All the economists insist that yes, the ‘household budget’ metaphor for national economies is wrong. Countries don’t have to save for the future in the same way you or I do because they can print money, and ‘savings’ are for countries are really also opportunities lost.

But what the ‘household’ metaphor reveals is that most people struggle to conceptualise money in the large scale, because it really is less and less real the more of it you try to think about

Public transport illustrates the difference.

When you or I catch the train we pay a fare, say a couple of dollars. That sum is absolute, policed by special guards, and if I don’t have it, the gate squawks red and I can’t get to work. But systems as wholes rarely depend on fare box takings, the best ones least of all.

Instead the relationship for the public transport network is to the State and city as an organic economy; maybe it depends on a subsidy, or a share of future development near stations, or special taxes levied on specific firms (or a mix!). Whatever, the sums are very very large, and are negotiated politically, and it’s far more important that everyone have confidence the network will exist in the future

@liamvhogan

From my perspective small amounts are most tangible because that is where the heaviest and strictest enforcement lies - fundamentally fares act to justify making decisions about who can and can't use the service, children and the penniless are the intended target here.

With NSW's Opal cards, they can track you through it better than tickets anyway, so I don't see why we should pay fare while we are still tracked.