Once upon a time, John Stuart Mill could write these words truthfully (“Of the Influence of Consumption on Production,” 1844):
It is no longer supposed that you benefit the producer by taking his money, provided you give it to him again in exchange for his goods.
He was talking, of course, about government tax-transfer programs intended to stimulate employment by subsidizing consumption. We cannot say this today.
I have always had my doubts but Jane Shaw brings the receipts.
RedDR needed the war because his communist takeover of America was failing bigly and a war empowered government like nothing else.
A decade ago I began to research the history of the Pearl Harbor attack. I had happened upon the book Infamy by a Pulitzer Prize-winning author, John Toland, which raised disturbing questions about foreknowledge of the attack. [2] This was Toland’s third book about World War II. His prize-winning Rising Sun had treated the attack as a dastardly Japanese act; the second revealed poor communication between Washington, D.C., and Hawaii; and Infamy blamed the U.S. president and his high-level advisors for allowing the attack to go forward.
In Liberty magazine in 2010 (you can read the article on p. 39 of the October issue in Liberty Unbound ) I reviewed The Pearl Harbor Myth: Rethinking the Unthinkable, a 2007 book by George Victor. [3] And I took the opportunity to discuss the long-standing controversy over the question, Did President Roosevelt and/or his advisors know about the potential attack and could they have taken action to prevent it?
My conclusion was, and remains, that FDR knew the Japanese were about to attack, as did his chief of staff, George Marshall, and they almost certainly knew the target would be Pearl Harbor. This is heresy to most people. In 2001, Robert Bartley, the esteemed editorial page editor of The Wall Street Journal, called the possibility that the president would conceal such information “wildly implausible; what commander would sacrifice most of a fleet to open a two-front war?” [4]
Email me at cgpodcast@pm.me
“It might be argued that only the ‘rich’ can afford to be capitalists, i.e., those who have a greater amount of money stock. This argument has superficial plausibility, since … for any given individual and a given time-preference schedule, a greater money stock will lead to a greater supply of savings, and a lesser money stock to a lesser supply of savings…. We cannot, however, assume that a man with (post-income) assets of 10,000 ounces of gold will necessarily save more than a man with 100 ounces of gold. We cannot compare time preferences interpersonally, any more than we can formulate interpersonal laws for any other type of utilities. What we can assert as an economic law for one person we cannot assert in comparing two or more persons. Each person has his own time-preference schedule, apart from the specific size of his monetary stock. Each person’s time-preference schedule, as with any other element in his value scale, is entirely of his own making. All of us have heard of the proverbially thrifty French peasant, compared with the rich playboy who is always running into debt. The common-sense observation that it is generally the rich who save more may be an interesting historical judgment, but it furnishes us with no scientific economic law whatever, and the purpose of economic science is to furnish us with such laws. As long as a person has any money at all, and he must have some money if he participates in the market society to any extent, he can be a capitalist.
—Murray Rothbard, Man, Economy, and State
“[A]ny man can be a capitalist if only he wants to be. He can derive his funds solely from the fruits of previous capitalist investment or from past ‘hoarded’ cash balances or solely from his income as a laborer or a landowner. He can, of course, derive his funds from several of these sources. The only thing that stops a man from being a capitalist is his own high time-preference scale, in other words, his stronger desire to consume goods in the present. Marxists and others who postulate a rigid stratification—a virtual caste structure in society—are in grave error. The same person can be at once a laborer, a landowner, and a capitalist, in the same period of time.”
—Murray N. Rothbard, Man, Economy, and State
Word.
The Zumwalt-class destroyer will never be the battleship of the twenty-first century. It’s the U.S. Navy’s version of the Russian Admiral Kuznetsov aircraft carrier.
Yet another multi-billion dollar failure.
Yet, the instant that the Zumwalt-class appears to conduct strikes against enemy ground targets, they can be visually spotted by an enemy scout wielding binoculars. The reduced radar cross-section provides little protection for the warship when operating within the visual range of the enemy.
What’s more, the moment the Zumwalt fired its payload its stealth would be gone, as the enemy would quickly discern that the Zumwalt was a destroyer rather than some fishing boat off their coast.
So, even the vaunted stealth capabilities of these boats are not that great.
And what about the “impressive” weapons systems of these boats? Well, they’re not impressive. Originally, Zumwalt’s Advanced Gun System (AGS) was trumpeted as the great weapon system of its time. It was deemed a total failure. That’s because the specialized 155 mm rounds designed for these systems, the Long Range Land Attack Projectile (LRLAP), became too expensive to mass produce.
So, the Pentagon reduced the ammunition order, meaning that there was an artificial limit to how many rounds each ship would have in combat. That made the guns unusable.
