3 ms·

This is a pretty specific operational goal so why haven't we used our military? WTF are we spending so much money on them for if not for combating something th

This is a pretty specific operational goal so why haven't we used our military? WTF are we spending so much money on them for if not for combating something that's caused hundreds of thousands of deaths?

roenxi 6y ago
> This is a pretty specific operational goal so why haven't we used our military? As in "fly over to Pakistan and assassinate bin Laden" sort of goals. Stuff that burns unreasonable amounts of resources to do something very specific very quickly. If something takes months to execute the market will be faster. "Get a vaccine to everyone who can afford it" is something that the market will be fastest at. It would be prudent to leave it alone to solve that problem. Government can go solve a different problem.
- majormajor 6y ago
  I disagree on the effectiveness of market solutions for fighting a year-long military campaign. No, it's not a single "assassinate bin Laden" mission, but it maps pretty well to a war where you have both tactical goals to achieve with logistical challenges AND overarching strategic goals. The market SUCKS at strategic goals. It's basically the opposite: you're giving up on strategic goals because you're in a situation where you don't think central planning can be as effective as competition. But military history shows us that central planning can be very effective for this sort of campaign, complete with elaborate supply chains and logistical accomplishments.
  - roenxi 6y ago
    > I disagree on the effectiveness of market solutions for fighting a year-long military campaign. Markets are generally smart enough not to think killing large numbers of people and overthrowing governments is a good idea. If the US government was somehow replaced with a market the Middle East would likely be a more peaceful place. Markets generally find better ways of doing things - like financial incentives - than military intervention. I'm more than happy to admit defeat if you want to argue that markets are ineffective at subjugating exotic new lands. In terms of defence, I havn't looked in to it at all. I expect market based economies to beat command and control economies at war because they can better sustain an effort.
    - geofft 6y ago
      Er, the US government is basically funded by (and lobbied by) market participants. The market has realized that killing large numbers of foreign people and overthrowing foreign governments is good for domestic economic growth, and therefore happily operates in the US. The US defense budget is huge, and in turn it's a huge portion of taxes on market participants, and they'd figure out a way to make it stop if they weren't getting their money's worth, precisely because markets are good at solving problems and not wasting money. The Swiss have their bank accounts, yes. You could convincingly argue that people who are happy to accept low gains as a tradeoff for low risk are interested in avoiding war. But the world's largest markets are in the US. And before they were in the US, they were in the capital of the British Empire. Markets are very good at solving the sort of problems they solve. But be careful about extrapolating that into "Markets are very good." (Also, don't forget about the British East India Company.)

roenxi 6y ago

> This is a pretty specific operational goal so why haven't we used our military? As in "fly over to Pakistan and assassinate bin Laden" sort of goals. Stuff that burns unreasonable amounts of resources to do something very specific very quickly. If something takes months to execute the market will be faster. "Get a vaccine to everyone who can afford it" is something that the market will be fastest at. It would be prudent to leave it alone to solve that problem. Government can go solve a different problem.

majormajor 6y ago
I disagree on the effectiveness of market solutions for fighting a year-long military campaign. No, it's not a single "assassinate bin Laden" mission, but it maps pretty well to a war where you have both tactical goals to achieve with logistical challenges AND overarching strategic goals. The market SUCKS at strategic goals. It's basically the opposite: you're giving up on strategic goals because you're in a situation where you don't think central planning can be as effective as competition. But military history shows us that central planning can be very effective for this sort of campaign, complete with elaborate supply chains and logistical accomplishments.
- roenxi 6y ago
  > I disagree on the effectiveness of market solutions for fighting a year-long military campaign. Markets are generally smart enough not to think killing large numbers of people and overthrowing governments is a good idea. If the US government was somehow replaced with a market the Middle East would likely be a more peaceful place. Markets generally find better ways of doing things - like financial incentives - than military intervention. I'm more than happy to admit defeat if you want to argue that markets are ineffective at subjugating exotic new lands. In terms of defence, I havn't looked in to it at all. I expect market based economies to beat command and control economies at war because they can better sustain an effort.
  - geofft 6y ago
    Er, the US government is basically funded by (and lobbied by) market participants. The market has realized that killing large numbers of foreign people and overthrowing foreign governments is good for domestic economic growth, and therefore happily operates in the US. The US defense budget is huge, and in turn it's a huge portion of taxes on market participants, and they'd figure out a way to make it stop if they weren't getting their money's worth, precisely because markets are good at solving problems and not wasting money. The Swiss have their bank accounts, yes. You could convincingly argue that people who are happy to accept low gains as a tradeoff for low risk are interested in avoiding war. But the world's largest markets are in the US. And before they were in the US, they were in the capital of the British Empire. Markets are very good at solving the sort of problems they solve. But be careful about extrapolating that into "Markets are very good." (Also, don't forget about the British East India Company.)