4 ms·

Doesn't take an Einstein to see that the US created a lot of messes it's on the hook for, and in addition to that, the US Military is not very efficient with mo

Doesn't take an Einstein to see that the US created a lot of messes it's on the hook for, and in addition to that, the US Military is not very efficient with money. (Source: my brother is a navy seal.) Similarly doesn't take an Einstein to look at US Military budget and compare it to the opportunity costs: with just proportionally small portions of the military budget, we could change education and healthcare dramatically. A healthy well educated populace is actually really important for global competitiveness. If you've ever worked in a large organization, you know that there's a difference between underfunding an effort and pushing back to force them to prioritize better and become more efficient with resources. Also, normally in well functioning organizations, there are metrics to measure how efficiently resources are being utilized. The US Military lacks oversight in this dimension.

wait_a_minute 5y ago
"created a lot of messes" "not very efficient" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_word https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_word "Source: brother" This is not a source. "look at US military budget and compare it to the opportunity costs" The opportunity costs of China or Russia telling everyone what to do? Have you not looked at any news recently? If you've ever worked in a large organization, you know that there's a difference between underfunding an effort and pushing back to force them to prioritize better and become more efficient with resources. Also, normally in well functioning organizations, there are metrics to measure how efficiently resources are being utilized. The US Military lacks oversight in this dimension. We have military dominance by far across the entire planet. That sure seems like a great metric to me. And we'll maintain it and use the money better with time, and raise more if we need it.
- kajecounterhack 5y ago
  > We have military dominance by far across the entire planet. That sure seems like a great metric to me. For someone who wants to think their arguments are principled and others' aren't, this is really hilarious. What you stated isn't a metric. > And we'll maintain it and use the money better with time, and raise more if we need it. You make what you measure. How do you know we're using money better over time, and what historical barometers are you using for such an assertion? It's just not possible to build precise metrics around this. So it's important to be clear what proxy metrics you're using and to state the caveats of these very clearly. If anything I think there's strong evidence that we're using money worse as time goes on. For example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-22_Raptor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-22_Raptor the raptor cost $350M per aircraft, is no longer produced, and didn't even provide us superiority over its foreign competitors due to lack of flight range. Is that what you'd call efficient spend? Do you really not see any problems with your advocacy for unlimited one-sided investment? You do realize it's possible to be simultaneously {pro-freedom and pro-american military supremacy} and {against unfettered military spending}? >> "Source: brother" > This is not a source. I wasn't saying it's a research source, I'm saying it's one of _my_ sources for what I'm stating. I'm stating my opinions and where I'm coming from, in order to minimally convince a random reader that I'm not just pulling stuff out of my ass. I'm not writing a research paper. I don't even state any specifics of what I've learned from said relation. In normal conversation it's perfectly fine to say stuff like "oh yeah Yelp is a bureaucratic company, I know because I have N friends who work there." It's not rigorous, it's not something you'd write in a research paper, but it offers value to a normal-ass conversation, which is what's supposed to be happening here. In this case, since my brother is a SEAL I've probably heard some stories about how the Navy spends money. If you don't have similar context, you might be like "oh that's interesting to me." You also can ignore it. > The opportunity costs of China or Russia telling everyone what to do? Have you not looked at any news recently? Do you even understand what opportunity cost is? This is intellectually dishonest of you -- unlimited military spending is not necessarily needed to prevent China and Russia from telling us what to do. And you can also see, from the very news you say I haven't looked at, that unlimited military spending doesn't even prevent them from telling a lot of people (or "everyone" in your parlance) what to do. Opportunity cost is: if I spend $1 on bullets, I can't spend that $1 on {healthcare, education, economic growth}. Consider the opportunity cost of even a single $350M F-22.

wait_a_minute 5y ago

"created a lot of messes" "not very efficient" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_word https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_word "Source: brother" This is not a source. "look at US military budget and compare it to the opportunity costs" The opportunity costs of China or Russia telling everyone what to do? Have you not looked at any news recently? If you've ever worked in a large organization, you know that there's a difference between underfunding an effort and pushing back to force them to prioritize better and become more efficient with resources. Also, normally in well functioning organizations, there are metrics to measure how efficiently resources are being utilized. The US Military lacks oversight in this dimension. We have military dominance by far across the entire planet. That sure seems like a great metric to me. And we'll maintain it and use the money better with time, and raise more if we need it.

kajecounterhack 5y ago
> We have military dominance by far across the entire planet. That sure seems like a great metric to me. For someone who wants to think their arguments are principled and others' aren't, this is really hilarious. What you stated isn't a metric. > And we'll maintain it and use the money better with time, and raise more if we need it. You make what you measure. How do you know we're using money better over time, and what historical barometers are you using for such an assertion? It's just not possible to build precise metrics around this. So it's important to be clear what proxy metrics you're using and to state the caveats of these very clearly. If anything I think there's strong evidence that we're using money worse as time goes on. For example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-22_Raptor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-22_Raptor the raptor cost $350M per aircraft, is no longer produced, and didn't even provide us superiority over its foreign competitors due to lack of flight range. Is that what you'd call efficient spend? Do you really not see any problems with your advocacy for unlimited one-sided investment? You do realize it's possible to be simultaneously {pro-freedom and pro-american military supremacy} and {against unfettered military spending}? >> "Source: brother" > This is not a source. I wasn't saying it's a research source, I'm saying it's one of _my_ sources for what I'm stating. I'm stating my opinions and where I'm coming from, in order to minimally convince a random reader that I'm not just pulling stuff out of my ass. I'm not writing a research paper. I don't even state any specifics of what I've learned from said relation. In normal conversation it's perfectly fine to say stuff like "oh yeah Yelp is a bureaucratic company, I know because I have N friends who work there." It's not rigorous, it's not something you'd write in a research paper, but it offers value to a normal-ass conversation, which is what's supposed to be happening here. In this case, since my brother is a SEAL I've probably heard some stories about how the Navy spends money. If you don't have similar context, you might be like "oh that's interesting to me." You also can ignore it. > The opportunity costs of China or Russia telling everyone what to do? Have you not looked at any news recently? Do you even understand what opportunity cost is? This is intellectually dishonest of you -- unlimited military spending is not necessarily needed to prevent China and Russia from telling us what to do. And you can also see, from the very news you say I haven't looked at, that unlimited military spending doesn't even prevent them from telling a lot of people (or "everyone" in your parlance) what to do. Opportunity cost is: if I spend $1 on bullets, I can't spend that $1 on {healthcare, education, economic growth}. Consider the opportunity cost of even a single $350M F-22.