Prom=economic drain

[Deep_Thought]

While I think it might be wrong, the idea that breaking a window might help the economy certainly isn't stupid.

True, but a better solution might be for some actor with deep pockets, say the government, to buy a few windows for this new office block over there. Then the window-maker stays in business without destroying any wealth. Hence Keynesian economics. But it only works if someone has spare spending capacity, which Western governments really don't at the moment.

[collegestudent22]

While I think it might be wrong, the idea that breaking a window might help the economy certainly isn't stupid.

True, but a better solution might be for some actor with deep pockets, say the government, to buy a few windows for this new office block over there. Then the window-maker stays in business without destroying any wealth. Hence Keynesian economics. But it only works if someone has spare spending capacity, which Western governments really don't at the moment.

This is based on the false notion that governments actually have money they don't steal from someone else. If they took the money in taxes, it destroys the wealth of the taxed to pay for those windows, and if they got it by borrowing or printing new money, it causes unnecessary inflation in the monetary base, which destroys the wealth of everyone by devaluing currency.

[aoeu]

This is based on the false notion that governments actually have money they don't steal from someone else.

Governments do usually make money from the huge areas of land they own.

[Whimsical Eloquence]

But it is preferable to the Shopkeeper not spending any money.

Why is the assumption that the shopkeeper was going to hang onto the money indefinitely, but the glassmaker will immediately put it back into the economic perpetual motion wheel?

Well this is a condition. That's the point, the Broken Window isn't a good economic strategy in any circumstance - it's a parable. It says it's better to destroy fixed capital to force an injection of funds into the economy if those funds aren't going to be spent. So if you translate injection to the circular flow into parable form you get "Window Fixer" ect. The one key difference between the money with the shopkeeper and the glazier is that for the glazier it's an increase in wealth which forces to make a decision about how it is to be used (Marginal Propensity to Consume/Save) as well as providing a psychological boost, confidence in the market and future business. In the real life scenario of Government Spending the Injection's effect is two fold, the actual money and the confidence it inspires. Because ultimately, people aren't rational actors and economic slumps have as a sustaining factor the collapse of confine, a self-sustaining collapse, often based in raw pessimism rather than calculation about the market. You only have to look at a slumped property market in which a rational assessment might suggest purchasing but in most situations fear and uncertainty will prevail. Money circulating defeats this, inspires confidence and will promote future spending and investment.

You're perfectly right - the Glazier won't spend all the money, he'll save some. This (along with inefficiencies) is why most measures of the Multiplier end up being between 1 and 1.5 for Government Spending.

It goes through cycles - you can't deny that. So we distort it to smooth out those cycles.

Or, more accurately, it goes through cycles that are greater in severity and frequency because of attempts at Keynesian central planning that is bound to fail, just like drinking to cure a hangover.

Where are you getting this from exactly? A really bad analogy?
Booms heat up, Government cools them down by sapping money from the economy through taxes and such, lessening false credit creation and dampening future Market Shocks. When the Bust, Markets take time to Equilibrate. The Government injects money back into the economy to stimulate Demand and defeat Investment dampening Animal Spirits. That's a horrible generalisation (Keynes is much more nuanced and situation specific, e.g. is it cash strapped consumers or blown business lines of credit?). But how exactly do counter-cyclical measures worsen the cycle?

It's more than "my guy predicted it". It's the fact that the principles of Austrian economics clearly showed, even before the crisis, what the result of mainstream economic policy - based on Keynesian economics - would be. And it ended up like that. Whereas Keynesian predictions (first that it would be OK - there was no bubble - and then that stimulus would keep unemployment well below current levels) were utterly wrong.

Wait, so you think America and/or the West World were following Keynsian Economic Practices? This coupled with your seeming misreading of History would lead me to believe you're actually unfamiliar as to what following Keynsian Economic policy is. Key factors of the crisis in America were continued de-regulation, low interest rates, and a host of other pro-cyclical policies. To be honest it wasn't even Neo-Liberal Economic policies they were following - it was just populist minded incompetency.


Aggregate Demand (and Keynes' other aggregates) are tied to the flawed model of Circular Flow. The model of Means-Ends is a far better model to work off of.[/quote]

So, does Money not flow around the Economy (factoring in Net Injections/Leakages from Government/Banking/Foreign Markets)?

This is based on the false notion that governments actually have money they don't steal from someone else. If they took the money in taxes, it destroys the wealth of the taxed to pay for those windows, and if they got it by borrowing or printing new money, it causes unnecessary inflation in the monetary base, which destroys the wealth of everyone by devaluing currency.

