[epolanski]

> The economic angle is a bit confusing.

We don't need an economic angle to build great things that help people.

It's a bridge, it's meant to be a shortcut from point A to B.

We aren't just cogwheels in an economic system, there's more to life and progress as humans.

[stickfigure]

Bridges are expensive to build and to maintain. Maybe people could be helped better other ways; economics is about making choices with limited resources.

[SturgeonsLaw]

Guess China's resources aren't as limited as some of their competitors

[arethuza]

I've just finished "The Power Broker" about Robert Moses and it mentions a few times that bridges are actually fairly inexpensive to maintain?

[imtringued]

That's not economics, that's optimization with inequality constraints.

[nickpp]

> We don't need an economic angle [...] We aren't just cogwheels in an economic system

This kind of thinking is exactly how people go bankrupt. "But I deserve those shoes" "I need a Starbucks to get the day started" "This McMansion would make me happy" "I'd rather commute in a BMW than a Toyota"

[Tade0]

It's paradoxical really. On one hand this mindset leads to bankruptcies, on the other it creates demand necessary to grow an economy.

There's probably a balance to be struck somewhere between the two approaches, but I wouldn't know where it is, as I stay firmly on the frugal side.

[Hnrobert42]

There is an opportunity cost.

[dotancohen]

I believe that the saving four hours (two hours each way) to travel from or to the city, multiplied by the amount of current and potential vehicles, is a clear opportunity benefit.

Not to mention the fuel saved and pollution prevented. And increased economic development for the city.

[Hnrobert42]

No. The opportunity cost is that if you build a bridge to nowhere you can't build a bridge to somewhere else more useful .