[EntrePrescott]

> The Moscow metro is not just for vanity - the nomenklatura don't take the metro, the people in squalor do...

That's like saying the vanity construction projects of Roman emperors weren't for vanity because they were used more by the plebs than by the nomenklatura.

Which group uses it most has absolutely nothing to do with what makes a vanity project. Quite to the contrary, the criterion for a vanity project is that a core motivation for its construction was to embellish the image/popularity/glory of the powerful person who ordered the construction. So yes, it is quite common for vanity projects to be precisely those used more by the plebs than the nomenklatura.

[MichaelZuo]

Doesn't that reinforce the parents' point that even a country with 1/10th the GDP and 10x more corruption, still manages to complete their subway projects 10x quicker at 1/10th the cost?

I don't think the explanation is that Russians are 10000x smarter than Americans, so it must be some environmental/organizational difference.

[EntrePrescott]

> Doesn't that reinforce the parents' point that (…)

I don't see how it would. The reasons why a country with 1/10th the GDP and 10x more corruption still manages to complete their subway projects 10x quicker at 1/10th the cost is totally orthogonal to whether it's a vanity project or not, or with which group will use it most.

> it must be some environmental/organizational difference.

indeed, it very much is. And for that matter: a construction project ordered by an autocratic dictator in a corrupt second-world country has inherently a much higher probability of being finished in time and within budget than a nominally comparable project in a democratic first world country. It may later turn out to be of totally shitty quality or cause lots of other problems (e.g. safety, environmental, etc) because quality and other standards were sacrificed to the priority of meeting the will of the dictator/party, but when a totalitarian ruler gives an order, people feel they better comply quickly.

A totalitarian state that doesn't give a shit about your rights, the environment etc, can more easily just evacuate or disown everyone who lived in the planned line or area, whereas in a first-world democratic country the construction will be hindered by lawsuits (both for their legitimate right and for nimbyism, particular interests etc). Same for the environment: In Germany, these days, there's almost no large-scale construction project that isn't severely slowed down by activists because (true or false) the project is suspected to harm the habitat of some rare protected species. It drags through the courts, Experts have to evaluate the situation, solutions may have to be found (sometimes very costly), etc.

In a totalitarian country, all of that doesn't exist. The environment is just totally meaningless compared to the will of the dictator or party. Finally, it's not just the rights, legal, environmental and social standards that are much more complicated (and in consequence, costly and slowing things down) in developed democratic countries, but pretty much all standards, including for everything related to the building project. So yeah, a totalitarian state is total shite, but its leadership has waaay fewer obstacles to getting their construction project done in time and within budget.

[MichaelZuo]

> I don't see how it would. The reasons why a country with 1/10th the GDP and 10x more corruption still manages to complete their subway projects 10x quicker at 1/10th the cost is totally orthogonal to whether it's a vanity project or not, or with which group will use it most.

Because it removes the explanation of the motivation that it will primarily benefit their personal usage. Since the decision-makers for the project obviously have to share the subway with millions of ordinary commuters.

Even if it was a vanity project, the vanity only accrues to the top leadership, not to the thousands of middle-managers. So it's extra significant that even with a 10x more corrupt structure, where the vast majority of said structure don't benefit from the vanity, it's still completed quicker.

[EntrePrescott]

> Because it removes the explanation of the motivation that it will primarily benefit their personal usage.

Does it? I'd say that they have far more benefit of the project than the common commuter… it's just a different use. Their use is not merely commuting (they live in a palace and have a limousine and chauffeur and personal jet) but a tool for asserting and furthering their power and image… So yes, they very much have a personal interest in it. Also, vanity projects in corrupt and autocratic countries are often a way for the dictators and their nephews and goons to fill their pockets from state money. That too is way more benefit than the common commuter.

> the vanity only accrues to the top leadership, not to the thousands of middle-managers

The fact that such a vanity project isn't born from the vanity of middle managers doesn't change the fact that they too have a big personal interest in such projects. Playing your part well in a vanity project is what gets you promoted in autocratic and other totalitarian regimes.

> So it's extra significant that even with a 10x more corrupt structure, where the vast majority of said structure don't benefit from the vanity, it's still completed quicker.

The higher speed of authoritarian regimes when it comes to the decision making processes is nothing surprising but inherent to its nature: no checks and balances, no lawsuits or high standards to slow things down, just a simple top-down order structure. It's not good for the rights and freedoms of people, but it is inherently faster than a democratic system which requires to reach a wide consensus and to comply with a whole lot of complicated requirements.