- cross-posted to:
- politicalvideos
- [email protected]
You must log in or # to comment.
I do not have a full grasp on economics; my expertise lies elsewhere. But with all the money these goons spend, what’s even the point of a monetary system? They just do whatever they want anyway, using whatever resources the other rich goons give them, while everyone else just takes what little they leave for us. There is no way the government is paying the debt.
The US national debt is $38 trillion, soon to be $39 trillion.
Burning money for no reason other than hate and greed.
It’s too bad they can’t just use one of those money guns to shoot money directly
Too bad you can’t use the resources that it takes for a multi-trillion dollar weapons industry to uh… no, wait. You totally could.
The US necessarily wouldn’t even need to spend more on healthcare to improve the health of it’s citizens; a lot couls be achieved with stricter food regulations, like limiting the usage of corn syrup or sugar content in some groceries. Making food healthier means less obesity means less strain on the healthcare system.
In a Universal healtcare system, there is a monetary incentive for the autorities to make laws and regulations to prevent disease - prevention is a lot cheaper than fixing things after the damage is done.
In a pure for profit healthcare system there is no such incentive for the autorities - in some ways, there might even be the opposite incentive, depending on the levels of Corruption and how much more profit the Healthcare sector can make if people are more sick: after all, when a country spends twice as much as a percentage of the GDP in Healthcare, that means there’s a lot more money to be made in Healthcare, and private interests have an incentive to buy politicians and regulators to help them profit as much as possible.
Beyond this there is also the whole “doing what’s best for our people” incentive, which is the US is so weak that it doesn’t even apply to some obviously bad things (for example, easy availability of guns, which is definitelly bad for people’s health) much less to more subtle pathways to damage people’s health such as unhealthy food.
Universal healthcare also allows the state to have enormous negotiation power. Some European countries co-operate to get even better prices on pharmaceuticals, just imagine the state placing on the table that best offer will give you access to a market 340 million people, gouging nada.
Excellent points!
Fat people often just get scolded by doctors for being fat and are not offered any actual care. Lots of fat people refuse to go to the doctor unless they’re practically dying because it can be humiliating and/or traumatic. Also BMI is anti-science bullshit. Refined sugar is not good for you, but don’t blame fat people for straining the system. Blame the system for straining fat people.
I don’t eat nearly as much food as I used to, and now exercise more regularly by going to the pool every other day. The doctor still thinks I am not doing enough. Here’s the thing: my intake of food is about 1/3rd of a close relative.
Between the doctor’s skepticism when I tell them that I have done things differently, and the lack of weight loss from a changing lifestyle, I am coming to a conclusion: don’t trust this doctor, and genetics is definitely a factor.
It is my hope for AI doctors to become reliable someday. My human doctor doesn’t really look at me, and doesn’t listen, and I hate talking. I prefer writing, because talking is hard. Being raised in the boonies, conversation in realtime isn’t a skill of mine.
We have poor nutritional education in the USA as well. With the addition of blaming addicts for their behavior than those who are addicting them. Looking at you sugar/HFCS in everything. A lot of it is not so obvious. We’ve literally been led to believe that FAT is bad for us, it’s what makes you fat. Not that carbs and sugars are what cause you to be fat.
A lot of people’s bodies just want to be larger than other people’s. This isn’t about willpower and education, it’s about recognizing diversity.
Yes we make it worse with our decisions as a society, but some people are gonna be fatter regardless.
There’s diversity in BUILDS of people. Some will be thicker than others but that doesn’t mean they’re obese. I’m obese and I suffer health effects from it and have been obese most of my life. This entire obesity acceptance thought is backwards. We should get rid of the stigma but it is not healthy.
Yeah I’ve had health problems from being overweight too.
Shaming me for being overweight never made a difference at all, and probably made things worse.
I imagine the price will be a factor too. Why pay money to be berated with no actual help?
Also need to subsidize grocery distribution into food deserts. Many people don’t even have access to fresh produce if they wanted it.
Or vaccines
No.
?
Am I crazy or did Trump play this song at a rally and then I had a stroke?
I mean, those aren’t mutually exclusive
So you’re either crazy or had a stroke…
the crazy thing is you could afford both, you spend more to get less, and it’s universally popular
it’s the most antimemetic idea in American history
They cut cancer research!
Conceptually, I’m not opposed to having a powerful military for defense of your own borders and those of allies. It’s a scary world and there are some bad people in positions of power out there.
I am highly opposed to defunding cancer research so we can blow up schools full of small children without any real cause or reason.
Trump wanted to fuck children but he couldn’t go there to do it in person so he remotelly had them fucked in bulk.
If you don’t think that’s important enough to beat cancer research in getting funds then you’re one of those people who doesn’t want to make America great again.
/s
The world is scary because of the US lol.
