The Motley Fool Discussion Boards
Investing/Strategies / Retirement Investing
|Subject: Re: Don't worry about boomers killing the market||Date: 8/3/2006 1:56 AM|
|Author: OldOne||Number: 52918 of 81965|
I will probably regret responding to this paragraph, but are you really intending to argue that GWB's war on terror is the most cost effective method for avoiding the islamic domination you fear? If not, then it is reasonable to target about squandered funds resulting from sub-optimatl choices.
There is an old saying about defense spending: "You can pay now, in gold, or you can pay later, in blood."
I am not easily convinced that the "most cost effective method" is the right way to go when dealing with any military threat. It is extraordinarily difficult to balance spending more money vs. spending more lives.
Let me give you an analogy. If a crazed murderer comes at me with an axe, I have the option of shooting at him once, twice, or with all the bullets in the gun. Surely the most cost effective solution is the fewest number of bullets which will prevent him from hitting me with the axe. In fact, there may be an optimum solution where I balance the cost of bullets vs. the cost of medical treatment for axe wounds. OTOH, the consequence of shooting one less bullet than the number required is so dire, and the bullets are relatively inexpensive, so I take the safe way out and shoot all the bullets at him.
If we had perfect knowledge of the costs of a war ahead of time we could surely attempt to be cost effective. We do not have this knowledge. I prefer to spend more money and fewer lives of our children. And, I am willing to pay taxes without complaining to go overboard on this.
I am also willing to spend both taxes and lives to deal with a threat which has proven itself real, before it becomes large enough to cause even more harm to us.
I am far less willing to pay taxes so that some lazy bum can sit on his posterior and whine about a "lack of opportunity" which really translates into unwillingness of an employer to pay him more than he is worth. Or for the pork congress routinely dishes out.
|Copyright 1996-2017 trademark and the "Fool" logo is a trademark of The Motley Fool, Inc. Contact Us|