Why doesnt the USA help Detroit?

Trivia Question: what will be the effect on the us economy if the defense industry would have a similar fate as the auto industry, or rather, if it would shrink?

When the Mairkah "aids", it is not like just giving weed money to your mate, cuz he's low on cash. Every cash out is with the idea of cashing in, in the future. All lent money, Federal Reserve (and all entities that involves) earns interest. Even when the Federal Reserve prints money for Mairkah, USA are already in the negative, because interest has to be paid on it. So for foreigners, even more so. Mairkahahahakan money is like a forever printable, no-inflation-fakable, immediately resource sucking magic green paperz, that is actually worth shit. Every usage of USD is resource sucking, just on the inherent nature of its ideology of always being a loan and having to be paid back, more than face value. It's a system setup with the idea of infinite resource suckage and raping of everyone who uses it.

We're not gonna figure all this shit out. The world has fallen apart, there's little hope, we stand up now or the whole planet will fall into complete shambles in 10 - 20 years, and that's if it preceeds the global bioweapon. Yay, lets talk politics!

i think on your income tax form there should be a page of checkboxes with lots of the government programs on it, and maybe a list of bailout schemes, and even specific military operations. if you want some of your tax money to fund that shit, check the box. that way, we can see how many people vote with THEIR money to bailout detroit, or to fund bombing syria, or to continue drone strikes on muslims (with plenty of women and kids dying in those strikes), or etc etc etc. instead of proclaiming that everyone should have to pay some of their money for it. obviously my idea is simplified and probably wouldn't work but i think it's just the beginning of an idea and something could be hammered out along those lines...

  On 9/5/2013 at 10:19 AM, MisterE said:

i think on your income tax form there should be a page of checkboxes with lots of the government programs on it, and maybe a list of bailout schemes, and even specific military operations. if you want some of your tax money to fund that shit, check the box. that way, we can see how many people vote with THEIR money to bailout detroit, or to fund bombing syria, or to continue drone strikes on muslims (with plenty of women and kids dying in those strikes), or etc etc etc. instead of proclaiming that everyone should have to pay some of their money for it. obviously my idea is simplified and probably wouldn't work but i think it's just the beginning of an idea and something could be hammered out along those lines...

if only that were feasible. what you are advocating is essentially direct democracy, requiring majority mandate on just about all affairs.

in an ideal world, id absolutely support such an idea, but to be honest, if most US citizens can't realize how they are being fleeced until they lose everything, how do you expect them to oppose such programs at an earlier stage?

i wrote more, but yeah i feel ya on this. unfortunately I dont have enough trust in the American people to know whats best for them. But at the same time I certainly don't believe that our current state apparatus knows what's best either. Its a fucked situation.

humanity really is a cunt though

It's the smell...

  On 9/5/2013 at 10:02 AM, Jody Dark said:

We're not gonna figure all this shit out. The world has fallen apart, there's little hope, we stand up now or the whole planet will fall into complete shambles in 10 - 20 years, and that's if it preceeds the global bioweapon. Yay, lets talk politics!

when an inventor has been spending a lot of time in their lab the place starts to look like a real shithole filled with dirty socks and old chinese food cartons and stale air

no different from earth's situation i think yea its gonna look like a real shithole but the things we make and especially the things we will make in the future might look like they were worth sacrificing a planet for

because of the nature of our reality we have to take a randabout ass backwards way of getting to the finish line. you gotta crack a few eggs etc

  On 9/6/2013 at 6:08 AM, peace 7 said:

It's the smell...

Edit: posting youtubes from an ithing is screwed again... :/

  On 9/6/2013 at 6:15 AM, RadarJammer said:

when an inventor has been spending a lot of time in their lab the place starts to look like a real shithole filled with dirty socks and old chinese food cartons and stale air

no different from earth's situation i think yea its gonna look like a real shithole but the things we make and especially the things we will make in the future might look like they were worth sacrificing a planet for

 

because of the nature of our reality we have to take a randabout ass backwards way of getting to the finish line. you gotta crack a few eggs etc

This analogy is almost good, except it's more like:

You're locked in your university lab (by an unknown professor) with a few lab partners, and you somehow feel compelled to make the world a better place with some cool invention; feeling for some reason that you must now live in the lab. So you and your lab partners live off of the lab vending machines and collaborate on ideas. Then all of a sudden one new dude comes out from the corner who tells you that you can't work on the tables, because they're now his. "Dude, they belong to the university." Then the guy punches you all in the face and says you can use his tables, only if you pay him a service fee. "I claimed them. They are mine. You pay to use."