Sure, but there is a tendency in any powerful nation to eventually be co-opted by expansionist or corrupt forces that profit from war. Russia comes to mind but they’re not the only country with weapons eyeing their neighbors, and we do have (or had) obligations to help allies.
But there is clearly a reason; deflection from the fact that our president is a pedophile.
But a peaceful military does not exist. Once you increase spending for it to a relevant portion of the national budget, you need to use it to make the economy happy.
You’re right, but again we don’t live in an anarchist like state here we don’t need to worry about bad actor nations or actors in general. I would love there to be a situation where borders and countries disappear and we come together as a species. That does not meet well with the reality of our situation. Even then, I would still think some defensive force necessary because well, I’m not too optimistic on the galaxy at large.
without any real cause or reason
Sure there is : Trump had the feeling they might be a threat (and plenty of minors to ask how good he is at feeling)
deleted by creator
Universal healthcare would cost the government an additinal $0.00 because Medicare and Medicaid are stupid expensive already.
America only ever has one healthcare bill. It is the total amount spent on healthcare, including harm done to people who don’t seek healthcare because it is too expensive, plus all the costs of people going to the emergency room when they have no other option, plus all the people who go into bankruptcy from medical debt. It’s all one total bill, no matter how you spread the math around, and the only question is how much of that money is being wasted on inefficiency and lost to corporate profits. We might as well all keep paying that bill, but figure out ways to reclaim those corporate profits for the people.
The US already spends more per-person than most states with socialized medical care. The difference is that in America that money goes to insurance companies and billionaires sitting at home while in socialized medical schemes it goes to doctors and nurses and for medications and facilities.
The US already spends more per-person than most states with socialized medical care.
The US spends more than twice as much per capita on healthcare than every other nation on Earth. You don’t have to water this down with “most”.
I think merelly “spends more per-person” is nowhere strong enough to really illustrate how bad things are.
For example, the United States spends more than TWICE per-person in Healthcare than the United Kingdom.
In fact judging by this it spends almost twice as much as the European country which has a 69% higher GDP per-capita - Luxembourg.
And even with such much higher spending levels, based on this healthcare outcomes are actually worse.
Healthcare in the US is world-beating by a large marge in how spectacularly inneficient it is.
Universal healthcare would actually be an investment in the people of this nation and has the potential to increase the GDP
US spends more on government healthcare than Canada ($9195/capita vs $5000), which has universal healthcare for all. As % of GDP, for total healthcare, US is 17%, Canada is 12%
It would make them cheaper likely because economies of scale. Add in it’d be actual healthcare and not insurance that works to deny coverage.
This country was founded by rich capitalist for rich capitalist. The suffering and the threat of increasing suffering is the point.
Who would work for army and ice then
The true welfare queens, army and ice.
Who are these 3 people
this one slaps. it’s always difficult to visualize just how much a large amount of money can be and just how readily they burn it on death.
Not just death, often for nothing at all. How many of those videos were missiles fired into open ocean?
accessories to death. training, testing, intimidating and such.
Except it’s just completely random numbers slapped on the footage.
they do look plausible enough. it does cost them a couple of million per missile, or hundreds of dollars per second to fire.
not to mention how the corrupt contractors will inflate the costs as much as possible for taxpayers to pay for them.
One of the torpedos we are actively using in a Iran right now costs $4.8 million each.
One of the missiles shown I believe is the RIM-116 (not been in it for a while), each one costs $950,000.
The numbers shown might not be 100% accurate but they’re very much in the correct ballpark
What first made me completely disbelieve the video was the Phalanx costing hundreds of thousands in a few seconds. That’s order of magnitude wrong. Yes, the RIM-116 is in the ballpark although still too high.
Anyway, the video is bullshit. That has nothing to do with whether the point it is trying to make is. No need to get that defensive.
Except the ultimate point is how much money we spend on pointless death. And you dissing a video for making that point when it got one wrong is kind part of it. It’s missing the forest for the trees.
Going bigger picture, the war in Iran is costing $70 million a day currently (actual estimates I’ve seen. even worse with Pentagon’s own billion a day estimate). That would cover food stamps for over ten million people. That’s the point of the video, not the specific numbers for a phalanx shell
It’s not getting one wrong. But much more importantly, if your point is backed up by fake numbers, no one who didn’t agree with you from the start is going to take you seriously. Pointing bullshit early is important, unless you want your greater point undermined by bullshit numbers.
care to name the weapon system and it’s actual cost for munitions and rearmament? Or is this a “trust me bro” moment?
I could go search for them, or you could notice that the price tag is different for each of the 3 torpedo launches shown despite being the same type of torpedo. 🤡
Anyway, the CIWS systems like the phalanx (minigun looking shit) cost around $3,500 per second, not above $50k a second like the video would suggest.
Now can you facture in the person firing it, the ship it’s firing from, the cost to operate that ship, the radar that’s used to target what it’s hitting, and the R&D costs of that weapon alone?
