Quote of the day

“I find economics increasingly satisfactory, and I think I am rather good at it.”– John Maynard Keynes

Saturday, 27 July 2019

Must-read article for aspiring economists

This article covers so many areas you need to have an understanding of, and be able to bring into essays, that it is critical you read and re-read it, until you have grasped its import; you can always email me (or bring up in September) about any bits that are unclear. CapX is an excellent source of commentary, and you should subscribe to it (it is free):

Rebalancing Britain: The northern city on the south coast

Today CapX launches a major new project with the Joseph Rowntree Foundation focusing on how the next Prime Minister should tackle the longstanding imbalances in the British economy. The project will focus not only on the well-documented North/South divide, but on the way smaller towns and cities are often left behind in national policy debates.
To kick off the series, CapX’s Acting Editor John Ashmore visited Portsmouth to find out the challenges facing the ‘northern city on the south coast’ – and the policies that can help address them.
On first inspection, Portsmouth might seem an unusual place to report on the challenges of rebalancing the British economy.
My first impression stepping off the train at Portsmouth Harbour is of confident prosperity.
Tourists converge on the HMS Victory and the Mary Rose, while the Emirates-sponsored Spinnaker Tower looms on the water’s edge. Bestriding the waterfront is Gunwharf Quays, once a key defensive bastion for the home of the Royal Navy, but now a 33-acre development of upmarket shops, offices and upmarket flats.
Look the other way, though, and you are greeted by the tower blocks of Portsea, an area that was once home to thousands of local dockers.
Those grey 60s buildings crop up all over the island city and are a reminder that while it might have world-class attractions, and it might be in affluent Hampshire, this city is also home to some of the most deprived places in the country.
HMS Warrior docked alongside the city’s historic dockyard (Photo: Gareth Milner / CapX)
It is often referred to as “the northern city on the south coast”. That’s partly an aesthetic observation – long Victorian terraces certainly make you feel more as though you’re in south Wales or the industrial north than the Home Counties. And like those areas, Portsmouth has suffered from the slow drawdown of traditional industry. Where once the local dockyard employed 40,000 people, now there are only a quarter of that number.
Though the city is medium-sized, with about 215,000 inhabitants, it is part of a much wider Solent economic area that is home to 1.3 million people, taking in Southampton, the New Forest and the Isle of Wight.
Wage levels and the unemployment rate in Portsmouth are average by national standards, but they lag behind the rest of the south-east.
Donna Jones, who led the local council between 2014 and 2018 and is now the Conservative PPC for Portsmouth South, says her home town stands out in the comfortable affluence of the wider region.
“Our average house prices, average employment, average education is much lower than the remainder of the south-east, the demographics of cities are often more challenging than the demographics of the countryside around.
“Portsmouth and Southampton are both very working class, elbows out, they’ve got a bit of an edge to them.”
Unlike some now down-at-heel former industrial towns, though, Portsmouth’s is not a story of steep decline from a heady era of shared prosperity. Parts of the city have always been poor, with a large working class population sustained by working at the docks. Conversely, areas such as Old Portsmouth and Southsea have been rich for a long time.
That disparity is reflected in the huge variation in house prices – a four-bed end of terrace in Buckland might set you back £200,000, while a similar-sized property in Old Portsmouth is on the market for just shy of £1.4 million.
Old Portsmouth is packed with high end housing and tourist attractions such as the Spinnaker Tower (top left) and the Royal Garrison Church (Photo: Gareth Milner / CapX)
After the Second World War, when Portsmouth suffered sustained bombing, huge slums were cleared and made way for council estates in the central areas of Buckland, Landport and Somerstown, as well as Paulsgrove, which is north of the island but still thought of as part of Portsmouth.
Back in 2014 David Cameron’s government was moved to create a Minister for Portsmouth when BAE announced the end of shipbuilding operations and the loss of almost 1,800 jobs – a role filled variously by Michael Fallon, Matt Hancock and Mark Francois. Several hundred more followed at the end of 2017.
Those job losses were a big blow to a city which includes neighbourhoods which rank in the bottom 10 per cent of the UK using the government’s Indices of Multiple Deprivation. [see Figure 1].
The disparity in affluence is clear in health outcomes. A resident of affluent Drayton in the north-east corner of the island can expect to live fully 10 years longer than someone just a few miles away in Charles Dickens ward (named for the novelist’s birthplace).
