting them work etc

Ok, so it allows the state to try and redirect effort and materials towards things the government believes are more worthwhile.

To make a bike example, the government funding bikes for transport would tempt bike shops to refocus their efforts away from serving leisure cyclists.

Or to think of a real example, during the pandemic the government funded tons of laptops and tablets to disadvantaged children, while there was already a shortage of the things. They believed that was more worthwhile use of them than business and personal customers who also wanted them.

@bikesandboots

What’s the point of increasing funding for this and that,

Aha, yeh I see what you mean.
Essentially let market forces dictate where and what should be built, manufactured etc.
Yup makes sense.

@onewheelgood

Bitcoin is just the same as any other currency, apart from the inherent scarcity. It is still just something that only has value if people believe it has value. It has no inherent worth at all. It is also parasitic, consuming vast amounts of resources paid for in other currencies just in order to exist.

Agree, you have to believe it has value.

Also, you’ve hit one of the misconceptions of Bitcoin and it’s power consumption.
https://cryptoforinnovation.org/how-is-renewable-energy-stabilizing-the-grid-for-bitcoin-mining/
And it’s growing. Examples include burning methane (major green house gas), on landfills, heating swimming pools etc.

Also supports rural economies, where normally the state/ utility company would determine who gets the power.
https://www.verdict.co.uk/bitcoin-mining-boosts-rural-electricity-gridless

What’s the point of increasing funding for this and that, when the supply is constrained anyway?

Like, if we fund lots of new housebuilding or new hospitals, that just means we’re outspending the builders’ would-be customers who wanted an extension built.

With anything it’s not like there’s a ton of suitable people equipment and materials sitting around that are just unlocked by spending money. Or even the facilities to train or produce them. Even if you have untrained people it just means you’re pushing them towards one thing instead of what they might have done instead, like we might make more builders but now there’s a shortage of mechanics.

So you’d basically rely on organic growth, development, and free market forces of supply and demand to decide what gets developed where and when.  There are some very good reasons that’s not a great idea, basically summing up to it’s very short term, with no vision for strategy or the future,.  Also , unless you are very lucky it will be done with little regard for the public good.

A lack of a strategy means you’ll end up with the ‘useless’ non profit making parts of the country and population left behind, and eventually the lack of general investment in a greater good results in high inequality and low productivity

Thanks, you missed the quote button there 🙂

So is there a consensus that chucking money at things and hoping that people will be attracted by it to make things happen, is a bad way of going about it?