What is considered a good return on a government dollar spent?

[Precipice]

I am wondering what the government considers a good rate of return. I was interested to find out that governments can actually crunch returns on expenditures like infrastructure (like non-toll roads). But it is proving to be hard for me to understand what numbers they think are good and just average and what some of their numbers even mean and can they be simplified to simple $1 spent equals $y per year.

Normally, the government will just say things like, "we need more infrustructure to help accessability to businesses" or "hours spent in traffic per year are too high" and many other qualitative reasons. I have found out that they do quantify this into a simple rate of return like $1 spent returns $3 in n years. But for some reason I never hear them just come out with these nice simple numbers that we can all use to measure against other government investments.

Or maybe they are giving these numbers somewhere, but I am having a hell of a time finding them. And when I do find them, they are in the form of an economic analysis report that I am pretty sure you would have to have at least a degree in economics to understand.

Can anyone help me by pointing me in the direction of finding these "simple" numbers that are eluding us, or at least eluding me?

 

[PoliticalNick]

I am wondering what the government considers a good rate of return. I was interested to find out that governments can actually crunch returns on expenditures like infrastructure (like non-toll roads). But it is proving to be hard for me to understand what numbers they think are good and just average and what some of their numbers even mean and can they be simplified to simple $1 spent equals $y per year.

Normally, the government will just say things like, "we need more infrustructure to help accessability to businesses" or "hours spent in traffic per year" and many other qualitative reasons. I have found out that they do quantify this into a simple rate of return like $1 spent returns $3 in n years. But for some reason I never hear them just come out with these nice simple numbers that we can all use as a measure to other investments.

Or maybe they are giving these numbers somewhere, but I am having a hell of a time finding them. And when I do find them, they are in the form of an economic analysis report that I am pretty sure you would have to have at least a degree in economics to understand.

Can anyone help me by pointing me in the direction of finding these "simple" numbers that are eluding us, or at least eluding me?

You won't find any truthful numbers for the simple reason there is no return on anything government does because government doesn't create anything. All they do is take the fruits of our labour, skim a boatload off the top, and then pay someone to make something with whatever might be left. The fact almost all budgets are in deficit means it's pretty hard to get any return on anything even if they did create something other than debt.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Nick's a cynic. The problem is that the economic effect of, say, widening a road between City A and City B from one lane each way to two lanes each way, divided, is that first you have to decide what to include. OK, obviously any increase in trade between Cities A and B. But what about tourists from the airport in City A to City B? It is difficult to impossible to quantify. If there is an increase in tourist revenue, how much of it is attributable to the improved road? If a company decides to build a factory in City B, and provides jobs, taxes, higher housing values, &c., again, how much of that is attributable to the improved road? Then there's the question of how long do you attribute the gains? Five years? Ten years?

Add to this the fact that the pro-improvers and the anti-improvers will each choose the values that make their case look best, and what you have is really not numbers at all. It's politics.

 

[Precipice]

Nick's a cynic. The problem is that the economic effect of, say, widening a road between City A and City B from one lane each way to two lanes each way, divided, is that first you have to decide what to include. OK, obviously any increase in trade between Cities A and B. But what about tourists from the airport in City A to City B? It is difficult to impossible to quantify. If there is an increase in tourist revenue, how much of it is attributable to the improved road? If a company decides to build a factory in City B, and provides jobs, taxes, higher housing values, &c., again, how much of that is attributable to the improved road? Then there's the question of how long do you attribute the gains? Five years? Ten years?

Add to this the fact that the pro-improvers and the anti-improvers will each choose the values that make their case look best, and what you have is really not numbers at all. It's politics.

Well however they get these numbers, that is all we get. Politics or not, the numbers are at least rational and based on some sort of economic analysis. I have no doubt there are some slants.

Nevertheless these numbers are out there, somewhere. I wonder if the finance ministry is the final say, after all they don't want to fudge the numbers too much and be responsible for bankrupting Canada.

So they, I would assume, have to at least have a critical value estimated of some sort that gives them the go ahead or rejection.

But what are they looking for? What are these critical values.

I have sent numerous e-mails to the ministry of finance, and they have not responded to any of them.

I don't know what else I can do.

 

[MHz]

First the donations to the party have to come in so they know where the money is supposed to go.

 

[Angstrom]

I am wondering what the government considers a good rate of return. I was interested to find out that governments can actually crunch returns on expenditures like infrastructure (like non-toll roads). But it is proving to be hard for me to understand what numbers they think are good and just average and what some of their numbers even mean and can they be simplified to simple $1 spent equals $y per year.

Normally, the government will just say things like, "we need more infrustructure to help accessability to businesses" or "hours spent in traffic per year are too high" and many other qualitative reasons. I have found out that they do quantify this into a simple rate of return like $1 spent returns $3 in n years. But for some reason I never hear them just come out with these nice simple numbers that we can all use to measure against other government investments.

Or maybe they are giving these numbers somewhere, but I am having a hell of a time finding them. And when I do find them, they are in the form of an economic analysis report that I am pretty sure you would have to have at least a degree in economics to understand.

Can anyone help me by pointing me in the direction of finding these "simple" numbers that are eluding us, or at least eluding me?

:laughing3:

Are you fuking serious?

The government is like a big money pit. End of discussion

 

[Precipice]

First the donations to the party have to come in so they know where the money is supposed to go.