Figure 1 – How Portsmouth compares to the nation on the Index of Multiple Deprivation
Nor are the poorer parts of town tucked away or relegated to the margins: Portsmouth is the UK’s most densely populated city and its poorest areas rub right up against much more affluent ones.
As I walk around central areas such as Somerstown and Fratton, the contrast is quite striking.
While the waterfront has been lavished with care and cash to reel in the tourist pound, further inland boarded up shops and neglected buildings speak to some of the deep-seated economic challenges facing the city.
Despite these kinds of differences, Portsmouth also feels like a place with a strong sense of itself and its long history. Flick Drummond, who represented Portsmouth South between 2015 and 2017 describes a cohesive, tight-knit community.
“It’s not a divided community because we all work together. We all live on top of each other so we all know how the other half lives and there’s a community spirit,” she says.
Politics
Politically the city is a real mixed bag. Labour won Portsmouth South for the first time ever in 2017, while Defence Secretary Penny Mordaunt holds a 10,000-odd majority in Portsmouth North.
No party has overall control of the council, which is led by the Liberal Democrats’ Gerald Vernon-Jackson with Labour support. His predecessor, Donna Jones, is now the prospective parliamentary candidate for Portsmouth South, as well as leading the opposition group.
Portsmouth South is exactly the kind of seat the next Conservative leader will have to win back in a future election if they are to have any hope of a Tory a majority.
And if they are to win, the Tories must focus on the concerns of those on low incomes, whose votes are very much up for grabs. New research from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and academic Matthew Goodwin shows that Britain’s least affluent people are more engaged in politics and less loyal to particular parties than ever before.
Ten years on from the financial crisis, these voters are still feeling the pinch. Goodwin’s research found that those in low income households are as likely to say they are struggling financially as they were after the recessions of 1992 and 2008.
Long rows of Victorian terraces give Portsmouth the look of cities much further north (Photo: Blom UK via Getty Images)
Struggling to get by
One person who sees that belt-tightening up close on a daily basis is Sandy O’Neill, the chief executive of Portsmouth’s Citizens’ Advice Bureau.
Last year the charity’s Money Advice Team helped over 2,500 local residents, primarily with debt problems. Solutions range from formal measures – declaring bankruptcy, Individual Voluntary Arrangements or Debt Relief Orders – to simply asking creditors to relent.
The causes of financial trouble are familiar: high housing costs and rising utility bills and an increase in transient, short-term work have all contributed. O’Neill says her clients are more likely to be living in the private rented sector than in social housing.
The constant struggle to make ends also has a profound psychological impact, O’Neill says.
“In some areas people feel powerless. They feel that’s their lot and there’s nothing they can do about it and nobody’s listening to them.
“It’s born out of having battled for such a long time and nothing’s changed, they just feel like it’s pointless.”
Something has clearly gone badly wrong when people living in a relatively job-rich city in one of the country’s most affluent regions feel they have no way of improving their lives.
Frustrations dealing with government can add to the energy-sapping financial difficulties. For instance, some clients wait weeks just to get through to a Department for Work and Pensions adviser on the phone.
Being in arrears on Council Tax may also invite an extra charge if a client is taken to the magistrates court, something O’Neill describes as a postcode lottery.
“Charges in Portsmouth are very expensive, so when someone fails to pay Council Tax the local authority can take them to Magistrates and they charge approx £95, in London it’s £110.  When you look at Fareham it’s £45, in Havant it’s £60.
“We believe it only costs £25 to the local authority so they’re passing on a cost to the resident…to be charging on a profit basis just seems to be ludicrous.”
Council leader Gerald Vernon-Jackson agrees that there is a “large group who feel disenfranchised by the system”, something which was partly reflected in a 58-42 split in favour of Brexit.
He too identifies housing as a major issue. He points to the experience of one local woman who has had to move flat 17 times in the space of nine years, despite holding down the same job for seven years.
But, as the presence of affluent areas alongside the poorer ones suggests, the economy here has a great deal going for it. The Royal Navy has contributed to a thriving ecosystem of small, specialised engineering firms. While some service the defence sector directly, there are also firms working with Formula 1, pharmaceuticals and precision engineering.