How? How do you assign how much of the R&D should be counted for the one missile fire or burst from a Phalanx? How much of the ship operation cost? The few seconds on the video? When I have no context of when and where these firings happened?
And much more importantly, what for? How would pricing random weapons firing on a random video help anyone with anything?
For example, F35 cost like $2 trillion when all costs are considered, but only like $100mil each. Slight difference, right? And to the second part, that’s the whole point of the thread, how much money America would save if it wasn’t for these weapons.
If the thread is about people who already agree with the point slapping each other on the back, sure, go ahead.
But if you want to convince anyone, you may not want your numbers to be obviously made up. Putting aside that the phalanx shooting is an order of magnitude off, the same torpedo has 3 different prices one after another. Even someone who has no idea how much these things cost can see it’s BS if they pay attention.
deleted by creator
And generations of people who hate us.
“Schoolgirls in Iran bout to find out why we don’t have free healthcare!!!1”
Ah yes, who dosent know what american tax dollars are also paying for those at least 2x russian weapon systemes that did sneak into the compilation…
That doesn’t make it not relevant, if anything it shows it’s a multinational issue of just arms build up to sabre rattle at the best of times.
yeah at least two of the cwis and I think that ripple rocket launch at 0:14 are russian.
I think the point is valid tho.
Yeah, that bugged me more then it should.
Do they not launch torpedos underwater anymore?
Except for on submarines, where there isn’t a deck, deck-launched torpedoes have been normal for about as long as torpedoes have been used. It’s much more of a nuisance to do things underwater than above the surface, so unless you’ve got a good reason, like being a submarine, generally we don’t.
Back when battleships carried torpedoes (WWI era) they were generally launched from underwater tubes. TBF arming battleships with torpedoes was easily one of the worst ideas in military history. It accomplished absolutely nothing (as best I can remember, the only time battleships ever hit another ship with torpedoes was when the already-crippled Bismarck was being demolished by Rodney) and just added large, indivisible spaces prone to asymmetrical flooding as well as more stuff to explode when you’re hit yourself.
Does any benefit at all remain? What about stealth if they somehow have some kind of radar thing?
If you’re a boat that’s close enough to use a torpedo, they know you’re there.
The history of torpedoes is fun. The original ones were attached to a spar at the front of boats. The boat had a steam engine which they used to get up to speed to try to ambush and ram enemy capital ships. The threat these boats posed to capital ships gave rise to “torpoedo boat destroyers”, which we just call “destroyers” today.
The first kinds of torpedo boats that launched stand-alone torpedoes did use torpedo tubes, but they weren’t underwater. Underwater launching of torpedoes only started when torpedo boats evolved into U-boats (undersea boats, a.k.a. submarines). Destroyers remained torpedo boat destroyers, but now rather than hunting small, fast boats on the surface using small, fast guns, they hunted stealthy boats that were underwater with depth charges.
From submarines, sure. Not from ships. Ships launching torpedoes from tubes above water has been a thing for a really long time.
Back when battleships were armed with torpedoes in the WWI era, they were launched from underwater tubes. You really don’t want torpedoes on deck when people are shooting at you.
While that’s true, that doesn’t change the fact that deck-mounted torpedos have been around a long while. They aren’t restricted to a particular ship type, nor are we concerned with US ships only. Deck-mounted torpedos have been around since at least the early 1900s and WW1, we mostly remember them from WW2 being launched from PT boats.
subs do. helos drop air launched units like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_46_torpedo, and boats use things like ASROC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RUR-5_ASROC and surface torpedo tubes like the mk32 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_32_surface_vessel_torpedo_tubes
Man, CIWS platforms are so cool.
They’re also saving you money. You spend $1000 on ammunition to prevent the sinking of a $1 billion ship.
It’s not saving me a dime, it ain’t my $1 billion ship.
It’s a ship your tax dollars would go to replace if it sunk.
And if it doesn’t get sunk, my tax dollars would just go to building another ship.
Maybe, but that isn’t as certain as replacing a sunk ship.
The government spends every dime it can on the military anyway. If they could squeeze more to replace a ship they would already be squeezing more to build a new one. They already spend as much as the next nine countries combined.
If the war machine was going to grind to a halt just because they had “enough” ships and bombs, it would’ve done so already. It’ll keep going, more and more forever, starting more and more conflicts just to justify lining their pockets, until they finally bite off more than they can chew and kick off nuclear armegeddon. Any of their shit that gets wrecked in their stupid, psychotic adventurism is a good thing because it slows them down from that, even if just a little.
None of it saves me a dime and even if it did I wouldn’t care because my dimes won’t be worth anything when they destroy the world.
But no way it is that expensive. Maybe 1/10the of that.
About $3500/second in ammunition alone.
with how these contractors are, they could very well be charging 10x the price on every bolt, so that some money can exchange hands.
