19 ms·

They probably mean non-military investment?

asah 5y ago
IMHO it's complicated: US military spend includes tons of R&D, including stuff far from direct weaponry. Sure, it's a small % of the budget, but still vastly more R&D spending than most countries.
CyberRabbi 5y ago
>55% of the federal budget goes toward social services and welfare. <11% goes to military spending. There is no lack of investment, just obscene mismanagement, at best. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2020_US_Federal_Budget_Infographic.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2020_US_Federal_Budget_In...
- mountainb 5y ago
  Entitlements are an 'investment' into loyalty to the federal government and the system it presides over. The military is cheap by historic standards. The entitlement system is so expensive that it stymies any significant federal policy ambition that requires resources. Our political leaders generally gave up on trying to reform entitlements in the 2000s (when it was last a TV dinner issue), so instead most just try to distract from the issue with trivia. Thinkers these days tend to be frightened about trying to come up with alternative, more cost-effective ways to secure the loyalty of the population. The default position is to just not bother shifting away from the inevitable path to failure, because letting it fail might be an easier way towards creating consensus for a solution than trying to avert the failure. If the system fails because of collective inaction, no faction can be directly blamed for the failure (so the thinking goes).
  - fidesomnes 5y ago
    This is absolutely correct. But it is not just loyalty to Feds, it is loyalty to one specific Party.
  - aidenn0 5y ago
    The US government spends a similar amount per-capita on health care as France, but provides health care for a much smaller fraction of its population. There has been a massive increase in entitlement spending since the 90s with very poor results on terms of a social safety net.
    - jl2718 5y ago
      I'd like to know what the Gini coefficient is for entitlement spending by individual adult recipient. I suspect that it would be similar to the income distribution, given so many special programs for child, medical, and disability entitlements.
      - aidenn0 5y ago
        On top of that, with states cutting unemployment, a lot of people that previously would have been on unemployment are on disability now. There are a lot of perverse incentives in some of these systems.
  - camgunz 5y ago
    I feel like your comment has a serious anti-welfare-state slant to it. The US government is (well, let's stipulate anyway) a democracy. It represents the will of the people. We've decided we like stuff like Social Security and Medicare and we're cool paying for it. You frame this like it's some kind of scheme to enthrall Americans, but our government is us. If you want to talk about inefficiencies in the social safety net, let's start with the weird public/private meshing of providers and facilitators written into our laws by conservatives who wanted to "unleash the efficiencies of the free market" (i.e. give government contracts to their peers and later themselves). It's not like "thinkers these days" have been frightened into silence by a mob addicted to social services. They've been disenchanted by the depth of corruption in our system.
    - ElViajero 5y ago
      > You frame this like it's some kind of scheme to enthrall Americans, but our government is us. Well said. The government is the will of the people, to remove the government from all social negotiations leaves the poor, and the middle class unrepresented. > conservatives who wanted to "unleash the efficiencies of the free market" "efficiencies of the free market" that are not applied to big corporations, that get the advantages of a social-democracy by being helped during crisis. Corporations are treated with more compassion than fellow citizens. "People is lazy", "Corporations are hard working" is part of the indoctrination.
