Hacker News Reader

Comment by adventured | Hacker News Reader

The US has an economy larger than the next four largest military countries combined. An economy that is hyper dependent on the global economy functioning well and trade flowing unimpeded.

I happen to agree with slashing the US military, however your premise is incorrect. It's also worth noting that China aggressively lies about their military spending - under counting - and has been doing that for decades. The US is also now spending less than Russia per dollar of GDP.

Further, the $165 billion wouldn't accomplish anything in terms of infrastructure, or healthcare, or anything else. For example, take a look at the estimate that California Democrats recently ended up with for their single-payer system (it's so expensive to do in the US, it'd instantly bankrupt California; not even a small, somewhat well run state like Vermont can pull it off). You can't even fix California's infrastructure problems for $165 billion per year. Right now, with the US budget what it is, you'd need more like a $400 billion cut to the military to even scratch the surface (we have nukes, it'd realistically be feasible, but we'd have to dramatically disengage from dealing with Russia in Europe and China in Asia, requiring those regions to significantly lift their military spending).

View on HN

> Further, the $165 billion wouldn't accomplish anything in terms of infrastructure, or healthcare, or anything else.

That's an absurd statement to make. Total spending on highway and street construction in the US is around $90 billion annually: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/TLHWYCONS . You are honestly arguing that adding an additional ~185% of what we spend on roads today wouldn't accomplish anything?

It's not absurd at all, your premise is wrong. US infrastructure problems are not isolated to present annual highway & street construction outlays.

We have immense problems everywhere from dams to grid to schools to bridges to healthcare (we could use to spend tens of billions in additional money just on the VA healthcare system), that are not present in that $90 billion and would not be dented by $165 billion per year.

We spent hundreds of billions on the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and it barely made any difference.

The cost to redo a bridge in the US and then properly maintain it, is far beyond the cost to presently barely maintain it properly as we're doing.

That $90 billion you're quoting, is a vast under-outlay versus what we should be spending. Which is another way of saying, we need to be spending dramatically more just to break even on our current maintenance requirements. The US is facing trillions in spending just to replace our failing/failed infrastructure, and then all that newly replaced infrastructure needs to be maintained properly - so take that $90 billion and increase it upwards of 3x; 2x is what we should be spending now and are not; 3x is what we'll need to spend after we spend trillions on replacement to maintain the new infrastructure properly. That's just for our existing roads / highway infrastructure (which is merely one subset of our infrastructure spending needs).

When you're talking about something like fixing infrastructure the amounts are in the trillions of dollars but there is a realization that you are not going to come up with all the money in a single year. Coincidentally $165 billion a year would have more then made up for the infrastructure funding gap of $1.44 trillion over the next 9 years:

https://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/wp-content/uploads/...

Even not looking at those numbers saying that amount 'wouldn't accomplish anything' is ridiculous. Hundreds of billions of dollars a year is a huge amount in any sector of the economy, even for the US. You can try and defend it as much as you want but that is a hyperbolic statement completely disconnected from reality.

This is not 165 billion to fix infrastructure, this is 165B to fix mass transit and that's plenty when you consider the leverage loans can provide it's closer to 500B per year.

Second US gets almost nothing per dollar from it's military spending due to inefficiencies. Slashing the budget for a few years is a critical step to separate the useful from the useless spenind. And realistically a 70% cut followed by a slow ramp up would eliminate vast amounts of redundant waste, and reduce many long term obligations. But, that waste is making people rich and 'bringing home the bacon' making such cuts untenable.

The $500 billion you're quoting for mass transit, would build high speed rail for California, Texas, and maybe a few states on the East Coast. That's it. Might cover 15% of the US population.

> Second US gets almost nothing per dollar from it's military spending due to inefficiencies

Most US military spending is on human soldiers, not on weapons programs. The waste you're referring to is a few tens of billions of dollars per year. It's not hundreds of billions. Your premise of somehow saving a lot of money by reducing waste, doesn't pan out under any scrutiny accordingly. Unless your plan is to slash hundreds of thousands of soldiers and their associated costs (even if we close half our foreign bases, which would save tens of billions of dollars, we would then need to significantly increase the spending on our domestic base capabilities to handle those soldiers; or we have to dramatically slash our soldier numbers).

It's 500 billion per year, 5 trillion in a decade. Mass high speed rail in Texas is a stupid waste relative to places where lots of people actually live. North East cost has 17% of the US population on less than 2% of the US's total land. After you build high speed rail in that area extending it to that area city's will want to be on the network just as the US highway system was so popular. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northeast_megalopolis So extending to some of these other regions https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northeast_megalopolis#/media...

