The role of government
Dan O
My daughter tells me [elements of] our Congress is trying to kill of
PBS again :-(
I heard a gaggle of people talking excitedly (again) about what's
happening on "American Idol" the other day.
Just now, as I sit listening to Speedball's "All the Pain Money Can
Buy", and see a promo for Nova where they're gonna have "Watson", the
computer that's gonna play "Jeopardy" (for crying out loud!), an
Sunday noon rolls up, a notice shows on screen that "The following
program includes images of bare female chest before and after
reconstructive breast surgery. Viewer discretion is advised.
(etc.)"... Sunday noon...
Yeah!!! PBS ROCKS!!! :-)
Dan O
> My daughter tells me [elements of] our Congress is trying to kill of
> PBS again :-(
>
er... that's kill "off" PBS. (Again)
> I heard a gaggle of people talking excitedly (again) about what's
> happening on "American Idol" the other day.
>
And that might have better read, "The other day at work, I hears a
gaggle... "
> Just now, as I sit listening to Speedball's "All the Pain Money Can
> Buy", and see a promo for Nova where they're gonna have "Watson", the
> computer that's gonna play "Jeopardy" (for crying out loud!), an
> Sunday noon rolls up, a notice shows on screen that "The following
> program includes images of bare female chest before and after
> reconstructive breast surgery. Viewer discretion is advised.
> (etc.)"... Sunday noon...
>
> Yeah!!! PBS ROCKS!!! :-)
The show in question is "Second Opinion" - an *awesome* show, BTW. I
also like "Sewing with Nancy" (even though I can only sew clumsily and
primitively a bit by hand - guess maybe I just like Nancy :-)... heck,
I *love* everything about PBS.
Jay Beattie
Dude, you need to go for a ride. Today was the "Worst Day of the Year
Ride" -- but alas, it was not the worst day of the year, and in fact,
it was a nice day -- kind of spring like. I did not do the ride but
instead swore at the idiots who were doing the ride because they
clogged up one of my favorite descents out of the West Hills.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqllO_J9_wA That video cuts out the
last third of the descent, which is the most challenging. Anyway, I
had to sprint around them and the cars backed up behind them, etc.,
etc. It was totally risk taking un-Frank like behavior for which even
my wife would yell at me for being impatient. The whole lot of them
were swirling around my usual short routes and made my life
miserable. I think that if I lived in Holland and had to deal with
those kinds of crowds all the time, I would go crazy. -- Jay Beattie.
Tºm Shermªn™ °_°
Yes, groups of uprights that spread out all over the road on downhill
sections are highly annoying, since one is forced to ride one's brakes
quite hard to keep from running into them.
--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.
news.suddenlink.net
"Dan O" <danov...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:19e03187-75d4-4420...@8g2000prt.googlegroups.com...
If it were worthwhile money other than that stolen from us would fund it.
AMuzi
We used to look down on countries with a government
sponsored propaganda tv/radio network. Until 1967.
But then we also laughed at banana republics which inflated
their huge debts with a printing press, channeled into the
ruling administration's favorite cartels. Didn't go well for
the Weimar, Nixon or Peron and it won't this time either.
--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
Jay Beattie
Going down, yes -- being low and having more than two wheels would be
a great advantage on the wet pavement. Not so much fun going up in a
velomobile. I rode up on a forest road that is maybe three or so
miles of 6-7 percent. Lots of mud and duff and rocks that makes it
feel like a steeper climb, at least on 28mm tires. There are a few
washouts where you would get high centered in a velomobile.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/visiondrawn/3787261085/ Getting past the
gate at the bottom or top also might be a problem.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/billcunningham/4635942904/in/photostream/
Stop for some beer. http://www.flickr.com/photos/brujo/4972486071/ --
Jay Beattie.
James
> Going down, yes -- being low and having more than two wheels would be
> a great advantage on the wet pavement. Not so much fun going up in a
> velomobile. I rode up on a forest road that is maybe three or so
> miles of 6-7 percent. Lots of mud and duff and rocks that makes it
> feel like a steeper climb, at least on 28mm tires. There are a few
> washouts where you would get high centered in a velomobile.
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/visiondrawn/3787261085/ Getting past the
> gate at the bottom or top also might be a problem.