Okay, they don't "steal" - they tax. Yes, they take money in tax but as I keep saying that can be a Good thing. It cools-down markets during Economic Expansion - it's similar but different to contracting the money supply, another advisable thing for the Government to during a boom.

[lutzj]

When the economy is in a downturn, a part of the production capacity isn't used. The factories are available and the people are ready to work but yet they aren't producing anything. So all that production capacity is wasted. So if someone smashes a window and that window needs to be replaced, it won't necessarily push out production of other goods and services since there was a lot of production capacity being wasted. The money the shopkeeper will pay for the window will be an income for someone else who didn't have (much of) an income, because of the economic downturn. So that person will be able to spend money too, using another bit of otherwise wasted production capacity.

While I think it might be wrong, the idea that breaking a window might help the economy certainly isn't stupid.

But he could achieve the same effect by simply giving the glazier money, or by buying a new oven, or by reinvesting that money in his own business. Breaking a window necessarily destroys wealth.

[collegestudent22]

This is based on the false notion that governments actually have money they don't steal from someone else.

Governments do usually make money from the huge areas of land they own.

Only if they liquidate them, which makes them a one-time source of income. If they make money another way off the land, it is no longer capitalism, but state-owned (or at least controlled) industry, much like how the oil industry in the US is state-controlled. And the idea that government should own land (other than for government offices and military bases) is ridiculous itself.

It goes through cycles - you can't deny that. So we distort it to smooth out those cycles.

Or, more accurately, it goes through cycles that are greater in severity and frequency because of attempts at Keynesian central planning that is bound to fail, just like drinking to cure a hangover.

Where are you getting this from exactly? A really bad analogy?
Booms heat up, Government cools them down by sapping money from the economy through taxes and such, lessening false credit creation and dampening future Market Shocks. When the Bust, Markets take time to Equilibrate. The Government injects money back into the economy to stimulate Demand and defeat Investment dampening Animal Spirits. That's a horrible generalisation (Keynes is much more nuanced and situation specific, e.g. is it cash strapped consumers or blown business lines of credit?). But how exactly do counter-cyclical measures worsen the cycle?

Because Keynes was wrong about what caused the cycles. As an example, the last crisis was caused by a housing bubble. That bubble had its origins in government policy dating back to the late 1970s, with an increased push starting right around the time the Internet bubble burst, regarding home ownership. No government interference, and there would have been no bubble. The cycle is exacerbated by government interference in the economy in different sectors, and has its roots in the central planning of interest rates key to Keynesian policy (instead of market-determined rates).

It's more than "my guy predicted it". It's the fact that the principles of Austrian economics clearly showed, even before the crisis, what the result of mainstream economic policy - based on Keynesian economics - would be. And it ended up like that. Whereas Keynesian predictions (first that it would be OK - there was no bubble - and then that stimulus would keep unemployment well below current levels) were utterly wrong.

Wait, so you think America and/or the West World were following Keynsian Economic Practices? This coupled with your seeming misreading of History would lead me to believe you're actually unfamiliar as to what following Keynsian Economic policy is. Key factors of the crisis in America were continued de-regulation, low interest rates, and a host of other pro-cyclical policies. To be honest it wasn't even Neo-Liberal Economic policies they were following - it was just populist minded incompetency.

According to prominent Keynesian economists, such as Paul Krugman and Hank Paulson, it was Keynesian policy (tempered with the realities of politics). If you claim that it was not, I would like to see your evidence that you understand Keynesian economics better than these prominent economists. Furthermore, regulation INCREASED drastically under Bush.

Aggregate Demand (and Keynes' other aggregates) are tied to the flawed model of Circular Flow. The model of Means-Ends is a far better model to work off of.

So, does Money not flow around the Economy (factoring in Net Injections/Leakages from Government/Banking/Foreign Markets)?

It does, but it is meaningless. The rate of circular flow isn't a useful data point.

[Eowiel]

When the economy is in a downturn, a part of the production capacity isn't used. The factories are available and the people are ready to work but yet they aren't producing anything. So all that production capacity is wasted. So if someone smashes a window and that window needs to be replaced, it won't necessarily push out production of other goods and services since there was a lot of production capacity being wasted. The money the shopkeeper will pay for the window will be an income for someone else who didn't have (much of) an income, because of the economic downturn. So that person will be able to spend money too, using another bit of otherwise wasted production capacity.

While I think it might be wrong, the idea that breaking a window might help the economy certainly isn't stupid.