Since you and your lab partners are against violence and generally pussies who cannot stand up to just one man (albeit one scary and foaming at the mouth man), you decide to pay the crazy dude a fee to use the tables.

There is great progress on your small group's invention, and it is at this time of significant progress that the crazy dude decides to own the vending machines and usage of power. "Hey, you don't own the vending machines or the power! The university does!!!" "Well, I'm going to flip the main switch on and off, so I basically developed the mechanism and infrastructure to power this room, which you must now pay me to use. Yah, and vending machines- they are mine." You all choose to pay the crazy dude twice the amount for vending machine food, and extra for power.

Finally, the great day comes when your group completes the cool invention on paper, and it is on this day where you also plan an escape.

Overhearing all that shit, the crazy dude steals and uses your escape plan to get outside the lab system, and from the outside, he further secures the lab from being exited. From outside he yells, "BTW, I still own the vending machines, the tables, and the power, and I will come by every week to pickup my share. If you do not pay, I will stomp on your faces. Oh, yah- thanks for your invention-- I'm gonna make a fortune on this."

Fuck Syria. More Robocop. This statue will be heading to the D soon. Just in time to boost the economy.

  On 9/5/2013 at 7:11 AM, goDel said:

Trivia Question: what will be the effect on the us economy if the defense industry would have a similar fate as the auto industry, or rather, if it would shrink?

Not as much as the lobbyists make it seem. It's when bases close or the sequester forces impractical and inefficient cuts (like grounding aircraft) that really hurt local and civilian economies. Otherwise it's more of a loss of potential jobs when a contract isn't awarded for a major weapon system or when there are cancellations of programs we don't need.

We need it to shrink and become streamlined. Up until the 70s defense contracting and spending was simple - pentagon requested a system (let's say a jet fighter), multiple companies (6+) would bid with designs. From their two would build prototypes and compete, and then one would be picked. In other cases, it was a requested system, non-bid contract for prototype, then building. Some of the most well-designed and reliable planes (the C-130 for example which is still built now and does not need a replacement) came out of the late 50s and early 60s. Many of these programs, including the very successful F-4 jet, were completed from scratch to full-fledged service in just couple of years.

In the 70s and 80s companies merged and contracts became less competitive, more complicated with often multiple companies involved for one system, and heavily influenced by corruption and lobbying. Program lasted years, then decades, and now over a decade. A good example would be the new air-refueling system which was delayed by protests and re-bids for years, wasting millions of dollars and making the units cost far more than estimated. Lockheed, Boeing and BAE dominate where there used to be a dozen of comparable companies.

The Military Industrial_complex exists now. The 1.1 Trillion dollar JSF program is the quintessential example. It's partly a victim of the "too many cooks in the kitchen" problem (the Boeing 787 has this too) with far too many different companies from multiple countries building parts for one plane. It's also a "one size fits all" design meant to replace multiple jets (USAF F-15 and F-16, US Navy F-18, USMC Harrier) which has compounded the situation. It's arguably not needed (cold war is over, current jets are combat capable against current threats). Also, there was this complex funding scheme are multiple countries investing on different levels (seriously, it's like a corporate endeavor) that's also caused friction. There was a problem with Congress trying to cut costs (they prevailed) because so many members wanted a factory in their district to build an engine that wasn't needed.

I myself was a bit conflicted over the auto industry bailout, but in complete honesty the US defense industry has had a perpetual one for decades now. Thought that said, the middle east is a pretty reliable client as well.

goddamn everytime I hear about the JSF program my blood boils.

  On 9/6/2013 at 6:34 PM, joshuatx said:

 

  On 9/5/2013 at 7:11 AM, goDel said:

Trivia Question: what will be the effect on the us economy if the defense industry would have a similar fate as the auto industry, or rather, if it would shrink?

