5 ms·

And defense spending is where billions are lost on side-projects which if made in the public sector, would lead to tons of innovation, but in the defense sector

And defense spending is where billions are lost on side-projects which if made in the public sector, would lead to tons of innovation, but in the defense sector only lead to innovations on killing, which never helps the economy.

Encosia 16y ago
If you believe - as many do - that our "defense" agenda is much of what protects the dollar's continued status as a nearly universal reserve currency, our defense budget is an amazing investment (notwithstanding the terrible, non-monetary costs that accompany defense spending).
- loewenskind 16y ago
  Wait, so you're saying that the dollar stays relevant because the US is using violence to ensure it stays so? And you're calling such activity an "investment"?
  - Encosia 16y ago
    That's trying to pin a bit of an exaggerated worst interpretation on me, isn't it? We don't have to endorse or approve of things to see them for what they are. Moreover, defense spending doesn't necessarily equate to violence. Look at the trillions spent during the cold war, paradoxically spent to avoid violence.
    - loewenskind 16y ago
      >That's trying to pin a bit of an exaggerated worst interpretation on me, isn't it? No, I'm trying to get you to look at what you just said. Spending money on killing people isn't an "investment" no matter what you find out in doing so. >Look at the trillions spent during the cold war, paradoxically spent to avoid violence. I think if you look into it you'll find that that money was indeed spent on violence. Just by violence by proxy.
      - Encosia 16y ago
        If defense spending keeps the dollar strong, it is the definition of an investment. What word would you prefer used to describe the US' empire building/maintaining, and why? Even today, during two active wars, if you look through the appropriations bills you'll find that a surprisingly large amount of US defense spending is not spent on violence. Back in the cold war, the proportion spent on maintaining that detente was even greater.
        loewenskind 16y ago
        >If defense spending keeps the dollar strong, it is the definition of an investment. If killing or threatening to kill others keeps the dollar strong it's an investment? So in that case mafia violence is also an investment, right?
        Encosia 16y ago
        Is investing in McDonald's or BP not an investment? Both wreck lives too. Like I said before, acknowledging things for what they are doesn't mean that we also endorse or approve of those things. I certainly don't approve of the US' actions overseas, personally. We seem to be on a subjective, slippery slope here. What would you call it, if not an investment? You skipped that part.
nostrademons 16y ago
Almost all of the innovations that the post-war prosperity was built on were initially innovations in killing. Radar, sonar, microwave ovens, synthetic rubber, jet engines, antibiotics, atomic power, plastics, employer-provided health care, widespread automobile driving skills, rockets and space travel, satellite communications, computers, the Internet, and GPS all came out either WW2 or DARPA-funded research after the war. I hate wasteful defense spending and the military-industrial complex as much as anyone, but saying that innovations in killing never help the economy is just patently false.
- loewenskind 16y ago
  Do you have any evidence that shows that, given similar funds only the military could have provided these innovations? EDIT: Ok, weapons sure, but most of the entries in that list aren't weapons.
  - loewenskind 16y ago
    Uh, this is a serious question. The parent seems to make the argument that military is not a bad investment because it brings lots of innovation. I don't think that follows. The US invests vastly more in military than anything else. Of course it's going to have lots of innovation.
    - run4yourlives 16y ago
      I think the point is that the military is the easiest sell - sadly - for such levels of massive investment. Ensuring the survival of the American nation is something that Americans seem very willing to spend lots of money on. If earth was for certain doomed in a short term astronomical sense, I'd wager that NASA would see all the funding and then some that the military complex sees. The inventions listed are all beneficial spin offs of ones that were designed to further the military's main goal: killing. It is unlikely that something such as RADAR is invented when it is if one does not need to shoot down aircraft carrying thousands of pounds of bombs. There are simpler and easier ways to accomplish everything else we use RADAR for.
  - 16y ago

Encosia 16y ago

If you believe - as many do - that our "defense" agenda is much of what protects the dollar's continued status as a nearly universal reserve currency, our defense budget is an amazing investment (notwithstanding the terrible, non-monetary costs that accompany defense spending).

loewenskind 16y ago
Wait, so you're saying that the dollar stays relevant because the US is using violence to ensure it stays so? And you're calling such activity an "investment"?
- Encosia 16y ago
  That's trying to pin a bit of an exaggerated worst interpretation on me, isn't it? We don't have to endorse or approve of things to see them for what they are. Moreover, defense spending doesn't necessarily equate to violence. Look at the trillions spent during the cold war, paradoxically spent to avoid violence.
  - loewenskind 16y ago
    >That's trying to pin a bit of an exaggerated worst interpretation on me, isn't it? No, I'm trying to get you to look at what you just said. Spending money on killing people isn't an "investment" no matter what you find out in doing so. >Look at the trillions spent during the cold war, paradoxically spent to avoid violence. I think if you look into it you'll find that that money was indeed spent on violence. Just by violence by proxy.
    - Encosia 16y ago
      If defense spending keeps the dollar strong, it is the definition of an investment. What word would you prefer used to describe the US' empire building/maintaining, and why? Even today, during two active wars, if you look through the appropriations bills you'll find that a surprisingly large amount of US defense spending is not spent on violence. Back in the cold war, the proportion spent on maintaining that detente was even greater.
      - loewenskind 16y ago
        >If defense spending keeps the dollar strong, it is the definition of an investment. If killing or threatening to kill others keeps the dollar strong it's an investment? So in that case mafia violence is also an investment, right?
        Encosia 16y ago
        Is investing in McDonald's or BP not an investment? Both wreck lives too. Like I said before, acknowledging things for what they are doesn't mean that we also endorse or approve of those things. I certainly don't approve of the US' actions overseas, personally. We seem to be on a subjective, slippery slope here. What would you call it, if not an investment? You skipped that part.

nostrademons 16y ago

Almost all of the innovations that the post-war prosperity was built on were initially innovations in killing. Radar, sonar, microwave ovens, synthetic rubber, jet engines, antibiotics, atomic power, plastics, employer-provided health care, widespread automobile driving skills, rockets and space travel, satellite communications, computers, the Internet, and GPS all came out either WW2 or DARPA-funded research after the war. I hate wasteful defense spending and the military-industrial complex as much as anyone, but saying that innovations in killing never help the economy is just patently false.

loewenskind 16y ago
Do you have any evidence that shows that, given similar funds only the military could have provided these innovations? EDIT: Ok, weapons sure, but most of the entries in that list aren't weapons.
- loewenskind 16y ago
  Uh, this is a serious question. The parent seems to make the argument that military is not a bad investment because it brings lots of innovation. I don't think that follows. The US invests vastly more in military than anything else. Of course it's going to have lots of innovation.
  - run4yourlives 16y ago
    I think the point is that the military is the easiest sell - sadly - for such levels of massive investment. Ensuring the survival of the American nation is something that Americans seem very willing to spend lots of money on. If earth was for certain doomed in a short term astronomical sense, I'd wager that NASA would see all the funding and then some that the military complex sees. The inventions listed are all beneficial spin offs of ones that were designed to further the military's main goal: killing. It is unlikely that something such as RADAR is invented when it is if one does not need to shoot down aircraft carrying thousands of pounds of bombs. There are simpler and easier ways to accomplish everything else we use RADAR for.
- 16y ago