6 ms·

I could not disagree more. We are having our cake (pumping cash into our defense industry) and eating it to (replenishing aging arsenals, advertising to prospe

I could not disagree more. We are having our cake (pumping cash into our defense industry) and eating it to (replenishing aging arsenals, advertising to prospective arm buyers, get invaluable real-world data on how our weapons work, decimating the military of a chief geopolitical rival). There is no downside here form the US perspective. Every dollar spent is returned in ways that no other expenditure could replicate.

yeknoda 3y ago
500,000 Ukrainian casualties
- jonnycomputer 3y ago
  What could you possibly mean? Blame Russia for Ukrainian casualties.
- dralley 3y ago
  1) citation needed 2) how many would it be if we were not providing them with assistance? Do you think they're just going to roll over and capitulate if the US turns off the tap? They didn't do that in the first few days of the war when they had very little assistance and practically none of their allies believed they would last the week, why would that happen now?
  - nvoeiah 3y ago
    >how many would it be if we were not providing them with assistance? Do you think they're just going to roll over and capitulate if the US turns off the tap? Seems like it? What else would they do? Just look at what's happening, they are going to end up losing anyway despite the amount of money that the West has been giving them. (4 days ago) https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/at-what-cost-ukraine-strains-bolster-its-army-war-fatigue-weighs-2023-11-28/ https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/at-what-cost-ukraine-st...
    - dralley 3y ago
      War sucks. Yes, soldiers are tired. How does that article imply that they are "losing" relative to Russia? Do you think the Russians assaulting Avdiivka right now are having a great time? I'm pretty sure that's not the case.
  - khzw8yyy 3y ago
    Yeah, Ukraine continues to fight mostly because the West tell them to. There was an early attempt at peace talks that was sabotaged. https://meduza.io/amp/en/news/2023/11/25/head-of-ukraine-delegation-at-spring-2022-peace-talks-confirms-russian-delegation-offered-to-end-war-if-ukraine-abandoned-nato-aspirations-says-leaders-had-no-trust-russia-would-follow-through https://meduza.io/amp/en/news/2023/11/25/head-of-ukraine-del... Meduza is a pro-western publication, blocked in Russia, and can in no way be called a tool of Russian propaganda.
    - dralley 3y ago
      >Meduza is a pro-western publication, blocked in Russia, and can in no way be called a tool of Russian propaganda. That article doesn't make the claim that you claim it does. In fact it actually makes an opposite claim. "Moreover, there was “no trust” from Ukrainian authorities that the Russian side would follow through." Russia has betrayed their "deals" with Ukraine many many many times. Of course Ukrainian and "Western" authorities have no trust that Russia will uphold them "this time". YOU cannot claim that Ukraine "continues to fight mostly because the West tells them to" while completely ignoring their actual opinions on the matter. You do not appear to have actually seeked out their opinions on this matter. And their opinions on the matter are clear: 60% of the Ukrainian population supports continuing to fight. That's slightly down from 70% a few months ago, but still pretty high. Around this time last year, it was around 90%. There is and was a strong desire to continue resisting. To claim that "the West makes them" is fucking farcical, and yes, Russian propaganda, for which you have provided no substantiation. https://news.gallup.com/poll/512258/ukrainians-stand-behind-war-effort-despite-fatigue.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/512258/ukrainians-stand-behind-...
      - khzw8yyy 3y ago
        So if support is so high, why suppress the elections in Ukraine? And by the way, the article alludes to the exact opposite "betrayal": the peace talks were a sham to get Russia to pull back from Kiev.
        dralley 3y ago
D13Fd 3y ago
Agreed, completely. This is all upside for us. We get rid of our outdated weapons, refresh our defense production base, support an ally, defend Europe, and stick a finger in the eye of a rival who tried to mess with our elections. We come out of this stronger and more popular with the countries that matter. Because Ukraine has greatly exceeded expectations, China also gets a lesson about how we back our allies.
- crazygringo 3y ago
  You're confusing totally separate things. Is this great to support allies, defend Europe, send a message to China? Of course. These are all great things. But the point is, it costs the amount of money we're spending. The article is arguing that the money somehow comes back to America. It doesn't. It's not free. All of that production capacity is going to arms manufacture, instead of the economically productive things it would have gone to otherwise. It's not "all upside". It costs something.
  - dralley 3y ago
    Doing nothing also costs something, which you have repeatedly neglected. If I had a time machine, I'd tell the British, French and Americans to assist the Czechoslovaks against the Germans instead of strongarming them into capitulation. It would have saved millions of lives and trillions of dollars. Many historials believe that without the boost from absorbing the Czechoslovak military, it would not have been possible to blitzkreig across France and the rest of Europe.