But he could achieve the same effect by simply giving the glazier money, or by buying a new oven, or by reinvesting that money in his own business. Breaking a window necessarily destroys wealth.

Yes that would be better, but the problem is that during an economic downturn, while the capacity to produce things exist it doesn't happen because everyone saves their money, effectively wasting that capacity. Breaking a glass forces someone to spend, which means someones incomes increases and becomes more positive about his economic prospects and starts to consume too.

I'm playing the advocates devil here, I don't think forced spending is the way to go but I'm not 100% sure of that either. The economy is complex and what seems to be correct in theory is not always (actually more like never) correct in reality.

[Deep_Thought]

Because Keynes was wrong about what caused the cycles. As an example, the last crisis was caused by a housing bubble. That bubble had its origins in government policy dating back to the late 1970s...

Trying to isolate the cause of the current crisis to a single issue is counter-productive. I fully agree that efforts to increase home ownership were a major issue, but there are plenty of other contributory factors. Sometimes governments have exacerbated cycles, occasionally they have retarded them.

Furthermore, regulation INCREASED drastically under Bush.

Did any of those regulations apply to the CDS or CDO markets, the one place they might have helped prevent the crash? Then there's the fact that Lehman, Bear Stearns etc. were not technically banks. I don't like excessive or bad regulation either - the trick is to get the bare minimum in the right places and enforce it effectively. With regards to CDS/CDO in particular the least we could do is trade them over exchanges so people can see what is happening.

[Vaniver]

But how exactly do counter-cyclical measures worsen the cycle?

The same way that dams can worsen floods, despite being anti-flood measures.

Okay, they don't "steal" - they tax. Yes, they take money in tax but as I keep saying that can be a Good thing. It cools-down markets during Economic Expansion - it's similar but different to contracting the money supply, another advisable thing for the Government to during a boom.

Does it really cool down markets? Government policy is explicitly designed for perpetual expansion, and bankers have admitted to purposefully blowing bubbles. It has also been standard for programs to expand to budgets barely affordable (if they are) during boom years, and then it is argued that they should expand them further during bust years in order to maintain the confidence of the economy. It's not like the national debt is a national source for ulcers.

Yes that would be better, but the problem is that during an economic downturn, while the capacity to produce things exist it doesn't happen because everyone saves their money, effectively wasting that capacity. Breaking a glass forces someone to spend, which means someones incomes increases and becomes more positive about his economic prospects and starts to consume too.

Two problems here. First, if everyone knows this is what's happening, then the glazier will not become more confident about his economic prospects; he might save any income he receives from broken glass, because he knows that as soon as the little boy is stopped he might be starving.
Second, the transfer of money from the prudent to the profligate strikes me as terrible economy policy. It requires quite a bit more than repetition to justify saving as "wasting that capacity." Is current consumption the only goal of an economy?

[Whimsical Eloquence]

But how exactly do counter-cyclical measures worsen the cycle?

The same way that dams can worsen floods, despite being anti-flood measures.

Yes... but how? Are Damns like the Hair of the Dog because that's another random allusion I hear being made without anyone actually explanation of how it applies to the specific situation.

Keynesian policy isn't like a hair of the dog cure because it's meant to moderate how much is taken during the good times and th - oh wait, and economy isn't actually alcohol is it? Equally true of a damn. Analogies only work if you actually explain how the two situations are similar (the relationship between the specifics A and B is the same as D and C) and show this in both cases. Not just go "Oh well, in this scenario things get worse" or otherwise I'll just cry out "In this scenario things get better" when both our scenarios are completely unrelated to the actual scenario.

Does it really cool down markets? Government policy is explicitly designed for perpetual expansion, and bankers have admitted to purposefully blowing bubbles. It has also been standard for programs to expand to budgets barely affordable (if they are) during boom years, and then it is argued that they should expand them further during bust years in order to maintain the confidence of the economy. It's not like the national debt is a national source for ulcers.

As I've said before, that's no economic normative approach - that's just incompetence. Politicians rarely implement any philosophy consistently except populism - they tend to do Pro-Cyclical in the Good Times and a half-hearted anti-cyclical in the bad times. A truly awful approach. If this is what you and collegestudent are calling the failings of mainstream Keynesian Policy then you're rather sorely mistaken - I might as well call it the failing of Austrian Policies.[/quote]

[collegestudent22]

But how exactly do counter-cyclical measures worsen the cycle?

The same way that dams can worsen floods, despite being anti-flood measures.

