7 ms·

It's more than just a jobs program too. It's a reelection plan for senators/house members. Look at what states and districts get these big DoD contracts and th

It's more than just a jobs program too. It's a reelection plan for senators/house members. Look at what states and districts get these big DoD contracts and then look at what committees the congressmen/women are sitting on. They approve plans that benefit them then direct the funds right into their districts so they can campaign on it. I mean it's not the worst form of corruption but it's pretty shitty when you realize how our infrastructure and defense is designed around congressional districts instead of what is best for our country.

chmod600 6y ago
That's what "pork" means.
- Groxx 6y ago
  Just to expand on this a bit: "pork" as in "pork barrel": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pork_barrel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pork_barrel
- JKCalhoun 6y ago
  Or "stimulus" if you want to cast positive light on it.
  - Decade 6y ago
    That’s sort of a broken window fallacy. A direct stimulus doesn't take away people’s time and materials producing things that nobody wants.
nerdponx 6y ago
But imagine if we put people to work building useful stuff instead of useless stuff. Power grid infrastructure, new bridges, new rail lines, etc.
- bumby 6y ago
  Why do you think the current prioritization exists? The cynic in me thinks it has to do with power projection and the economy. The less cynical part of me wonders if it’s related to a cognitive bias that over-weights threats from rival “tribes” and the need to ensure stability
  - smileysteve 6y ago
    Fear of terrorists sells better than fear of ice storms. Especially for the states (and representatives) that the ice storm is 100 year. Dams fail, and when they fail, they don't affect the people that didn't want to live near a dam.
    - bumby 6y ago
      So is it the “randomness” of terrorism that causes us to overweight the risk? It seems like we’re just really bad at thinking clearly about low probability / high severity risks
      - vinger 6y ago
        The directness of terrorism causes us to overweight the risk. The dam flooding isn't random, its an unfrequent event that will occur so it is something we should prepare for.
        bumby 6y ago
        I’ve often wondered if it’s a similar incentive misalignment with executives and politicians that helps ignore these low frequency events. CEOs are graded quarter-to-quarter and politicians every 2-4 years. Low probability events (plane crashes, infrastructure failures, etc.) may not ever happen during their tenure, incentivizing them to defund preparing for them to favor other programs, understanding full well they’re bound to occur
      - arwhatever 6y ago
president 6y ago
The interesting thing is that it seems to be an unfixable and systemic problem. You could have someone come in and try to clean it up but then they'd face the backlash of the entire system that has been built on and benefited from the corruption.
- Accujack 6y ago
  Exactly... this is in fact the overall problem with the US government. Start by fixing that, and then the smaller systems like military procurement that depend on corruption higher up will become fixable.
asimjalis 6y ago
How can we create new incentives to discourage this behavior and to encourage infrastructure projects that provide jobs as well as create superlinear value?
- Analemma_ 6y ago
  We did: pork spending was mostly outlawed in 2011 (the F-35 dates from way before that). But as it turns out, the cure was almost as bad as the disease. Getting rid of pork has accelerated hyper-partisanship and dysfunctional gridlock, because without it there's no incentive to ever try to reach a deal with the other side instead of digging in on no-compromise radicalism to please your base.
  - throwanem 6y ago
    > pork spending was mostly outlawed in 2011 Is there a longer discussion of this that you can link somewhere? I remember the phrase as a derogatory commonplace in adults' political discussion when I was a child, but the concept seems to have drifted out of the discourse since, and having now had my attention drawn to its absence I'd be interested to find out more about why.
    - chrisco255 6y ago
      There's definitely still pork. I mean, look at how many pet projects were included in Covid relief funding. Pork is the idea of stuffing an unrelated project to benefit your local district or state (and thus, the politician's reelection chances) into a bigger bill that is unrelated to that expense. Like the most famous one was the Alaskan "bridge to nowhere" that would have cost $400 million: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravina_Island_Bridge https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravina_Island_Bridge
      - paulmd 6y ago
        That dates to 2005, so you are not really contradicting grandparent's point that this was mostly outlawed in 2011 (and that this has accelerated hyperpartisanship by removing an incentive for compromise).
jasonwatkinspdx 6y ago
It's not an accident that you'll find some manufacturer in the F-35's supply chain in basically every US state.

chmod600 6y ago

That's what "pork" means.

