Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I guess I didn't know that having a primarily service based economy means you can't manufacture weapons of war.
We'll be sure to tell Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Raytheon, Northrop Grumman, General Dynamics, UTC, and every other manufacturer in what is by far the world's dominant defense industry about this insightful wisdom.
You don't win wars with burgers and fries. You win wars with weapons of war. These are manufactured in factories, not McDonalds. This is where "service sector economies" fall short. I would take it a step further and suggest "service sector economies" are flawed and doomed to fail.
Well, as by far the global leader in it, our service sector economy has managed to pump out more military spending than the next seven biggest spenders combined, so I think we may have less to worry about in terms of imminent failure than what you suggest.
Well, as by far the global leader in it, our service sector economy has managed to pump out more military spending than the next seven biggest spenders combined, so I think we may have less to worry about in terms of imminent failure than what you suggest.
By your logic, wasteful spending is a good thing. So you must love the F-35... Late and overbuget. Not a good position to be in during a war.
I believe the amount of money spent is irrelevant. It's what you get for the money that counts. Also, how much you can produce in a short span of time is critical. That's how wars are won. Not by throwing money aimlessly into the air.
We won WW2 by outproducing the enemy. We could build 50 cheap, crappy Shermans for ever 1 German Tiger tank produced. Our tanks kind of sucked, but they were simple in design, easy to build and easy to troubleshoot and repair. German tanks were far superior, but highly complex and more difficult to repair on the field. At the end of the day, we had more tanks available for combat than the enemy. That's what counts.
Unfortunately, I'm afraid we are repeating the mistakes of our previous opponents. Our weapons are getting more complex and more expensive, which means we get less for our money. This is the kind of stuff that matters in a time of war.
The fact that war stories and toy soldiers exist is not sufficient grounds to plow under our service-based economy. We have been able to afford smart weapons and stealth technologies well before anyone else, so I would suggest that we are actually in pretty good shape here.
By your logic, wasteful spending is a good thing. So you must love the F-35... Late and overbuget. Not a good position to be in during a war.
Every modern military aircraft has been late and over budget. Every. Single. One.
F-22, Eurofighter Typhoon, PAK-FA, Osprey, B-2, Rafael, Gripen. You name it, late and over budget. Does that mean they are inferior aircraft? Nope, F-22 is the best fighter in the world by far. B-2 has taken on the highest risk sorties in Iraq and Balkans wars and been extremely effective at putting munitions on target without loss.
Quote:
Originally Posted by andywire
We won WW2 by outproducing the enemy. We could build 50 cheap, crappy Shermans for ever 1 German Tiger tank produced.
Clearly your claim that we could build 50 Shermans for every Tiger is mathematically challenged. To take it further you're using poor logic because Tiger wasn't the main tank in Germany's armor divisions, of the 30k tanks produced by Germany in 1943-1944 less than 2,000 were Tigers.
1943-1944 tank production:
Panzer III = 8,131
Panzer IV = 10,447
Panther = 5,852
Tiger I = 1,290
Obviously making a direct comparison between Shermans and Tigers as the main representative of Germany's armor is quite misleading. From previous link showing costs of WW2 tanks:
Panzer IV = $46k
Panther = $60k
Quote:
Originally Posted by andywire
Unfortunately, I'm afraid we are repeating the mistakes of our previous opponents. Our weapons are getting more complex and more expensive, which means we get less for our money. This is the kind of stuff that matters in a time of war.
The contract for Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) Lot 9 will buy 57 aircraft, 34 for the US and 23 for foreign partners Britain, Norway, Italy, Japan, and Israel:
* 42 F-35As (26 US, 16 foreign), the vanilla variant used by the Air Force and most foreign partners, at $102.1 million apiece — 5.5 percent less than the previous lot, LRIP 8, and 60 percent below the first fighters bought under LRIP 1.
* 13 F-35Bs (6 US, 7 foreign), the “jump jet” variant used by the Marine Corps and the Royal Navy, the most technologically challenging model, at $131.6 million apiece — 1.8 percent below LRIP 8.
* 2 F-35Cs (both US), the US Navy variant reinforced for tooth-rattling aircraft carrier takeoffs and landings, at $132.2 million apiece — a 2.5 increase over LRIP 8, but that’s because the Navy slashed its buy in half (from 4 planes to 2), losing economies of scale.
The F-35A at 102 million is already priced competitively with other modern fighters, and this is for a far more capable aircraft. They anticipate LRIP 10 to be another 6-7% lower and when at full production in 2019 $80-$85 million for an F-35A, $110 million for a F-35B, and a $96 million for an F-35C.
I'm not sure how you figure buying a far more capable plane for similar costs as other modern fighters is getting less for our money.
I think it is amazing how intangible the economy is. How of much of it is based on services as opposed to goods.
So did Adam Smith, an early advocate of the so-called goods-fetish. In his day, he found little of productive value in the work of priests, lawyers, physicians, academics, theatrical types, and many others. Those who vote with their dollars seem from long ago to have reached a different conclusion however.
So did Adam Smith, an early advocate of the so-called goods-fetish. In his day, he found little of productive value in the work of priests, lawyers, physicians, academics, theatrical types, and many others. Those who vote with their dollars seem from long ago to have reached a different conclusion however.
Of course we all know that there are so many benefits to modern medical care. But most stick to the cost side and few examine the dollar benefits.
For instance since the '60's, Medicare patients now live 10 years longer due to medical advances.
So sure we all know that we have spent a lot on those patients. But take those many millions of patients, times the years of further life.
100,000,000 x 10 = 1 billion.
Times the value of one year of life $10K.
Equals $10T. And that is some dandy amount of value.
You don't win wars with burgers and fries. You win wars with weapons of war. These are manufactured in factories, not McDonalds. This is where "service sector economies" fall short. I would take it a step further and suggest "service sector economies" are flawed and doomed to fail.
Good point.
However, automation might bring back manufacturing of not many manufacturing jobs.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