In terms of  bigger employers, IBM did at one time have their European headquarters in Portsmouth, but have been gradually scaling down their presence. The likes of Airbus, Rolls Royce and BAE Systems are here too.
SMEs
The problem, Vernon-Jackson argues, is attracting companies in between the big conglomerates and the smaller outfits.
“We’ve got a few big companies and we’ve got lots of little ones – what we don’t have is as many medium companies as we should have and that’s the area where we need to grow the economy of the city.”
Attracting medium-sized companies is one thing, but the city also needs to do more to make sure they are bringing the kind of highly-skilled jobs that boost productivity and wages. In the Centre for Cities ranking of urban areas based on their share of knowledge-intensive service jobs, Portsmouth came 50th in a list of 62.
“In the context of other cities it hasn’t done well in attracting these kind of jobs. That has implications in terms of jobs, wages and career progression,” says Paul Swinney, the Centre’s policy director.
Swinney says the issue is not so much skills – where Portsmouth performs reasonably well – but the poor condition of the city centre. In that respect, it’s a challenge shared by many similar-sized towns and cities in the post-industrial north of England.
The Centre for Cities advocates using a portion of the £31bn National Infrastructure Fund specifically for city centres, which areas like Portsmouth would then be able to apply for.
However Vernon-Jackson says that even if bids are successful, the whole model of local government bidding for slices of Whitehall’s cash is an exhausting, counter-productive process.
“We waste such huge quantities of money bidding for stuff, setting stuff up and then when the money finishes three years later winding it all down again and the money would be much better spent if we could just put it in the base budget and we knew what we were spending it on.”
Another concern is an over-reliance on public sector employment, which means vulnerability to cuts in central government. At the moment the biggest employers are the Queen Alexandra hospital north of the island, the Navy base and the council itself, which between them have nearing 30,000 staff – this in an area with a working-age population of about 145,000.
Retail woes
That parts of the private sector are struggling is evident in areas such as North End, where many of the shops on the main thoroughfare, London Road, are boarded up or in a state of disrepair.
Caroline Collings, who chaired the city’s branch of the Federation of Small Business for 15 years, points the finger squarely at the tax system.
“The business rates are ridiculously high for retail and have decimated our high street so at one point the business rates were higher than the rents being charged.
“London Road is classed as a ‘high street’ so it was being charged exorbitant rates. It has a main road going through it, but that doesn’t make it a high street.”
Disused shopfronts, including a former snooker hall on London Road (Photo: Gareth Milner / CapX)
The demise of some retailers and the fact many shopfronts are left more or less abandoned creates a vicious circle. The kind of high-wage middle-sized companies the council wants to attract are not keen to locate in a city centre that is not the most attractive and lacks high-quality office space.
In an attempt to rectify that, the council has recently given the green light to spending £100m to buy up a 120-acre site in the north of the city. It’s not a move that’s been met with unanimous approval, to say the least. Morgan, the local Labour MP, has described it as a “very risky gamble”. On the Tory side, Donna Jones is concerned that one of Lakeside’s biggest tenants, IBM, is dialling down its operations at the site.
Infrastructure
Inadequate infrastructure is also holding Portsmouth’s economy back. It’s a challenge the city shares with swathes of the country waiting for a better bus service, a road to be dualled or a train line to be electrified. Smaller towns in particular are often forgotten in a national transport debate that has in recent years become fixated with mega-projects like Crossrail and HS2.
The train from London takes an hour and 40 minutes on the “fast” service and a little over two hours on the stopping one. It may be in the south-east, but in terms of transport to the capital, Portsmouth might as well be in the Midlands – except that it’s actually much quicker to travel the 120-odd miles to Birmingham.
Although getting to the country’s economic powerhouse quickly is clearly desirable, of much greater importance to most Portsmuthians is transport within the city and the wider Solent region
It’s an issue that will only become more important given the paucity of land available to build new houses on the island, which means new housing is liable to be north of the island. Local buses are not terrible but could be improved. Ideas for a tram or a light-rail system have been floated in the past, only to wither and die on the vine of tight budgets.
