Hi,Recently, I came back from a tour of a few European cities. Some cities have a large number of huge statues, monuments and religious buildings. The following points came to my mind. 1. These statutes/monuments/buildings are economic waste, as the capital used to build them was lost - it did not generate any economic returns. The kings and knights who built these things screwed their taxpayers by reducing the economic output - from over-taxing as well as from investing capital in economically useless projects.2. The construction of these projects may have created new jobs and economic stimulation at the beginning, but in the long term these projects are economic waste. Is my thinking correct? Please provide your comments. Thanks,MG.

There is less waste in these projects than first appears. I see 4 economic benefits of huge statues, monuments and religious buildings:1. Short-term Keynesian economic stimulus and pacification via distraction: keeping people employed during a bad year. It's better to put idle hands to work at the cathedral workshop than the devil's workshop. 2. Medium-term technological spillovers: Construction and artistic methods (and productive capacity) developed for statues & cathedrals becomes used in mainstream buildings and craft. (This is the same argument used for the space program)3. Long-term social cohesiveness and motivation: Inspiring the public to trust/like their leaders, their country, and their culture. These structures are the marketing & advertisements for current and past figures and events.4. Long-term tourism: Grandeur attracts vacationers which is equivalent to exporting memories and entertainment.That said, the returns for creating new productivity-enhancing infrastructure (e.g., roads, bridges, and ports) or allowing greater incentives for productive activity (i.e., lower taxes) would probably beat the returns for ornamental structures such as statues, monuments and religious buildings.

Dear Musicgold1,You are looking at them with contemporaneuos eyes.These monuments were much more meaninfull for the people when they were build than for us. Maybe that´s why governments don´t spend our money on monuments anymore.In "economish", their utility function was quite different from ours.But I guess we all have some pleasure still when looking at great pieces of art, don´t we?Let me put like this : "What is the economic significance of arts in general? Including music dear musicgold1?

QuoteOriginally posted by: musicgold1Hi,Recently, I came back from a tour of a few European cities. Some cities have a large number of huge statues, monuments and religious buildings. The following points came to my mind. 1. These statutes/monuments/buildings are economic waste, as the capital used to build them was lost - it did not generate any economic returns. The kings and knights who built these things screwed their taxpayers by reducing the economic output - from over-taxing as well as from investing capital in economically useless projects.2. The construction of these projects may have created new jobs and economic stimulation at the beginning, but in the long term these projects are economic waste. Is my thinking correct? Please provide your comments. Thanks,MG.I bet you are American. In any case, if you think so, in case the plot and the statue of liberty in NYC comes to your ownership, please feel free to donate this to me. Keep the plot if you wish so. I will remove the statue to somewhere else...

Thanks a lot folks.I guess, I did not consider the benefits of technological spillover and social cohesiveness /motivation generated from these projects.Quote Hook said:"What is the economic significance of arts in general?I get your point. However, resources are invested in producing a piece of art, say a soundtrack, when there is demand for it from consumers. It is only partially true in the case of these statues/ monuments built by Kings/knights/politicians. Thanks again,MG.

Good point Anthis.In fact, i´m reforming my house. I like most of the monuments in Washington D.C. I will see how they could be in backyard

Taxpayers did not have a lot to say in these times. If you look at the pyramids, it just seems insane how mach workforce was wasted on a single persons grave. But even just a few hundred years ago, the rulling class was pretty good at wasting money. How many generations of Louises just burned money while people in the cities starved to death. Many major monuments had significant costs and quite often totally verstreched the budget of the authorities (for example the construction of the Cologne Cathedral took about 600yrs as they ran out nof money multiple times). So it was definitely a waste of money, but at least for religious monuments, it was actually pretty rational for the rulling class to build them since the support of the clergy was essential for social stability at these times and they just bought this support by buidling big, fancy churches.But if you have a long run perspective, these monuments may have a decent value as they generate quite a bit of cash from tourism and also increase quality of life as cities become nicer. Would be interesting to see a proper valuation of all this (maybe not the business plan for the pyramids. could not have been very impressive with a 5000yr discount period for the cash flows from tourism).

I guess if you incorporate "the great chain of being" in individual´s preferences, it would be feasible for the society come up with such things. Nowadays it doesn´t sense, but at their times.....Like many problems in economicsm, you can work them backwards. Consider that building such monuments were the optimal solution for that kind of socitey. Now, go find the utility function of the "representative agent" that would give this outcome...Oh God! this sounds so bizarre.......

Three other justifications for monuments:First, perhaps monuments don't create intrinsic returns to investment, but create relative returns. That is, if two otherwise-identical nearby cities take opposite monument-investment strategies (i.e., one spends money on monuments and the other does not), then the city that invests in monuments will attract more skilled workers, contract-seeking construction entrepreneurs, and various monument-associated wealth builders. The unornamented city might suffer declines, at least in a relative sense. This is like the Red Queen phenomenon (from Alice in Wonderland) in which running has no intrinsic benefit, but is required to keep up.Second, monuments might also be elements of statecraft and proxy aggression -- intimidating one's geographic/diplomatic rivals with ever-grander monuments. Monuments serve as a very visible indicator of economic resources. Any political unit with the ready resources to waste on a monument could certainly turn said resources toward defense.Third, monuments also often anchor high-rent, high-wealth districts, although this may be a chicken-and-egg phenomenon. To the extent that a monument building society has a progressive tax system, then they need to create/attract/encourage a high-wealth subclass living in a high-rent monument-infested district.Ultimately, I'm not sure that monuments can be economically analyzed because they involve so much non-monetary utility. One could just as readily argue that sporting events, Hollywood movies. music, and television are an economic waste and yet a rather large number of people voluntarily spend large quantities of money on these items, too. If all the time spent on sports, music, movies, and TV were redirected toward solving society's problems, innovation, and greater production, then the economy would grow much faster. But that's not what people want.

Simplified, economics is about transforming know how into margins. "Culture" (much more than monuments) might be about transforming know how into aesthetics,.... Often, cultural projects are driving inovation as strong as economic ones.mg 1, would you think Venice, a monument itself, has no value? It probably was only built to create awareness and impress, a constant Ad "look we are the wealty and open-minded people to trade with" . (In its peak time, the empire of Venezia covered many regions on the Mediterranean Sea).

Also, I think when people spend money, it's not always about (concrete) economy return. Why you buy a bigger car? bigger house? .. even though a smaller one may well be enough. What's the economy return of spending $$$ to watch a movie in its opening ceremony rather than wait a few days?

-- Prestige of the city, which has economic value by encouraging trade, influence and the city/nation's "brand"-- Increased tourism -- Paris / France probably turns a nice profit on its monuments overall-- Monuments are like advertisements for a city and its commercial products-- As mentioned, social cohesion, pride and so on-- Living in LA a few months ago I realized that the "Walk of Fame" with the stars' names in cement in Hollywood is ingenious and must provide a stupendous return on investment-- "Economic value" is impossible to quantify in this case! The total economic effects are unknowable to us-- Some monuments can literally place a city on a map-- Vietnam memorial helps a nation digest its past, so econ benefits again can't be quantified-- WHAT IS THE DEFINITION OF A MONUMENT? Is Disney Hall in LA a monument? A museum? Also, often the monuments must have been constructed to benefit one class of people over another, create an "official" historical narrative, preserve power structures and so on. So economic and other benefits may have accrued to one group over another or played a role in social dialogue/argument. So it is an investment designed to give an edge in a social conflict, or to claim a piece of accepted social narrative... ...maybe...And what about Happiness?