Delete comment from: Elements Of Power
Part 4
RE: “The benefits of investing more in infrastructure are well-known and also documented in multiple CBO reports and the like. To spend on infrastructure yields a net gain from resources spent. A bomber program needs to beat that net gain/ return on investment (or beat other promising alternatives) in order to be a good idea. That's why you SHOULD care. It's about whether the nation's resources shall be wasted or not.”
If there was a CBO study that ever reported such drivel I would have heard about it or you would have linked to it like 'gold'. I believe I’ve seen CRS references to such, but hell, they’ll quote anybody to back up a ‘some claim’ statement.
I HAVE found however, that when I’ve pulled the thread to find the original source for ANY claims that infrastructure spending reaps greater benefit than defense spending, the thread ultimately lead to the UMASS Political Economy Research Institute (PERI). They publish their annual screed on the topic under commission from this or that radical activist group year to year. I don’t damn them for their funding sources, but it does make them suspect until proven otherwise. Unfortunately, their methods, models, and motives are also highly suspect, and I know of no one else in the area of American economic research that comes close to finding the same ‘findings’ they seem to 'reliably' produce. I actually keep a dossier of sorts on their reports: tracking how they have become more opaque year to year as to their methods, modes and even findings for future use.
BTW: Much of the “Political Economy” coming out of PERI radiates a detectable “Marxist” , (vs “Chigago School”), etc, vibe IMHO.
RE: “Besides; why SHOULD anyone care whether a military program in its infancy gets criticized, or funded? How does a bomber program affect regular Joe? The contra military spending side doesn't have the burden of proof, you know. The usefulness of a military program to regular Joe is NOT self-evident. So why do you imply the requirement ("why ... SHOULD care") at but one side of the argument? It looks like a biased rhetoric trick to me.”
See ‘representative government’ and ‘burden of proof’ the first time.
“Regular Joes” actually DON’T care. They assume we’re paying other people to care for them. Now all the nattering nabobs of negativity get all excited, but before the internet, they used to hang out at the corner store with their booze in a bag and complain amongst themselves. They’re obvious low standing in the knowledge food chain on topics outside their purview sheltered them from the delusion that they knew WTF they were talking about.
Note to all: Normally I don’t spend this much effort on time wastrels, but there is method to my madness in doing so this time.
Jun 5, 2015, 12:31:19 AM
Posted to I Believe the First Hit Piece Against the LRS-B Has Been Written