tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post4803650580600916236..comments2024-03-29T02:19:19.866-04:00Comments on Mike Norman Economics: Indrajith Andrew Weeraratne — Sri Lanka can become a 1st World Nation: Using the "Modern Money Theory”mike normanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03296006882513340747noreply@blogger.comBlogger73125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-27980477122782371072017-04-02T18:16:06.908-04:002017-04-02T18:16:06.908-04:00Or that the F-16 designed itself?
Now there's...<i>Or that the F-16 designed itself?</i><br /><br />Now there's an idea ;)Peter Panhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09473311771939167712noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-49322499069941479252017-04-02T16:23:24.145-04:002017-04-02T16:23:24.145-04:00No "one" designed the F-16 Tom that is a...<i>No "one" designed the F-16 Tom that is absurd... </i><br /><br />II said "co-designer." You dispute there was a design team?<br /><br /><i>Just because you hate the warrior class doesn't give you license to claim these guys aren't morons like the rest of them all in some sort of 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' type thing... </i><br /><br />I don't "hate the warrior class." Actually I like and respect real warriors as people of honor, discipline, and heart, and real leaders are also smart and resourceful. <br /><br />Then there are the big egos that are into the power and glory, and the ass-kissers who will do anything to do promoted.<br /><br />Serving in the military ones sees them all.<br /><br />Tom Hickeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08454222098667643650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-58811306888247492982017-04-02T15:46:28.433-04:002017-04-02T15:46:28.433-04:00MMT works either way.
There is a website run by r...<i>MMT works either way.</i><br /><br />There is a website run by retired US military officers that is very MMT friendly. If I am not mistaken, either you or Matt has posted a link to it here. For the life of me, I can't recall the name of it :(<br /><br />I guess it would be best to keep it hush-hush lest you know what... ;)lastgreekhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00354740659933239445noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-72992774013066139592017-04-02T15:44:55.449-04:002017-04-02T15:44:55.449-04:00Matt: "No "one" designed the F-16 T...Matt: "No "one" designed the F-16 Tom that is absurd... "<br /><br />Huh? Are you simply arguing that more than one homo sapien was involved in the design of the F-16? Or that the F-16 designed itself? Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18181631191840432399noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-30694980200019360112017-04-02T15:41:00.518-04:002017-04-02T15:41:00.518-04:00Auburn: "Further proof that there can be no M... Auburn: "Further proof that there can be no Modern Money Practice manual."<br /><br />I can't see why not. There could be the "conservative" maniac chapter on how to use MMT to loot the 99%, and there could be a liberal maniac chapter on how to use MMT to loot the 99%, and there can also be a leftwing Wray-style chapter on how to use MMT to help everyone except the rich. I like Wray's articulation of taxing the rich: they have too much money. After explaining that, yes, taxes don't fund a thing, he says it straight out "rich people have too much money" and that excess money should be taxed away. You can't argue with that. When people start voting for that, that'll be progress. All that's required is a political party to articulate that position. That may prove to be a long time coming...Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18181631191840432399noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-54330537029442803522017-04-02T15:33:34.394-04:002017-04-02T15:33:34.394-04:00No "one" designed the F-16 Tom that is a...No "one" designed the F-16 Tom that is absurd... <br /><br />All those guys are the DoD equivalent of the Peterson morons.... <br /><br />If they understood things why would anybody like them be complaining about the cost of things in USD terms?<br /><br />They wouldn't... they would only complain about technical process deficiencies etc...<br /><br />Just because you hate the warrior class doesn't give you license to claim these guys aren't morons like the rest of them all in some sort of 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' type thing... <br /><br />Stupid is stupid plain and simple...Matt Frankohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11978352335097260145noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-4680192985791499792017-04-02T15:32:03.367-04:002017-04-02T15:32:03.367-04:00Auburn: "I mean this is just ridiculous as if...Auburn: "I mean this is just ridiculous as if the US is responsible for deaths just by selling weapons."