There's nowhere you're going to get $500 billion per year for anything. Entitlement costs are skyrocketing and are going to accelerate, we can't even afford how much SS / Medicare / Medicaid are going to cost in the next 20 years as is, much less find $500 billion in new spending. If the funding source is to be cutting the US military from $600x billion to $100x billion, that isn't even worthy of a serious discussion (if we slashed it in half to $300x billion - which might be the absolute minimum we need to maintain a standing capable army (it'd be about 1.5% of GDP equivalent a few years out) - that half might plug the entitlement hole in the coming decades, that's it).

If you build a house you take out a loan. The same is generally true of rail networks.

As I said in another comment we could slash Medicare spending by 40+% without reduicing care. But, as you did not bother to read my comment I can't help but think your being disingenuous.

PS: I don't run the country so any change I or you suggest has the same problem of never going to be implemented. Stopping rational discussion at that point kills all political discussions period.

> As I said in another comment we could slash Medicare spending by 40+% without reduicing care.

Concluding disingenuous is more than a stretch. I'm reading & responding to more than a dozen posts in this same thread.

Claiming we could reduce Medicare spending by 40% is a very, very dramatic claim. We could reduce general healthcare spending by a similar amount: the consequences of doing so are profound, involving vast job loss, pay cuts, and tax base loss. What's your near-term fix for that immense dislocation that would take decades to play out? Just tell the millions of people that will be negatively affected by it to suck it up and deal with it? Or do you plan to significantly boost welfare programs, unemployment benefits, retraining spending, etc. - and how do you plan to pay for that (cutting Medicare spending by 40% wouldn't even balance the budget deficit, which is set to balloon massively due to entitlement costs)?

The disingenuous was in reference to the 500 billion, number provided. when you consider the leverage loans can provide it's closer to 500B per year.

Your government funded health care budget alone would be enough to pay for a free-at-the-point-of-use system for the entire population like the UK.

Yes, all the inefficiencies would have to go, and that would mean people would have to get jobs that are more efficient and produce more bang for buck. That's life.

Maybe if the entire population was like the UK this might work - Americans are rather less healthy in general - and one of the "inefficiencies" the UK system does away with is paying for treatments that offer particularly bad value for money, so you'd have to tell a bunch of cancer patients that tough, they're not getting chemo, now go and die quietly, and even then it's not clear whether UK levels of cost efficiency are even possible in the US.

NICE is no different to insurance companies when it comes to hiding the value of a given drug. For cancer patients not given chemo, you're thinking of the US when your credit card bounces and you get dragged out of hospital.

I'm not aware of any cases when people are denied chaemotheropy on the NHS, yet I am aware of people in the Us struggling to pay $50k a year for something as basic as insulin.

>>Mass high speed rail in Texas is a stupid waste relative to places where lots of people actually live.

The Texas triangle (Houston, Dallas, Austin and San Antonio) has a combined metropolitan population of 17 million.

Compare that to the 49+ million people in the northeast which would take about the same rail to cover and 17 million really is small. The problem is it's a triangle which means the maximum distance someone travels is minimized while still needing a lot of rail. You could make it a little shorter by making the trips take longer which kind of defeats the purpose. Further, there is not a lot to directly connect to it.

However, once the northeast networks expands eventually adding Texas would be reasonable, just not from day 1.

You can leave Austin and San Antonio out and still have 13 million people on the Dallas/Houston straight line.

And keep in mind that the terrain between Dallas and Houston is basically all flat and sparsely populated, so building rail there would be a lot cheaper than the northeast.

Rail only going to a fewe small city's would be underutilized. Ballpark 1/3 of the people going from A to B using high speed rail and you need a lot of people going from A to B. However, if B is on the way to C and people from A and B also go to C... etc you start to see massive network effects.

Sure, if Texas wants to spemd their money go for it, but this would be a relative ware of federal funds.

Two thirds of the country live between D.C. and New York and in California. Making high speed just in those places would do a massive amount of good for the country

The Air Force and Navy definitely crank down their service numbers during "peace" time to invest in weapons systems instead. The lead time on ships & planes is so much longer than sailors & airmen through bootcamp that it makes sense. Plus they stick with a pretty low deployment cadence that could easily be cranked up if necessary.

The big problem is that whole categories of the military budget are waste. They are job programs in the shape of a weapon, but are overkill in our current asymmetric wars and likely useless against an equal adversary. The LCS & F-35 are trillions of dollars in waste.

