4 ms·

This is a good example of the type of debate that well-meaning, thoughtful people decide just steer clear of due to the (lack of) perspectives of the majority o

by vuldin 8y ago

This is a good example of the type of debate that well-meaning, thoughtful people decide just steer clear of due to the (lack of) perspectives of the majority of those currently taking part in the conversation. The United States spends the better part of a trillion dollars per year on its military. A relatively small fraction of that would solve any issues their social welfare programs currently have. It's a matter of prioritization and the perspective of those leading the discussion. Instead of turning focus towards changing priorities (the priorities are already seemingly in their favor), they turn to how expensive and unmaintainable the programs are that they wish to further de-prioritize. In the process, they draw attention away from the stark contrast of funding between various government programs. Namely social welfare vs military, or improving their society vs destroying others.

ars 8y ago
> A relatively small fraction of that And what would you do with the large number of unemployed people that would result? You can't just change one thing and ignore any consequences. And don't forget that the broken window fallacy only applies to economies where everyone is working full time. If they are not then it does not apply, and your analysis needs to be more thorough.
- dunpeal 8y ago
  > And what would you do with the large number of unemployed people that would result? US demand for labor is at an all time high. They can find employment in the private sector and produce goods and services that benefit others.
  - ars 8y ago
    But most of the money is spent on research and high tech manufacturing. Those are not easy fields to find private employment for.
    - dunpeal 8y ago
      Are you kidding me? You are saying in the current market, there's no demand for highly skilled and educated R&D employees?
      - ars 8y ago
        If there was they'd already be working there. The private sector pays much better than government.
MrEldritch 8y ago
...Given that the "Pension Hole" the article is describing is a total shortfall of five trillion dollars, I don't think you could easily solve it with a "relatively small fraction" of 1 trillion dollars.

by vuldin 8y ago

ars 8y ago

> A relatively small fraction of that And what would you do with the large number of unemployed people that would result? You can't just change one thing and ignore any consequences. And don't forget that the broken window fallacy only applies to economies where everyone is working full time. If they are not then it does not apply, and your analysis needs to be more thorough.

dunpeal 8y ago
> And what would you do with the large number of unemployed people that would result? US demand for labor is at an all time high. They can find employment in the private sector and produce goods and services that benefit others.
- ars 8y ago
  But most of the money is spent on research and high tech manufacturing. Those are not easy fields to find private employment for.
  - dunpeal 8y ago
    Are you kidding me? You are saying in the current market, there's no demand for highly skilled and educated R&D employees?
    - ars 8y ago
      If there was they'd already be working there. The private sector pays much better than government.

MrEldritch 8y ago

...Given that the "Pension Hole" the article is describing is a total shortfall of five trillion dollars, I don't think you could easily solve it with a "relatively small fraction" of 1 trillion dollars.