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/billcunningham/4635942904/in/photostream/
> Stop for some beer. http://www.flickr.com/photos/brujo/4972486071/ --
> Jay Beattie.
Looks nice!
JS.
Dan O
wrote:
> ?"Dan O" <danover...@gmail.com> wrote in message
You don't watch it, do you?
It is truly a public good - a *treasure*, in fact.
Dan O
Oh, and about that: It's Sunday. When you ride 2-300 miles a week
back and forth to work Monday through Friday...
(Talk about your recreational "cyclists"... )
Dan O
> last third of the descent, which is the most challenging. Anyway, I
> had to sprint around them and the cars backed up behind them, etc.,
> etc. It was totally risk taking un-Frank like behavior for which even
> my wife would yell at me for being impatient. The whole lot of them
> were swirling around my usual short routes and made my life
> miserable. I think that if I lived in Holland and had to deal with
> those kinds of crowds all the time, I would go crazy. -- Jay Beattie.
It's all relative. I think I'd go crazy trying to negotiate all the
bike traffic in Portland.
Duane Hebert
much support comes from taxes these days. Seems like a lot of it is
viewer funded.
Tºm Shermªn™ °_°
Instead we have a government that gi
>
> But then we also laughed at banana republics which inflated their huge
> debts with a printing press, channeled into the ruling administration's
> favorite cartels. Didn't go well for the Weimar, Nixon or Peron and it
> won't this time either.
"[The country] cannot stand four more years of [President]
Jimmy Carter. . . . We've got to balance the budget. Jimmy
Carter won't do it, but Ronald Reagan will do it." - Strom
Thurmond, Nov. 3, 1980.
Yes, the huge debts run up during Jimmy Carter's second term and during
the Mondale Administration set a bad precedent. If only Ronald Reagan
has been president from 1981 to 1989!
--
T�m Sherm�n - 42.435731,-83.985007
Tºm Shermªn™ °_°
Instead we have a government that practically gives away the use of the
electromagnetic spectrum for corporate propaganda.
>
> We used to look down on countries with a government sponsored propaganda
> tv/radio network. Until 1967.
>
> But then we also laughed at banana republics which inflated their huge
> debts with a printing press, channeled into the ruling administration's
> favorite cartels. Didn't go well for the Weimar, Nixon or Peron and it
> won't this time either.
"[The country] cannot stand four more years of [President]
Jimmy Carter. . . . We've got to balance the budget. Jimmy
Carter won't do it, but Ronald Reagan will do it." - Strom
Thurmond, Nov. 3, 1980.
Yes, the huge debts run up during Jimmy Carter's second term and during
the Mondale Administration set a bad precedent. If only Ronald Reagan
has been president from 1981 to 1989!
--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731,-83.985007
Tºm Shermªn™ °_°
Yes, too bad we cannot all pick and choose what programs our tax money
would support and what it would not.
Spending on corporate welfare dwarfs that spend on public broadcasting.
Frank Krygowski
wrote:
>
>
> You really should be out riding. PBS? Supported by unwilling taxpayers.
> If it were worthwhile money other than that stolen from us would fund it.
:-) Just like those worthwhile shows Dancing with the Stars, Jerry
Springer, Divorce Court...
Hell, with quality entertainment like that, who needs Nova? Who needs
Ken Burns? Who needs any of the shows here:
http://www.pbs.org/programs/ ?
Dammit, if it's good enough for the IQ=85 set, it should be good
enough for anybody!
- Frank Krygowski
Peter Cole
> We used to look down on countries with a government sponsored propaganda
> tv/radio network. Until 1967.
Where's the propaganda? Certainly not Sesame Street, Nova, Antiques
Roadshow,This Old House, Victory Garden or Masterpiece Theater.
I suppose the News Hour, Frontline, Bill Moyer and Charlie Rose could be
accused of bias, given their typical topics, but bias has to be defined
relative to a center. I'm sure you find these programs left of your
particular center, but I find them mostly far to the right of mine.
In any case, I find the charge of "government propaganda" to be almost
charmingly naive in the light of the mostly tacitly accepted onslaught
of corporate propaganda, whose pervasive influence dominates all media,
both left and right. I agree with Tom Sherman that corporate interests
play both ends against the middle and make chumps of everyone. The
profit motive has no conscience -- by design and charter.