Even when you are talking about a decent system, the internal level of waste is insane. I was an engineer for nuclear submarines. We were cited as an example for all other programs because we were on time and under budget. There was still a waste in every direction I could see.

I think things would get better with a switch to fixed priced contracts instead of cost plus. It requires the service to nail down their requirements up front, but at least you get the cost incentives right. Until then, the saying "first time half time, second time overtime" was pretty apt.

California is already 15% of the US pop.

I feel I should point out that if you decrease soldier numbers and take their salaries and invest it in infrastructure, that's quite a lot of open jobs doing work that is potentially doing more to strengthen the country.

I don't know how many troops one needs to defend the country and fulfill our obligations abroad (though I wish it were zero), but a military job lost surely pays for a civilian job building infrastructure. Especially considering overhead for the two relatively, the civilian job could certainly even pay better.

I'm sure there is a balance in there, but I don't think jobs would be one -- rather readiness requirements alone. And god knows I'm not qualified to guess as to that one, but it does seem likely we're going a bit overboard at present.

Russia is spending more of GDP, US 3.3%, Russia 5.3%, but Russia's GDP is so low that US spending is still nearly nine(!) times higher in actual dollars [1]. A Russian spent dollar probably gives more bang for the buck, but US military spending is still very high.

The single-pay system can be made to work. Others make it work, and a lot cheaper, but you have to accept that you need change. US health care is imo absurdly expensive and not that good (I have experienced it). But that discussion seem to always fall into the realm of doctrine rather than what is good and possible when it comes under discussion.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_...

> A Russian spent dollar probably gives more bang for the buck, but US military spending is still very high.

You of course didn't support that claim at all. Most US military spending goes to soldier-related costs. How do you propose to slash that given how dramatically higher the US median wage is compared to Russia? Other than of course to perhaps cut the number of US soldiers in half.

> The single-pay system can be made to work. Others make it work, and a lot cheaper

Of course it can work. It can't work with US costs what they are. You need to go tell US nurses they have to take a 1/3 pay cut, to match up with what nurses in France and Germany are making. Then you need to go tell radiologists that they have to take a 70% pay cut to match up with French radiologists. Then you have to go tell pharma they're getting a 2/3 cut. Then you have to tell average hospital workers they're getting a 20% pay cut. Then you have to close 1/3 of all hospitals. Then you have to substantially expand wait times to match eg Canada, aka rationing the care. Then you have to tell hospital admin they're getting a 50% cut in their budget. Then you have to fire 500,000 people that are employed directly or indirectly in the health insurance industry. Then you have to slash the payouts for all sorts of highway robbery prices in medtech / devices / supplies related to the healthcare industry, which will can hundreds of thousands of more employees. You have to successfully adjust all of that, lower the costs, then figure out how to create new economic growth with the cost savings to re-employ all those lost jobs, wages, taxes (all that lost income tax, which will shoot a hole in the side of social security & medicare/medicaid).

IE you have to find a trillion dollars in savings across dozens of economic segments. Which is another way of saying: a lot of people are going to lose a lot of jobs and income. It's an extraordinarily complicated and expensive problem to resolve without rattling the entire economy to its core.

Oh yeah, then you have to dramatically raise taxes on the US middle class (which pays very little in taxes vs most developed nations) to match up with what countries with single payer systems do; and explain to the middle class that they're going to be better off with socialized healthcare, and that the increased taxes will be off-set by the government healthcare vs the old private insurance approach. Then you also have to significantly raise taxes on the top 25%, which pay most of the taxes in the US.

No problem eh.

I'd suggest not to use the model of centralistic and rather socialistic nations like France as a model for the US. Not that I don't like that model, I just don't think it's a good fit. Instead look at Switzerland for example. Leaving foreign politics away it almost seems like a shrunken down version of the US, both politically and economically, with just a few major differences:

* even more locally organised. County sized administrations have about the same independence as US states.

* instead of spending our (similar) tax rates on the military, it is spent on superb health care (imagine a souped up version of Obamacare with regulated prices), schools and a social net. Look at the numbers though - I think it works, that is, innovation and the economy in general are strong thanks to a more stable middle class (that doesn't experience negative social mobility due to health care problems and overpaid schools plus gets an influx from people at the poor end that make it by means of a helping hand at child age).

* and no, I would argue Switzerland is not significantly less diverse with about 30% immigrant population. We have about the same proportion of backwards rightwing pseudo conservatives as a counterreaction, but they are bound to a political system that makes getting absolute majorities in the parliament near impossible (and also relatively useless alone thanks to referendums that serve as a moderation tool). See also again the difference in how middle class is kept going, which makes a Populist power grab much less likely.