 

Not as much as the lobbyists make it seem. It's when bases close or the sequester forces impractical and inefficient cuts (like grounding aircraft) that really hurt local and civilian economies. Otherwise it's more of a loss of potential jobs when a contract isn't awarded for a major weapon system or when there are cancellations of programs we don't need.

 

We need it to shrink and become streamlined. Up until the 70s defense contracting and spending was simple - pentagon requested a system (let's say a jet fighter), multiple companies (6+) would bid with designs. From their two would build prototypes and compete, and then one would be picked. In other cases, it was a requested system, non-bid contract for prototype, then building. Some of the most well-designed and reliable planes (the C-130 for example which is still built now and does not need a replacement) came out of the late 50s and early 60s. Many of these programs, including the very successful F-4 jet, were completed from scratch to full-fledged service in just couple of years.

 

In the 70s and 80s companies merged and contracts became less competitive, more complicated with often multiple companies involved for one system, and heavily influenced by corruption and lobbying. Program lasted years, then decades, and now over a decade. A good example would be the new air-refueling system which was delayed by protests and re-bids for years, wasting millions of dollars and making the units cost far more than estimated. Lockheed, Boeing and BAE dominate where there used to be a dozen of comparable companies.

 

The Military Industrial_complex exists now. The 1.1 Trillion dollar JSF program is the quintessential example. It's partly a victim of the "too many cooks in the kitchen" problem (the Boeing 787 has this too) with far too many different companies from multiple countries building parts for one plane. It's also a "one size fits all" design meant to replace multiple jets (USAF F-15 and F-16, US Navy F-18, USMC Harrier) which has compounded the situation. It's arguably not needed (cold war is over, current jets are combat capable against current threats). Also, there was this complex funding scheme are multiple countries investing on different levels (seriously, it's like a corporate endeavor) that's also caused friction. There was a problem with Congress trying to cut costs (they prevailed) because so many members wanted a factory in their district to build an engine that wasn't needed.

 

I myself was a bit conflicted over the auto industry bailout, but in complete honesty the US defense industry has had a perpetual one for decades now. Thought that said, the middle east is a pretty reliable client as well.

 

Wow. Thanks for the overview.

The seemingly codependence of the defense industry and the government seems very tricky. Also worrying is the symbolism of a strong defense industry towards the rest of the world. Foreign policies and relation will be easier to maintain when there this idea of a huge and advanced defense industry behind it. If certain powers in the world want access to the most modern weapons on this planet, they have only a couple of places to go.

So in a way, the US is an international crack pusher when it comes to weaponry. And the countries on crack tend to be "friends" and docile. A strong defense industry is an integral part, and even crucial perhaps, of foreign strategies.

...uhm...just thinking out loud here :S

Indeed, but I think what joshua tx put emphasis on (and rightly so) is not that the US defense industry is underdeveloped, it is overdeveloped, and overdeveloped in the sense that in reality a large portion of our defense budget is siphoned into worthless bidding negotiations and subsidies for essentially worthless and outdated equipment by the time it actually hits markets or operative.

The US realistically is exponentially farther ahead in terms of R&D than most other major weapons producers; the problem is that the now bloated R&D contracts aren't used effectively. This is obviously due to a number of complex reasons (cronyism, Mil-Ind. complex, etc.), but one of the most troubling factors is that we as a nation are increasingly forgoing heavy industry towards actual consumable commodities or necessary infrastructural output in exchange for hyper-futuristic and exorbitantly expensive jet turbines that we will most likely never deploy.

If you approach it from that perspective, it's more understandable why the US government has become all the more hawkish and interventionist in the last few decades, because what once put us at the top of the economic heap no longer exists/is manufactured in our borders. Except guns and bombs.

Reminds me of a quote from the Pixar movie, "The Incredibles":

"And when everyone has super powers, no one will be super."

- Syndrome, The Incredibles

If we continue to give other countries our weapons and technology, then we "wise up" and downsize our military, who's going to have the upper hand then?