    - jl2718 5y ago
      > The US government is [...] a democracy No. It's not, or at least, it wasn't. By law, it is a constitutional republic. It was specifically designed to prevent tyranny, regardless of the source. > If you want to talk about ... You're just using one form of corruption to justify your chosen form. They're both bad. Tolerance of one leads to the other.
      - camgunz 5y ago
        > No. It's not, or at least, it wasn't. By law, it is a constitutional republic. Woof, I gotta say I super dislike the parsing out of "republic" vs. "democracy". It almost always deliberately misses the point: our government is supposed to represent us. And honestly, what does "by law" add here? > You're just using one form of corruption to justify your chosen form. There's nothing corrupt about social programs? That's not what "corruption" means.
  - imtringued 5y ago
    >The default position is to just not bother shifting away from the inevitable path to failure, because letting it fail might be an easier way towards creating consensus for a solution than trying to avert the failure. If the system fails because of collective inaction, no faction can be directly blamed for the failure (so the thinking goes). This describes the EU better than the US. The Eurozone in its current state is incomplete. It can't work the way it is currently set up. It's failure is inevitable. There are opportunities to build the most advanced monetary union in the world but nobody is taking them. Governments collectively decide to do nothing except wait for things to get better. Of course there are institutions that have to face reality. Some of those institutions cannot just wait, in fact they are forbidden from waiting. What happens is that the central bank now has responsibilities that in an ideal world no central bank should have to take on. They do it (the futile attempt to save the euro) because they are the last entity that is responsible for the system as a whole. It's similar to that article that said engineers should solve climate change through engineering and bypass politics. Our central bankers should solve the Eurocrisis (it's ghost is still here haunting us) through monetary policy and bypass politics. What good are politicians nowadays if all we ever do is ignore them through loopholes/escape hatches? Sure, having escape hatches is good but relying on them is bad. The US is in a different position. Politicians are doing something, they are addressing problems, maybe in an incompetent/biased way with some collateral damage over the short term but you can bet that they are setting the stage for good years to come. For the US the pandemic is merely the end of the bad days. Meanwhile in the EU it is business as usual. Trump tried to support low skill jobs in the US with the trade war. Biden is creating infrastructure jobs that cannot be moved overseas. Both have the same idea but they execute them in different ways.
    - jl2718 5y ago
      Was there any information or opinion in there? It sounds like you have a lot to say, but aren't saying it. > It's failure is inevitable Why? > There are opportunities What? > Politicians are doing something What? > addressing problems / setting the stage How?
  - jl2718 5y ago
    > Entitlements are an 'investment' into loyalty Ha! Not working! Not even preventing outright social violence.
- dempsey 5y ago
  Social security is a separate trust. Medicare is far more efficient than private insurance. It could be even more efficient but is hamstrung by corruption in Congress. Being unable to negotiate drug prices is a good example.