<br /><br />By that rationale, nobody else would be "responsible" for the deaths of innocent Americans on the streets of mainland USA by arming groups whose express aim is to wreak that very havoc, for instance ISIS and Al Qaeda? If you do mind seeing these nutters armed with sophisticated weapons and their covert training, and every reasonable person does, then why is it fine for the US to turn Nicaragua into a disaster zone by arming the Contra terrorists? Or ISIS in Syria (undeniable given that the DIA and General Flynn admitted to it)? Or a hundred other places? <br /><br />Sales of weapons are not all that different to sales of toilet brushes. The sellers and the buyers alike are aware that the goods are not for storage; they're for use. While it is in the infinitesimally narrow sense true that the merchants of death can't be blamed for the resulting deaths (although the deaths wouldn't be nearly as high if these weapons were not available), I look forward to hearing Americans defend this position if and when the state terrorism the US has exported all over the world ever again returns to haunt another major US city, but this time with a recognisable country as source of origin training and arming the terrorists, not a stateless band of religious freaks.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18181631191840432399noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-84041843109311170722017-04-02T14:55:54.069-04:002017-04-02T14:55:54.069-04:00Tom-
No doubt about any of that, we largely have ...Tom-<br /><br />No doubt about any of that, we largely have all the same historical knowledge and information and still view the same events in completely opposite ways, pretty amazing actually. Further proof that there can be no Modern Money Practice manual. Good talk. Have a good rest of the day.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15433129947896088098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-57232738980137419982017-04-02T14:52:33.773-04:002017-04-02T14:52:33.773-04:00"And that is exactly what I am arguing has no..."And that is exactly what I am arguing has not been the case. Could've been. But was not. And is not."<br /><br />That is the case. You mistake people who disagree with you with the people not having control.The people could have voted for Bernie over HRC but they didnt in enough numbers. Sure the DNC cheated on the margins and that didnt help, but the reality is that too many democrats are fiscally conservative and too corporate friendly and the people who arent dont vote in large enough numbers.<br /><br />So I can either say that the people have no control because my preferred candidate\politics didnt win (like you are doing) or I can acknowledge that among voters I have the minority position.<br /><br />The 30 years of progress post WWII shows proves that you are wrong. It was difficult for the elites to take back control after the Great Depression and WWII, it took decades. This proves that its not a foregone conclusion, that the people actually do have the power. They've just been convinced that they dont need to change directions up until recently. I expect things to swing back the other way against oligarchy and corporate power moving forward. If that does happen its further proof that you're wrong. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15433129947896088098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-70621019386476238052017-04-02T14:50:35.260-04:002017-04-02T14:50:35.260-04:00Auburn, we don't even agree about facts, let a...Auburn, we don't even agree about facts, let alone the causation, the responsibility, and the morality. We view the world entirely differently. So I'll leave it there.<br /><br />MMT works either way.Tom Hickeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08454222098667643650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-7741233643569843302017-04-02T14:40:26.595-04:002017-04-02T14:40:26.595-04:00To put in another way it is weren't for the hy...To put in another way it is weren't for the hype, what would it be?<br /><br />Why is it hype? <br /><br />The same reason that what could've been wasn't.<br /><br />The elite know it is hype and is being used to cover the hidden agenda of their own interests.<br /><br />This is what class and power is about. You either have to have a narrative to dupe the rubes or else use the threat of violence control them.<br /><br />Liberal elites would rather dupe the rubes if they can, or co-opt them with bread and circuses, but they also keep the stick in the background.Tom Hickeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08454222098667643650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-54526130582101761802017-04-02T14:35:09.019-04:002017-04-02T14:35:09.019-04:00And that we can always make things better because ...<i> And that we can always make things better because we the people are in charge.</i><br /><br />And that is exactly what I am arguing has not been the case. Could've been. But was not. And is not.<br /><br />Tom Hickeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08454222098667643650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-40421957655020516022017-04-02T14:34:08.169-04:002017-04-02T14:34:08.169-04:002 more things Tom-