We could redirect 50% of our military spending to single payer and it would not even remotely fix our problems. That amount of money would make single payer work in just California (ie 10% of the nation). We probably need to be spending $200+ billion more just on our existing medicare + medicaid + VA health systems as it is. People that keep saying things like that about military spending, don't seem to understand that the biggest problem the US has, is for single payer to work millions of Americans are going to have to lose big time, to the tune of a trillion dollar cut affecting millions of incomes & jobs that feed off the system bloat. You either need to come up with trillions of dollars in new funding to do single payer, or you need to tell millions of Americans they're going to be fired and or take big pay cuts (plausibly both).

I agree, there are better systems than France. My only reference to France, is about competitive salaries in the healthcare industry. Wages in that industry have to come down by a lot to match comparables in eg France, Germany, UK.

When people talk about single payer re the US, they focus on drug prices and insurance industry costs. They ignore that essentially every cost in the US system is inflated, including routine labor and dozens of side connected feeder industries (everything from saline supply to the cost of hospital beds to labor costs in elderly care). Most of the cost bloat in the system is made up of salaries for workers such as nurses, doctors, hospital workers, admin and health insurance employees. You could slash pharma costs nearly in half in the US and only save ~$150 billion of the $1 trillion we have to cut out of our costs to get cost competitive again. Every one of these cuts will have substantial economic consequences; cut pharma in half, lose a million high paying jobs directly & indirectly that support the tax base that pays for the single payer system (ie you have to figure out how to replace that; which would occur, but it'd take lots of time).

That said, the way the US is actually going to go, is we're going to do a slow mediocre drift into single payer, through gradual expansion as the existing convoluted system fails one tier after another (essentially failing up the economic chain; the middle class will gradually all be pulled into government healthcare by necessity as the system collapses). Maybe out of desperation they'll use medicare as the platform, since the politicians in Washington DC can never agree on anything it's most likely our result will be to use something that already exists and just enlarge it.

Again, broaden your view a bit. Switzerland has a very similar health care system with a similar cost structure and a similarly strong pharmaceutical lobby - just vastly better outcomes.

US government spends more per person on heathcare than Canada. So, we could use their system for essentially zero extra cost per year post transition. The difference is US heathcare makes people rich, where US social security for example does not. This waste does not translate to better care just vastly more waste.

The VA hospital system is a US example demonstrating vastly lower costs with similar outcomes. Scale that to say all of Medicare + all government workers and costs drop enough to cover vastly more people. Now add in other programs like the Ryan White AIDS program which covers ~300,000 people with very high cost care and the supliments to Rural heathcare systems etc and heathcare would look very different and cheaper.

> US government spends more per person on heathcare than Canada. So, we could use their system for essentially zero extra cost per year post transition.

I've made that point numerous times in this thread. I think you're missing my point: the US has to slash a trillion dollars in expenses out of its system. That trillion dollars consists of jobs & people's income & tax base loss. It is not a zero cost transition, it's a massive cost transition. You're talking about it as though it would occur in a vacuum, it would not.

The VA system is not an example of lower costs. You're wrong, it's more expensive than both the private sector and medicare:

http://dailycaller.com/2014/06/02/report-va-health-care-has-...

Your comparing heathcare spending while ignoring age differences making that analysis meaningless. 4 to 40 year olds don't spend much on healthcare. Veterans are by definition old.

Further the UA is often covering the most expensive care such as hip replacements, the fact that it's a lower percentage of costs is a result of efficiency of the VA and waste in the rest of the system.

As to lowering costs, economically spending money on heathcare billing vs Rail is only different because Rail provides long term value. As long as total spending is unchanged there is no reason to suspect economic harm.

The VA system is only representing 1/3 of actual healthcare costs that vets are actually costing. That figure is then intentionally abused to represent that the VA system is less expensive. It's propaganda, nothing more.

> As long as total spending is unchanged there is no reason to suspect economic harm.

You mean other than the vast dislocation that health industry labor - and two dozen other industries reliant on that spending - would suffer? People taking pay cuts in healthcare, workers losing jobs in pharma & health insurance by the hundreds of thousands (high paying jobs at that). Your premise would only actually work that way in a simulation (and it'd be a really bad simulation, not accounting for anything in the real world), not in reality. In reality, there is dramatic economic friction that occurs when you fire someone and they have to retrain / find a new job, or when you cut their pay to bring costs in line. There are immense short-term and long-term costs to that upheaval, in reality. Such costs include: unemployment costs, job training, long-term unemployment costs, welfare benefit costs, tax base loss until jobs & incomes are recovered. The US economy is growing very slow, where's the evidence it can absorb such losses and then create a million new high paying jobs (simultaneously while automation is about to bear down on just about every category of employment)?