asah 5y ago

IMHO it's complicated: US military spend includes tons of R&D, including stuff far from direct weaponry. Sure, it's a small % of the budget, but still vastly more R&D spending than most countries.

CyberRabbi 5y ago

>55% of the federal budget goes toward social services and welfare. <11% goes to military spending. There is no lack of investment, just obscene mismanagement, at best. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2020_US_Federal_Budget_Infographic.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2020_US_Federal_Budget_In...

mountainb 5y ago
Entitlements are an 'investment' into loyalty to the federal government and the system it presides over. The military is cheap by historic standards. The entitlement system is so expensive that it stymies any significant federal policy ambition that requires resources. Our political leaders generally gave up on trying to reform entitlements in the 2000s (when it was last a TV dinner issue), so instead most just try to distract from the issue with trivia. Thinkers these days tend to be frightened about trying to come up with alternative, more cost-effective ways to secure the loyalty of the population. The default position is to just not bother shifting away from the inevitable path to failure, because letting it fail might be an easier way towards creating consensus for a solution than trying to avert the failure. If the system fails because of collective inaction, no faction can be directly blamed for the failure (so the thinking goes).
- fidesomnes 5y ago
  This is absolutely correct. But it is not just loyalty to Feds, it is loyalty to one specific Party.
- aidenn0 5y ago
  The US government spends a similar amount per-capita on health care as France, but provides health care for a much smaller fraction of its population. There has been a massive increase in entitlement spending since the 90s with very poor results on terms of a social safety net.
  - jl2718 5y ago
    I'd like to know what the Gini coefficient is for entitlement spending by individual adult recipient. I suspect that it would be similar to the income distribution, given so many special programs for child, medical, and disability entitlements.
    - aidenn0 5y ago
      On top of that, with states cutting unemployment, a lot of people that previously would have been on unemployment are on disability now. There are a lot of perverse incentives in some of these systems.
- camgunz 5y ago
  I feel like your comment has a serious anti-welfare-state slant to it. The US government is (well, let's stipulate anyway) a democracy. It represents the will of the people. We've decided we like stuff like Social Security and Medicare and we're cool paying for it. You frame this like it's some kind of scheme to enthrall Americans, but our government is us. If you want to talk about inefficiencies in the social safety net, let's start with the weird public/private meshing of providers and facilitators written into our laws by conservatives who wanted to "unleash the efficiencies of the free market" (i.e. give government contracts to their peers and later themselves). It's not like "thinkers these days" have been frightened into silence by a mob addicted to social services. They've been disenchanted by the depth of corruption in our system.
  - ElViajero 5y ago
    > You frame this like it's some kind of scheme to enthrall Americans, but our government is us. Well said. The government is the will of the people, to remove the government from all social negotiations leaves the poor, and the middle class unrepresented. > conservatives who wanted to "unleash the efficiencies of the free market" "efficiencies of the free market" that are not applied to big corporations, that get the advantages of a social-democracy by being helped during crisis. Corporations are treated with more compassion than fellow citizens. "People is lazy", "Corporations are hard working" is part of the indoctrination.
  - jl2718 5y ago
    > The US government is [...] a democracy No. It's not, or at least, it wasn't. By law, it is a constitutional republic. It was specifically designed to prevent tyranny, regardless of the source. > If you want to talk about ... You're just using one form of corruption to justify your chosen form. They're both bad. Tolerance of one leads to the other.
    - camgunz 5y ago
      > No. It's not, or at least, it wasn't. By law, it is a constitutional republic. Woof, I gotta say I super dislike the parsing out of "republic" vs. "democracy". It almost always deliberately misses the point: our government is supposed to represent us. And honestly, what does "by law" add here? > You're just using one form of corruption to justify your chosen form. There's nothing corrupt about social programs? That's not what "corruption" means.
- imtringued 5y ago
  >The default position is to just not bother shifting away from the inevitable path to failure, because letting it fail might be an easier way towards creating consensus for a solution than trying to avert the failure. If the system fails because of collective inaction, no faction can be directly blamed for the failure (so the thinking goes). This describes the EU better than the US. The Eurozone in its current state is incomplete. It can't work the way it is currently set up. It's failure is inevitable. There are opportunities to build the most advanced monetary union in the world but nobody is taking them. Governments collectively decide to do nothing except wait for things to get better. Of course there are institutions that have to face reality. Some of those institutions cannot just wait, in fact they are forbidden from waiting. What happens is that the central bank now has responsibilities that in an ideal world no central bank should have to take on. They do it (the futile attempt to save the euro) because they are the last entity that is responsible for the system as a whole. It's similar to that article that said engineers should solve climate change through engineering and bypass politics. Our central bankers should solve the Eurocrisis (it's ghost is still here haunting us) through monetary policy and bypass politics. What good are politicians nowadays if all we ever do is ignore them through loopholes/escape hatches? Sure, having escape hatches is good but relying on them is bad. The US is in a different position. Politicians are doing something, they are addressing problems, maybe in an incompetent/biased way with some collateral damage over the short term but you can bet that they are setting the stage for good years to come. For the US the pandemic is merely the end of the bad days. Meanwhile in the EU it is business as usual. Trump tried to support low skill jobs in the US with the trade war. Biden is creating infrastructure jobs that cannot be moved overseas. Both have the same idea but they execute them in different ways.
  - jl2718 5y ago
    Was there any information or opinion in there? It sounds like you have a lot to say, but aren't saying it. > It's failure is inevitable Why? > There are opportunities What? > Politicians are doing something What? > addressing problems / setting the stage How?
- jl2718 5y ago
  > Entitlements are an 'investment' into loyalty Ha! Not working! Not even preventing outright social violence.
dempsey 5y ago
Social security is a separate trust. Medicare is far more efficient than private insurance. It could be even more efficient but is hamstrung by corruption in Congress. Being unable to negotiate drug prices is a good example.