So if I’m understanding your argument correctly, you consider the F-35 to effectively be a wealth redistribution program. Taxes are gathered from taxpayers nati

So if I’m understanding your argument correctly, you consider the F-35 to effectively be a wealth redistribution program. Taxes are gathered from taxpayers nationwide, and some of that money is funneled into the communities where the F-35 is designed and built. I’m 100% down with wealth redistribution as a way to reduce income inequality, but I think we could be way more efficient in the redistribution; we could employ these people and use this money to create actually useful things, like say construct affordable housing or construct anything other than a $1.5 trillion lemon. That was why I mentioned the parable; the idea is that value isn’t added when you introduce an artificial, costly phenomenon into an economy (i.e. a storm that creates demand for repairs or a worthless fighter jet that creates demand for defense workers). But if you instead use that money to build productive things, then you can get the redistribution and actually make something that someone wants. Thus, it is impossible for the F-35 to be as efficient at wealth distribution as say an equivalent costing program to create working civilian aircraft that could actually be used. The most efficient way of redistribution would be to use the money spent on the F-35 to directly fund social programs and jobs programs for the poor in these economically disadvantaged communities; this would redistribute all of the money to people who actually need it and will spend it, rather than send huge chunks of it into defense executives/shareholders’ pockets in the currently lossy transactions used in defense contracting.