On corporate censorship:
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2009/08/01/ge/
Frank Krygowski
> I agree with Tom Sherman that corporate interests
> play both ends against the middle and make chumps of everyone. The
> profit motive has no conscience -- by design and charter.
I strongly agree. In fact, I believe we've come to a point in history
where the power and importance of governments and nations has been
surpassed by the power and (regrettable) importance of corporations.
A large corporation can not only ship its jobs to the cheapest market,
it can pull up stakes more or less at will, taking its tax dollars
with it. This greatly diminishes the power of any government to
regulate it. It can spend obscene amounts of money to directly
influence legislators, and to push propaganda at voters. And even
stockholders, the theoretical owners, have essentially no control over
its actions - not that most of them care to even examine those
actions.
Oddly enough, tens of thousands of small business owners vote
reflexively for the politicians who are whores of big corporations.
The proprietor of Joe's Hardware will vote for the politician who is
most likely to use eminent domain and a tax break to put a Lowes where
Joe's used to stand.
Those addicted to corporate TV had better enjoy those broadcast
circuses. The bread is going to get ever more expensive.
- Frank Krygowski
Jay Beattie
Joe's Hardware is a corporation and therefore evil, too. All
corporations are evil, including the Red Cross and the Corporation for
Public Broadcasting. Corporation = Evil. Yellow Jersey, LTD is in
fact a corporation and not a limited partnership. Evil. Vecchio's is
an LLC. Not evil. -- Jay Beattie.
Tºm Shermªn™ °_°
LLCs can be evil, when used as a method by developers to rip off
contractors, architects, etc. I cannot say who, but someone who is an
owner of major league professional sports franchises uses this method.
landotter
False equivalence alert. NPR/NPT are independent agencies and do not
answer to the feds, regardless of funding. If you want to continue
with your claim, pony up the evidence. The onus is on you.
The commercial networks--that's where you truly find conflict of
interest, be it through direct messaging from the GOP-Fox or the
slightly less obvious corporate/advertiser interests that steer CNN et
al.
>
> But then we also laughed at banana republics which inflated
> their huge debts with a printing press, channeled into the
> ruling administration's favorite cartels. Didn't go well for
> the Weimar, Nixon or Peron and it won't this time either.
>
More false equivalence. Last I checked, we've never had out of control
inflation like countries that truly abused a floating currency. If you
believe otherwise, in the face of facts--again, onus is on you to pony
up.
Frank Krygowski
Wow, Jay, your view is much more extreme than mine. See, I was
attributing the problems I cited only to _large_ corporations, and not
even all of those!
Such a radical, you are!
- Frank Krygowski
Peter Cole
> On Feb 14, 9:17 am, Peter Cole<peter_c...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> I agree with Tom Sherman that corporate interests
>> play both ends against the middle and make chumps of everyone. The
>> profit motive has no conscience -- by design and charter.
>
> I strongly agree. In fact, I believe we've come to a point in history
> where the power and importance of governments and nations has been
> surpassed by the power and (regrettable) importance of corporations.
>
> A large corporation can not only ship its jobs to the cheapest market,
> it can pull up stakes more or less at will, taking its tax dollars
> with it. This greatly diminishes the power of any government to
> regulate it. It can spend obscene amounts of money to directly
> influence legislators, and to push propaganda at voters. And even
> stockholders, the theoretical owners, have essentially no control over
> its actions - not that most of them care to even examine those
> actions.
It's refreshing for us to have agreement -- especially on such important
matters.
All this has been sort of business as usual, but the two things that
stand out in the modern era are the globalization of corporations and
the consolidation of media into the hands of the powerful few. It's ever
more unlikely that "what's good for GM is good for America", and ever
harder for any citizen to have a clue about what's really going on.
DirtRoadie
> Joe's Hardware is a corporation and therefore evil, too. All
> corporations are evil, including the Red Cross and the Corporation for
> Public Broadcasting. Corporation = Evil. Yellow Jersey, LTD is in
> fact a corporation and not a limited partnership. Evil. Vecchio's is
> an LLC. Not evil. -- Jay Beattie.
Whoosh! I enjoyed the point you were making even though others seem to
have missed it completely.
It is reassuring to now know (Thanks to FK) that we have another
bright line delineation in any quest for truth - "large vs. small."