Groxx 6y ago
Just to expand on this a bit: "pork" as in "pork barrel": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pork_barrel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pork_barrel
JKCalhoun 6y ago
Or "stimulus" if you want to cast positive light on it.
- Decade 6y ago
  That’s sort of a broken window fallacy. A direct stimulus doesn't take away people’s time and materials producing things that nobody wants.

nerdponx 6y ago

But imagine if we put people to work building useful stuff instead of useless stuff. Power grid infrastructure, new bridges, new rail lines, etc.

bumby 6y ago
Why do you think the current prioritization exists? The cynic in me thinks it has to do with power projection and the economy. The less cynical part of me wonders if it’s related to a cognitive bias that over-weights threats from rival “tribes” and the need to ensure stability
- smileysteve 6y ago
  Fear of terrorists sells better than fear of ice storms. Especially for the states (and representatives) that the ice storm is 100 year. Dams fail, and when they fail, they don't affect the people that didn't want to live near a dam.
  - bumby 6y ago
    So is it the “randomness” of terrorism that causes us to overweight the risk? It seems like we’re just really bad at thinking clearly about low probability / high severity risks
    - vinger 6y ago
      The directness of terrorism causes us to overweight the risk. The dam flooding isn't random, its an unfrequent event that will occur so it is something we should prepare for.
      - bumby 6y ago
        I’ve often wondered if it’s a similar incentive misalignment with executives and politicians that helps ignore these low frequency events. CEOs are graded quarter-to-quarter and politicians every 2-4 years. Low probability events (plane crashes, infrastructure failures, etc.) may not ever happen during their tenure, incentivizing them to defund preparing for them to favor other programs, understanding full well they’re bound to occur
    - arwhatever 6y ago

president 6y ago

The interesting thing is that it seems to be an unfixable and systemic problem. You could have someone come in and try to clean it up but then they'd face the backlash of the entire system that has been built on and benefited from the corruption.

Accujack 6y ago
Exactly... this is in fact the overall problem with the US government. Start by fixing that, and then the smaller systems like military procurement that depend on corruption higher up will become fixable.

asimjalis 6y ago

How can we create new incentives to discourage this behavior and to encourage infrastructure projects that provide jobs as well as create superlinear value?

Analemma_ 6y ago
We did: pork spending was mostly outlawed in 2011 (the F-35 dates from way before that). But as it turns out, the cure was almost as bad as the disease. Getting rid of pork has accelerated hyper-partisanship and dysfunctional gridlock, because without it there's no incentive to ever try to reach a deal with the other side instead of digging in on no-compromise radicalism to please your base.
- throwanem 6y ago
  > pork spending was mostly outlawed in 2011 Is there a longer discussion of this that you can link somewhere? I remember the phrase as a derogatory commonplace in adults' political discussion when I was a child, but the concept seems to have drifted out of the discourse since, and having now had my attention drawn to its absence I'd be interested to find out more about why.
  - chrisco255 6y ago
    There's definitely still pork. I mean, look at how many pet projects were included in Covid relief funding. Pork is the idea of stuffing an unrelated project to benefit your local district or state (and thus, the politician's reelection chances) into a bigger bill that is unrelated to that expense. Like the most famous one was the Alaskan "bridge to nowhere" that would have cost $400 million: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravina_Island_Bridge https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravina_Island_Bridge
    - paulmd 6y ago
      That dates to 2005, so you are not really contradicting grandparent's point that this was mostly outlawed in 2011 (and that this has accelerated hyperpartisanship by removing an incentive for compromise).

jasonwatkinspdx 6y ago

It's not an accident that you'll find some manufacturer in the F-35's supply chain in basically every US state.