Paving over the Bellagio Fountains (long) - Page 3

astroglide · #1 11-09-2005, 05:03 PM

Sponger15SB · #2 11-09-2005, 05:11 PM

[ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

I was thinking of just calling them pretentious assholes but this is way way better

jrobb83 · #3 11-09-2005, 05:40 PM

Ok, since I am bored and the replies are getting sillier and sillier, here is the economic argument:

The best economic argument can be made using consumer surplus, and has nothing to do with the fountains as an ecomonic stimulus for either the Bellagio or Vegas in general.

Basically, there is enormous consumer surplus created by the enjoyment of thousands of people seeing the fountain show every day. This consumer surplus far outweighs the negligible marginal cost of running the fountain. Paving over the fountain would cause the entire consumer surplus to be lost.

This is purely a cost-benefit analysis of the fountain istelf, and has nothing to do with whether it is good for the Bellagio or the city of Las Vegas. The Bellagio pays for the fountain because they believe that they can capture some of that consumer surplus in the form of increased gaming, restaurant, or hotel revenue, but even if they are not doing this it makes economic sense (in general, not for the Bellagio) to keep the fountains operating.

jaydub · #4 11-09-2005, 05:45 PM

No this is silly because you have zero data and are just making wild ass speculations with some econ 101 terms.

jrobb83 · #5 11-09-2005, 05:48 PM

[ QUOTE ]

No this is silly because you have zero data and are just making wild ass speculations with some econ 101 terms.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have the exact same amount of data as the other side of this argument, but my argument makes logical sense.

Are you saying that the people who watch the fountain show everyday receive zero enjoyment from doing so?

edit: and these terms are used extensively in the highest levels of economics.

jaydub · #6 11-09-2005, 05:55 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

No this is silly because you have zero data and are just making wild ass speculations with some econ 101 terms.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have the exact same amount of data as the other side of this argument, but my argument makes logical sense.

Are you saying that the people who watch the fountain show everyday receive zero enjoyment from doing so?

edit: and these terms are used extensively in the highest levels of economics.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am saying that this argument is pointless and I in no way intended to disparage your economic terms.

jrobb83 · #7 11-09-2005, 06:14 PM

[ QUOTE ]

I am saying that this argument is pointless

[/ QUOTE ]

[lameflame]Your argument is vastly more pointless than mine[/lameflame].

A am genuinely interested in why you think my arguement is pointless, though.

sam h · #8 11-09-2005, 06:03 PM

Anybody who doesn't think the fountains contribute to the Bellagio's business is an idiot. They attract a lot of people who then go in to gamble and, perhaps more importantly, they are an integral part of the Bellagio brand identity at this point. I kind of doubt they actually contribute to the local community, in that they probably don't turn non-tourists into tourists.

And I'm sure they just recycle the same water over and over, with some minimal amount added and drained each day to keep things fresh. This isn't a major source of water usage when compared to having 5,000 hotel rooms or when compared to commercial agriculture and other private sector enterprises.

shant · #9 11-09-2005, 06:45 PM

Someone should pave over his breathing holes.

Clarkmeister · #10 11-10-2005, 01:07 AM

At this point, paving over them would likely have a noticable, but ultimately insignificant effect on revenues and the property bottom-line. Also, it's not an all or nothing scenario, as they would obviously come up with something more environmentally friendly to take their place. That said, the water impact on the valley is totally irrelevant in the grand scheme of things, so who really cares?