Lockheed Martin is a "Good Investment Target" For Private Investors?

Commentary by Roger Erickson

F-35B STOVL LRIP-5 SHOCKER !

Yet Lockheed Martin's concurrency shop of horrors is considered a "good investment target" for private investors? Touted so by many professional asset managers?

Exactly which kinds of investors and investment advisers? Those that want to briefly hoard fiat, while the country that issues that fiat collapses?

What the hell kind of investment strategy is that?

The kind that Robert Morris would have made? I'll take George Washington's balanced investment strategy over Robert Morris' any day. Absolutely insist on balanced investment in both Democracy PLUS Person - always. Otherwise, neither is sustainable.

You can't lose track of whole + components, especially their interdependencies. They're inseparable, even in private investing.

To write the US Constitution and make a sound investment in the future of our people, we once combined our analyses of sustainable outcomes, common sense, and even morals with short term asset management.

That is, wholistic treatment of dynamic as well as static asset management.

How'd we get away from that combined approach? Is it too late to back up and start thinking more deeply?

Isn't it still true that an ounce of cheap prevention is soon worth more than a pound of expensive repair - always?

Can we invest just a wee bit more in preventing further degradation of the US culture our ancestors worked so brilliantly to start? Maybe even get around to carefully seeing if we can ADD to the brilliance we once demonstrated, not just chip away at it, and consume our own country?