Personally I dont trust totali...2 more things Tom-<br /><br />Personally I dont trust totalitarian Dictator states like China so I agree with the conventional wisdom that we should contain them (hopefully the result is like the cold war with the USSR, we win and we dont fight). Lots of dangerous Chinese exceptionalism over there too, not really that unique to the US to be fair. Unlike you, I dont have a wonderful view of China because you've read some eastern philosophy. That shit doesnt matter in real-politick, no matter what their propaganda would have the world believe.<br /><br />Ive seen that link at the bottom before about the millions dead. And its largely trash, the methodology is so biased and the author so hateful of the America that its surprising you take it seriously enough to publicize.<br /><br />I mean this is just ridiculous as if the US is responsible for deaths just by selling weapons. I mean this is some crank history stuff right here:<br /><br />"To the families and friends of these victims it makes little difference whether the causes were U.S. military action, proxy military forces, the provision of U.S. military supplies or advisors, or other ways, such as economic pressures applied by our nation. They had to make decisions about other things such as finding lost loved ones, whether to become refugees, and how to survive."<br /><br />I mean who is responsible for deaths from the Iraq embargo that supposedly killed 500K iraqis? The govt with the dictator that prevented supplies from getting to its citizens? or the countries doing the embagoing in response to your dictator invading another country and directly killing many thousands of his own subjects?<br /><br />"The U.S. is responsible for between 1 and 1.8 million deaths during the war between the Soviet Union and Afghanistan, by luring the Soviet Union into invading that nation. (1,2,3,4)"<br /><br />Man those innocent Soviets were tricked into invading afghanistan by the evil Americans. I mean have you even read this Garbage Tom? For someone of your intellectual capabilities its amazing that you were put stock in such trashy source material.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15433129947896088098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-55721224686418376632017-04-02T14:22:21.111-04:002017-04-02T14:22:21.111-04:00Tom-
"This assumes that the purpose of the U...Tom-<br /><br />"This assumes that the purpose of the US Navy is to guarantee freedom of passage through international waters globally.<br /><br />That is naïve."<br /><br />Its true. So what if its not 100% altruistic, almost nothing is. Even though we do it for our own citizens and our own power, the result is still the same. Its not like we are saying only we get to sail the routes like the British largely did, after all there was a reason the UK had like 90% of the global shipping business at the height of its empire.<br /><br />I know all about the saudi meeting, and all the other history you write about. Im not some ignorant bumpkin that only knows the official party line. Ive read many "subversive" history books that you can find all this real history in. I think that is probably why our conversations could possibly be difficult for you. My guess is that whenever you interact with other empire supporters you wow and amaze them with your knowledge of history and US Geostrategies and politics. You catch them up on their obvious hypocrisies and their historical ignorance about what we've done and why. But you cant do that to me because I already know all that stuff and I still support the empire. Because I support what the empire can do on many different levels of abstraction. And that we can always make things better because we the people are in charge.<br /><br />On one level you have the blood and guts on another the economics, on another the politics, on another the long sweep of history or Deep background as it were on a subject, on another you have the level of deterrence and what ifs. IOW there is a 1 nanometer view, the 1 meter view, the 1 kilometer view, the 100 kilometer view, etc etc. Things look different from all levels of abstraction. <br /><br />So on one level its bad for a German soldier to be killed by a US bomb in 1945, but on another level it was much better for West Germans to be conquered by the allies then communists. At an even higher level we can possibly even thank the nazis and Japanese because WWII did more for the prosperity of America over the next 50 years then any other event possibly could have. So the same thing can be going on and yet the perspectives of good and bad from that single event are different depending on the level of abstraction in the analysis.<br /><br />So its too simplistic to say that "US greedy therefore Empire bad" or "US Kills people therefore empire bad" just like its stupid to say "US defeats Nazi therefore empire good".<br /><br />Just a bit of background context for my POV.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15433129947896088098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-16588090160728991282017-04-02T14:01:43.545-04:002017-04-02T14:01:43.545-04:00As for Sri Lanka, I know there's been a lot of...As for Sri Lanka, I know there's been a lot of work by MMTers on applying MMT to developing countries, and it pretty much coms down to how the natural resources available to said country. North America and almost all European countries can probably be self-sufficient and be able to put up a concerted defence against the rest of the world's neoliberal imperialists. Sri Lanka's energy dependency would be the deciding factor. I wish them all the best, especially given how the rest of the world robs them of their health, educational and technology professionals each and every year, leaving the country at near Groundhog Day development. Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18181631191840432399noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-77618124852494266162017-04-02T13:54:39.699-04:002017-04-02T13:54:39.699-04:00Auburn,
