5 ms·

All of those skilled workers could have been building something useful, however. The waste of their time and skill is indeed burning resources, in an even more

All of those skilled workers could have been building something useful, however. The waste of their time and skill is indeed burning resources, in an even more concrete sense than setting money on fire.

spaceribs 8y ago
But then they would have time to be politically active enough to demand better living conditions and social safety.
vkou 8y ago
They could be, but if the program didn't exist, our economic system would not have allocated their labour to productive ends.
- tadfisher 8y ago
  That's a fairly conclusive statement with no objective basis. Care to elaborate?
  - vkou 8y ago
    We have millions of unemployed people, and much work that needs to be done (Teaching, childcare, elderly care, infrastructure maintenance, construction, etc.) Why aren't they doing it? Could it be because we don't optimize for 'overall value created'?
- function_seven 8y ago
  How do you know that? If the economy had an extra trillion dollars to allocate, there would be a massive number of alternative activities these workers would have had available. Either the tax money would have been collected anyway, and spent somewhere. Or the tax money would not have been collected and it would have been "naturally" allocated by the population.
  - lifeformed 8y ago
    Well in the worst case, we can just have the gov't allocate it like they did here. Just have it go to building infrastructure or something. Repair our old bridges and roadways. Or maybe fund some schools. Or at least put build something cool and shiny for scientific research? Like fusion or space travel or particle accelerators.
JumpCrisscross 8y ago
> those skilled workers could have been building something useful I wouldn't say the F-35 is useless. It contains a breathtaking integration of advanced technologies. There are benefits to that R&D. It's also an incredibly capable platform–the principle complaint is it's too capable, that we could have gotten more bang for our bucks with more less-capable planes.
- arcbyte 8y ago
  > I wouldn't say the F-35 is useless. You're right. After 28 years and $1 trillion it FINALLY delivered a single bomb in Afghanistan two weeks ago. Not totally useless.
  - kibwen 8y ago
    Made all the more impressive by the fact that the Smithsonian Museum could very well deliver a bomb in Afghanistan, if only they would dust off a P-51 Mustang, or, say, the Wright Flyer. The Taliban (or whatever today's antagonist is that we're using to excuse this pointless war) aren't exactly known for their extensive^W existent air force.
- phillipcarter 8y ago
  If it were pitched as R&D then sure, that's fine.
- ThetaOneOne 8y ago
  You’re not wrong but the entire point here is efficiency. I have no doubt that allocated with the right teams we could inovate more with 500 million dollars. Or .5% of this project’s cost.
  - muro 8y ago
    If the cost is 1T, it's 0.05%.
- jchrisa 8y ago
  In some ways, the point of war is to burn resources for no reason. Solving the crisis of overproduction. So if we can do it with less war, maybe that's a step in the right direction.

spaceribs 8y ago

But then they would have time to be politically active enough to demand better living conditions and social safety.

vkou 8y ago

They could be, but if the program didn't exist, our economic system would not have allocated their labour to productive ends.

tadfisher 8y ago
That's a fairly conclusive statement with no objective basis. Care to elaborate?
- vkou 8y ago
  We have millions of unemployed people, and much work that needs to be done (Teaching, childcare, elderly care, infrastructure maintenance, construction, etc.) Why aren't they doing it? Could it be because we don't optimize for 'overall value created'?
function_seven 8y ago
How do you know that? If the economy had an extra trillion dollars to allocate, there would be a massive number of alternative activities these workers would have had available. Either the tax money would have been collected anyway, and spent somewhere. Or the tax money would not have been collected and it would have been "naturally" allocated by the population.
- lifeformed 8y ago
  Well in the worst case, we can just have the gov't allocate it like they did here. Just have it go to building infrastructure or something. Repair our old bridges and roadways. Or maybe fund some schools. Or at least put build something cool and shiny for scientific research? Like fusion or space travel or particle accelerators.

JumpCrisscross 8y ago

> those skilled workers could have been building something useful I wouldn't say the F-35 is useless. It contains a breathtaking integration of advanced technologies. There are benefits to that R&D. It's also an incredibly capable platform–the principle complaint is it's too capable, that we could have gotten more bang for our bucks with more less-capable planes.

arcbyte 8y ago
> I wouldn't say the F-35 is useless. You're right. After 28 years and $1 trillion it FINALLY delivered a single bomb in Afghanistan two weeks ago. Not totally useless.
- kibwen 8y ago
  Made all the more impressive by the fact that the Smithsonian Museum could very well deliver a bomb in Afghanistan, if only they would dust off a P-51 Mustang, or, say, the Wright Flyer. The Taliban (or whatever today's antagonist is that we're using to excuse this pointless war) aren't exactly known for their extensive^W existent air force.
phillipcarter 8y ago
If it were pitched as R&D then sure, that's fine.
ThetaOneOne 8y ago
You’re not wrong but the entire point here is efficiency. I have no doubt that allocated with the right teams we could inovate more with 500 million dollars. Or .5% of this project’s cost.
- muro 8y ago
  If the cost is 1T, it's 0.05%.
jchrisa 8y ago
In some ways, the point of war is to burn resources for no reason. Solving the crisis of overproduction. So if we can do it with less war, maybe that's a step in the right direction.