1

Is there a point at which value for money as a concept becomes a folly? For example at what point does the press's clammer for cheaper energy bills means that investment in key infrastructure falls to the point that the cost becomes prohibitive?

So would it be better in the long run if key parts of a country's infrastructure, such as electric, gas and water supplies be state controlled? Rather than in the hands of companies, whose sole goal is to make money for their investors?

Edited to reflect changes suggested.

closed as off-topic by Joseph Weissman Mar 15 '17 at 20:41

This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:

  • "While this question may be related to philosophy or occur in a philosophical context, the question itself doesn't seem to be about philosophy, and is therefore not a good fit for our site." – Joseph Weissman
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • 2
    Hi, welcome to philosophy SE. A concept can not be a fallacy, as understood in logic, only an argument can be, maybe you mean "folly". "Value for money" is a type of cost-benefit analysis, which may involve arguments, which may or may not be fallacious. What you describe, however, has to do with (mis)valuing benefits and costs, not lapses in logic. We also prefer one question per question, so you may want to post the second one separately, and any case explain how you mean "should be". "Should be" according to whom or what? – Conifold Mar 14 '17 at 22:20
  • Updated the question to reflect your feedback. – Graham Harris Mar 14 '17 at 22:38
  • 1
    This makes the question clearer but now I am wondering if Economics SE wouldn't be a better venue for your questions. "At what point... cost becomes prohibitive" sounds more like a question of economic projections than ethics, and so does "would it be better in the long run" for infrastructure. – Conifold Mar 14 '17 at 22:54
  • Is there any chance you might be able to revise this to indicate the specifically philosophical concern here? The gold standard for topicality here is a specific problem with some specific philosophical work or writer -- however, just indicating some of the motivations here would help move it much closer to on-topic: why has this question become important or interesting to you in your study of philosophy? What hypotheses have you formed; what has your research turned up so far? (What does a great answer to your question look like in your mind?) – Joseph Weissman Mar 15 '17 at 20:44
  • Re-posted on the economics SE – Graham Harris Mar 19 '17 at 15:10