3 ms·
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 compan
by leptons 10mo 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 10mo agoA) 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 10mo agoA) 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 10mo agoTo 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 10mo agoYou'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 10mo agoSome 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.