3 ms·

As a counterexample: Military logistics tends to be centrally planned/standardized, not market based, and while it's rarely efficient, part of that has to do wi

by rdl 11y ago

As a counterexample: Military logistics tends to be centrally planned/standardized, not market based, and while it's rarely efficient, part of that has to do with the environment (where P(success) > unit price; it's perfectly ok to have ammunition which is marked up 100x at the front line vs. manufacturer's door if you're certain to have enough at the right time/place).

bsbechtel 11y ago
The risk of not having ammunition is factored in to the price in this example. For the same reason, I may pay 2x for marketing collateral I need for a trade show from a local supplier instead of purchasing online because the risk of not having it for the show is reduced. The price of goods in a free market is never necessarily the same in all contexts where transactions take place.
icebraining 11y ago
The F-35 alone is $163 billion over budget, with each plane costing hundreds of millions. Meanwhile, the $77 billion F-22 planes have been barely used, and probably won't be in the near future. But hey, as the Lockheed Martin VP says, "the best weapon is the one that's never used".
- leereeves 11y ago
  Because the best case scenario for a weapon is that merely having it prevents an attack.
DanielBMarkham 11y ago
I spoke with military logistics folks about ten years ago. They told me that at one point, DoD had over 40,000 containers missing in Iraq. 40,000. But yes, if you keep throwing money at a problem, it tends to go away. Or at least disappear. For as long as there have been armies, good logistics continues to be a critical need. There's a reason large army deployments are always accompanied by large black markets.
- vinceguidry 11y ago
  Also, US military procurement could not possibly work without a free market in which they could buy supplies in. There's entirely too many different kinds of things they need, from uniforms to food to parts for materiel. It would be utterly impossible to manage the production and distribution of these things of these things without a robust market that rewards everyone involved.

by rdl 11y ago

bsbechtel 11y ago

The risk of not having ammunition is factored in to the price in this example. For the same reason, I may pay 2x for marketing collateral I need for a trade show from a local supplier instead of purchasing online because the risk of not having it for the show is reduced. The price of goods in a free market is never necessarily the same in all contexts where transactions take place.

icebraining 11y ago

The F-35 alone is $163 billion over budget, with each plane costing hundreds of millions. Meanwhile, the $77 billion F-22 planes have been barely used, and probably won't be in the near future. But hey, as the Lockheed Martin VP says, "the best weapon is the one that's never used".

leereeves 11y ago
Because the best case scenario for a weapon is that merely having it prevents an attack.

DanielBMarkham 11y ago

I spoke with military logistics folks about ten years ago. They told me that at one point, DoD had over 40,000 containers missing in Iraq. 40,000. But yes, if you keep throwing money at a problem, it tends to go away. Or at least disappear. For as long as there have been armies, good logistics continues to be a critical need. There's a reason large army deployments are always accompanied by large black markets.

vinceguidry 11y ago
Also, US military procurement could not possibly work without a free market in which they could buy supplies in. There's entirely too many different kinds of things they need, from uniforms to food to parts for materiel. It would be utterly impossible to manage the production and distribution of these things of these things without a robust market that rewards everyone involved.