I suppose it doesn't really matter w...Auburn, <br /><br />I suppose it doesn't really matter what the numbers are if you are a supporter of the empire, in the false belief that it brings "stability". Indeed, given how important "stability" is, even 100% of the federal budget would not only be acceptable but also a moral necessity: it's either the US Empire keeping the peace or nuclear proliferation and eventual annihilation. That's another matter, but the numbers are not as low as you think. <br /><br />There's a lot of creative accounting going on, and it's all done in plain sight. The nuclear weapons budget is under the department of energy, not the Pentagon. A great deal of Nasa is military in nature, but transferring that part of the budget away from the Pentagon serves the purpose of fudging the figures. Similarly the science and technology budget, the CDC, veterans affairs, etc. The list of creative accounting for "defence" is very long. All this while ignoring the CIA, NSA and other quasi-military institutions. <br /><br />If you were to add it all up, it'd be a great deal more than 5%. Once you start totting up the real figures, the US spends approximately the same as the rest of the world combined, not the next eight countries that is usually advertised. It may be a good idea or it may be a bad idea, but the figures should be transparent, not moved around to hide the reality. The reason there is a determined effort to disguise the figures is almost certainly due to the fact that it would be impossible to defend.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18181631191840432399noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-45890294049841674432017-04-02T13:51:13.613-04:002017-04-02T13:51:13.613-04:00That's coming from the perspective of somebody...<i>That's coming from the perspective of somebody (moron Boyd and his moron cronies ) that thinks "we're out of money!"... so you have to take that into account in his analysis...</i><br /><br />"His cronies," like Pat Lang, Chuck Spinney, Pierre Sprey (co-designer of the F-16), etc.<br /><br />It has nothing to do with we're out of money. It's feeding the beast rather than doing the necessary.<br /><br />One of the problems is the quest for the kill shot as a magic bullet. Just another instance of "size matters."Tom Hickeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08454222098667643650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-15583159978330606172017-04-02T13:43:54.971-04:002017-04-02T13:43:54.971-04:00My principles are that I believe the US Navy shoul...<i>My principles are that I believe the US Navy should be large enough to enforce the openness global sea commons,</i><br /><br />This assumes that the purpose of the US Navy is to guarantee freedom of passage through international waters globally.<br /><br />That is naïve.<br /><br />The purpose of the US Navy is the same as the British Navy. The US simply inherited the role intact from the Brits after WWII, when the US became the superpower in the West after the wholesale destruction of Europe. In fact, on leaving the Yalta Conference the Crimea, FDR's ship sailed to a meeting with King Saud to cement US control of Middle East oil, on which a navy runs. The US did not need the oil then since the US was self-sufficient in oil until the early '70s.<br /><br />Dominance (empire) requires control of the sea and air. The US Navy, US Marines, and US Air Force exist to provide that. They are not defensive forces but offensive ones. The hype that is that the"defend freedom" globally from the bad actors. The reality is that since WWII US policy has been global dominance backed by the preeminent economy and military superiority. <br /><br />In military strategy, control of the Eurasia land mass, the heartland of the world island, is needed for global dominance. This is the reason now for US involvement in that region including Russia, Iran, China, Central Asia and the Middle East.<br /><br />The US controls the sea and air, and is attempting to control space and cyberspace, but the US doesn't control the land mass — yet. The collapse of the USSR presented the opportunity to secure control of the land mass and that is being contested now.<br /><br />This has been set forth in international relations, foreign policy, and military studies since the late 19th century, with the rise of modern navies and then air forces. This is what people who study these fields and occupy positions in government and military do day to day. It's engrained in the way they think about the world and their job. "Freedom," "American values," etc. is just the rationale for explaining it to the people. But in addition, there is always the fear factor that is added. We have to protect ourselves and our allies against the bad guys and also go to the rescue of the people that are being oppressed (R2P).