In terms of what economists call ‘agglomeration benefits’, the Solent region could be doing a lot better too. The train between Portsmouth and Southampton takes about an hour to crawl just 20 miles along the cost. That means people in both cities are forced into their cars.
“Lots of people work in Southampton, so the motorway is busy every day, it’s like a carpark in the morning because the motorway is so overcrowded,” Donna Jones observes.
There’s little love lost between the two cities – especially when it comes to football – but closer, quicker links between the two would clearly benefit the whole of Hampshire’s economy.
Local government
The way services are provided is also clearly a source of frustration. A common theme talking to local politicians was a feeling that the council could administer many services more efficiently and responsively than Whitehall departments, some of which have competing and sometimes actively contradictory policies.
Gerald Vernon-Jackson cites skills as a prime example. “Government has 42 different agencies delivering skills stuff and the transactional cost between all those organisations is enormous and the waste of public money and all their stuff is done on a national basis and different places have different needs for different skills,” he says.
Bus services are another area he would like to see brought under local control – and one where improvements could have a marked impact for those on low incomes.  As the Local Government Association has pointed out, there are some 5 billion bus journeys a year in the UK – three times more than made by train.
Policy solutions
Where do we go from here? The ‘rebalancing’ debate in the UK often seems to boil down to a crude regionalism, with projects such as the Northern Powerhouse dominating the conversation. Although redressing the investment imbalance between the north and south is certainly a necessary condition for improving the UK’s economic performance, it is far from sufficient.
There are other equally pressing imbalances – between coastal communities and those further inland, between big cities and small cities, and between built-up areas and the countryside.
And just as the north is far from uniformly deprived, so too the south of England is far from universally affluent. As a city like Portsmouth amply demonstrates, some of the most deeply ingrained poverty can be found in places that appear to be doing alright.
As Matthew Goodwin’s recent research demonstrates, addressing the needs of low income voters is a political imperative for the next Prime Minister.
The next Chancellor, whoever he or she may be, will also have the chance to shape longer term priorities with the Spending Review, which will conclude at the same time as the Budget in the autumn.
The good news is there are a great many pro-market, conservative policies that the next occupant of 10 Downing St can put in place to deal with people’s concerns and revitalise the parts of the country that might need a helping hand.
  • Among the biggest priorities will be coming up with a post-Brexit regional development policy to replace the EU structural funds on which some areas have relied heavily.  Millions of voters who backed a campaign based on taking back control want to see that reflected in concrete plans – and money – for their local areas.
  • Reforming taxes to help the poorest is crucial. One of the policies put forward by CapX’s parent organisation, the Centre for Policy Studies, is making sure people on the lowest incomes no longer have to pay national insurance, a step which would significantly boost disposable incomes for the least well off workers.
  • The CPS has also called for a reduction in the taper rate for Universal Credit, as recommended in the CPS’ Making Work Pay report, would significantly boost the incomes of the working poor and ensure people are always better off in work.
  • Dealing with concerns over housing by both liberalising the planning system to increase supply, while also offering more secure tenancies for those in the private rented sector.
  • Small businesses, often the lifeblood of our town centres, also have an unnecessarily hard time – and their struggles have serious knock-on effects that must be taken into account. While it’s encouraging that reform is now high on the political agenda, the next Prime Minister must be bold and really tackle what has become the scourge of small retailers, replacing a system that is both complex and iniquitous with one that is simple and fair.
  • A simpler, flatter funding system for local government would be welcome, too, so that councils do not have to waste their time and limited resources bidding for central government money and can concentrate on actually getting things done.
  • The next Prime Minister must also continue the decentralisation agenda which begun with the introduction of Metro Mayors, and recognise that local government is often much better placed than Whitehall departments to deliver services.
Over the coming weeks CapX will be publishing a series of responses from MPs and commentators as part of the Rebalancing Britain series, beginning on Monday with a piece from Mansfield MP Ben Bradley. 