Yes... but how? Are Damns like the Hair of the Dog because that's another random allusion I hear being made without anyone actually explanation of how it applies to the specific situation.

Keynesian policy isn't like a hair of the dog cure because it's meant to moderate how much is taken during the good times and th - oh wait, and economy isn't actually alcohol is it? Equally true of a damn. Analogies only work if you actually explain how the two situations are similar (the relationship between the specifics A and B is the same as D and C) and show this in both cases. Not just go "Oh well, in this scenario things get worse" or otherwise I'll just cry out "In this scenario things get better" when both our scenarios are completely unrelated to the actual scenario.

It is like hair of the dog. Keynes calls for extremely low interest rates and stimulus spending to "cure" the bust, which results in a high degree of malinvestments leading to a new bubble, and therefore another bust. Exactly like drinking to stave off a hangover just causes another hangover later.

As I've said before, that's no economic normative approach - that's just incompetence. Politicians rarely implement any philosophy consistently except populism - they tend to do Pro-Cyclical in the Good Times and a half-hearted anti-cyclical in the bad times. A truly awful approach. If this is what you and collegestudent are calling the failings of mainstream Keynesian Policy then you're rather sorely mistaken - I might as well call it the failing of Austrian Policies.

If this is the case, then it is a good argument why Keynes' calls for government intervention are nonsensical. Furthermore, the government doesn't run the economic policy in the US, the Fed does - economists (Keynesian ones, for the most part), not politicians. So if they don't follow your version of Keynesian economics, maybe you got Keynes' theories wrong.

[Enigmocracy]

I agree with the OP, but wouldn't limit it to prom. Cars, suburban houses, children, video games, amusement parks, fast food, etc etc all waste resources which could be better spent elsewhere. This is merely an abstract notion, and has very little implication on the real world.

The problem is, the economic and social global order does not provide a very easy way to redistribute these goods. Furthermore, the culture of wealthy, developed nations clings extraordinarily tightly to these goods, to the point that any attempt at taking them away would be met with impenetrable resistance. In addition, the culture in most developing nations fetishizes wealth in the same way developed nations do, and any increase in standard of living will merely lead to an increase in what is naturally expected, and not significantly affect utility overall.

Edit:

[quote=collegestudent22]It is like hair of the dog. Keynes calls for extremely low interest rates and stimulus spending to "cure" the bust, which results in a high degree of malinvestments leading to a new bubble, and therefore another bust. Exactly like drinking to stave off a hangover just causes another hangover later.[/quote]A witty analogy does not prove this concept to be true. Economics cannot make controlled observations, thus it is not a science. Keynesian and Austrian School economics are equally valid - that is to say, not valid at all. Economics cannot be separated from the study of the rest of society, and the predictions of economists cannot be proven or disproven.

[Whimsical Eloquence]

It is like hair of the dog. Keynes calls for extremely low interest rates and stimulus spending to "cure" the bust, which results in a high degree of malinvestments leading to a new bubble, and therefore another bust. Exactly like drinking to stave off a hangover just causes another hangover later.

Well this just seems to indicate an ignorance of Austrian Economic Theory, certain aspects of which I actually have a good deal of respect. It is the fact that low-interest rates are sustained over a long period that causes the malinvesmtents; a constantly increasing money supply will force investors (who Keynses would hold are clouded by Animal Spirits) to seek out worse and worse investments, as investors compete over the same pool of capital and market share. Indeed Investors will take advantage of the lower interest rates to invest in more up-to-date capital infrastructure; a tendency towards over-investment and speculative borrowing will emerge if the "artificial" low interest rate environment is sustained. Indeed, this phenomena can be seen in almost perfect part in what happened my own country, Ireland.

So the problem is, as always, allowing the market to overheat. Failure to use contractionary measures to counter and control market trends. The initial lowering of interest rates, even under the Austrian Theory, will stimulate investment. Indeed, because of the negative mood of the depression, the confidence raising of expansionary policy will only be effected in part resulting in very cautious investments at the start.

Again, and again, I will say that the blame for the current crisis resides with those politicians and economists who believed that populist (and pro-cyclical measures) should be catered to. Thus interest rates remained artificially low even as credit supply contracted and the Government failed to raise taxes or pursue any other contractionary measure to cool down the expanding bubble and save money for the ensuing crash. Austrians are perfectly right to say that artificial low interest rates propagate the boom, they do - Keynes would argue for them only as temporary kick start measure. Indeed Interest Rates may need to be artificially raised if the market becomes to heated in certain areas.

