> Czechia used it for stupid things like bicycle lanes, child playgrounds etc.

Without the full picture, these don’t seem like stupid things at all. What makes it stupid for them to invest in these things?

▲

atmanactive 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Invest? That sounds like a pure loss in economic terms.

	▲	steve_adams_86 an hour ago \| parent [-]
		I'd argue that creating infrastructure that allows people to move and take care of children isn't a loss, it's an investment in functional towns and cities, which leads to better outcomes in general (including economic).

▲

yread 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I would say Czechia used it more to boost the agricultural holding that's totally not owned by our PM

▲

thatfrenchguy 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I mean, both GDP and average salaries in Czechia is higher so arguably at some point you might want playgrounds for your children

▲

inglor_cz an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

As a Czech, I am fine with the playgrounds, but the infrastructure like bicycle lanes was quite often built in illogical places where it is underutilized, but where it was easier to build it.

Sort-of like the guy who lost his keys in a bush, but is looking for them under a streetlamp b/c there is more light there.