This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

60 million to MIC for attack on Syria

View previous topic View next topic Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

1 60 million to MIC for attack on Syria on Sat Apr 08, 2017 10:38 pm

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/m/20571f60-cd45-37f6-a6d3-a12145d4c1e3/here%E2%80%99s-how-much-it-costs-to.html

About five more symbolic attacks on targets can exhaust the entire public broadcasting budget that President Trump has proposed to eliminate.....cruise missiles and profits for MIC versus Barney......and big bird.

View user profile

2 Re: 60 million to MIC for attack on Syria on Sun Apr 09, 2017 6:16 pm

2seaoat wrote:https://www.yahoo.com/finance/m/20571f60-cd45-37f6-a6d3-a12145d4c1e3/here%E2%80%99s-how-much-it-costs-to.html

About five more symbolic attacks on targets can exhaust the entire public broadcasting budget that President Trump has proposed to eliminate.....cruise missiles and profits for MIC versus Barney......and big bird.

Is it your contention that the cost of those missiles came out of the Public Broadcasting budget? If not, what is your point--that the political priorities are out of whack?

Do you believe that the use of gas by the Assad regime should have gone unanswered?

Do you not understand that there was more than one intended message in the attack?

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2017/0409/Tillerson-cites-Syrian-strikes-to-warn-North-Korea-others

Do you not realize that every dime spent on missiles and other military hardware eventually ends up in the civilian economy? It doesn't just disappear, it expands the domestic economy.

View user profile http://www.flickr.com/photos/btraven/

3 Re: 60 million to MIC for attack on Syria on Sun Apr 09, 2017 8:03 pm

Is it your contention that the cost of those missiles came out of the Public Broadcasting budget? If not, what is your point--that the political priorities are out of whack?


The point was obvious. I am sorry your comprehension failed to grasp the obvious.

Do you believe that the use of gas by the Assad regime should have gone unanswered?


I believe barrel bombs by the regime and the Russians have killed hundreds of thousands of Syrian Civilians and the world stood by and could not establish no fly zones and safe zones. I think unanswered has been the rule, but if you think a symbolic air strike which followed the next day with more barrel bombs is an answer. I guess this answer is also obvious.

Do you not realize that every dime spent on missiles and other military hardware eventually ends up in the civilian economy? It doesn't just disappear, it expands the domestic economy.

If you had an education in economics, you would understand that the investment in capital expenditures has a multiplier impact on an economy. A company which purchases a two million dollar CNC has the same initial jobs to produce the machine or cruise missile, but the difference in economic terms is that the CNC creates multipliers which grow GDP. A Cruise missile is a pile of cash which produces NO multipliers and actually is an indirect tax and depresses the GDP beyond the initial production, and unlike the CNC where that cash improves productivity and international competitiveness allowing products to be made less expensive, that cash sits until it blows up. They taught these concepts in undergraduate economic courses, but it is obvious as each of your points that you are clueless.

View user profile

4 Re: 60 million to MIC for attack on Syria on Sun Apr 09, 2017 9:21 pm

2seaoat wrote:

I believe barrel bombs by the regime and the Russians have killed hundreds of thousands of Syrian Civilians and the world stood by and could not establish no fly zones and safe zones.  I think unanswered has been the rule, but if you think a symbolic air strike which followed the next day with more barrel bombs is an answer.   I guess this answer is also obvious.

You pathetic imbecile, Trump doesn't give a damn about Syrian deaths. The missile attack was to emphasize the point that using gas is not going to go unanswered and to send a signal to N. Korea. This all happened while the Chinese poobah was down at Mar-a-Lago and nary a peep was heard from him. In case you missed it--imagine that!--right after the attack a supercarrier strike group was sent from Singapore to the Korean peninsula. Do the math, sparky. And do a bit of reading while you're at it:

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2017/0409/Tillerson-cites-Syrian-strikes-to-warn-North-Korea-others


If you had an education in economics, you would understand that the investment in capital expenditures has a multiplier impact on an economy.  A company which purchases a two million dollar CNC has the same initial jobs to produce the machine or cruise missile, but the difference in economic terms is that the CNC creates multipliers which grow GDP.  A Cruise missile is a pile of cash which produces NO multipliers and actually is an indirect tax and depresses the GDP beyond the initial production, and unlike the CNC where that cash improves productivity and international competitiveness allowing products to be made less expensive, that cash sits until it blows up.   They taught these concepts in undergraduate economic courses, but it is obvious as each of your points that you are clueless.

