5 ms·

$406 billion!!! Just imagine how many humans you can bring out of poverty with that kind of money? I understand the world we live in but if you spend one tenth

$406 billion!!! Just imagine how many humans you can bring out of poverty with that kind of money? I understand the world we live in but if you spend one tenth the amount they spent on this educating/helping the very people this plane would be eventually targeted at, I think it would cause more of an impact. I was reading a book by Steven Pinker and in it he lays out the case for how modern society has essentially made war illegal. And in Sapiens the author (Yuval Harari) makes the case that modern society is no longer based on static wealth that can be conquered and consumed like Gold, Silver etc., Its made of human skill and mind that create wealth that does not exist. So say China occupies the US it sure can take all the wealth that is static but it cannot force people to use their minds to create a Google or an Apple or FB(i know..i know..).. If you believe the above you have to ask yourself:- "So then what is the benefit of spending so much money?"

solipsism 8y ago
Your analysis doesn't consider defense. Actors on the international stage aren't always rational, so you need to consider defending yourself against others, however irrational. I'm not saying that tips the argument one way or another. But you can't not talk about it.
astazangasta 8y ago
The idea that this has anything to do with fighting a war is absurd. The wars are also not about any specific goals. Does the F-35 have any relevance in a fight against the Taliban? I'd be surprised if the Taliban had even one plane, or heck even a radar. The reason this plane was built was: to spend so much money. It was to support a high-tech industry that needs a guaranteed buyer to develop expensive sensors, joysticks, and so on. You might ask yourself: but why this use? Surely all of that engineering talent can be put to good use building more useful, non-destructive technologies? The answer, I think, is only a historical accident: after World War II the military became a money faucet to industry, and that tap proved difficult to control or turn off. The Department of Defense has been resisting an audit for the last 30 years; it is a paragon of profligacy. It pumps half a trillion dollars into the economy every year, and for the most part Americans are oblivious or approving. There is no great public outcry to reduce the military budget; but there are a great number of industries eager to keep the money flowing. Thus, we get this kind of pointless waste of everyone's time.
- bredren 8y ago
  You have good points here. However, I think there is some economic utility to the very idea that the United States, and US companies are behind the design and build of the strongest air powered aircraft in this moment. I say this without knowing what the evolving military threat might be or whether a fighter jet can counter it. The F35 is a recruiting tool, not only to the armed services, but to the very nationalism that is used to persuade people to keep working toward an "American" dream. I'm not saying this to portray these in a sparkling light, but because I think they are real "benefits" of the $406B that my be hard to measure. I have my own pet causes and beneficiaries I'd direct even a fraction of those expenses but they would not make very good HD videos.
ilaksh 8y ago
I think unfortunately people are living in a fairy tale if they think like that. Resources like fossil fuels and raw materials are critical for the real function of economies. Global wealth inequality between countries can be extreme and quite obviously reflects resource distribution inequality. Its the same as all of history. Usually one or a few powers dominate the earth. The US has the most most wealth and resource control globally by far. This is not because the US has Facebook or because "war is illegal" (LOL). Its because the US and proxies/allies have the most massive and dominant military ever seen and use that actively to maintain the advantages. I can understand how people do not realize this since the media does a very good job of distributing propaganda about the numerous wars, suggesting that each military action is isolated and motivated by some mythical moral cause.
- novaRom 8y ago
  >> I think unfortunately people are living in a fairy tale if they think like that. Everything humans create is subjective reality. Shared fictions are commonly held beliefs in fictional entities. For example, belief in the power of money is a shared fiction. >> Usually one or a few powers dominate the earth Depends on how you measure "dominate"? What time period? Do they have more wealth than others at time period dT? Do they think they have more power to direct the wheel of the history at that time dT? History teaches all civilizations fail soon or late.
nerdponx 8y ago
I think what people are missing about this comment is that you don't need to cut the whole program in order to see benefits. All you have to do is reduce the project cost by 0.25%. That's a little over $1bn saved.
JohnBooty 8y ago
> $406 billion!!! Yeah, the government should give that money back to the people instead! Bring them out of poverty! Except it already does, right? When we spend money on our military (or NASA, or other things) that money goes right back into the economy and creates hundreds of thousands of jobs. And then those people spend money and create other jobs, etc etc etc. I don't necessarily think that building killing machines is the best way to bring vast numbers of people out of poverty, but it does do that to an extent by creating those jobs. No matter what economic system you favor, things always ultimately come down to job creation in some form or another.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
dgudkov 8y ago
> $406 billion!!! Just imagine how many humans you can bring out of poverty with that kind of money? $406 billion divided by 7 billion humans = $58 per human. A lunch for two in a rich country, or a monthly pay in a poor country. Hardly a way out of poverty.
- GordonS 8y ago
  7 billion humans aren't in poverty though. The OP also doesn't say its enough money to get everyone out of poverty - the point is, it's an incredible sum of money that could make a huge, positive difference, if it wasn't being used to kill people.
  - dgudkov 8y ago
    Yes, in an ideal world where everybody is nice and friendly there is no need for defense and money could've been spent on something more virtuous. In the real world countries need to spend money to have trained and well equipped people ready to fight back.
    - GordonS 8y ago
      Agreed. But... $406 billion?! In the real world, some countries need to stop invading others on false pretenses, stop overthrowing democratically elected governments, stop helping would-be terrorist organisations, etc.
sebastos 8y ago
Computers, radio, internet, etc. all started as big government spending with eyes towards military applications. Spending 406 billion on a program like this largely _is_ giving it back to the people: productive people who are designing and manufacturing parts, building technological know-how and innovating to meet the ambitious goals of the program. Spending money like this is the luxury we have earned by becoming a civilization - the more money we have to spare, the more we can re-invest it into learning new things instead of spending it on subsistence, making life for future generations better in an exponential sort of way. This type of spending is a huge component of how we build that human skill and expertise you're talking about.

