Practical uses of big science projects

[Anomalocaris]

This thing here cost a billion dollars. We obviously have plenty of capital to burn for useless nonsense. I rest my case.

In fairness, this thing generates revenue.   

When there is sure and adequate prospect of revenue, there is not a strong requirement for capital to actually exist for it to be available for investing in the venture.   This is how banks can lend out much more for investment than the deposits it holds.

It's only when one could not adequately convince investors of certainty and magnitude of return on the investment on a venture, that one is much more likely to be required to actually possess the capital needed for investing in it.

[Alex K]

In fairness, this thing generates revenue.

Who cares whether it generates revenue? Revenue is just green pieces of paper changing places. Revenue does not magically compensate for the man hours and resources that were used for this thing, and those are the only thing that counts in this discussion:
With investments of this proportion, and in particular when the topic of the discussion is which endeavours we as a species should and can afford, the business model of some shipping company does not matter. What matters is only what the resources and manpower available to mankind are used for. The price in money paid for the boat is just a shorthand to estimate this effort.
That it generates revenue merely means that some other people are willing to trade the work they do in order to ride on this boat, it has nothing to do with the resources sunk into building it.

[Anomalocaris]

In fairness, this thing generates revenue.

Who cares whether it generates revenue? Revenue is just green pieces of paper changing places. Revenue does not magically compensate for the man hours and resources that were used for this thing.
With investments of this proportion, and in particular when the topic of the discussion is which endeavours we as a species should and can afford, this does not matter. What matters is only what the  resources and manpower available to mankind are used for. The price in money paid for it is just a shorthand to estimate this cost.
That it generates revenue merely means that some people are willing to trade the work they do in order to ride on this boat, it has nothing to do with the resources sunk into building it.

Those who has the little green pieces of paper and wants more of them cares.

Unfortunately we don't live in a sufficiently strong command economy.   The little green pieces of paper - short hand for the cost - when used to measure revenue, also become short hand in a non-command economy for a broad based comparison for quality and risk of investment. 

That cruise ship is a reasonably low risk, high return investment, measured by little green pieces of paper moving here and there.   A command economy might indeed make a better decision here.  But unfortunately command economy has had a poor reputation for making an on average higher quality of decision on average.  

[Alex K]

Who cares whether it generates revenue? Revenue is just green pieces of paper changing places. Revenue does not magically compensate for the man hours and resources that were used for this thing.
With investments of this proportion, and in particular when the topic of the discussion is which endeavours we as a species should and can afford, this does not matter. What matters is only what the  resources and manpower available to mankind are used for. The price in money paid for it is just a shorthand to estimate this cost.
That it generates revenue merely means that some people are willing to trade the work they do in order to ride on this boat, it has nothing to do with the resources sunk into building it.

Those who has the little green pieces of paper and wants more of them cares.

Unfortunately we don't live in a sufficiently strong command economy.   The short hand for the cost, when used to measure revenue, also become short hand for a broad based comparison for quality of investment. 

I don't understand how this addresses my point

[Anomalocaris]

Those who has the little green pieces of paper and wants more of them cares.

Unfortunately we don't live in a sufficiently strong command economy.   The short hand for the cost, when used to measure revenue, also become short hand for a broad based comparison for quality of investment. 

I don't understand how this addresses my point

It addresses the fact that return on investment has the least bad reputation as a tool for measuring optimality of investment in complex, developed economies, at least compared to alternatives thus far tried.

So one needs to make a case for why for one's pet project, others ought to condone the use of alternative means of measuring optimality with even less enviable track record when it is other people's money that is also at stake.

[Alex K]

Return of investment as the main arbiter of what is the optimal use of resources? Sounds like a non sequitur to me. Or worse, libertarian hogwash

[Anomalocaris]

DReturn of investment as the main arbiter of what is the optimal use of resources? Sounds like a non sequitur to me. Or worse, libertarian hogwash

Notice I do not say return on investment leads to good, much less optimal, use of resource.  I say other means of measuring optimality of resource use have not demonstrated any sustained superiority in complex, developed economies.   Those who too easily come to believe their measure to be evidently superior to return on investment often do so because they can not, or do not choose to, perceive direct or indirect returns of investments which are not made in their pet projects.

[Alex K]

The most generous thing I can say about return on investment is that it has some semblance to a bad form of grassroots democracy. Buti sn't letting return on investment rule more or less tantamount to abolishing taxation, and rather close to a plea to abolish the state as well? Let the market sort it out!

[Anomalocaris]

It's not quite grass root democracy.   In a democracy one's vote does not count for less if one didn't vote for the winner the last time.   It's more like grassroots gangsterism with some limitations on allowable means of intimidation.

Also, it generally does not rule.  But there does appear to be substantial correlation between how influential it is, within some range, and how fast the economy grows, and with the greater rate of economic growth, there comes sooner a greater disposable resource overall, and if I might be cynical, greater resulting latitude for pet projects that do not rank in terms of return on investment to slide in under the radar.