This is nothing but gibberish, regurgitated from a first year Econ text, probably Samuelson. And you've garbled it so badly, it doesn't even make sense--every good produced from capital investments ends up either on the shelf or being consumed, whether it's missile or a refrigerator. The only thing affected is the RATE at which they are replaced. Besides, even in your own statement, it's the CNC that produces the "multiplier", not the good it produces. DUH!

My point was about GOVERNMENT spending, which, as I've already stated, all ends up in the civilian economy. Eventually the recipients spend it on stuff--houses and cars and other goods. And they all wear out--see The Second Law of Thermodynamics--and get replaced. Again DUH!


There is no reason the US cannot spend as much as it wants on both missiles and social programs. The only constraint is political, from neanderthal dimwits that think a balanced budget is a good idea.

View user profile http://www.flickr.com/photos/btraven/

5 Re: 60 million to MIC for attack on Syria on Sun Apr 09, 2017 10:33 pm

every good produced from capital investments ends up either on the shelf or being consumed, whether it's missile or a refrigerator.

You cannot even restate the tenet correctly.......you have never taken an economics course, and if you think the Koreans are frightened by symbolic displays of military toughness, you are just as ignorant about international relations as you are about undergraduate economics.

View user profile

6 Re: 60 million to MIC for attack on Syria on Sun Apr 09, 2017 10:48 pm

“Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the clouds of war, it is humanity hanging on a cross of iron.”

― Dwight D. Eisenhower

View user profile

7 Re: 60 million to MIC for attack on Syria on Sun Apr 09, 2017 10:52 pm

Floridatexan wrote:“Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the clouds of war, it is humanity hanging on a cross of iron.”

― Dwight D. Eisenhower



So you're trying to compare General Eisenhower's war experience with glorious leader fake #45's?

View user profile

8 Re: 60 million to MIC for attack on Syria on Sun Apr 09, 2017 11:04 pm

Telstar wrote:
Floridatexan wrote:“Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the clouds of war, it is humanity hanging on a cross of iron.”

― Dwight D. Eisenhower



So you're trying to compare General Eisenhower's war experience with glorious leader fake #45's?

No...I'm talking about the cost of war. Bread, not bombs...remember?

View user profile

9 Re: 60 million to MIC for attack on Syria on Sun Apr 09, 2017 11:12 pm

Floridatexan wrote:
Telstar wrote:
Floridatexan wrote:“Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the clouds of war, it is humanity hanging on a cross of iron.”

― Dwight D. Eisenhower



So you're trying to compare General Eisenhower's war experience with glorious leader fake #45's?

No...I'm talking about the cost of war.  Bread, not bombs...remember?





Who needs bread when glorious leader fake #45 can bomb masses of our enemies real and imagined?

View user profile

10 Re: 60 million to MIC for attack on Syria on Mon Apr 10, 2017 12:05 am

You guys are missing the point: It's NOT a binary choice, not either/or. We can afford both, it's strictly a matter of political will.

The only things stopping us are the neanderthal debt-hawks who can't stand the idea of government helping anybody. The fools that think we have to balance the budget. A nation that can create its own currency at will and is the only source of that currency is not subject to the same accounting principles as a household.

Since Nixon abrogated Bretton Woods in '72, the US--unlike the Euro nations--has been entirely monetarily sovereign. We can create dollars at will. As Satan Alan Greenspan once put it "The United States can pay any debt because we can always print money to do that."