Friday, 28 June 2019

Before we reach Monetary Policy...

See how much of this you can make sense of:

CNN Admits There Are Serious Problems with Central Banks' Low-Interest-Rate Policy

06/27/2019 
On Monday, CNN reported on how, in spite of all the talk about job growth in recent years, wealth accumulation and incomes have been significantly and negatively impacted for many groups in the United States.
Much of what the article explored has been emphasized ever since the Great Recession started. The impact on younger earners, for example, has long been noted: "people entering the labor market during recessions have lower lifetime earnings."
What was most interesting about the CNN article, however, was its admission that a persistent low-interest rate policy — one pursued by the central bank since the 2008 financial crisis — brings with it a serious downside. In a section titled "The mixed blessing of low interest rates" author Lydia DePillis discusses how low-interest rates have reduced the standard of living for those on mixed incomes, and has destabilized pension funds. Low rates have also made big firms even bigger at the expense of smaller firms:
But just like taking painkillers for too long can have side effects, the Fed's monetary policy remedy gave rise to some unintended consequences. For example, low bond yields led the big funds that control trillions in investment to put their money into private equity and hedge funds that paid high rates. As a result, initial public offerings, which allow a wider group of people to benefit from the creation of new businesses, virtually dried up.
Meanwhile, low interest rates have been bad news for pension funds, which mostly depend on bond yields in order to remain solvent. Public pensions' assets amounted to just 66% of their liabilities in 2016, down from 86% in 2007,according to the Pew Charitable Trusts . For the 100 largest private pensions, that ratio was 87.1% in 2018, according to the actuarial firm Milliman, compared to 105.7% in 2007.
For retirees counting on fixed-income securities like government bonds, low interest rates can also mean a lower standard of living.
"Low interest rates, while they have a lot of benefits, have a lot of costs for society as well," said Kevin Kliesen, an economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis.
And that's just short-term rates, which the Fed controls directly. Long-term interest rates were in decline before the financial crisis, and the ensuing recession depressed them even further; Fed officials are now struggling to nudge inflation up to their 2% target.
Those low interest rates may be sapping the economy of its vitality. One study published this year found that they give larger firms a greater incentive to invest than smaller ones. That fuels market concentration and reduces business dynamism — that is, the ability of startups to disrupt incumbents.
"As interest rates go down, they disproportionately favor market leaders as opposed to market followers," said Atif Mian, a finance professor at Princeton University who coauthored the study. That effect, he found, "is large enough for low interest rates to not have any expansionary effect on the economy any more."
There are three big takeaways here, and it's surprising CNN has mentioned them.
  • Low interest rates have produced a quest for yield that favors the wealthy over the middle class.
  • Low interest-rate policy hurts regular people who depend on fixed incomes and low-risk sources of interest income.
  • Low interest rates favor large established firms over startups.
In other words, low interest rates favor the rich over the middle class, while widening income gaps.
This won't be terribly surprising to those who follow the Austrian-school critique of ultra-low-interest and easy money policies.
Although critics of markets and so-called "neoliberalism" insist on ignoring the destructive power of central banks, the fact remains expansionary monetary policy serves to increase income inequality while favoring the already-wealthy. In other words, central banks are the cause of so much that capitalism is blamed for.