solipsism 8y ago

Your analysis doesn't consider defense. Actors on the international stage aren't always rational, so you need to consider defending yourself against others, however irrational. I'm not saying that tips the argument one way or another. But you can't not talk about it.

astazangasta 8y ago

The idea that this has anything to do with fighting a war is absurd. The wars are also not about any specific goals. Does the F-35 have any relevance in a fight against the Taliban? I'd be surprised if the Taliban had even one plane, or heck even a radar. The reason this plane was built was: to spend so much money. It was to support a high-tech industry that needs a guaranteed buyer to develop expensive sensors, joysticks, and so on. You might ask yourself: but why this use? Surely all of that engineering talent can be put to good use building more useful, non-destructive technologies? The answer, I think, is only a historical accident: after World War II the military became a money faucet to industry, and that tap proved difficult to control or turn off. The Department of Defense has been resisting an audit for the last 30 years; it is a paragon of profligacy. It pumps half a trillion dollars into the economy every year, and for the most part Americans are oblivious or approving. There is no great public outcry to reduce the military budget; but there are a great number of industries eager to keep the money flowing. Thus, we get this kind of pointless waste of everyone's time.

bredren 8y ago
You have good points here. However, I think there is some economic utility to the very idea that the United States, and US companies are behind the design and build of the strongest air powered aircraft in this moment. I say this without knowing what the evolving military threat might be or whether a fighter jet can counter it. The F35 is a recruiting tool, not only to the armed services, but to the very nationalism that is used to persuade people to keep working toward an "American" dream. I'm not saying this to portray these in a sparkling light, but because I think they are real "benefits" of the $406B that my be hard to measure. I have my own pet causes and beneficiaries I'd direct even a fraction of those expenses but they would not make very good HD videos.

ilaksh 8y ago

I think unfortunately people are living in a fairy tale if they think like that. Resources like fossil fuels and raw materials are critical for the real function of economies. Global wealth inequality between countries can be extreme and quite obviously reflects resource distribution inequality. Its the same as all of history. Usually one or a few powers dominate the earth. The US has the most most wealth and resource control globally by far. This is not because the US has Facebook or because "war is illegal" (LOL). Its because the US and proxies/allies have the most massive and dominant military ever seen and use that actively to maintain the advantages. I can understand how people do not realize this since the media does a very good job of distributing propaganda about the numerous wars, suggesting that each military action is isolated and motivated by some mythical moral cause.

novaRom 8y ago
>> I think unfortunately people are living in a fairy tale if they think like that. Everything humans create is subjective reality. Shared fictions are commonly held beliefs in fictional entities. For example, belief in the power of money is a shared fiction. >> Usually one or a few powers dominate the earth Depends on how you measure "dominate"? What time period? Do they have more wealth than others at time period dT? Do they think they have more power to direct the wheel of the history at that time dT? History teaches all civilizations fail soon or late.

nerdponx 8y ago

I think what people are missing about this comment is that you don't need to cut the whole program in order to see benefits. All you have to do is reduce the project cost by 0.25%. That's a little over $1bn saved.

JohnBooty 8y ago

> $406 billion!!! Yeah, the government should give that money back to the people instead! Bring them out of poverty! Except it already does, right? When we spend money on our military (or NASA, or other things) that money goes right back into the economy and creates hundreds of thousands of jobs. And then those people spend money and create other jobs, etc etc etc. I don't necessarily think that building killing machines is the best way to bring vast numbers of people out of poverty, but it does do that to an extent by creating those jobs. No matter what economic system you favor, things always ultimately come down to job creation in some form or another.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

dgudkov 8y ago

> $406 billion!!! Just imagine how many humans you can bring out of poverty with that kind of money? $406 billion divided by 7 billion humans = $58 per human. A lunch for two in a rich country, or a monthly pay in a poor country. Hardly a way out of poverty.

GordonS 8y ago
7 billion humans aren't in poverty though. The OP also doesn't say its enough money to get everyone out of poverty - the point is, it's an incredible sum of money that could make a huge, positive difference, if it wasn't being used to kill people.
- dgudkov 8y ago
  Yes, in an ideal world where everybody is nice and friendly there is no need for defense and money could've been spent on something more virtuous. In the real world countries need to spend money to have trained and well equipped people ready to fight back.
  - GordonS 8y ago
    Agreed. But... $406 billion?! In the real world, some countries need to stop invading others on false pretenses, stop overthrowing democratically elected governments, stop helping would-be terrorist organisations, etc.

sebastos 8y ago

Computers, radio, internet, etc. all started as big government spending with eyes towards military applications. Spending 406 billion on a program like this largely _is_ giving it back to the people: productive people who are designing and manufacturing parts, building technological know-how and innovating to meet the ambitious goals of the program. Spending money like this is the luxury we have earned by becoming a civilization - the more money we have to spare, the more we can re-invest it into learning new things instead of spending it on subsistence, making life for future generations better in an exponential sort of way. This type of spending is a huge component of how we build that human skill and expertise you're talking about.