You can always tell armed conflict's in the offing when you see economic illiterate

tweets/Facebook posts from people saying how much missiles cost and how many homelesses could be put up or nurses or teachers employed with that money, etc, etc.

The fact that those missiles are in many cases designed and built in the UK by companies employing thousands and paying untold millions in UK tax revenues that then get spent on homelesses, nurses, teachers, etc, etc is of course a bit too complicated for their tiny fvcking brains.

It really is amazing how many people still appear to think that capital expenditure at a macro level is a zero sum game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burney

tweets/Facebook posts from people saying how much missiles cost and how many homelesses could be put up or nurses or teachers employed with that money, etc, etc.

The fact that those missiles are in many cases designed and built in the UK by companies employing thousands and paying untold millions in UK tax revenues that then get spent on homelesses, nurses, teachers, etc, etc is of course a bit too complicated for their tiny fvcking brains.

It really is amazing how many people still appear to think that capital expenditure at a macro level is a zero sum game.

---

Plus you've got to use them by their 'Best Before' date or they go off and you have to replace them anyway. Probably.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir C

Plus you've got to use them by their 'Best Before' date or they go off and you have to replace them anyway. Probably.

---

:nod: That's absolutely true. We've paid for them already and there's no trade-in option for ordnance when they become obsolete (although you can flog them on to Brazil or whatever, I suppose). Given which, we might as well drop them on some brown chaps. Or Russki chaps for that matter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir C

Plus you've got to use them by their 'Best Before' date or they go off and you have to replace them anyway. Probably.

---

:nod: The US has a load of MOAB that go out of date this year.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burney

tweets/Facebook posts from people saying how much missiles cost and how many homelesses could be put up or nurses or teachers employed with that money, etc, etc.

The fact that those missiles are in many cases designed and built in the UK by companies employing thousands and paying untold millions in UK tax revenues that then get spent on homelesses, nurses, teachers, etc, etc is of course a bit too complicated for their tiny fvcking brains.

It really is amazing how many people still appear to think that capital expenditure at a macro level is a zero sum game.

---

Surely we won't actually be shooting any of our missiles? Provide support to the Americans, sure. But get our hands dirty? I don't think so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burney

tweets/Facebook posts from people saying how much missiles cost and how many homelesses could be put up or nurses or teachers employed with that money, etc, etc.

The fact that those missiles are in many cases designed and built in the UK by companies employing thousands and paying untold millions in UK tax revenues that then get spent on homelesses, nurses, teachers, etc, etc is of course a bit too complicated for their tiny fvcking brains.

It really is amazing how many people still appear to think that capital expenditure at a macro level is a zero sum game.

---

So you are saying that the homeless and the nurses should be hoping for a nice, big war? THe more missiles we use the more we need.

And of course, injuries are big business for the nurses.

Surprised to see you championing the war economy, b. It is practically socialism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burney

:nod: That's absolutely true. We've paid for them already and there's no trade-in option when they become obsolete. Given which, we might as well drop them on some brown chaps. Or Russki chaps for that matter.

---

I have some questions about our reasoning for such action, though.

1. Surely it is in our interest for Assad to be in charge, rather than Islamists?
2. Killing civilians with gas is naughty, no doubt, but is it really any naughtier than killing them with barrel bombs or good old-fashioned AK-47s?
3. Surely the first bomb we drop will trigger another flood of 'refugees', all claiming to be fleeing the wanton death and destruction committed by the West :-(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter

So you are saying that the homeless and the nurses should be hoping for a nice, big war? THe more missiles we use the more we need.

And of course, injuries are big business for the nurses.

Surprised to see you championing the war economy, b. It is practically socialism.

---

National defence is one of the few areas where I have a use for government, p. It's therefore one of the few areas for which I don't resent paying tax. After all, who else is going to do it?

And anyway, what I really resent are the morons who seem to think that spending money in one place means it's not available in another. That's not how economies work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir C

I have some questions about our reasoning for such action, though.

1. Surely it is in our interest for Assad to be in charge, rather than Islamists?
2. Killing civilians with gas is naughty, no doubt, but is it really any naughtier than killing them with barrel bombs or good old-fashioned AK-47s?
3. Surely the first bomb we drop will trigger another flood of 'refugees', all claiming to be fleeing the wanton death and destruction committed by the West :-(

---

Please, allow me:

1. I don't really understand this part. I think we want to enforce democracy on countries that have no history of it. I.e. the Islamists wouldn't be voted in.
2. It's more indescriminate, with children being more susceptible to the effects (particularly with chlorine) since it's very dense and is at its greatest concentration when close to the ground. Even the most evil dictator surely cannot wish to punish kids.
3. That's Merkel/Macron's problem, really. We have an sea border so need not worry. Just make sure we're checking lorries at Callais.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir C

I have some questions about our reasoning for such action, though.