This is especially useful since those terms are so clear. ;-)
DR
Jay Beattie
Smart contractors, architects, etc. get personal guarantees and
payment bonds (rare in private contracting). Admittedly, a personal
guaranty is worthless if the developer and its principals (LLC
members) go belly up -- which is often the case. Or they take their
personal wealth and put it in a home in Florida which has an almost
unlimited homestead exemption. Contractors and architects also have
(or may have depending on local law) construction liens that they can
enforce against the property, assuming they have jumped through the
appropriate hoops. I would assume that you don't get stiffed much for
geotechnical work because of your lien right. -- Jay Beattie.
AMuzi
Let's just say "it's for the children" so no one will notice.
Jay Beattie
I'm putting you in my killfile for evil corporations. Who's on your
board . . . Dick Cheney . . . Rupert Murdoch? -- Jay Beattie.
P.S., if your vast corporate power gives you control over government,
could you have them fill the potholes on my street. Thanks.
Stephen Bauman
<snip>
> P.S., if your vast corporate power gives you control over government,
> could you have them fill the potholes on my street. Thanks.
Why do you think he's against government spending. Bad roads sell tires,
tubes, rims, spokes and wheels. :=)
--
Stephen Bauman
AMuzi
>> P.S., if your vast corporate power gives you control over government,
>> could you have them fill the potholes on my street. Thanks.
Stephen Bauman wrote:
> Why do you think he's against government spending. Bad roads sell tires,
> tubes, rims, spokes and wheels. :=)
Without being overly provocative, we have among the highest
tax rates in the country here and yet I commute over Beirut
like streets.
I'm sure others suffer more and, yes, we do have streets but
really this is no bargain.
Jay Beattie
> > Jay Beattie wrote:
> >> P.S., if your vast corporate power gives you control over government,
> >> could you have them fill the potholes on my street. Thanks.
> Stephen Bauman wrote:
> > Why do you think he's against government spending. Bad roads sell tires,
> > tubes, rims, spokes and wheels. :=)
>
> Without being overly provocative, we have among the highest
> tax rates in the country here and yet I commute over Beirut
> like streets.
>
> I'm sure others suffer more and, yes, we do have streets but
> really this is no bargain.
In Portland, the streets are in horrible shape -- but they feel good
about themselves. We fill our potholes with ferns and trash and call
them "bioswales." http://www.flickr.com/photos/92885729@N00/1490867319/
Frank Krygowski
No banana slugs?
- Frank Krygowski
Tºm Shermªn™ °_°
> On Feb 14, 10:17 am, T�m Sherm�n� �_�<""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI
Or they take the money out of the LLC and sell the property to another
entity they own, and then fold the LLC before paying final invoices.
This is what the person who shall remain unnamed for legal reasons has done.
> Or they take their
> personal wealth and put it in a home in Florida which has an almost
> unlimited homestead exemption. Contractors and architects also have
> (or may have depending on local law) construction liens that they can
> enforce against the property, assuming they have jumped through the
> appropriate hoops. I would assume that you don't get stiffed much for
> geotechnical work because of your lien right. -- Jay Beattie.
Liens do not do much good if the developer folds the project before
starting, leaving those that did the engineering and architecture work
up to that point holding the bag.
Developers have more political pull (being rich), therefore the law
favors them.
Sometimes I regret the end of "western justice" - 13-coil slip-knot and
a sturdy tree branch.
--
T�m Sherm�n - 42.435731,-83.985007
Tºm Shermªn™ °_°
I think Andy needs to get the potholes in his own neighborhood fixed first.
--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731,-83.985007
Tºm Shermªn™ °_°
>> Jay Beattie wrote:
>>> P.S., if your vast corporate power gives you control over government,
>>> could you have them fill the potholes on my street. Thanks.
>
> Stephen Bauman wrote:
>> Why do you think he's against government spending. Bad roads sell
>> tires, tubes, rims, spokes and wheels. :=)
>
>
> Without being overly provocative, we have among the highest tax rates in
> the country here and yet I commute over Beirut like streets.
>
> I'm sure others suffer more and, yes, we do have streets but really this
> is no bargain.
Wait and see what the streets look like after 4 years of Scott Walker
"governance" (and I use the term loosely). [1]
[1] I lived in Milwaukee County when he was County Executive, so I know
of which I speak. [2]
[2] Looks like I escaped from Wisconsin just in time.
