3 ms·

Most of the money "given" to Ukraine was older stockpiled weapons that were approaching EOL or at least "refresh cycle" anyway and needed to be replaced. Instea

Most of the money "given" to Ukraine was older stockpiled weapons that were approaching EOL or at least "refresh cycle" anyway and needed to be replaced. Instead of throwing it away or selling it, they gave it to Ukraine, and most of the actual money spend went to US armaments companies. The price tag you quote is the same as the "an $X value thrown in for free" you see in "deals" from shady companies.

ericmay 9mo ago
Yea but those weapons are still highly valuable and effective. If you need help you aren't going to be super picky whether the apples and potatoes come from Whole Foods or Kroger. > The price tag you quote is the same as the "an $X value thrown in for free" you see in "deals" from shady companies. So I don't think this is very accurate. Unless you want to suggest that funding, equipment, and more given under the Biden Administration, never mind US actions like sanctions, are the product of "shady deals".
alex43578 9mo ago
We have neither the money (see national debt) nor production capacity (see 155mm shells, missile production, howitzer barrels, etc) to give billions away for somebody else’s war. Furthermore, the weapons had a cost when they were new, and replacing them now carries a higher cost. Saying the price tag is fictional is like saying my dinner is free because the steak was already in my fridge.
- leptons 9mo ago
  The money that was paid to build those weapons went into the American economy, to all the companies that built them, to the employees that work for those companies, etc. Nobody is saying they were "free", but the military industrial complex has always been a jobs program. It employs plenty of Americans, it pays the bills when weapons get made. So we had a bunch of old stock that needed to be replaced, and giving them to Ukraine is an easy win, for a lot of reasons. If Ukraine fell quickly and then Putin goes after Poland and other countries, it's going to cause a lot worse problems for the US and the world. So, giving these older weapons to Ukraine is saving money in the long run. Some people have no ability to see how actions (or inaction) have consequences, and they never think about the wider perspective, only their own little pocketbooks, so it might appear that giving weapons to Ukraine is somehow stealing money from you personally. And if that steak in the fridge is already freezer burned, do you really want to eat it? We're not talking about a brand new steak here.
  - alex43578 9mo ago
    A) He’s absolutely saying they were free. B) Ironic that you say some people have no ability to see the wider perspective while falling for the broken window fallacy of economics.
    - sophacles 9mo ago
      A) I absolutely was not. I was refuting that we sent $175B to Ukraine. We sent weapons, and spent money in the USA. Basic reading comprehension would be a useful skill for you to have in this thread... see I literally declared the US spent money in both posts. I was just saying where the money was spent.
      - alex43578 9mo ago
        To quote Wikipedia on the broken window fallacy: The money spent on the war effort (or peacetime defense spending), for example, is money that cannot be spent on food, clothing, health care, or other sectors of the economy. The stimulus felt in one sector of the economy comes at a direct – but hidden – cost (via foreclosed production possibilities) to other sectors. A basic understanding of economics would be useful for you to have in this thread. We are sending Ukraine something of value: cash, weapons, whatever. That value leaves the US and therefore cannot be used for something else, fired in defense of US interests, or used to deter threats to the taxpayer who bought it. Your initial point that “it’s fine to send this value to Ukraine because now we get to spend more money” to replace it is ridiculous.
        sophacles 9mo ago
        You're putting a lot of words in my mouth that I didn't say. And further, you're lying about what I actually said. Please consider having remotely honest discourse if you want to discuss something. I don't want to engage anymore with propagandists who can't even respond the points being made.
        machomaster 9mo ago
        Some of the weapons sent have negative monetary value, as in they were to expire and this process of recycling would cost a lot of money. So you should be thanking Ukrainians for taking this burden on themselves without US having to pay for the rendered services. You don't sound thankful enough.

ericmay 9mo ago

Yea but those weapons are still highly valuable and effective. If you need help you aren't going to be super picky whether the apples and potatoes come from Whole Foods or Kroger. > The price tag you quote is the same as the "an $X value thrown in for free" you see in "deals" from shady companies. So I don't think this is very accurate. Unless you want to suggest that funding, equipment, and more given under the Biden Administration, never mind US actions like sanctions, are the product of "shady deals".

alex43578 9mo ago

We have neither the money (see national debt) nor production capacity (see 155mm shells, missile production, howitzer barrels, etc) to give billions away for somebody else’s war. Furthermore, the weapons had a cost when they were new, and replacing them now carries a higher cost. Saying the price tag is fictional is like saying my dinner is free because the steak was already in my fridge.

leptons 9mo ago
The money that was paid to build those weapons went into the American economy, to all the companies that built them, to the employees that work for those companies, etc. Nobody is saying they were "free", but the military industrial complex has always been a jobs program. It employs plenty of Americans, it pays the bills when weapons get made. So we had a bunch of old stock that needed to be replaced, and giving them to Ukraine is an easy win, for a lot of reasons. If Ukraine fell quickly and then Putin goes after Poland and other countries, it's going to cause a lot worse problems for the US and the world. So, giving these older weapons to Ukraine is saving money in the long run. Some people have no ability to see how actions (or inaction) have consequences, and they never think about the wider perspective, only their own little pocketbooks, so it might appear that giving weapons to Ukraine is somehow stealing money from you personally. And if that steak in the fridge is already freezer burned, do you really want to eat it? We're not talking about a brand new steak here.
- alex43578 9mo ago
  A) He’s absolutely saying they were free. B) Ironic that you say some people have no ability to see the wider perspective while falling for the broken window fallacy of economics.
  - sophacles 9mo ago
    A) I absolutely was not. I was refuting that we sent $175B to Ukraine. We sent weapons, and spent money in the USA. Basic reading comprehension would be a useful skill for you to have in this thread... see I literally declared the US spent money in both posts. I was just saying where the money was spent.
    - alex43578 9mo ago
      To quote Wikipedia on the broken window fallacy: The money spent on the war effort (or peacetime defense spending), for example, is money that cannot be spent on food, clothing, health care, or other sectors of the economy. The stimulus felt in one sector of the economy comes at a direct – but hidden – cost (via foreclosed production possibilities) to other sectors. A basic understanding of economics would be useful for you to have in this thread. We are sending Ukraine something of value: cash, weapons, whatever. That value leaves the US and therefore cannot be used for something else, fired in defense of US interests, or used to deter threats to the taxpayer who bought it. Your initial point that “it’s fine to send this value to Ukraine because now we get to spend more money” to replace it is ridiculous.
      - sophacles 9mo ago
        You're putting a lot of words in my mouth that I didn't say. And further, you're lying about what I actually said. Please consider having remotely honest discourse if you want to discuss something. I don't want to engage anymore with propagandists who can't even respond the points being made.
      - machomaster 9mo ago
        Some of the weapons sent have negative monetary value, as in they were to expire and this process of recycling would cost a lot of money. So you should be thanking Ukrainians for taking this burden on themselves without US having to pay for the rendered services. You don't sound thankful enough.