1. Surely it is in our interest for Assad to be in charge, rather than Islamists?
2. Killing civilians with gas is naughty, no doubt, but is it really any naughtier than killing them with barrel bombs or good old-fashioned AK-47s?
3. Surely the first bomb we drop will trigger another flood of 'refugees', all claiming to be fleeing the wanton death and destruction committed by the West :-(

---

I think there's a rather bigger picture, tbh. This isn't about Assad. Nobody really cares if middle Eastern savages slaughter their populace by whatever means. It's simply what This is about showing Iran and Russia that the West is sick of their sh1t; that that limp-wristed fanny Obama is no longer in charge and that red lines will not be crossed with impunity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burney

I think there's a rather bigger picture, tbh. This isn't about Assad. Nobody really cares if middle Eastern savages slaughter their populace by whatever means. It's simply what This is about showing Iran and Russia that the West is sick of their sh1t; that that limp-wristed fanny Obama is no longer in charge and that red lines will not be crossed with impunity.

---

Do you not feel that Mrs May is a leetle bit limp of wrist? Though I suppose she will just go along with whatever Don wants.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burney

I think there's a rather bigger picture, tbh. This isn't about Assad. Nobody really cares if middle Eastern savages slaughter their populace by whatever means. It's simply what This is about showing Iran and Russia that the West is sick of their sh1t; that that limp-wristed fanny Obama is no longer in charge and that red lines will not be crossed with impunity.

---

Ah, we're back to The Great Game, I suppose.

It's all very well, but if a Sukhoi 35 engages a Typhoon and comes off second best, that means war. And war is bad for business. Unless you're in the war business.

I wish I was in the war business.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burney

National defence is one of the few areas where I have a use for government, p. It's therefore one of the few areas for which I don't resent paying tax. After all, who else is going to do it?

And anyway, what I really resent are the morons who seem to think that spending money in one place means it's not available in another. That's not how economies work.

---

I agree. Morons! Like suggesting that if we leave the EU we can spend more on the NHS. What sort of ****ing idiot would say something like that! Or vote for it......

Those complaining now should come and see you, b. You can tell them that isnt how economies work :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rich

Do you not feel that Mrs May is a leetle bit limp of wrist? Though I suppose she will just go along with whatever Don wants.

---

I would certainly say she's limp of wrist if she went through the idiotic business of asking for Parliament's consent. A sitting Prime Minister does not require Parliament's say-so for taking military action. It's a dangerous precedent that's been set in recent years and it needs to stop.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter

I agree. Morons! Like suggesting that if we leave the EU we can spend more on the NHS. What sort of ****ing idiot would say something like that! Or vote for it......

Those complaining now should come and see you, b. You can tell them that isnt how economies work :)

---

You should take that up with the people who actually voted for that, p. If you can find one. :shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir C

Ah, we're back to The Great Game, I suppose.

It's all very well, but if a Sukhoi 35 engages a Typhoon and comes off second best, that means war. And war is bad for business. Unless you're in the war business.

I wish I was in the war business.

---

Well the Turks shot down an SU-24 and Russia - predictably - did fvck all. Russia's all wind and p1ss.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burney

Well the Turks shot down an SU-24 and Russia - predictably - did fvck all. Russia's all wind and p1ss.

---

Christ, a Sukhoi-24? Saved them the bother of scrapping the poor old thing, I suppose.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir C

Ah, we're back to The Great Game, I suppose.

It's all very well, but if a Sukhoi 35 engages a Typhoon and comes off second best, that means war. And war is bad for business. Unless you're in the war business.

I wish I was in the war business.

---

Aren't the Su-35 and EF2000 build for different things? I've always seen the Su-35 and thought it was a very fast, heavy air to ground aircraft? Whereas the EF2000 is a nimble, slightly scatty air to air fighter jet?

I'd have thought that the Tornado was a better comparison to the Su-35.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rich

Aren't the Su-35 and EF2000 build for different things? I've always seen the Su-35 and thought it was a very fast, heavy air to ground aircraft? Whereas the EF2000 is a nimble, slightly scatty air to air fighter jet?

