[_9ptr]

You're right. If the minimum amount is actually the minimum and not less than necessary, you don't need to exceed that.

What the poster before wanted to imply was that we sacrifice safety or sustainability or some value other than material/money (which may well be true).

[throwaway48476]

Usually something is sacrificed in the name of extractive profit. With public spending it's just less taxes.

[clan]

I sort of get your point. But it is not a given.

Everybody tries to maximize their budgets.

Less taxes is not the default. You will most likely get something else.

When extractive profits is involved you will never get a cheaper bridge unless there is fierce competition. Tenders are narrowly defined so you do not see the offers that you can build 2 bridges for the price of one.

In good markets governments keep the bridge building market hot enough so you have the supply ready for the next large projects. That is what keeps the price of big infrastructure projects down.

Hence there is a very good argument for not simply returning the tax dollars.

I do believe in Free markets. But I do believe in good governance as well.

A good example around here is that the knowledge and lessons learned from building the Storebælt Link[0] made the Oresund bridge[1] get in pretty much on budget. Whereas German political fuckery delayed the Fehmarn belt project[2] and will go hugely over budget both due to missing momentum but also due to inflation

[0] https://sundogbaelt.dk/en/about-us/finance-economics/constru... [1] https://sundogbaelt.dk/en/about-us/finance-economics/constru... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fehmarn_Belt_fixed_link