3 ms·
The problem is that of financial opportunity cost: the money keeping the "tank line" active by ordering excess tanks would likely be much better spent on other
by _huayra_ 4y ago
The problem is that of financial opportunity cost: the money keeping the "tank line" active by ordering excess tanks would likely be much better spent on other programs (or even merely not further ballooning the debt). Spending the same amount of dollars on funding the IRS, GAO, SEC, FDA, EPA, or even the USGS or NOAA would likely see much more direct benefits to US residents. Even direct assistance like food stamps or section 8 rent subsidies has a much higher multiplier than spending oodles of cash ensuring the US is ready to defend its hegemony.
- nradov 4y agoTank production lines may be somewhat of a weak example because the US military is reducing their tank inventory anyway. Some tanks (and other armored vehicles) might be needed for a future conflict in the Middle East, Europe, or Africa but would be largely useless in the Pacific Theater. The real need is to maintain production lines for ships and aircraft. Once they industrial base disappears there it's gone for good; there just wouldn't be any way to spin it back to again in a reasonable time frame. Of course we could adopt an isolationist stance and cut back military spending to the minimum for homeland defense only, but we might not like the results when China dominates the entire Asia-Pacific region.