[Nibbles]

Originally Posted by EricH

Your point is? I am not sure I get it.

This is a spin off of the thread, for organizational purposes. Also to point out a larger picture that people don't usually see because it is a "Great Pumpkin".

Originally Posted by EricH

Also, it helps to get your facts straight. NYC did NOT get the money from the government, Long Island did. They are separate events, with LI held (in this case) during the main 5 weeks and NYC held as it usually is, Friday-Sunday, in Week 6.

So my initial doubts were correct, and I shouldn't have even implied I was talking about NYC. My second point about NYC still stands luckily: These nuisances, though minor, are the ones that need to be solved with the help of outside organizations, along with all the other support we get be it money, supplies, space, or personal time.

Originally Posted by EricH

Big Dig is a pork project. It doesn't benefit anyone other than the people who use it, which would be people in Boston/using the Boston Airport. And the work was not exactly the best, but that's another story. You can't be selective about what you call "pork". It's either pork or not pork. If one thing that is $100,000 and benefits a limited number of people is pork, then how is a $4,000,000,000 per-mile thing that also benefits a limited number of people not pork?

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

Shouldn't we be considering the difference between the original cost estimates of the Big Dig, and the eventual cost to the public? The patronage and bid-rigging, and then the subsequent poor workmanship (relative to the cost) are what give it the appearance of unjustifiable spending. But if it had actually cost what they said it would cost, I think people would have welcomed it unequivocally, and not derided it as a pork project. Labelling it as pork sounds like an ex post facto judgement based on the city's poor experiences with the project, rather than an analysis of its utility. It's undeniable that the project has had significant economic and social benefits, the only question is whether or not these benefits, taken over time, justify the huge project cost. [...]

I didn't link to it in this thread, so I do so here, see the Wikipedia consensus on the definition. Some people think pork means too expensive to justify the results, which would include the big dig, certainly considered pork by many people. I don't entirely agree, it was entirely funded by MA, benefits almost almost all of the citizens and then some, and was not a random plan or request for money pulled from thin air. Now, if the federal government funded it, there is no doubt, it isn't their job to fund that, especially considering that less then what, 5% of Americans are going to be using it? So I am looking at the taxpayer/recipient ratio I guess.

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

I've never seen the "American dream" characterized in that manner before. Typically it's about how hard work, etc. can lead to (depending on your perspective) personal and/or societal enrichment. But the key is that it's not about private citizens' contributions vs. government grants, and there's no implication that by doing something in some capitalistic "American way", you'll acheive better results than if the government had propped the endeavour up with some extra funds.

Traditionally it is work hard and prosper. I do try and take it one step farther however, there is no reason you cannot help people and profit doing it at the same time, take Muhammad Yunus as the perfect example (one of those rare Nobel peace prize winners who really deserved it I believe). More good for less money, or in our case, which source of money is going to be the most beneficial? $100 000 is $100 000, right? No, the source is entirely relevant with everything from financial effects on the suppliers side (budget deficit) or how you establish the two-way relationship I talk about, to phenomena like personal bias towards your sponsor (this is seen this in research all the time).