4 ms·

We have more aircraft carriers than the rest of the world combined. Russia has one decrepit carrier, China has only one too. Our 10 biggest carriers are all twi

We have more aircraft carriers than the rest of the world combined. Russia has one decrepit carrier, China has only one too. Our 10 biggest carriers are all twice the size of the next largest carriers in the rest of the world Spending money on the military isn't a "stimulus", it's very a very damaging drain on the economy. The workers and engineers building those carriers and planes could be building commercial ships, cars, buildings, airliners, and developing new technologies for commercial use. We are sacrificing all those things to fund a military that is nearly irrelevant when we have the largest nuclear deterrent in the world.

nostrademons 9y ago
Do we actually need more of any of the above? (Now, if you'd said roads, bridges, dams, and basic research, you might have a point...ostensibly there is bipartisan interest in infrastructure repairs this term, we'll see if they get it done.) The point of Keynesian spending is that as productivity increases, markets tend to saturate, and money ends up in the hands of those with a lower marginal propensity to consume. Redistribution - by any means, whether it's welfare, infrastructure, basic income, or defense spending - puts money back in the hands of those with a higher propensity to consume, which then raises aggregate demand and raises total economic output.
- valuearb 9y ago
  Keynesian spending is a myth. It all gets spent, even savings.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    It's not so much a myth as that the saving/spending dichotomy is an oversimplification; the real distinction relevant to national policy is the velocity of spending induced in the domestic economy. While even saving induces spending, it does so at a lower domestic velocity, on average, than consumer spending.
lambdadmitry 9y ago
It's not about the number of carriers, it's about the ability to project enough power to reach political goals. In most cases you are not competing with other countries' carries, you are competing with land-based assets (airbases, railways, etc.). For that you may need a lot of very big carriers
- valuearb 9y ago
  We have 300 overseas bases. We don't need to be in Syria, Iraq, Afghsnastan, Africa, etc. I'd rather limit our power projection options to make it harder for politicians to use it at a whim.

nostrademons 9y ago

Do we actually need more of any of the above? (Now, if you'd said roads, bridges, dams, and basic research, you might have a point...ostensibly there is bipartisan interest in infrastructure repairs this term, we'll see if they get it done.) The point of Keynesian spending is that as productivity increases, markets tend to saturate, and money ends up in the hands of those with a lower marginal propensity to consume. Redistribution - by any means, whether it's welfare, infrastructure, basic income, or defense spending - puts money back in the hands of those with a higher propensity to consume, which then raises aggregate demand and raises total economic output.

valuearb 9y ago
Keynesian spending is a myth. It all gets spent, even savings.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  It's not so much a myth as that the saving/spending dichotomy is an oversimplification; the real distinction relevant to national policy is the velocity of spending induced in the domestic economy. While even saving induces spending, it does so at a lower domestic velocity, on average, than consumer spending.

lambdadmitry 9y ago

It's not about the number of carriers, it's about the ability to project enough power to reach political goals. In most cases you are not competing with other countries' carries, you are competing with land-based assets (airbases, railways, etc.). For that you may need a lot of very big carriers

valuearb 9y ago
We have 300 overseas bases. We don't need to be in Syria, Iraq, Afghsnastan, Africa, etc. I'd rather limit our power projection options to make it harder for politicians to use it at a whim.