Peter Cole
>> Jay Beattie wrote:
>>> P.S., if your vast corporate power gives you control over government,
>>> could you have them fill the potholes on my street. Thanks.
>
> Stephen Bauman wrote:
>> Why do you think he's against government spending. Bad roads sell
>> tires, tubes, rims, spokes and wheels. :=)
>
>
> Without being overly provocative, we have among the highest tax rates in
> the country here and yet I commute over Beirut like streets.
>
> I'm sure others suffer more and, yes, we do have streets but really this
> is no bargain.
>
Guns or butter. Econ 101. Roughly speaking, our property taxes and state
taxes equal our annual contribution to the pentagon. The palace of
sacred cows, still fighting the cold war over 20 years after the wall
went down.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/pentagon-spending-is-budget-blind-spot-2011-02-14
"In 1960, when President Dwight Eisenhower was leaving office, military
spending in today�s money totaled just $350 billion.
Half of what we spend today.
In 1970, when the Vietnam War was raging, we spent $450 billion. The
most Ronald Reagan spent on defense was about $550 billion. Even in
1942, the year after Pearl Harbor, we only spent $350 billion.
Today, $750 billion. We have 750 military bases around the world. We
have a battle fleet of 300 ships.
World War II was cheap, by comparison
Only in the years 1943, 1944 and 1945 did we spend more. And even there,
the comparison isn�t as enormous as you�d think. Right now we�re
spending about 75% as much as we did during those years, the peak of the
biggest war in history.
Does it really cost three-quarters as much to fight Osama bin Laden as
it did to fight Hitler and the Japanese (at the same time)? Seriously?"
AMuzi
> On 2/14/2011 6:32 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>> Jay Beattie wrote:
>>>> P.S., if your vast corporate power gives you control over government,
>>>> could you have them fill the potholes on my street. Thanks.
>>
>> Stephen Bauman wrote:
>>> Why do you think he's against government spending. Bad roads sell
>>> tires, tubes, rims, spokes and wheels. :=)
>>
>>
>> Without being overly provocative, we have among the highest tax rates in
>> the country here and yet I commute over Beirut like streets.
>>
>> I'm sure others suffer more and, yes, we do have streets but really this
>> is no bargain.
>>
>
> Guns or butter. Econ 101. Roughly speaking, our property taxes and state
> taxes equal our annual contribution to the pentagon. The palace of
> sacred cows, still fighting the cold war over 20 years after the wall
> went down.
>
> http://www.marketwatch.com/story/pentagon-spending-is-budget-blind-spot-2011-02-14
>
>
> "In 1960, when President Dwight Eisenhower was leaving office, military
>
> Half of what we spend today.
>
> In 1970, when the Vietnam War was raging, we spent $450 billion. The
> most Ronald Reagan spent on defense was about $550 billion. Even in
> 1942, the year after Pearl Harbor, we only spent $350 billion.
>
> Today, $750 billion. We have 750 military bases around the world. We
> have a battle fleet of 300 ships.
>
> World War II was cheap, by comparison
>
> Only in the years 1943, 1944 and 1945 did we spend more. And even there,
> biggest war in history.
>
> Does it really cost three-quarters as much to fight Osama bin Laden as
> it did to fight Hitler and the Japanese (at the same time)? Seriously?"
As % of GNP, defense is actually pretty low right now.
Waste? Sure, as always. But even my own bike is not as
beautiful as this:
http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfromthepast/ussreagan.jpg
Most other things they do upset me much more, YMMV.
Tºm Shermªn™ °_°
> [...]
> As % of GNP, defense is actually pretty low right now. Waste? Sure, as
> always. But even my own bike is not as beautiful as this:
> http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfromthepast/ussreagan.jpg
I like this better: <http://www.supershipsworld.com/HMS%20Victory.jpg>.
In service for 246 years and counting.
Tºm Shermªn™ °_°
> On 2/14/2011 6:32 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>> Jay Beattie wrote:
>>>> P.S., if your vast corporate power gives you control over government,
>>>> could you have them fill the potholes on my street. Thanks.