    - deadbolt 3y ago
      Get back to be when you perfect your crystal ball and can let us know what the actual cost of doing nothing is, instead of just arguing about some theoretical savings.
    - crazygringo 3y ago
      How are you missing me saying that I support this...? I've said it twice already. But it costs money. That's the point here. The same as assisting the Czechoslovaks, in your example, would have cost money. The article is trying to make it sound like the money comes back to us, and therefore it's free or something like that. It's not. I'm certainly hoping it's a good long-term geopolitical investment, but it's not free money.
crazygringo 3y ago
No. If you're talking about pumping cash into our defense industry, the whole point is that's taking production away from elsewhere. Defense is getting bigger, something else is getting smaller in the short term. Sure, the whole thing has some some ancillary benefits, like getting real-world data, or "advertising to prospective arms buyers", but those benefits don't make up anywhere near what we're spending. If we only wanted those benefits, we would get them far cheaper by themselves. So no, there are absolutely downsides. This is the very broken glass fallacy that I referred to. I'll repeat the final paragraph of the original for you to read -- you may want to read the whole Wikipedia article though: > It is not seen that as our shopkeeper has spent six francs upon one thing, he cannot spend them upon another. It is not seen that if he had not had a window to replace, he would, perhaps, have replaced his old shoes, or added another book to his library. In short, he would have employed his six francs in some way, which this accident has prevented. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window Again -- I totally support what we're doing, for the record. But money doesn't come free. We shouldn't pretend like this is all almost for free or something. It's not.
- D13Fd 3y ago
  The window is already broken. Russia broke it. You are saying we shouldn’t help our ally deter Russia and China from breaking more windows. In your analogy, we are paying to help Ukraine go after the kids throwing stones at windows.
  - hyperpape 3y ago
    Quoting the parent: > Again -- I totally support what we're doing, for the record. But money doesn't come free. We shouldn't pretend like this is all almost for free or something. It's not.
    - dralley 3y ago
      Nobody said it came for "free" but it's a hell of a lot more efficient than any other military expenditures we've made in the past 20 years.
hyperpape 3y ago
You really are wrong. There is a reason the broken window fallacy is one of the most famed concepts in economics. > There is no downside here form the US perspective. Every dollar spent is returned in ways that no other expenditure could replicate. Suppose we gave "American aid." Instead of giving military items to Ukraine, we pick the names of 10 millions of Americans out a hat, and buy them things. Only restriction is it has to be made in America. This has all the same effects on the US economy as military aid to Ukraine. It pays the salaries of some people in the US. It uses some raw materials that we have to buy. It costs us in taxes. It diverts some labor to whatever we're buying for the American consumers, and away from all other industries (this can be inflationary). But the difference is, at the end of the day, those 10 millions Americans have something they didn't have before. America is slightly richer than if we'd given stuff to Ukraine. So the aid to Ukraine is more beneficial to the US than if we were giving Ukraine money to buy Chinese goods, but still less directly beneficial to the US than if we spent the money on ourselves. P.S. Like the grandparent post, I'm not bothered by this. I think it's appropriate to aid Ukraine, but it has a real cost to the US. I'm just bothered by the fact that you're so loudly getting the economics wrong.
- standardUser 3y ago
  I think you and OP are being pedantic by not considering the invaluable data, intelligence, and geopolitical impacts, all of which play an indisputable role in fueling the American economy and keeping that economy central to the global economy in and a rule-making position. A dollar spent on defense gets a bigger return than virtually any place you could take that dollar from, and some of the gains form that dollar are literally irreplaceable.
  - crazygringo 3y ago
    No, you're just having a totally different conversation. I already said there are absolutely ancillary benefits. But that doesn't mean it's not costing money. It's costing a lot of money! The article is trying to make the point that the money is just coming back to the American economy and therefore, in a sense, isn't "costing" us. But that's false. We are spending real money. Is the money worth it to affect the war effort? Of course. But it's real money being spent. It's not "coming back to us".
deadbolt 3y ago
Maybe you’re having your cake but I certainly don’t want any more money funneled into the “defense” industry.