Oh, and Keynes calls for very specific cures for the bust in very specific cases. Expansionary, yes but it's important to target the increase in Demand to those areas which require it and which are causing the block in the circular flow. A classic case being the liquidity trap in which low interest rates will do nothing and it becomes the Governments role to ensure new lines of credit or to use fiscal policy to target spending specifically at entrepreneurs who lack liquidity.

If this is the case, then it is a good argument why Keynes' calls for government intervention are nonsensical. Furthermore, the government doesn't run the economic policy in the US, the Fed does - economists (Keynesian ones, for the most part), not politicians. So if they don't follow your version of Keynesian economics, maybe you got Keynes' theories wrong.

What? So if Politicians do a bad job it's a good argued against them arguing for them to do a good one? If the Government becomes corrupt and fails to enforce the law then it undermines the argument that the Government should enforce laws well?

The U.S. Federal Government will spend money, this requires congressional approval as well as executive initiative - are these not both branches of Government? Furthermore, how exactly has the Fed' been in the hands of Keynesians, let alone competent ones, of late?

I agree with the OP, but wouldn't limit it to prom. Cars, suburban houses, children, video games, amusement parks, fast food, etc etc all waste resources which could be better spent elsewhere. This is merely an abstract notion, and has very little implication on the real world.

The problem is, the economic and social global order does not provide a very easy way to redistribute these goods. Furthermore, the culture of wealthy, developed nations clings extraordinarily tightly to these goods, to the point that any attempt at taking them away would be met with impenetrable resistance. In addition, the culture in most developing nations fetishizes wealth in the same way developed nations do, and any increase in standard of living will merely lead to an increase in what is naturally expected, and not significantly affect utility overall.

Why better spent elsewhere? Their value to the individual is whatever utility they derive from it - seems to be high - making it a good choice for them and the value to the economy is their spending?

Utility Overall? Nonsense. Developing Nations drive for wealth will lead them from subsistence to a culture of saving (and for them this is actually needed) so that investments and capital creation can eventually be funded increasing utility. You only have to look at China to see it's envy of the West leading to its lending and eventual economic and political hegemony.

[Enigmocracy]

I agree with the OP, but wouldn't limit it to prom. Cars, suburban houses, children, video games, amusement parks, fast food, etc etc all waste resources which could be better spent elsewhere. This is merely an abstract notion, and has very little implication on the real world.

The problem is, the economic and social global order does not provide a very easy way to redistribute these goods. Furthermore, the culture of wealthy, developed nations clings extraordinarily tightly to these goods, to the point that any attempt at taking them away would be met with impenetrable resistance. In addition, the culture in most developing nations fetishizes wealth in the same way developed nations do, and any increase in standard of living will merely lead to an increase in what is naturally expected, and not significantly affect utility overall.

Why better spent elsewhere? Their value to the individual is whatever utility they derive from it - seems to be high - making it a good choice for them and the value to the economy is their spending?

The amount of utility derived from prom tuxes is far less significant than the amount of utility that would be derived from, say, providing clean water for the world's poor. But again, this is an abstract statement which says little about what ought to *actually* be done with our wealth.

Utility Overall? Nonsense. Developing Nations drive for wealth will lead them from subsistence to a culture of saving (and for them this is actually needed) so that investments and capital creation can eventually be funded increasing utility. You only have to look at China to see it's envy of the West leading to its lending and eventual economic and political hegemony.

My point is, improving one's economic circumstances won't make someone more than nominally more happy. They will adjust to their new circumstances, and continue to strive for something better. When people making millions are still insecure about their money, the importance of attitude and culture over "concrete" economic circumstances becomes evident.

Economists assume that if some Vietnamize farmer moves to the US and gets a high-paying office job, a suburban house and some fancy toys, he will be better-off and happier in the long run. My point is, that idea is fundamentally flawed. Changing economic circumstances won't "increase utility", only changing people's perspective *towards* their economic circumstances will. This is done through culture, as well as through changing one's personal beliefs, not by merely making people "wealthier".

[collegestudent22]

It is like hair of the dog. Keynes calls for extremely low interest rates and stimulus spending to "cure" the bust, which results in a high degree of malinvestments leading to a new bubble, and therefore another bust. Exactly like drinking to stave off a hangover just causes another hangover later.

Well this just seems to indicate an ignorance of Austrian Economic Theory, certain aspects of which I actually have a good deal of respect. It is the fact that low-interest rates are sustained over a long period that causes the malinvestments;

They are. Or more accurately, the problem is that interest rates are not set by the market, but by the central bank, so they are never at the right level.