The donations only have so much pull. I would imagine that donations are one factor but wouldn't there be other factors like economic returns or public pressure?

:laughing3:

Are you fuking serious?

The government is like a big money pit. End of discussion

I pay a relatively small amount in taxes, yet I use a 25 billion dollar Skytrain in Vancouver (not including maintenance) a 500 million dollar hospital when I get sick or need a scan, a billion dollar road system to take a trip, a billion dollar school system from p-k to grade 12,etc.

Seems like a good deal to me

 

[MHz]

True.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Well however they get these numbers, that is all we get. Politics or not, the numbers are at least rational and based on some sort of economic analysis. I have no doubt there are some slants.

Nevertheless these numbers are out there, somewhere. I wonder if the finance ministry is the final say, after all they don't want to fudge the numbers too much and be responsible for bankrupting Canada.

So they, I would assume, have to at least have a critical value estimated of some sort that gives them the go ahead or rejection.

But what are they looking for? What are these critical values.

I have sent numerous e-mails to the ministry of finance, and they have not responded to any of them.

I don't know what else I can do.

You can research. Government websites, private foundations (think tanks), universities, political parties, provincial and city governments all have relevant information. Some of the think tanks do the research you want to see. So pick a project and go on google looking for estimates and values of costs and revenues. I simply advise you to evaluate how each of these organizations reaches its conclusions, and decide if the numbers each organization is using are reasonable.

It's difficult and time-consuming, but the only alternative is to take on faith what one organization or another tells you.

 

[Danbones]

Here is an example of an excellent and quick return

it clearly illustrates clever middle management skills
and the precociousness of aggressive bravery and sheer(ed) balls as well

 

[Precipice]

You can research. Government websites, private foundations (think tanks), universities, political parties, provincial and city governments all have relevant information. Some of the think tanks do the research you want to see. So pick a project and go on google looking for estimates and values of costs and revenues. I simply advise you to evaluate how each of these organizations reaches its conclusions, and decide if the numbers each organization is using are reasonable.

It's difficult and time-consuming, but the only alternative is to take on faith what one organization or another tells you.

I am willing to go on faith. I just can't even find the numbers I am looking for.

The numbers either seem to be too complicated or way too general.

Either I am forced to start down an endless journey of deep economic analysis or I get information that is way too simplified like, "infrastructure is good" or "cutting healthcare is bad".

I know the simple and meaningful numbers are out there somewhere, but like another poster said, the decisions are not necessarily based on economic numbers. Instead, there are less attractive reasons like tacitly prepromises made to donators to the campaign or lobby groups etc.

 

[Precipice]

I am willing to go on faith. I just can't even find the numbers I am looking for.

The numbers either seem to be too complicated or way too general.

Either I am forced to start down an endless journey of deep economic analysis or I get information that is way too simplified like, "infrastructure is good" or "cutting healthcare is bad".

I know the simple and meaningful numbers are out there somewhere, but like another poster said, the decisions are not necessarily based on economic numbers. Instead, there are less attractive reasons like tacitly prepromises made to donators to the campaign or lobby groups etc.

So there seems to be a natural, internal conflict of interest between a party's survival/popularity and the good of the nation.

Perhaps parties are underestimating the power of what pure economic returns could have on the public vote.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

So there seems to be a natural, internal conflict of interest between a party's survival/popularity and the good of the nation.

I would need a definition of "the good of the nation."

Perhaps parties are underestimating the power of what pure economic returns could have on the public vote.

Probably. Politicians generally tend not to be very good at economics.

 

[Precipice]

I would need a definition of "the good of the nation."


Probably. Politicians generally tend not to be very good at economics.

"The good of a nation" always seems to come down to money and how relatively well it's distributed over the entire nation.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

"The good of a nation" always seems to come down to money and how relatively well it's distributed over the entire nation.

My point being that "the good of the nation" is not a concrete thing. It's a matter of opinion.

 

[Precipice]

My point being that "the good of the nation" is not a concrete thing. It's a matter of opinion.

Lol, yeah right!

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Lol, yeah right!

Oh dear, and it was going so well.

Good-bye, Mr. Precipice. I enjoyed our conversation.

 

[Precipice]

Oh dear, and it was going so well.

Good-bye, Mr. Precipice. I enjoyed our conversation.

No, I was laughing at myself.

 

[PoliticalNick]

Nick's a cynic. The problem is that the economic effect of, say, widening a road between City A and City B from one lane each way to two lanes each way, divided, is that first you have to decide what to include. OK, obviously any increase in trade between Cities A and B. But what about tourists from the airport in City A to City B? It is difficult to impossible to quantify. If there is an increase in tourist revenue, how much of it is attributable to the improved road? If a company decides to build a factory in City B, and provides jobs, taxes, higher housing values, &c., again, how much of that is attributable to the improved road? Then there's the question of how long do you attribute the gains? Five years? Ten years?

Add to this the fact that the pro-improvers and the anti-improvers will each choose the values that make their case look best, and what you have is really not numbers at all. It's politics.

I'm not a cynic...well ok, yes I am, but that wasn't my point. What I was trying to convey is the expansion of that road is not created by the government, it is created by the taxpayers that fund the government at a greater expense than if we hired the contractor privately.

 

[TenPenny]

You won't find any truthful numbers for the simple reason there is no return on anything government does because government doesn't create anything.

There you go. Someone who knows nothing about economics, and less about what governments do.


Carry on.