Your falling hard for the broken window fallacy. Transition need not be over a weekend, and the net gains from increased efficiency more than cover transition costs over time.

If the VA spent 1/2 as much money and covered 1/6 of the costs while provoviding the same benefit that would be a good thing. This analysis ignores survives provided because the only way to make them look bad is to pretend spending more money is somehow a good thing.

The way that the US is spending money (e.g. building a 1.5tn fighter jet that can hardly fight and a 35bn aircraft carrier that can't launch) I would actually start getting worried about adversaries with just a tenth of the US budget.

To put it differently, if the Swiss, population 8M, can figure out how to transport 1.8x the amount of rail passengers compared to the entire US (no, not by capita, in absolute numbers [1]), it could also happen that a smaller budget military outmaneuvers US army, navy and marines. That being said, conventional armies made for symmetric warfare seem just about as useless now as at the height of the cold war. But not even the security of the nuclear arsenal seems a high priority in US politics today.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_rail_us...

Your arguments rest on irrational statements.

The US isn't spending $1.5 trillion on the F35. First, the costs will be spread over decades; second, the US will never order even half the planes in question; it never does when it comes to large systems orders. In 10-15 years they'll be slashing the buying down toward zero as with the F22 (as the military chomps at the bit to move on to new programs), the F35 program will cost half as much as claimed presently, as most of the cost projections are based on maintenance costs over 30 years for thousands of planes that will never be purchased (we're going to buy thousands of F35s over decades? yeah right).

That aircraft carrier will launch. Every country that has ever built one has had significant problems doing so, the US has a long successful history of building & deploying aircraft carriers, the latest one will be no different regardless of temporary problems.

You aren't reading favourably. It could well be that the whole stealth superiority fighter concept is outdated due to new cheap sensor technology (and its use in AA defense systems) and the whole concept of carrier groups could soon be outdated due to something new, like undetectable diesel/electric submarine drones that cost a 3 orders of magnitude less, thus could be built as swarms that become impossible to deal with. My main point is, don't just look at the spending. And (I think your comment is symptomatic), don't forget the damn nukes, those things should be the biggest worry of all.

Well I do think the F35 and carrier approach is very soon to be outdated. Which is also why there's zero chance we're going to order thousands of F35s; 10 years out, they'll already be wanting to kill that program to replace it with something else as the obvious inbound threats to traditional fighters (various cheap autonomous tech) become more blatant. That of course won't stop them from spending as you know.

The carriers are not hard to sink; they never really have been for a major opponent. China and Russia have been able to sink them for a long time. They're not for fighting adversaries that can sink them. They're force projection, intimidation, and for fighting countries that aren't Russia or China. Carriers will be useful in their present role for a few decades to come yet (their current role is not for potentially fighting Russia or China; anyone that thinks that is seriously confused). Military tier nations in the capability realm of Iran, might pose a real threat to carriers in 15-20 years. The trick with US carriers, is that anyone (again, not named Russia or China) that actually sinks one has a full scale war with the US on their hands. In that sense, carriers are a taunting device: you can try to sink one, but if you succeed, your country is going to be massively attacked (you're going to trade sinking a carrier for losing all your airports, your power grid is going to be taken down, your airforce is going to be neutralized, your economy is going to grind to a halt, etc).

Any country that will dear to sink an US aircraft carrier will either have the means to wipe out most of US population too (Russia, China) or just won't care about the consequences (North Korea / Iran, if they think US is about to attack them). In neither case is taunting particularly efficient.

Switzerland: 15,940 mi²

Texas: 268,597 mi²

U.S.: 3,797,000 mi²

US has about the same population density as Switzerland in multiple areas that are at least as large: LA, Bay area and especially Philadelphia-DC-NYC-Boston.

So.. how does size exactly stop the US from having the to-date most efficient mass transport? I'm not talking LA-NYC, noone is gonna do that until someone builds vacuum tubes. First you need good local and regional travel.

Switzerland also has to build tunnels, because of the Alps. I am not an expert on US geography, but there seem to be places with many people and much easier terrain to build rails on.

How many trips cross Texas or the US? How many trips happen within a couple hundred miles of major urban centers?

As an example of how low it is, Russia's GDP is barely more than Australia's and is below Canada's. How the mighty have fallen.

It was never large to begin with. USSR thought that Russians don't need money and then Putin thinks exactly the same.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com