The way the US offense (deliberately not defense) corporations work nowadays with the US government is kind of a puzzle to me. Let me look at it this way:

The US government is like a god-sent customer. Not only it spends a lot of money on military programs; the whole process of bidding and contracting works very similarly as in the communist regimes, where the industry is nationalized. It seems that corporations are private only on paper, because their only costs regarding R&D of the requested programs is making a proposal that fits the government's initial requirements. This means basically (especially with today's advanced computer technology) sending a simulated but still raw prototype that is then optimized to the final product in close cooperation and funding by the pentagon...a phase that should usually be still corporation's responsibility. Every single process after the proposal is accepted is funded by the tax payers and led by the military experts in pentagon. There would probably be no proposals for the free market, because, as I know, the allies usually order the final product and do not participate in the whole R&D process. .. Joshua?

"Have no fears," said the Chief. "Everything is all right. My Bright Back Room Boys have been brighter than bright. They've thought up a gadget that's Newer than New. It is filled with mysterious Moo-Lacka-Mooand can blow all those Zooks clear to Sala-ma-goo. THEY'VE INVENTEDTHE BITSYBIG-BOY BOOMEROO! "You just run to the Wall like a nice little man."Drop this bomb on the Zooks just as fast as you can. I have ordered all Yooks to stay safe underground"while the Bitsy Big-Boy Boomeroo is around."As I raced for that Wall, with the bomb in my hand,I noticed that every last Yook in our landwas obeying our Chief Yookeroo's grim command. They were all bravely marching,with banners aflutter,down a hole! For their country!And Right-Side-Up Butter!That's when Grandfather found me! He grabbed me. He said,"You should be down that hole! And you're up here instead! But perhaps this is all for the better, somehow.You will se me make history! RIGHT HERE! AND RIGHT NOW! "Grandpa leapt up that Wall with a lopulous leapand he cleared his hoarse throatwith a bopulous beep. He screamed, "Here's the end of that terrible townfull of Zooks who eat bread with the butter side down!"And at that very instant we heard a klupp-kluppof feet on the Wall and old VanItch klupped up! The Boys in HIS Back Room had made him one too! In his fist was another Big-Boy Boomeroo!"I'll blow you," he yelled, "into pork and wee beans! I'll butter-side-up you to small smithereens!""Grandpa! I shouted. "Be careful! Oh, gee! Who's going to drop it? Will you . . . ? Or will he . . . ? "Be patient," said Grandpa. "We'll see.We will see . . .

  On 9/6/2013 at 9:10 PM, Godwin Austen said:

... Joshua?

responses to come later - at work -

  On 9/6/2013 at 6:43 PM, SR4 said:

goddamn everytime I hear about the JSF program my blood boils.

My sister and brother-in-law are both in the USAF and Academy grads. They've mentioned multiple times that many generals and pentagon heads have seriously proposed scrapping JSF and buying new F-15s and F-16s. After all, the US Navy, US Marines, and the entire British military (RAF and fleet arm) is invested in the JSF, but costs would go up if the USAF doesn't buy any. Same if many NATO and US allies don't buy it.

The US Army recon helo program is quite dismal too: First the RAH-66_Comanche then it's replacement "off-the-shelf" program was cancelled: Bell_ARH-70 It could of all been solved if the US Army, followed the example of their Spec Ops forces, or Blackwater or any smaller military force, and simply bought more of these: MH-6 AH-6 Instead the army is still flying helicopters older than many, if not most, of the pilots.

There's always been cliques in the military as well - fighter aircraft pilots in particular have always been demanding and influential whereas the demand is really more in special ops, transportation, and attack planes. For instance cutting back on A-10s for JSF spending (that cut has been delayed btw) when the war in Afghanistan is 99% close air support doesn't make sense.

And the US and allies do use a lot of non-American equipment and have so in the past. Examples right now would include the Mil Mi-8/17 helicopter from Russia and the Tucano EMB 312 which are very effective and cheap. The US will probably buy the Tucano but even then it will probably be cancelled.

  On 9/6/2013 at 9:07 PM, Joyrex said:

Reminds me of a quote from the Pixar movie, "The Incredibles":

 

"And when everyone has super powers, no one will be super."

- Syndrome, The Incredibles

If we continue to give other countries our weapons and technology, then we "wise up" and downsize our military, who's going to have the upper hand then?