How Central Banks Destroy Wealth

Central-bank policy is problematic in a variety of ways. One of them — not mentioned by the CNN report — is the Cantillon effects brought about through the creation of money which is used first by financial institutions closer to the central bank and the easy-money spigots.
A scond problem results when a "yield famine" results from low-interest-rate policy, but regular people can't afford fancy yield-chasing investment products that are available to the wealthy.
Thus, ordinary people are left trying to gain interest income from government bonds, savings accounts, and CDs. In many cases, this strategy may not even allow the investor to keep up with price inflation.
A third problem stems from issues on the production side of the economy.
The CNN story notes a recent report suggesting large firms benefit more from low rates than small firms. The report, titled "Low Interest Rates, Market Power, and Productivity Growth" (by Ernest Liu, Atif Mian, and Amir Sufi) found that "the gap between the leader and follower increases as interest rates decline, making an industry less competitive and more concentrated." In other words, low interest rates reduce competition and increase monopoly power of a small number of firms.
Moreover, the authors conclude their report
introduces the possibility of low interest rates as the common global “factor” that drives the slowdown in productivity growth. The mechanism that the theory postulates delivers  a number of important predictions that are supported by empirical evidence. A reduction in  long term interest rates increases market concentration and market power in the model. A fall  in the interest rate also makes industry leadership and monopoly power more persistent.
The rise of low-interest-rate-induced monopoly power then stifles innovation, leading to lower productivity, and slower global economic growth. According to Liu, et al, this is not limited to the United States. It can be observed as a result of central-bank policy worldwide.
Last year, analyst Karen Petrou described how low rates have favored large
As our research shows, QE exacerbates inequality because it takes safe assets out of the U.S. financial market, driving investors into equity markets and other financial assets not only to place their funds, but also in search of yields higher than those possible with ultra-low rates. The Fed hoped that soaking up $4.5 trillion in safe assets would stoke lending, and to a limited degree it did. However, new credit largely goes to large companies and other borrowers who have used it for purposes such as margin loans and stock buy-backs, not investment that would support strong employment growth. Growing household indebtedness in the U.S. is principally consumption or high-price housing driven and thus also a cause – not cure – of inequality.
Far from propelling middle class consumers to ever-higher levels of prosperity, low-interest rate policy is leading either to stagnation of losses in wealth.
But these revelations should not be shocking.
After all, Edward Wolff's 2014 article "Household Wealth Trends in the United States, 1962-2013" suggests that our low-interest-rate world has done little to increase economic well being or counteract the effects of recessions:
From 2007 to 2010, house prices fell by 24 percent in real terms, stock prices by 26 percent, and median wealth by a staggering 44 percent. Median income also dropped but by a more modest 6.7 percent and median non-home wealth plummeted by 49 percent. The share of households with zero or negative net worth rose sharply from 18.6 to 21.8 percent.
However, from 2010 to 2013, asset prices recovered with stock prices up by 39 percent and house prices by 8 percent. Despite this, both median and mean wealth stagnated, while median income was down by 1.3 percent but mean income rose by 0.9 percent. The percent of households with zero or negative net worth remained unchanged.
According to wolf in this 2017 follow-up, as of 2016, "median wealth was still down by 34 percent."
wolff1_0_0.PNG
The evidence is mounting against the usual narrative which states that low-interest rate policy has been a clear good because it has stimulated demand and consumption.
On the contrary, there is reason to believe low-interest rate policy has lowered productivity, lessened economic growth, and favored large firms at the expense of small firms and innovation.
Median incomes have also suffered.
But central banks are clearly afraid to do anything but kick the low-interest can down the road. The Fed's multi-trillion-dollar balance sheet isn't going anywhere, and the Fed has no appetite for raising rates. But when the next recession hits, it's likely the Fed and the world's central banks will dish up more of the same: near-zero rates in the name of recovery and wealth creation. But this strategy's record of delivering has been questionable at best.
Ryan McMaken (@ryanmcmaken) is a senior editor at the Mises Institute. Send him your article submissions for Mises Wire and The Austrian, but read article guidelines first. Ryan has degrees in economics and political science from the University of Colorado, and was the economist for the Colorado Division of Housing from 2009 to 2014. He is the author of Commie Cowboys: The Bourgeoisie and the Nation-State in the Western Genre.

Friday, 21 June 2019

Fundamental economics - read this and make your assumptions more robust

Why It's Important to Understand "Economic Costs"