yeknoda 3y ago

500,000 Ukrainian casualties

jonnycomputer 3y ago
What could you possibly mean? Blame Russia for Ukrainian casualties.
dralley 3y ago
1) citation needed 2) how many would it be if we were not providing them with assistance? Do you think they're just going to roll over and capitulate if the US turns off the tap? They didn't do that in the first few days of the war when they had very little assistance and practically none of their allies believed they would last the week, why would that happen now?
- nvoeiah 3y ago
  >how many would it be if we were not providing them with assistance? Do you think they're just going to roll over and capitulate if the US turns off the tap? Seems like it? What else would they do? Just look at what's happening, they are going to end up losing anyway despite the amount of money that the West has been giving them. (4 days ago) https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/at-what-cost-ukraine-strains-bolster-its-army-war-fatigue-weighs-2023-11-28/ https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/at-what-cost-ukraine-st...
  - dralley 3y ago
    War sucks. Yes, soldiers are tired. How does that article imply that they are "losing" relative to Russia? Do you think the Russians assaulting Avdiivka right now are having a great time? I'm pretty sure that's not the case.
- khzw8yyy 3y ago
  Yeah, Ukraine continues to fight mostly because the West tell them to. There was an early attempt at peace talks that was sabotaged. https://meduza.io/amp/en/news/2023/11/25/head-of-ukraine-delegation-at-spring-2022-peace-talks-confirms-russian-delegation-offered-to-end-war-if-ukraine-abandoned-nato-aspirations-says-leaders-had-no-trust-russia-would-follow-through https://meduza.io/amp/en/news/2023/11/25/head-of-ukraine-del... Meduza is a pro-western publication, blocked in Russia, and can in no way be called a tool of Russian propaganda.
  - dralley 3y ago
    >Meduza is a pro-western publication, blocked in Russia, and can in no way be called a tool of Russian propaganda. That article doesn't make the claim that you claim it does. In fact it actually makes an opposite claim. "Moreover, there was “no trust” from Ukrainian authorities that the Russian side would follow through." Russia has betrayed their "deals" with Ukraine many many many times. Of course Ukrainian and "Western" authorities have no trust that Russia will uphold them "this time". YOU cannot claim that Ukraine "continues to fight mostly because the West tells them to" while completely ignoring their actual opinions on the matter. You do not appear to have actually seeked out their opinions on this matter. And their opinions on the matter are clear: 60% of the Ukrainian population supports continuing to fight. That's slightly down from 70% a few months ago, but still pretty high. Around this time last year, it was around 90%. There is and was a strong desire to continue resisting. To claim that "the West makes them" is fucking farcical, and yes, Russian propaganda, for which you have provided no substantiation. https://news.gallup.com/poll/512258/ukrainians-stand-behind-war-effort-despite-fatigue.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/512258/ukrainians-stand-behind-...
    - khzw8yyy 3y ago
      So if support is so high, why suppress the elections in Ukraine? And by the way, the article alludes to the exact opposite "betrayal": the peace talks were a sham to get Russia to pull back from Kiev.
      - dralley 3y ago

D13Fd 3y ago

Agreed, completely. This is all upside for us. We get rid of our outdated weapons, refresh our defense production base, support an ally, defend Europe, and stick a finger in the eye of a rival who tried to mess with our elections. We come out of this stronger and more popular with the countries that matter. Because Ukraine has greatly exceeded expectations, China also gets a lesson about how we back our allies.