The US and it's close allies have a couple things to their advantage. One is training. If a country doesn't have the contracted support and advising of the arms supplier, the tech is useless. That's why some African countries have new and advanced MIGs but hardly fly them...that is without a Russian or CIS mercenary as a pilot. The US also has raw numbers (thousands of fighters and not hundreds) and the most advanced avionics and weapons suites. We never give out the best tech and when we do it's years later and only to close allies first. The Soviets were the same way, they downgraded most equipment they exported. The one big fumble was Iran - we gave the Shah the best and that's why Iran still flies a handful of F-14s.

The arms race is odd now because the main opposition is China and Russia in theory, but UN and US pressure keep their advanced stuff out of the hands of most countries. And well, we're trading partners with both. It's really tech versus asymmetrical warfare. That's why the fastest growing sectors of the US military in terms of warfare are the cyberwarfare, spec op/black op divisions, and drones and surveillance.

As I've mentioned before too, money dominates the exporting of arms and the middle east is the prime customer - mostly Israel, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and the Gulf States. We still won't formally cut military aid to Egypt because the army there is basically a stable political entity, not an arm of the government.

The main exception to this, and perhaps the best example of how military spending and procurement is done right (especially in the past) is Israel, and to a lesser extent South Africa (their land vehicles from the 80s and 90s were brilliant anti-mine and anti-IED designs). In fact, the IDF defense system the Iron_Dome was completely native and ironically when the U.S. help fund it, there was an issue that the computer system was classified, so America was funding something more advanced and secret than our own missile defense systems.

I'll type more on that in my response to Godwin and SR4's excellent posts on the state of American R&D.

  On 9/6/2013 at 8:46 PM, SR4 said:

Indeed, but I think what joshua tx put emphasis on (and rightly so) is not that the US defense industry is underdeveloped, it is overdeveloped, and overdeveloped in the sense that in reality a large portion of our defense budget is siphoned into worthless bidding negotiations and subsidies for essentially worthless and outdated equipment by the time it actually hits markets or operative.

 

The US realistically is exponentially farther ahead in terms of R&D than most other major weapons producers; the problem is that the now bloated R&D contracts aren't used effectively. This is obviously due to a number of complex reasons (cronyism, Mil-Ind. complex, etc.), but one of the most troubling factors is that we as a nation are increasingly forgoing heavy industry towards actual consumable commodities or necessary infrastructural output in exchange for hyper-futuristic and exorbitantly expensive jet turbines that we will most likely never deploy.

 

If you approach it from that perspective, it's more understandable why the US government has become all the more hawkish and interventionist in the last few decades, because what once put us at the top of the economic heap no longer exists/is manufactured in our borders. Except guns and bombs.

Yeah, but let me put it in different words though, because this overdevelopedness could be mistaken as intentional of US government. And I don't see it that way.

The defense industry seems overdeveloped in the way the banking industry is overdeveloped. Like Josh mentioned, there's only a handful of big players left. I'd argue, too big to fail players. As if they are too big to fail banks. There's so few companies left, that they are too big, and if they fail, the "necessary" part of the equation becomes impossible to produce.

Necessary in terms of what the government wants to be able to do with its defense budget . You could have countless discussions at this point, but please understand that when it comes to safety, some people just think this defense thing can be a necessity... It's a first constitutional thing in their mind.

And that's also the reason why that JSF thing is so difficult to turn around. The few companies that represent the defense industry, have become dependent for a large part become on only a couple of projects, like the JSF. So stopping the JSF at this point, could mean similar things to what was a shrink in value on the housing market for the banks. I hope you see the catch22 in this situation.

If the JSF does get stopped, that could mean significant things for the few too big to fail companies. Because just like banks and any other company, these big corporations tend to live on borrowed money. Borrowed, with the forecasted values of their activities as a safety measure ( don't know the official slang for this specific term). In more technical terms, there's a lot of forecasted value hidden in their financial numbers. This means there's a direct and potentially significant impact on the solvency and liquidity of those few too big to fail companies when projects like JSF do get cancelled. And thus, the catch22. Even if the government would want to stop this project, the consequences might be bigger than expected.

In the context of lots of companies, like Josh argued, projects like JSF could be cancelled in no time.

For anyone still interested in the Detroit part of this discussion, I was helping my friend find a good environment science-based short documentary for a university class she was subbing, and I found this. Apparently the outer rings of Detroit is being reclaimed as a massive organic farm...

http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/earthrise/2012/08/2012817102031778843.html