06/20/2019 
The concept of economic cost seems to confuse people. It is not the price you pay for a good, but the reason you pay it.
The cost of one action is the value you could otherwise have gained from taking another action. In other words, if you have $100 and you have the choice to buy two goods, each at a price of $100, you'll naturally choose whichever is more important (valuable) to you. The cost of it is not the $100, which you give up to purchase it, but the value of the other good, which you can no longer purchase. That other good is the opportunity foregone by your action, the true cost of your action  the economic cost.
Why does this matter? Because our actions are intended to create value, and we always aim to maximize that (subjectively understood) value. The economic cost concept brings to our attention what we actually give up to get a value, and thus why we choose a certain course of action.
An economy, which is a system of economizing on scarce resources, is the systematic allocation of resources to maximize value. It is not about minimizing the price paid, which is something different. It is about value. While this may seem like an academic point, the implications are enormous.
Those who are ignorant of this concept focus on the outcome of action only — the "net gain" — rather than the cost. Doing so means we end up wasting enormous resources while not getting the value that was well within reach.
Examples of this include arguing that there were massive gains from, for example, World War II or the US space program in the 1960s. Both were enormously wasteful, but also generated tangible benefits. WWII led to the discovery of artificial rubber, freeing us from costly and time-consuming rubber production. Yes, that's a benefit. And there were plenty of technologies developed as part of the space program. Those were also benefits. But at what economic cost? That's the real issue: what other benefits did we never see because we instead pumped in enormous resources into war and the space race? What other discoveries and innovations were within reach had those resources been used differently?
The WWII example should be obvious, since the war itself was hardly productive. But the space program is exactly the same issue: what opportunities did we, as a society, forego because the government preferred to invest billions of dollars into the prestige program of beating the Russians to the moon? We don't know what we didn't get, of course.
But this doesn't mean we cannot say whether it was the right thing to do. The fact is that in a market system entrepreneurs compete with each other not to minimize cost, but to produce value. Naturally, this means net value: what actual benefit is provided in the eyes of the consumer. The entrepreneurs don't know what consumers will value, but they bet their livelihoods on what they think will benefit consumers most. The result is a variety of goods and services from which consumers can choose, and they will choose what is the best option from their point of view. What is not produced cannot be chosen. But what is not produced also does not seem to be worth it to the numerous entrepreneurs engaging in value facilitation for consumers.
Note that this is not a matter of whether entrepreneurs can "afford" the capital investment needed. It is about the rate of return: whether the value is high enough above the outlays necessary to produce the good/service (the production cost). With a sufficiently high ROI (return on investment), relative to other possible and attempted projects, entrepreneurs can always find the funds needed: investors are looking for a return on their funds, after all.
So the argument that "only the government can" invest in something because it requires capital is bogus. It asserts problems that don't exist, and often fails to properly apply the concept of economic cost (as in the examples above). Economic cost tells us what is expectedly most important to people, regardless of the capital investment magnitude. Higher ROI means greater value, which means a higher price can be charged — and more profit earned.
This is where economic cost is essential to understand the workings of the economy. Because if a project envisioned by an entrepreneur appears to be highly profitable, regardless of initial investment needed, she/he will pursue it. This means, at the same time, that other entrepreneurial projects, which are expected to provide a lesser return on investment, will not be pursued. What matters for society and the economy is that the greater value is pursued, because it makes all of us better off. This is why, through competition, the swift weeding out of entrepreneurs with projects that do not actually produce much value is important: they literally waste our resources because the value foregone — the projects that were not undertaken because the resources were bound up in these lesser projects — is higher than the value produced. It is an economic loss regardless of what benefits came out of it.
Consequently, we can conclude that the space program, just like war, was a wasteful act. The government stepped in because no entrepreneur was willing to undertake it, which is because its expected ROI (if any) was much lower than other projects entrepreneurs could pursue. We don't know what we lost, but it could have been cures for nasty diseases, doing away with poverty, or whatever. The fact that consumers were not expected to spend their own money on the space program, and the fact that no entrepreneurs expected that they would, at least not to the extent necessary, means it was not considered valuable enough. Its economic cost was expected to be higher than the economic value!
Now, does this mean that nothing good came out of the space program? Of course not.
There were innovations and technologies discovered that have served us well. But they were, at the time of investment, either not expected (at all) or not expected to sufficiently serve people. There are certainly examples of flukes that ended up creating beautiful things (like Arpanet becoming the Internet), but who in their right mind would argue that we should waste resources on grand government projects because there might be unintended consequences that we'd benefit from?
Considering the economic cost, what we could have gained from that investment was expected (by everyone!) to be higher than the project pursued by the government.
That's the reason the government did it. Government is in the business of wasting scarce resources at high economic cost, i.e., without sufficient expected value. No matter how one looks at it, this is wasteful. Unless, of course, one ignores the concept of economic cost: the higher-value opportunities that are foregone — lost — because we're instead pursuing the lower-valued ones.
To simplify, it is a matter of picking the low-hanging fruits first, because there is much higher return  greater "bang" for the buck — from doing so. It makes no sense climbing to the top branches "in case" there is some other and unexpected benefit from putting in the extra effort.
Formatted from Twitter, follow @PerBylund.