>>
>> Stephen Bauman wrote:
>>> Why do you think he's against government spending. Bad roads sell
>>> tires, tubes, rims, spokes and wheels. :=)
>>
>>
>> Without being overly provocative, we have among the highest tax rates in
>> the country here and yet I commute over Beirut like streets.
>>
>> I'm sure others suffer more and, yes, we do have streets but really this
>> is no bargain.
>>
>
> Guns or butter. Econ 101. Roughly speaking, our property taxes and state
> taxes equal our annual contribution to the pentagon. The palace of
> sacred cows, still fighting the cold war over 20 years after the wall
> went down.
>
> http://www.marketwatch.com/story/pentagon-spending-is-budget-blind-spot-2011-02-14
>
>
> "In 1960, when President Dwight Eisenhower was leaving office, military
>
> Half of what we spend today.
>
> In 1970, when the Vietnam War was raging, we spent $450 billion. The
> most Ronald Reagan spent on defense was about $550 billion. Even in
> 1942, the year after Pearl Harbor, we only spent $350 billion.
>
> Today, $750 billion. We have 750 military bases around the world. We
> have a battle fleet of 300 ships.
>
> World War II was cheap, by comparison
>
> Only in the years 1943, 1944 and 1945 did we spend more. And even there,
> spending about 75% as much as we did during those years, the peak of the
> biggest war in history.
>
> Does it really cost three-quarters as much to fight Osama bin Laden as
> it did to fight Hitler and the Japanese (at the same time)? Seriously?"
I thought bin Laden was on the payroll?
AMuzi
> On 2/15/2011 5:03 PM, A. Muzi wrote:
>> [...]
>> As % of GNP, defense is actually pretty low right now. Waste? Sure, as
>> always. But even my own bike is not as beautiful as this:
>> http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfromthepast/ussreagan.jpg
>> [...]
>
> I like this better: <http://www.supershipsworld.com/HMS%20Victory.jpg>.
>
> In service for 246 years and counting.
>
For sailing ships, I'm partial to Decatur at Tripoli:
http://www.europa.com/~bessel/Naval/Tripoli.jpg
john B.
<peter...@verizon.net> wrote:
>On 2/14/2011 6:32 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>> Jay Beattie wrote:
>>>> P.S., if your vast corporate power gives you control over government,
>>>> could you have them fill the potholes on my street. Thanks.
>>
>> Stephen Bauman wrote:
>>> Why do you think he's against government spending. Bad roads sell
>>> tires, tubes, rims, spokes and wheels. :=)
>>
>>
>> Without being overly provocative, we have among the highest tax rates in
>> the country here and yet I commute over Beirut like streets.
>>
>> I'm sure others suffer more and, yes, we do have streets but really this
>> is no bargain.
>>
>
>Guns or butter. Econ 101. Roughly speaking, our property taxes and state
>taxes equal our annual contribution to the pentagon. The palace of
>sacred cows, still fighting the cold war over 20 years after the wall
>went down.
>
>http://www.marketwatch.com/story/pentagon-spending-is-budget-blind-spot-2011-02-14
>
>"In 1960, when President Dwight Eisenhower was leaving office, military
>spending in today�s money totaled just $350 billion.
>
>Half of what we spend today.
>
>In 1970, when the Vietnam War was raging, we spent $450 billion. The
>most Ronald Reagan spent on defense was about $550 billion. Even in
>1942, the year after Pearl Harbor, we only spent $350 billion.
>
>Today, $750 billion. We have 750 military bases around the world. We
>have a battle fleet of 300 ships.
>
>World War II was cheap, by comparison
>
>Only in the years 1943, 1944 and 1945 did we spend more. And even there,
>the comparison isn�t as enormous as you�d think. Right now we�re
>spending about 75% as much as we did during those years, the peak of the
>biggest war in history.
>
>Does it really cost three-quarters as much to fight Osama bin Laden as
>it did to fight Hitler and the Japanese (at the same time)? Seriously?"
Out of curiosity are your numbers all corrected to some standard value
- for example all corrected to the buying power of the 1941 dollar?
Chalo
>
> Peter Cole wrote:
> >
> > Does it really cost three-quarters as much to fight Osama bin Laden as
> > it did to fight Hitler and the Japanese (at the same time)? Seriously?"
>
> As % of GNP, defense is actually pretty low right now.
