Stealth destroyer

**AetheLove** · 06-05-12, 02:14 PM

Originally Posted by Xavsnipe

How so? I don´t understand.

Real interest rates on short-term US gov't debt are negative. This is, let's say, "unusual". Long term rates are at historic lows, very close to zero.

The economy is in recession. There are valuable resources not being utilized; labour, equipment, commodities... doing nothing other than being depreciated (or wasted). This is also a little unusual.

Consider the usual case when the gov't wants to build (for example) a military boat. Those resources (steel, equipment, construction facility, skilled workers, etc) get used that way rather than in some other way. So we get one more boat with guns and missiles rather than one more boat for fun or commerce. Most of us agree that we need a Navy, and that a Navy needs boats, but there is a real cost to that and it's measured in terms of the things we can't have because we needed a boat with guns and missiles.

But at the moment, that isn't a problem. Resources are laying around. No one is using them.

Additionally (and assuming that the gov't is even capable of building or buying useful things), there has never been a better time to finance it. The Navy needs boats. They have to be built sometime. Would you rather build those boats when the Treasury has to pay 12% interest, or when they have to pay 0% interest?

It's not only military boats. The example holds for lots of different infrastructure or public investment projects.

Last summer I was visiting relatives in western NY. We went to a park. It's large, and gorgeous. It's a wonderful place, with great facilities; including buildings and pathways built of stone, steel, and concrete. There is a large plaque which says that the entire park was built by the WPA. It was a project built during the Great Depression (in the 1930s). The people who built it would have otherwise done nothing. Instead, they did something useful and got paid. For almost 80 years, that space has made life better for everyone who has lived near it. It looked to me like there were at least 80 more years of little league games and church picnics to be had. All the couples who on warm summer nights had a nice place to, uh, hold hands, would have said Thank You if their lips hadn't been busy holding hands.

Though the people got paid, they didn't get paid much. But in the 40s, when we needed other things built out of stone, steel, and concrete, there were a bunch of people who knew how to do that. In the 50s, when we wanted to stitch the entire nation together with highways, those stone, steel, and concrete workers came in handy.

So that was a good one.

If this is a good boat to have, then now is the time to have it.

Same for other projects. Let's not do the shitty ones; but because they are shitty projects, not because we hate our own government. Let's figure out which ones are good, and which ones are risky but worth it, and do them now.

Cheers,

AetheLove

**Xavsnipe** · 06-05-12, 02:52 PM

I agree with the premise of building useful things at an opportune time...I´m just not convinced with the premise that the boat is needed.

**AetheLove** · 06-05-12, 03:32 PM

Originally Posted by Xavsnipe

I agree with the premise of building useful things at an opportune time...I´m just not convinced with the premise that the boat is needed.

Uh. My intro to this thread was me saying that I had NO IDEA if it's a good boat or if it's needed. WTF didn't you understand?

Æ

**Xavsnipe** · 06-05-12, 04:37 PM

I read your explanation and I understood your point. I´m just not convinced the U.S. needs another superboat if they can destroy any country or any threat TO the U.S. with the Navy they already have....shit...with half the Navy they already have. What I don´t understand is the investment of 30,40,100 billion dollars on superboats when I´m sure there is a plethora of other things in need of desperate funding in the U.S. Or maybe not, and the investment on a useless superboat is justified.

**Xavsnipe** · 06-05-12, 04:39 PM

I´m not arguing with you...I understand what you explained...I´m just stating my opinion on the matter.

**AetheLove** · 06-05-12, 04:43 PM

Originally Posted by Xavsnipe

I´m just not convinced the U.S. needs another superboat [...].

Me either, and if we don't need it we shouldn't build it.

Æ

**Red_Lizard2** · 06-05-12, 05:30 PM

Originally Posted by Xavsnipe

I read your explanation and I understood your point. I´m just not convinced the U.S. needs another superboat if they can destroy any country or any threat TO the U.S. with the Navy they already have....shit...with half the Navy they already have. What I don´t understand is the investment of 30,40,100 billion dollars on superboats when I´m sure there is a plethora of other things in need of desperate funding in the U.S. Or maybe not, and the investment on a useless superboat is justified.

Because if you say you want to spend 30, 40, 100 billion dollars and revamping infrastructure, fixing roads, etc. A group of people with probably too much power (my opinion) are going to bitch and moan about the debt and increasing it will ruin the economy and so on. If you spend 3 trillion dollars (hypothetical) building a superboat or superplane, they don't give a shit.

**Xavsnipe** · 06-05-12, 06:25 PM

So that´s what I don´t understand

**deathgodusmc** · 06-05-12, 07:45 PM

Some of our fleet is old and in need of retrofitting or replacement. It could be a cost issue versus potential benefit. Probably cost more to build a new one but in the long run it could be more usefull then a retrofitted 25 year old destroyer.