Engineers are generally not the people who come up with the idea of building a bridge. Someone who wants a bridge there hires an engineer or an engineering company to design and build it. Few but engineering students and fans of bridges will be familiar with the name of the design engineer, except for a few household names from the 19th century like Brunel and Stephenson.
For example, the Cannon Street Railway Bridge was built by a railway company. The linked article mentions the engineering company but not any individuals in it.
Three road bridges across the Thames were built by private companies formed for the purpose. They recouped the cost from the tolls they charged (or in one case, failed to and went bankrupt). But no-one had to pay the toll: they could always carry on crossing by one of the existing toll-free bridges, as they would have done before.
Is a railway company “extractive” by refusing to let me travel on their train unless I pay their toll? Am I being “extractive” in refusing to give them any money unless they provide me with their service? Neither. The rest is Econ 101.
This is better explained in the previous article here, but the “engineer” is just a character in a story used to think about concepts relating to value. I could have used “creator”, “visionary”, or some other title, but I liked “engineer”; it spoke to me of someone who saw an opportunity for a way the world could be more efficient/better, and had the technical skill to capitalize on that opportunity.
Engineers are generally not the people who come up with the idea of building a bridge. Someone who wants a bridge there hires an engineer or an engineering company to design and build it. Few but engineering students and fans of bridges will be familiar with the name of the design engineer, except for a few household names from the 19th century like Brunel and Stephenson.
For example, the Cannon Street Railway Bridge was built by a railway company. The linked article mentions the engineering company but not any individuals in it.
Three road bridges across the Thames were built by private companies formed for the purpose. They recouped the cost from the tolls they charged (or in one case, failed to and went bankrupt). But no-one had to pay the toll: they could always carry on crossing by one of the existing toll-free bridges, as they would have done before.
Is a railway company “extractive” by refusing to let me travel on their train unless I pay their toll? Am I being “extractive” in refusing to give them any money unless they provide me with their service? Neither. The rest is Econ 101.
This is better explained in the previous article here, but the “engineer” is just a character in a story used to think about concepts relating to value. I could have used “creator”, “visionary”, or some other title, but I liked “engineer”; it spoke to me of someone who saw an opportunity for a way the world could be more efficient/better, and had the technical skill to capitalize on that opportunity.