3 ms·
I wonder if instead we had taken $2 trillion and 20 years to cure cancer(s) instead, how close we would have come.
by melling 5y ago
I wonder if instead we had taken $2 trillion and 20 years to cure cancer(s) instead, how close we would have come.
- Barrin92 5y agoGiven the amount of money that has flown into cancer research already, probably not a lot closer. Cancer research is actually historically one of the largest wastes of money with some of the worst outcomes in terms of life expectancy increase. And I'm not just being quip, the actual point here is that these generic takes about "military spending bad, xy good" are kind of shallow.
- justinzollars 5y agoor infrastructure
- philwelch 5y agoThe Senate just passed a bill to spend trillions of dollars on infrastructure.
- underseacables 5y agoAnd regulate digital currency, require drunk driving detection systems in cars, that infrastructure bill was so helpful!
- philwelch 5y agoExactly. If you wish for the government to spend a couple trillion dollars on something, be careful what you wish for.
- bumbada 5y agoWhere does your trillions comes from? It comes from dominating the world and specially oil. If the US does not dominate the world militarily then the US becomes poorer overnight. Would you believe that the US world be able to continue printing $USDs ab infinitum if the world countries didn't need $ to buy energy? If energy countries were free to make deals in euros, yens, renminbis or reals without being invaded by the US the next day, then the US would be much less wealthy. That is the reason the US does not let countries do that. Americans can print as many dollars they want because the rest of the world is forced to buy them. Without that, the $USD would be valued probably half or a quarter of what it is today.