crazygringo 3y ago
You're confusing totally separate things. Is this great to support allies, defend Europe, send a message to China? Of course. These are all great things. But the point is, it costs the amount of money we're spending. The article is arguing that the money somehow comes back to America. It doesn't. It's not free. All of that production capacity is going to arms manufacture, instead of the economically productive things it would have gone to otherwise. It's not "all upside". It costs something.
- dralley 3y ago
  Doing nothing also costs something, which you have repeatedly neglected. If I had a time machine, I'd tell the British, French and Americans to assist the Czechoslovaks against the Germans instead of strongarming them into capitulation. It would have saved millions of lives and trillions of dollars. Many historials believe that without the boost from absorbing the Czechoslovak military, it would not have been possible to blitzkreig across France and the rest of Europe.
  - deadbolt 3y ago
    Get back to be when you perfect your crystal ball and can let us know what the actual cost of doing nothing is, instead of just arguing about some theoretical savings.
  - crazygringo 3y ago
    How are you missing me saying that I support this...? I've said it twice already. But it costs money. That's the point here. The same as assisting the Czechoslovaks, in your example, would have cost money. The article is trying to make it sound like the money comes back to us, and therefore it's free or something like that. It's not. I'm certainly hoping it's a good long-term geopolitical investment, but it's not free money.

crazygringo 3y ago

No. If you're talking about pumping cash into our defense industry, the whole point is that's taking production away from elsewhere. Defense is getting bigger, something else is getting smaller in the short term. Sure, the whole thing has some some ancillary benefits, like getting real-world data, or "advertising to prospective arms buyers", but those benefits don't make up anywhere near what we're spending. If we only wanted those benefits, we would get them far cheaper by themselves. So no, there are absolutely downsides. This is the very broken glass fallacy that I referred to. I'll repeat the final paragraph of the original for you to read -- you may want to read the whole Wikipedia article though: > It is not seen that as our shopkeeper has spent six francs upon one thing, he cannot spend them upon another. It is not seen that if he had not had a window to replace, he would, perhaps, have replaced his old shoes, or added another book to his library. In short, he would have employed his six francs in some way, which this accident has prevented. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window Again -- I totally support what we're doing, for the record. But money doesn't come free. We shouldn't pretend like this is all almost for free or something. It's not.

D13Fd 3y ago
The window is already broken. Russia broke it. You are saying we shouldn’t help our ally deter Russia and China from breaking more windows. In your analogy, we are paying to help Ukraine go after the kids throwing stones at windows.
- hyperpape 3y ago
  Quoting the parent: > Again -- I totally support what we're doing, for the record. But money doesn't come free. We shouldn't pretend like this is all almost for free or something. It's not.
  - dralley 3y ago
    Nobody said it came for "free" but it's a hell of a lot more efficient than any other military expenditures we've made in the past 20 years.

hyperpape 3y ago

You really are wrong. There is a reason the broken window fallacy is one of the most famed concepts in economics. > There is no downside here form the US perspective. Every dollar spent is returned in ways that no other expenditure could replicate. Suppose we gave "American aid." Instead of giving military items to Ukraine, we pick the names of 10 millions of Americans out a hat, and buy them things. Only restriction is it has to be made in America. This has all the same effects on the US economy as military aid to Ukraine. It pays the salaries of some people in the US. It uses some raw materials that we have to buy. It costs us in taxes. It diverts some labor to whatever we're buying for the American consumers, and away from all other industries (this can be inflationary). But the difference is, at the end of the day, those 10 millions Americans have something they didn't have before. America is slightly richer than if we'd given stuff to Ukraine. So the aid to Ukraine is more beneficial to the US than if we were giving Ukraine money to buy Chinese goods, but still less directly beneficial to the US than if we spent the money on ourselves. P.S. Like the grandparent post, I'm not bothered by this. I think it's appropriate to aid Ukraine, but it has a real cost to the US. I'm just bothered by the fact that you're so loudly getting the economics wrong.

standardUser 3y ago
I think you and OP are being pedantic by not considering the invaluable data, intelligence, and geopolitical impacts, all of which play an indisputable role in fueling the American economy and keeping that economy central to the global economy in and a rule-making position. A dollar spent on defense gets a bigger return than virtually any place you could take that dollar from, and some of the gains form that dollar are literally irreplaceable.
- crazygringo 3y ago
  No, you're just having a totally different conversation. I already said there are absolutely ancillary benefits. But that doesn't mean it's not costing money. It's costing a lot of money! The article is trying to make the point that the money is just coming back to the American economy and therefore, in a sense, isn't "costing" us. But that's false. We are spending real money. Is the money worth it to affect the war effort? Of course. But it's real money being spent. It's not "coming back to us".

deadbolt 3y ago

Maybe you’re having your cake but I certainly don’t want any more money funneled into the “defense” industry.