Austrians are perfectly right to say that artificial low interest rates propagate the boom, they do - Keynes would argue for them only as temporary kick start measure. Indeed Interest Rates may need to be artificially raised if the market becomes to heated in certain areas.

Treating the economy as an aggregate is also part of the problem.

Oh, and Keynes calls for very specific cures for the bust in very specific cases. Expansionary, yes but it's important to target the increase in Demand to those areas which require it and which are causing the block in the circular flow. A classic case being the liquidity trap in which low interest rates will do nothing and it becomes the Governments role to ensure new lines of credit or to use fiscal policy to target spending specifically at entrepreneurs who lack liquidity.

The liquidity trap is caused by low interest rates, where it makes more sense for the banks to lend money to the government than the entrepreneur. And, having read Keynes, I find no specific cures. Only that extra option if the first bit about lowering interest rates doesn't work. Other than that, Keynes seems not to care where the spending is done, just that it is.

If this is the case, then it is a good argument why Keynes' calls for government intervention are nonsensical. Furthermore, the government doesn't run the economic policy in the US, the Fed does - economists (Keynesian ones, for the most part), not politicians. So if they don't follow your version of Keynesian economics, maybe you got Keynes' theories wrong.

What? So if Politicians do a bad job it's a good argued against them arguing for them to do a good one? If the Government becomes corrupt and fails to enforce the law then it undermines the argument that the Government should enforce laws well?

No, the argument is that if politicians cannot properly regulate the market, even if such regulation would work (which it won't), and make the cycles worse because it is not politically viable, then it is better to have politicians have as little interference in the market as possible. If the government corrupts to the point where it fails to enforce the law, it makes sense to eliminate the government entirely and get a new one.

The U.S. Federal Government will spend money, this requires congressional approval as well as executive initiative - are these not both branches of Government? Furthermore, how exactly has the Fed' been in the hands of Keynesians, let alone competent ones, of late?

Hank Paulson claims to be following Keynesian economic theory. So did his immediate predecessors. Furthermore, the Federal Government stimulus is a minor part of the picture. Interest rates? Controlled by the Fed. Money supply? Controlled by the Fed, as they can both print more money and increase it in sneakier ways, like Quantitative Easing. Hell, the money even has "Federal Reserve Note" plastered at the top of it. The Federal Reserve handles US monetary and fiscal policy, almost in its entirety.

Systemic incompetency is just another argument for the minimization of interference.

Utility Overall? Nonsense. Developing Nations drive for wealth will lead them from subsistence to a culture of saving (and for them this is actually needed) so that investments and capital creation can eventually be funded increasing utility. You only have to look at China to see it's envy of the West leading to its lending and eventual economic and political hegemony.

I'd have to agree with this. The mentality of the poorer nations in Africa and the Middle East seem to be akin to the victim mentality that keeps much of the lower class in the inner cities. And they are ruled by corrupt governments who benefit from keeping the people in poverty. (They can't steal money from aid packages if we stop sending them when the people are no longer as poor.)

[TheGrammarBolshevik]

Cars, suburban houses, children, video games, amusement parks, fast food, etc etc all waste resources which could be better spent elsewhere.

But again, this is an abstract statement which says little about what ought to *actually* be done with our wealth.

Is there any difference between saying that doing one thing is better than doing another and saying that one ought to do one thing rather than the other?

[Enigmocracy]

Cars, suburban houses, children, video games, amusement parks, fast food, etc etc all waste resources which could be better spent elsewhere.

But again, this is an abstract statement which says little about what ought to *actually* be done with our wealth.

Is there any difference between saying that doing one thing is better than doing another and saying that one ought to do one thing rather than the other?

You put the emphasis on the wrong word. Yes, ought and better are the same thing. The difference between the two situations was the word actually vs the word abstract.

For example, in the abstract, I think that war and violence are bad things. On the other hand, violence is sometimes necessary to maintain some amount of order. If we just stopped putting people in jail, the outcome wouldn't be pretty, but that doesn't mean that forcibly putting someone in a jail cell is good in the abstract.

In order to resolve this separation, I would advocate for systemic change - ie, creating a social structure in which putting people in jail is unnecessary. But the way of bringing about this sort of change isn't simply doing what is good in the abstract.

So, in the context of Prom, in the abstract, I think it is a waste of resources, but given the current social circumstances, merely abolishing all proms and giving the money to African farmers is rather silly, and not a valid solution.