There is nothing to stop us from buying as many Patriot missiles, supercarriers and nuclear ballistic missile subs as we think we need to enforce Pax Americana.

You may recall the world-wide unpleasantness in the first half of the last century. Since we've been enforcing the peace with missiles and ICBMs and suchlike, there has not been a repeat of that nastiness.

Pax Americana has worked, is working now and will work for the foreseeable future because the alternative is madness.

And remember, all those subs and missiles and supercarriers, they're made in the USA by us. And after we work at the shipyard or missile factory, we go home and buy cars and TVs and cellphones and Big Macs and all the rest of it.

All we need are politicians with enough sense--and enough courage--to recognize the new economic reality.

If you want to understand this stuff, read up on MMT--Modern Monetary Theory.

View user profile http://www.flickr.com/photos/btraven/

11 Re: 60 million to MIC for attack on Syria on Mon Apr 10, 2017 5:38 am

to recognize the new economic reality.


Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt.

View user profile

12 Re: 60 million to MIC for attack on Syria on Mon Apr 10, 2017 6:33 am

tRump creating jobs for those who replenish our missile stock. MAGA.


[sarcasm font off] Wink

View user profile

13 Re: 60 million to MIC for attack on Syria on Mon Apr 10, 2017 7:16 am

View user profile

14 Re: 60 million to MIC for attack on Syria on Mon Apr 10, 2017 7:21 am

2seaoat wrote:Pope Urban VIII to Galileo Galilei upon the publication of his book Dialogue on the Great World Systems, Ptolemaic and Copernican in 1632:


Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt.

View user profile http://www.flickr.com/photos/btraven/

15 Re: 60 million to MIC for attack on Syria on Mon Apr 10, 2017 8:43 am

Poser.

View user profile

16 Re: 60 million to MIC for attack on Syria on Mon Apr 10, 2017 8:54 am

2seaoat wrote:Poser.

Hoser

View user profile http://www.flickr.com/photos/btraven/

17 Re: 60 million to MIC for attack on Syria on Mon Apr 10, 2017 10:21 am

del.capslock wrote:You guys are missing the point: It's NOT a binary choice, not either/or. We can afford both, it's strictly a matter of political will.

The only things stopping us are the neanderthal debt-hawks who can't stand the idea of government helping anybody. The fools that think we have to balance the budget. A nation that can create its own currency at will and is the only source of that currency is not subject to the same accounting principles as a household.

Since Nixon abrogated Bretton Woods in '72, the US--unlike the Euro nations--has been entirely monetarily sovereign. We can create dollars at will. As Satan Alan Greenspan once put it "The United States can pay any debt because we can always print money to do that."

There is nothing to stop us from buying as many Patriot missiles, supercarriers and nuclear ballistic missile subs as we think we need to enforce Pax Americana.

You may recall the world-wide unpleasantness in the first half of the last century. Since we've been enforcing the peace with missiles and ICBMs and suchlike, there has not been a repeat of that nastiness.

Pax Americana has worked, is working now and will work for the foreseeable future because the alternative is madness.

And remember, all those subs and missiles and supercarriers, they're made in the USA by us. And after we work at the shipyard or missile factory, we go home and buy cars and TVs and cellphones and Big Macs and all the rest of it.

All we need are politicians with enough sense--and enough courage--to recognize the new economic reality.

If you want to understand this stuff, read up on MMT--Modern Monetary Theory.

Sure...there's always a bump in times of war...and it benefits a certain sector of the economy, but not the economy overall. There's that little bugbear known as opportunity cost...what could have been produced vs. what was produced...and in the final analysis, subs missiles and supercarriers aren't useful to the overall economy and don't contribute to the general welfare...so the bump is temporary and is usually followed by a dip in GDP...sometimes a huge dip. Agreed, the "fiscal conservatives" that scream for a balanced budget only do so when their party isn't in office...otherwise, it's a blank check and "bomb, bomb bomb Iran". The applied science of economics needs a moral dimension.

View user profile

Sponsored content


View previous topic View next topic Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum