>Build a $2M missile -> launch -> it explodes. The workers get wages, sure, but the capital value is literally blown up. No ongoing benefit to the wider economy.
>Stadiums for Olympics/World Cups -> billions spent -> used for 2 weeks -> abandoned. Money circulates in construction wages, but the asset sits idle, draining maintenance costs.
You have no possible way to quantify the wastefulness of an action. Blowing up a rocket can help prevent more waste. You can feed someone a bowl of soup that makes them sick. With what omniscience do you get to deem a club's expenses wasteful?
>Buy a $450M painting -> store it in a tax-free warehouse -> never seen, never sold for decades. That capital is locked — the flow stops until resale.
No kidding? The thing you bought stays with you until you sell it? Sorry, how is this different from literally anything else?
>But the end product can be waste, destruction, or dead capital. That is the difference between circulation and productive reinvestment.
Let's say I'm the richest man in the world, and I use half of my wealth to pay people to dig the biggest, deepest hole possible, and then the other half to fill it back up. I'm sure both you and I will agree that that's a purely wasteful endeavor that would accomplish nothing. Ignoring ecological destruction, who was harmed? What was lost, and who lost it?