I'd have thought that the Tornado was a better comparison to the Su-35.

---

Christ knows, they all look the same to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir C

Christ, a Sukhoi-24? Saved them the bother of scrapping the poor old thing, I suppose.

---

Sure, but the principle was the same. The Russians were pushing their luck by encroaching on Turkish airspace, the Turks weren't having it, shot the bugger down and the Russians backed off. This is their gameplan - it's based on the idea that the West won't react. When it does, they'll back down.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burney

I think there's a rather bigger picture, tbh. This isn't about Assad. Nobody really cares if middle Eastern savages slaughter their populace by whatever means. It's simply what This is about showing Iran and Russia that the West is sick of their sh1t; that that limp-wristed fanny Obama is no longer in charge and that red lines will not be crossed with impunity.

---

Not just the West, imo

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DYwOdCIWAAI2_86.jpg:large

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burney

Sure, but the principle was the same. The Russians were pushing their luck by encroaching on Turkish airspace, the Turks weren't having it, shot the bugger down and the Russians backed off. This is their gameplan - it's based on the idea that the West won't react. When it does, they'll back down.

---

K. If you're sure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redgunamo

Not just the West, imo

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DYwOdCIWAAI2_86.jpg:large

---

Oh, sure. But he's one of us now. Kind of.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir C

K. If you're sure.

---

The alternative is giving Putin and Iran a free hand to do what they want in the region. :shrug: There seems little point in the US being the world's only military and economic superpower if it's going to pussy out every time Vlad waves his little willy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burney

The alternative is giving Putin and Iran a free hand to do what they want in the region. :shrug: There seems little point in the US being the world's only military and economic superpower if it's going to pussy out every time Vlad waves his little willy.

---

Yes, everyone does appear to have assumed the Donald was on about American missiles .. :rubchin:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burney

You should take that up with the people who actually voted for that, p. If you can find one. :shrug:

---

Why cant I take it up with the people who campaigned on it, including the current Foreign Secretary? I mean, if he doesnt understand the basics of how the economy works......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter

Why cant I take it up with the people who campaigned on it, including the current Foreign Secretary? I mean, if he doesnt understand the basics of how the economy works......

---

Feel free. However, if you're going to take personal issue with every silly, simplistic claim made with the intention of winning election or referendum campaigns, it's going to take a while.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burney

Feel free. However, if you're going to take personal issue with every silly, simplistic claim made with the intention of winning election or referendum campaigns, it's going to take a while.

---

True. Perhaps I should just sit on here and use these examples every time you pour scorn on people for expressing views that are slightly less silly than those we are presented with by our politicians.

In a sense, by the way, it IS how economies work. When you have a taxation ceiling, precipitated by a post THatcher consensus on the basic rate of income tax and an unwillingness to enforce corporation tax, public spending has a ceiling as well. With finite resources each area of expenditure constitutes a choice- a pound spent here is a pound less available there.

Guns and butter, b. Was always thus.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter

True. Perhaps I should just sit on here and use these examples every time you pour scorn on people for expressing views that are slightly less silly than those we are presented with by our politicians.

In a sense, by the way, it IS how economies work. When you have a taxation ceiling, precipitated by a post THatcher consensus on the basic rate of income tax and an unwillingness to enforce corporation tax, public spending has a ceiling as well. With finite resources each area of expenditure constitutes a choice- a pound spent here is a pound less available there.

Guns and butter, b. Was always thus.

---

Of course there's a ceiling. If there weren't, socialist economic policies would actually work. ;-) However, the point is that in a complex economy, spending a million here does not mean that there is not a million elsewhere. Indeed, by spending that million on a missile whose design and manufacture involves the employment of thousands (who then provide tax revenue with their wages) by a company that is also contributing to the public purse, that is a much wiser investment of public money than p1ssing it up the wall by keeping a bunch of winos in hostels for a week, which achieves nothing other than to make a few people feel better about themselves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burney

Of course there's a ceiling. If there weren't, socialist economic policies would actually work. ;-) However, the point is that in a complex economy, spending a million here does not mean that there is not a million elsewhere. Indeed, by spending that million on a missile whose design and manufacture involves the employment of thousands (who then provide tax revenue with their wages) by a company that is also contributing to the public purse, that is a much wiser investment of public money than p1ssing it up the wall by keeping a bunch of winos in hostels for a week, which achieves nothing other than to make a few people feel better about themselves.