GNP right now includes stuff like wacky financial derivatives and is
compiled from declarations by businesses that have diverged wildly
from what used to be known as "generally accepted accounting
practices". Crooked corporations are not alone in this, either:
Inflation has been understated for a generation, in the attempt to
make the American economy look more functional. Account honestly for
all these things and I'd be surprised if our Gross National _Actual_
Product (you know, the stuff that we do at work, for instance) is
higher in corrected dollars than it was in the 1940s.
Killing machines are good business, as ever. And they are inherently
unproductive and counterproductive, just as ever. GNP calculation
should have a means of coping with this sort of thing, but it
doesn't. Buy a gun, GNP rises. Shoot out a streetlamp, someone from
the city fixes it, GNP rises. Shoot your own leg full of holes, go to
the hospital, have your leg amputated-- GNP rises. Get a lawyer, sue
the gun manufacturer, lose your case... GNP rises. Common sense says
these things are not productive in any way that matters. But for the
purposes of GNP, these things are tallied.
All the same principles apply to a jillion-dollar floating atrocity
named after an abomination, e.g. the USS Ronnie Raygun. But when
comparing against a single 'tard with a gun, add six to nine zeros to
the losses, damages, and wasted resources that are perversely counted
as productive economic activity.
Chalo
Peter Cole
> On 2/15/2011 5:03 PM, A. Muzi wrote:
>> [...]
>> As % of GNP, defense is actually pretty low right now. Waste? Sure, as
>> always. But even my own bike is not as beautiful as this:
>> http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfromthepast/ussreagan.jpg
>> [...]
>
> I like this better: <http://www.supershipsworld.com/HMS%20Victory.jpg>.
>
> In service for 246 years and counting.
>
Feh, in dry dock since 1922. Ours still sails.
Peter Cole
> Peter Cole wrote:
>> On 2/14/2011 6:32 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>> Jay Beattie wrote:
>>>>> P.S., if your vast corporate power gives you control over government,
>>>>> could you have them fill the potholes on my street. Thanks.
>>>
>>> Stephen Bauman wrote:
>>>> Why do you think he's against government spending. Bad roads sell
>>>> tires, tubes, rims, spokes and wheels. :=)
>>>
>>>
>>> Without being overly provocative, we have among the highest tax rates in
>>> the country here and yet I commute over Beirut like streets.
>>>
>>> I'm sure others suffer more and, yes, we do have streets but really this
>>> is no bargain.
>>>
>>
>> Guns or butter. Econ 101. Roughly speaking, our property taxes and
>> state taxes equal our annual contribution to the pentagon. The palace
>> of sacred cows, still fighting the cold war over 20 years after the
>> wall went down.
>>
>> http://www.marketwatch.com/story/pentagon-spending-is-budget-blind-spot-2011-02-14
>>
>>
>> "In 1960, when President Dwight Eisenhower was leaving office,
>>
>> Half of what we spend today.
>>
>> In 1970, when the Vietnam War was raging, we spent $450 billion. The
>> most Ronald Reagan spent on defense was about $550 billion. Even in
>> 1942, the year after Pearl Harbor, we only spent $350 billion.
>>
>> Today, $750 billion. We have 750 military bases around the world. We
>> have a battle fleet of 300 ships.
>>
>> World War II was cheap, by comparison
>>
>> Only in the years 1943, 1944 and 1945 did we spend more. And even
>> peak of the biggest war in history.
>>
>> Does it really cost three-quarters as much to fight Osama bin Laden as
>> it did to fight Hitler and the Japanese (at the same time)? Seriously?"
>
>
> As % of GNP, defense is actually pretty low right now.
Compared to what, or who?
Even as a % of GDP, it's about the same as it was at the end of the cold
war, and about 3x higher than before the outbreak of hostilities in WWII.
> Waste? Sure, as
> always.
Not in terms of useless capabilities.
But even my own bike is not as beautiful as this:
> http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfromthepast/ussreagan.jpg
I couldn't think of a better example of a truly obscene waste of money.
The US currently has 10 Nimitz class carrier battle groups (and one
Enterprise class). Obsolete and completely tactically useless
historically. Strategically absurd. Insanely expensive. Pure pork.
> Most other things they do upset me much more, YMMV.
Considerably. But consider how many potholes $4.5B would fill.