3 ms·

This is about right. Think of the F35 as welfare, a big ugly mistake isolated from consequences yet employing and profiting a professional welfare class.

api 9y ago
The F35 is indeed welfare, but it's not the most damaging kind. Things like that represent waste but do little in the way of active harm, and sometimes they can even have side benefits like funding the development of advanced technologies that can find more productive use elsewhere. The real active harm comes when you get a professional class that does very bad things. These can be mistakes, like the total collapse of the economy in 2008, or they can be intentional crimes. Either way if there are no consequences then no correction gets applied and the problem gets worse. A large scale wealthy civilization can absorb a tremendous amount of official incompetence and misconduct.
- CalChris 9y ago
  Agreed. However, in addition to viewing the F35 as welfare you can also see it as Too Big To Fail. I think there are side benefits to defense spending. Silicon Valley was built on that [1]. But there's tremendous risk with large (and doomed) projects when they fail (which they will). [1] https://steveblank.com/secret-history/ https://steveblank.com/secret-history/ Uber is going to fail. The F35 is going to fail. Throwing good money after bad will stave off that day of reckoning but then only make it a worse accounting.
  - dmoy 9y ago
    At some point though, if major world powers never go to war with each other, then the F35 can't really fail insofar as it will never actually see combat. It reminds me of the sci fi novels Dread Empire's Fall, in which the galactic civilization's ship fleet has never fought a battle in thousands of years, so nobody can actually know how to do it, and they don't know if a certain tactic, ship, etc is really a failure or not.
    - rm_-rf_slash 9y ago
      Historical anecdote: at the start of the U.S. Civil War, only two sitting Union generals had ever seen combat (back in the Mexican-American War 20 years back), and the top general had gotten so fat by then he couldn't even ride a horse.
      - somecontext 9y ago
        For some context, the document http://www.history.army.mil/html/books/075/75-1/CMH_Pub_75-1.pdf http://www.history.army.mil/html/books/075/75-1/CMH_Pub_75-1... indicates on page 50 that in December 1860, "on the Eve of War", the army had a total strength of 18k men, of which 1k were commissioned officers, of which four were generals. A different source ("Armies South, Armies North" by Alan Axelrod, also author of the more compellingly-named "Generals South, Generals North") provides more detail, including names: Winfield Scott, William Harney, David Twiggs, and John Wool. This and other sources also include Joseph Johnston, then quartermaster general of the US Army, as a fifth general. There were also two more brevetted generals: Albert Johnston (no relation to Joseph) and Newman Clarke. Maj. Gen. Winfield Scott (the commanding general of the US Army) was 74 years old and indeed unable to ride a horse. However, all seven of the generals had seen combat. In particular, four served in the War of 1812, all served in the Mexican-American War, and all served in the Indian Wars. With the exception of Joseph Johnston, all of them even served in war as generals (at least brevet, but usually full).
KirinDave 9y ago
Alternatively, because being a functional and happy member of modern society is predicated on full time employment (for health care, if nothing else), then there is enormous pressure to create these employments for people. If we were to engage in universal welfare, we'd remove a false feedback signal and allow ourselves to focus on what actually creates value rather than what pays rent, food, essential health care and education. I don't think there is much debate that not giving people access to those things is bad. But we seem strangely averse to just making them part of the core of our society.

api 9y ago

The F35 is indeed welfare, but it's not the most damaging kind. Things like that represent waste but do little in the way of active harm, and sometimes they can even have side benefits like funding the development of advanced technologies that can find more productive use elsewhere. The real active harm comes when you get a professional class that does very bad things. These can be mistakes, like the total collapse of the economy in 2008, or they can be intentional crimes. Either way if there are no consequences then no correction gets applied and the problem gets worse. A large scale wealthy civilization can absorb a tremendous amount of official incompetence and misconduct.

CalChris 9y ago
Agreed. However, in addition to viewing the F35 as welfare you can also see it as Too Big To Fail. I think there are side benefits to defense spending. Silicon Valley was built on that [1]. But there's tremendous risk with large (and doomed) projects when they fail (which they will). [1] https://steveblank.com/secret-history/ https://steveblank.com/secret-history/ Uber is going to fail. The F35 is going to fail. Throwing good money after bad will stave off that day of reckoning but then only make it a worse accounting.
- dmoy 9y ago
  At some point though, if major world powers never go to war with each other, then the F35 can't really fail insofar as it will never actually see combat. It reminds me of the sci fi novels Dread Empire's Fall, in which the galactic civilization's ship fleet has never fought a battle in thousands of years, so nobody can actually know how to do it, and they don't know if a certain tactic, ship, etc is really a failure or not.
  - rm_-rf_slash 9y ago
    Historical anecdote: at the start of the U.S. Civil War, only two sitting Union generals had ever seen combat (back in the Mexican-American War 20 years back), and the top general had gotten so fat by then he couldn't even ride a horse.
    - somecontext 9y ago
      For some context, the document http://www.history.army.mil/html/books/075/75-1/CMH_Pub_75-1.pdf http://www.history.army.mil/html/books/075/75-1/CMH_Pub_75-1... indicates on page 50 that in December 1860, "on the Eve of War", the army had a total strength of 18k men, of which 1k were commissioned officers, of which four were generals. A different source ("Armies South, Armies North" by Alan Axelrod, also author of the more compellingly-named "Generals South, Generals North") provides more detail, including names: Winfield Scott, William Harney, David Twiggs, and John Wool. This and other sources also include Joseph Johnston, then quartermaster general of the US Army, as a fifth general. There were also two more brevetted generals: Albert Johnston (no relation to Joseph) and Newman Clarke. Maj. Gen. Winfield Scott (the commanding general of the US Army) was 74 years old and indeed unable to ride a horse. However, all seven of the generals had seen combat. In particular, four served in the War of 1812, all served in the Mexican-American War, and all served in the Indian Wars. With the exception of Joseph Johnston, all of them even served in war as generals (at least brevet, but usually full).

KirinDave 9y ago

Alternatively, because being a functional and happy member of modern society is predicated on full time employment (for health care, if nothing else), then there is enormous pressure to create these employments for people. If we were to engage in universal welfare, we'd remove a false feedback signal and allow ourselves to focus on what actually creates value rather than what pays rent, food, essential health care and education. I don't think there is much debate that not giving people access to those things is bad. But we seem strangely averse to just making them part of the core of our society.