---

Possibly. The alternative is that the missile is being built anyway, the people employed anyway and if we didnt buy it the company would sell it abroad thus helping with exports. We could then spend the money we saved on hostels for winos, or crystal healing centres for gypsies- or to replace Britain's ageing collection of traffic cones, some of which have been in service since the 80s.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter

True. Perhaps I should just sit on here and use these examples every time you pour scorn on people for expressing views that are slightly less silly than those we are presented with by our politicians.

In a sense, by the way, it IS how economies work. When you have a taxation ceiling, precipitated by a post THatcher consensus on the basic rate of income tax and an unwillingness to enforce corporation tax, public spending has a ceiling as well. With finite resources each area of expenditure constitutes a choice- a pound spent here is a pound less available there.

Guns and butter, b. Was always thus.

---

Not at all, because smart people are always able to come up with totally new revenue streams.

For instance, long ago, my hounds trained my young sons to open the big outdoor larder we use for smoking various meats, so they could help themselves. Of course, it's forbidden for children to enter but they weren't to know, were they; they're just kids. Thus, at a stroke, the swindling, brutish canines were able to almost double their daily intake of food until their villainy was discovered after some weeks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redgunamo

Not at all, because smart people are always able to come up with totally new revenue streams.

For instance, long ago, my hounds trained my young sons to open the big outdoor larder we use for smoking various meats, so they could help themselves. Of course, it's forbidden for children to enter but they weren't to know, were they; they're just kids. Thus, at a stroke, the swindling, brutish canines were able to almost double their daily intake of food until their villainy was discovered after some weeks.

---

So your hounds are smarter than your sons, eh red? :sherlock:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burney

The alternative is giving Putin and Iran a free hand to do what they want in the region. :shrug: There seems little point in the US being the world's only military and economic superpower if it's going to pussy out every time Vlad waves his little willy.

---

I imagine it's quite big, actually. Not sure why.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redgunamo

Yes, everyone does appear to have assumed the Donald was on about American missiles .. :rubchin:

---

Can't we use our shiny new Destroyers to do something? Might as well even include this exercise as part of HMS QEII's sea trials.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rich

I imagine it's quite big, actually. Not sure why.

---

I would argue that a man who feels the need to project himself as that manly is almost certainly hung like a Chinese mouse, r.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redgunamo

Not at all, because smart people are always able to come up with totally new revenue streams.

For instance, long ago, my hounds trained my young sons to open the big outdoor larder we use for smoking various meats, so they could help themselves. Of course, it's forbidden for children to enter but they weren't to know, were they; they're just kids. Thus, at a stroke, the swindling, brutish canines were able to almost double their daily intake of food until their villainy was discovered after some weeks.

---

Right, but we are not talking about smart people. We are talking about government.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by World's End Stella

So your hounds are smarter than your sons, eh red? :sherlock:

---

This is not about intelligence. People, especially children, enjoy feeding animals and animals, especially dogs, enjoy, indeed rely on, being fed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter

Possibly. The alternative is that the missile is being built anyway, the people employed anyway and if we didnt buy it the company would sell it abroad thus helping with exports. We could then spend the money we saved on hostels for winos, or crystal healing centres for gypsies- or to replace Britain's ageing collection of traffic cones, some of which have been in service since the 80s.

---

So you're suggesting we ought to not bother, slash defence spending and outsource our defence to the US as if we were Portugal or Ireland, p? This seems an interesting strategy in terms of our international standing, I must say.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rich

Can't we use our shiny new Destroyers to do something? Might as well even include this exercise as part of HMS QEII's sea trials.

---

I think we've pretty much decided it's not really our business anymore; these foreign military engagements are a tougher sell nowadays and the Donald was elected, in part, to do an awful lot less of it.

I reckon we let the locals handle things. For example, today's Saudi military man is completely unrecognisable from the spoiled, lazy, feckless bunch I dealt with in Desert Storm. They're ready.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redgunamo

I think we've pretty much decided it's not really our business anymore; these foreign military engagements are a tougher sell nowadays and the Donald was elected, in part, to do an awful lot less of it.

I reckon we let the locals handle things. For example, today's Saudi military man is completely unrecognisable from the spoiled, lazy, feckless bunch I dealt with in Desert Storm. They're ready.

---

:nod: And that way, they'll need us to sell them lots of lovely replacement kit. :cloud9: