Monday, February 6, 2017

Navy's out of munnie!


We might as while just let them walk right in and cut our heads off and get it over with with these incompetent people we have running things...

Overall, more than half the Navy's aircraft are grounded, most because there isn't enough money to fix them. 
There isn't enough money to fix the fleet's ships, and the backlog of ships needing work continues to grow. Overhauls – “availabilities” in Navy parlance – are being cancelled or deferred, and when ships do come in they need longer to refit.







18 comments:

Six said...

Morons. The saying used to be: "The Air Force won't fly if the paint is scratched; the Navy will fly unless the plane is on fire" or something like that. I guess things have changed :-)

Bob said...

The Navy probably can't swim either.

Andrew Anderson said...

Positive yielding sovereign debt contributes to the deception that a monetary sovereign can run out of money or that the rich must be bribed not to consume.

Noah Way said...

Stanislaw Lem called this "indirect economic attrition". It's supposed to be used against one's 'enemies' but is equally if not more effective upon one's own country.

lastgreek said...

OK, this might be wishing thinking but maybe, just maybe, the Japanese PM's plan to help rebuild America includes a plan to refit the US Navy as well :)

Ryan Harris said...

China has plenty of money.

André said...

Well, there are budget laws. The Navy is not allowed to spend more than specified by the budget laws. So the Navy can indeed run out of money in the sense that they have no budget resources to spend. Budgeting is actually a good management practice when correctly applied.

Even in a nation where everyone knew how sovereign's money actually works, I would still encourage the budget process...

Tom Hickey said...

What a nation is really budgeting is the allocation of its real resources. Money is just a way of keeping track in terms of a single unit of account that summarizes all transactions.

Hence, it comes down to opportunity cost and tradeoffs.

President Eisenhower's "Cross of Iron" Speech, 1953:

While the unit of account is unlimited as far as the issuer is concerned, the issuer is limited by the availability of real resources and serving public purpose in a way that balances various needs.

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 in not spending money alone.

It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children.

The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities.

It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population.

It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals.

It is some 50 miles of concrete highway.

We pay for a single fighter with a half million bushels of wheat.

We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people.

This, I repeat, is the best way of life to be found on the road the world has been taking.

This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.

Matt Franko said...

Tom, Ike is relying on the theory of 'opportunity cost' there which btw is also used in Comparative Advantage related to how they seek to justify international trade...

He says here:

"The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities.

It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population."

What kids in US dont have a school to go to?

What towns dont have electricity?

This from Ike doesnt make any sense.... we are in SURPLUS everywhere you look...

Tom Hickey said...

At Davos Jack Ma pointed out that the US has spent over 14 trillion worth of its resources on wars over the past thirty years while it's own infrastructure is falling apart.

The question is how many real resources the US can allocate to various sectors and projects in the interest of public purpose, along with the basis on which this is done.

The real resources of a nation are not infinite. Moreover, there is prioritization in allocation wrt public purpose.

Poor prioritization and misallocation for public provision is wasteful, that is, inefficient wrt to effectiveness, where effectiveness involves public purpose, which is inclusive. The cause of is likely to be favoring the interest of one interest group over others.

What kids in US dont have a school to go to?

Many US schools are in disrepair.

What towns dont have electricity?

How many municipalities are served by out-of-date coal-fired utilities that need to be upgraded or replaced in the interest of public health owing to the negative externality that is not priced in but cost the public in real terms.

Ryan Harris said...

We can produce more of everything but there is always good reason to promote productivity. People live in abject poverty, with little industry, no jobs, high crime and drug addiction a couple hours outside the capital city, a stark contrast to Wa and surrounds where incomes are the highest in the nation.

To the people who are poor in Kentucky and WV, cutting out some of the fat cat blubber in Washignton/Maryland/Va probably seems like a pretty attractive option for a nice meal rather than giving the fat cats even more to squander on themselves.

Tom Hickey said...

When I first arrived in the nation's capital as a teenager just starting college, I was shocked to see that just three blocks from the capitol area was a slum, and I mean a slum. Really, really bad. I could hardly believe it. That was in 1957.

It was still slummy almost 20 years later, although some were already doing conversions and the prices were rising the area as a result. I recognized it as a huge RE opportunity when I first saw it but no one wanted to go first.

Another shock at the time was my tour of Mount Vernon, George Washington's plantation and seeing the slave quarters.

Very sobering about America, past and present at that time.

Andrew Anderson said...

... and seeing the slave quarters. Tom Hickey

I've read the entire Bible and find no justification for Christians keeping permanent slaves - well-treated indentured servants for 6 years, yes, permanent slaves, no, unless entirely voluntarily.

Maybe George Washington was a Deist?

Anyway, many Christians today ignore the OT for the sake of money and have for a long time so ignoring the OT is not unprecedented since, I reckon, the time of Calvin.

Andrew Anderson said...

That is I find find no Biblical justification for Christians keeping permanent Christian slaves.

lastgreek said...

On matters of terminology, we avoid using the term ‘budget’ to describe the spending and taxation outcomes for the currency-issuing government. Instead, we use to the term fiscal balance. A government fiscal deficit occurs when its spending exceeds its taxation revenue, whereas a fiscal surplus occurs when government spending is less than its taxation revenue.

The use of the term ‘budget’ to describe the fiscal balance invokes the idea that the currencyissuing government faces the same ‘budget’ constraints as a household....


Modern Monetary Theory and Practice: An Introductory Text, by Mitchell/Wray:

http://e1.newcastle.edu.au/mmt/docs/Chapter_1_Sample.pdf

Tom Hickey said...

Words have more than one meaning and used analogously.

"Budget" is ordinarily used financially but not only financially.

"Budgeting" real resources is used in the same way as "husband" real resources.

It means allocating real resources to objectives efficiently, that is, to best effect and without waste.

André said...

What Tom Hickey is perfect:

"What a nation is really budgeting is the allocation of its real resources"

"The question is how many real resources the US can allocate to various sectors and projects in the interest of public purpose"

The twitter is about how the nation is limiting the real resources it supplies to the Navy.

There is no place for MMTer's critics there. Can't understand where the problem is.

db68 said...

How about investing in something that improves our lives instead of more weapons of death and destruction?