“Basically the same bridge” is such a hilarious oversimplification that it makes your blame of the Federal Reserve even more amusing. No, absolutely no improvements in engineering, materials, process, or design in sixty years. No added overhead for environmental studies and other regulations. It’s all the Fed.

Hacker News discussing economics is like arguing geopolitics with someone on peyote.

Some other differences between the new bridge and the old bridge that would account for higher cost:

- 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%...

The thing is that "improvements in engineering, materials, process, or design" should make it cheaper, not more expensive. That's how it works in other industries.

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.

> The thing is that "improvements in engineering, materials, process, or design" should make it cheaper, not more expensive.

Only if you’re optimizing for cost, which public infrastructure very obviously isn’t. It’s optimizing for safety.

Environmental impact study, OSHA, etc… are processes that are improvements, that clearly make it more expensive.

I find it rather alarming that you equate those improvements with lower cost.

Would it be an improvement to build my car out of wood rather than steel? It'd certainly make it a LOT cheaper!

The reason the dollar is a currency is because of the existence of a force (in this case, the Fed) that can tamp down speculation and deflation. Cryptocurrency doesn't have this, and that is its central failing.

What's inherently bad about deflation? It's happened routinely throughout most of history until recently.

Speculation is a good thing, it's a form of entrepreneurship.

Example of historic deflation: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Deflation

Deflation causes a positive feedback loop of reducing trade. If it's better to hoard currency so you can buy 10% more things next year, everyone starts hoarding currency and reducing trade, leading to suppliers dropping prices to encourage purchases, leading to further deflation, and so on. Trade grinds to a halt as everyone holds currency in anticipation of buying more later.

Stake: 0.05 BTC, 1.2 ETH

> If it's better to hoard currency so you can buy 10% more things next year, everyone starts hoarding currency

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.

I would even argue that it's a good thing in our current environment that we don't facilitate trade for things that aren't needed. Much of the arguments of deflation seem to rely on an economy that has maintained high and ideally growing output, while we live in a world of resources being depleted due to inefficient use and failure to reign externalities.

It will stabilize at some point. We've been trading in deflationary currencies (gold, silver) for most of human history.

The example in that link

>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.

TFA says "Hey! If you write a comment about this article online, disclose your stake in cryptocurrency."

Otherwise I think we can safely ignore it.

Stake: 0.05 BTC, 1.2 ETH

And what do we do if someone has a large stake? Ignore their arguments? Should we do the same if they have no stake and are criticizing it? How much stake is enough, given a particular argument, to consider it on its own merits and not reject it based on cui bono? If someone doesn't disclose their stake, should we assume the worst, the best, the average? What if they're lying?

(I have no stake in anything crypto related, so hopefully my argument won't be dismissed. But maybe I'm lying.)

We factor in the degree of aligned incentives they have to their argument.

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.

In that same vein, I assume that anyone who comes out against crypto has little or no stake in it. And I’m usually correct.

That’s a revelation as mind blowing as noticing people against drugs tend not to consume them. Only crypto folks seem to think skin in the game is a prerequisite for criticism and objective discussion.

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.

I can think of one counterargument to your list of people arguing for/against things they have a stake in...

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.

There is no element of FOMO or being proven wrong when talking about slavery or drugs.

When someone comes out against crypto and I find out they have just sold their stake, that seems really suspect to me.

Not ignore it, but take it into consideration.

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?

What a weird opinion to hold in a society totally dominated by incentive. Serving yourself is the entire point since we have structured nearly all of human existence around incentive instead of command. Discounting the argument that it would help the poor (objectively) because it helps the person making the suggestion is like being angry at the sky for being blue. The incentives produced the outcome and should in no way surprise you.

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.

> What a weird opinion to hold in a society totally dominated by incentive.

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.

It's common etiquette and sometimes a legal requirement to declare an interest in stocks if you are recommending them. If someone owns the stock you kind of assume they are pitching it rather than giving an unbiased opinion.

How is that indicative of destruction? If someone really believes that inflation is destruction they can hold one of the many assets that are protected against inflation, such as stocks, inflation-adjusted bonds, real estate or gold. Why is cryptocurrency supposedly the only solution here?

> Due in part to the destruction of the USD caused by the Fed.

In small part. Inflation from 1955 to 2013 is almost exactly 9 times. That accounts for $495 million.

OSHA didn't change anything?

Your whataboutism destroys your whole argument. Pointless.

If you are going to edit your comments, it is polite to indicate what parts have been added/changed.