<br /><br />An additional benefit is the funding of the military-intelligence-industrial-govermental complex aka military Keynesianism. <br />is no longer the case is that other countries are acquiring advanced technology and China is poised to surpass the US economically in size and impact.<br /><br />This means that it is becoming increasingly dangerous for the US to attempt to maintain global dominance and military superiority as national policy. It's creating a new arms race, even more destructive technology is being developed, and space is being weaponized. This is not making the world either safer or freer, as advertised.<br /><br />BTW here is a link to an article about the victims. <br /><br /><a href="https://popularresistance.org/us-has-killed-more-than-20-million-in-37-nations-since-wwii/" rel="nofollow">US Has Killed More Than 20 Million In 37 Nations Since WWII</a>Tom Hickeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08454222098667643650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-50172317422289559832017-04-02T13:43:01.561-04:002017-04-02T13:43:01.561-04:00"that the goal of everybody in the military p..."that the goal of everybody in the military procurement process is to make things as expensive as possible. "<br /><br />That's coming from the perspective of somebody (moron Boyd and his moron cronies ) that thinks "we're out of money!"... so you have to take that into account in his analysis...<br /><br />I can assure you that is not the goal (used to work there...) the goal is to field the most effective systems possible for the warrior class...<br /><br />To your points before above it's not inexpensive to do these things properly... it's not like we don't have the munnie and manpower available to do these things properly 5% GDP is way too low....Matt Frankohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11978352335097260145noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-90637979328620614752017-04-02T13:13:01.020-04:002017-04-02T13:13:01.020-04:00well seeing what the FRench revolutionaries did to...well seeing what the FRench revolutionaries did to the French elite, Id be worried too :)<br /><br />So I get all that and as I said I agree with you on just about all of it. However, I dont see what it has to do with my principles.<br /><br />My principles are that I believe the US Navy should be large enough to enforce the openness global sea commons, because someone has to and better for it to be us than a hodgepodge of competing great powers for example. The history of the class conflict that you're talking about doesnt really have anything to do with my principle about the US Navy. Or are you suggesting that because we've slid into neo-liberalism since the 1970s this is why we shouldnt abide by my Navy principle? IOW that the Navy principle is OK and that it would be fine if we did it once neo-liberalism is gone? <br /><br />So here's my problem with what you are arguing. I think the US Navy principle is important to both US and global security and progress, so just acknowledging how much more oligarchic we are now then in the 70's doesnt change my principles it makes me wish to change the oligarchy. This is what I mean when I say Im confused about the relevance of your arguments to what it is that Im saying. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15433129947896088098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-44947477644689879872017-04-02T13:00:47.336-04:002017-04-02T13:00:47.336-04:00and others through legalized corruption Tom Hickey...<i>and others through legalized corruption</i> Tom Hickey<br /><br />Such as government insurance of private liabilities, including privately created(!) liabilities ("bank loans create bank deposits") and exclusive access to fiat accounts and transaction services at the central bank when all citizens should have access to fiat accounts and transaction services.Andrew Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14296407661618321637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-50033753237610740382017-04-02T12:45:58.225-04:002017-04-02T12:45:58.225-04:00Auburn, what I am saying is what I realized as a n...Auburn, what I am saying is what I realized as a naval officer in the Pacific fleet during the ramp-up stage of the Vietnam war (1964-1967)Wwhen I competed my active duty commitment, I went to grad school, where I was an anti-war activist and wrote a thesis on social and political philosophy in order to become better acquainted with the background that led up to this mess.<br /><br />What I came to realize is that the American exceptionalism, American values and the rest of the hype is just that for the people running things. It's not that they don't believe these things but they take them in a way that forwards their class interests and accumulation of power domestically and around the world. The elite doesn't debate what but rather how. The policy is fixed by the bipartisan establishment, and the arguments are over strategy and tactics more then policy. Policy is about which factions of the elite are going to do best in the period between elections.<br /><br /> In this view, ordinary people are cannon fodder, and the ROW is a target from which to extract resources and increase the wealth and power of the US elite and their compradors.<br /><br />This may sound cynical but I have seen it up closeand it is burned into my brain.<br /><br />It's not just about expropriation, exploitation and extraction. They are terrified of Jacobinism. To avoid it at any cost they have to maintain complete dominance domestically and globally. They employ not only Machiavellian strategy and tactics to do so, but thuggery.<br /><br />The end justifies the means. The "end" is purportedly "American values."<br /><br />But the reality behind "American values" is bourgeois liberalism or the rule of the acquisitors backed by the intelligentsia and warrior, with the laborers providing the consumption and capital goods for a minuscule share of the surplus. The minions — the intelligentsia and warriors — get a somewhat bigger share. There is also the opportunity for a few to make it to the level of the elite, the so-called 1%, and fewer to the level of the super-rich, the .01%. Some do so based on their own creativity and others through legalized corruption.<br /><br />Neoliberal globalization aka liberal internationalism is bourgeois liberalism on steroids and it is morphing into corporate totalitarianism. The elite view "populism" as a potentially a form of Jacobinism.Tom Hickeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08454222098667643650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-18742698563532798472017-04-02T12:42:22.125-04:002017-04-02T12:42:22.125-04:00The assumption is that the super-rich are the smar...The assumption is that the super-rich are the smartest people in the world. They are — at building personal wealth. That says nothing about anything else.<br /><br />Exactly. People misunderstand the nature our meritocracy. Meritocracy is like evolution, where given the specific environmental context and changes, one design is more "better" and so survives and spreads. But this says nothing about whats being selected for, what does "better" mean in this context?<br /><br />2 Examples:<br /><br />Health Insurance CEOs. The very nature of health insurance is to maximize profits by minimizing payouts relative to premiums income. So what exactly is being selected for in the meritocracy at Blue Cross Blue Shield? Are they selecting for kindness and compassion or psychopathy? Somebody is who a bungling communicator or someone who can put the best spin on a necessarily nasty and deadly enterprise of denying care to humans who presumably need it?<br /><br />Tom you mentioned John Boyd, and by reading his biography I was introduced to the Defense Reform Movement people. One of the things that was so stiking to me was the description of the military as actively against change. Whereas they literally selected for the most conventional, most complacent people at the top positions because that served the status quo. In this way its true to say that today the top military brass are indeed selected in a meritocracy its just that dynamism, tactical and strategic competence are not the things being selected for as those things arent valued more highly than loyalty and being a team player.<br /><br />On a related side note, nothing was more trans formative to my perception of military procurement problems then the simple statemnt from the BOyd book that the goal of everybody in the military procurement process is to make things as expensive as possible. IOW its in every relevant player's personal interest to make things as expensive as possible. There is no incentive anywhere to keep costs down as the system has been very carefully designed to do exactly the opposite.<br /><br />Great book about John Boyd, highly reccommend it to the MNE commentariat. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15433129947896088098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-27979817630922461882017-04-02T12:29:11.816-04:002017-04-02T12:29:11.816-04:00They are — at building personal wealth. Tom Hicke...<i>They are — at building personal wealth. </i> Tom Hickey<br /><br /><i>He who loves money will not be satisfied with money, nor he who loves abundance with its income. This too is vanity.</i> Ecclesiastes 5:10<br /><br />"What profited a man ..." Jesus Christ<br /><br />So perhaps not so smart even there.Andrew Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14296407661618321637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-7367446486723633092017-04-02T12:15:55.157-04:002017-04-02T12:15:55.157-04:00Well it seems to be working out that it's the ...<i>Well it seems to be working out that it's the moron man's burden....</i><br /><br />The assumption is that the super-rich are the smartest people in the world. They are — at building personal wealth. That says nothing about anything else. Tom Hickeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08454222098667643650noreply@blogger.com