This led to the calls by the Navy to embrace the Conventional Prompt Strike (CPS) hypersonic weapons platform. Launched from Multiple All-Up Round Canisters (MACs), each MAC holds three CPS missiles. According to their specifications, the CPS is a boost-glide missile with a kinetic-energy warhead that can travel upwards of Mach 5 (3,800 miles per hour).
Here’s the problem: the CPS is in no way ready for showtime. Given the limitations of the Navy’s budget under current conditions, it is unlikely that the Navy will be able to develop these proposed weapons promptly.
So, here again, the Zumwalt-class destroyers are failing to deliver.
Zumwalt-Class: Don’t You Dare Call This Destroyer a Battleship
Email me at cgpodcast@pm.me
Are we witnessing the dawn of a new geopolitical crisis in Asia? As South Korea’s President Yoon Suk-yeol declares martial law over perceived threats from the North, the region teeters on the edge of upheaval. This episode of the Kyle Angelo show dives into the fallout from this dramatic move, analyzing its impact on South Korea’s political landscape. We explore Yoon’s strategic gambit against a backdrop of declining popularity and a strengthening opposition, while weighing the implications of a possible Trump return and its effect on U.S.-North Korea diplomacy.
The storm clouds over Ukraine are no less ominous, as Keith Kellogg shares his contentious perspectives on the U.S. and NATO’s role in the ongoing conflict. Kellogg advocates for a UN-enforced no-fly zone, despite the perilous risk of sparking a broader war. We unpack his vision for supporting Ukraine with advanced weaponry while keeping American boots out of the fray, and how this aligns with his broader strategy to focus on China. The episode sheds light on the intricate geopolitical chess game, where every move could tip the balance of power.
Tracing the evolution of U.S. policy on Ukraine, we contrast the varied approaches of Obama, Trump, and Biden. From non-lethal aid to aggressive sanctions, we critique these policies and their impact on the conflict’s trajectory. The recent decision by the West to arm Ukraine with long-range missiles marks a significant escalation, and we scrutinize the incoming Trump administration’s apparent backing of this aggressive stance. This episode promises a gripping examination of the escalating conflict and its broader implications for global security, touching on the strategic roles of North Korea, Iran, and China.
One billion dollars for twisted metal for ten F35 crashes, soon you’re talking real money.
The incident rate with respect the US Air Force (USAF) has continued to decline since the 1950s as safety practices have increased and technology has matured. During the 1950s, approximately 23.6 aircraft were destroyed per 100,000 flying hours, this continually declined through to 1960s when the number of aircraft destroyed per 100,000 flying hours dropped to approximately 4.3.
That’s an impressive record.
And then the F35 stumbles on the stage. And remember, this is peacetime and not wartime.
Ten losses and the majority are pilot error which is a reflection of training and the increasing pressure on the forces to “diversify” the cockpit (can I say that?) from 2018 to 2024.
F-35 Crash incidents from 2022 to 2024
Of the 10 incidents listed, six were due to pilot error and three were due to mechanical issues, and the final incident (May 28, 2024), the author could not determine the cause of the crash.
https://simpleflying.com/f-35-fighter-jet-crashes-record/
Email me at cgpodcast@pm.me
A crashed RN F35 on the seafloor.*
My readers knew all of this already; the Royal Navy will not be mission effective as a blue water navy after 2030 and the era of aircraft carriers is over.
Eight billion dollars for future fish apartments.
Eight billion dollars.
Kit Klarenberg goes into exquisite and painful detail on the lack of planning, shortsightedness and criminal negligence in being complete unaware of the Revolutions in Military Affairs (RMA) that are foreshadowing surface navies quickly demolished and sunk by munitions a fraction of the cost of these doomed capital ships.
Western military hegemony will sunset in your life time and the sun set on the British Empire quite awhile ago.
On November 15th, The Times published a remarkable report, revealing serious “questions” are being asked about the viability of Britain’s two flagship aircraft carriers, at the highest levels of London’s defence establishment. Such perspectives would have been unmentionable mere months ago. Yet, subsequent reporting seemingly confirms the vessels are for the chop. Should that come to pass, it will represent an absolutely crushing, historic defeat for the Royal Navy – and the US Empire in turn – without a single shot being fired.
The HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales first set sail in 2017 and 2019 respectively, after 20 years in development. The former arrived at the Royal Navy’s historic Portsmouth base with considerable fanfare, a Ministry of Defence press release boasting that the carrier would be deployed “in every ocean around the world over the next five decades.” The pair were and remain the biggest and most expensive ships built in British history, costing close to $8 billion combined. Ongoing operational costs are likewise vast.
He goes on:
As elite US foreign policy journal National Interest acknowledged in March 2024, “the Royal Navy remains unable to adequately defend or operate” its two carriers “independently” – code for the Empire being consistently compelled to deploy its own naval and air assets to support the pair. This is quite some failure, given British officials originally intended for the vessels to not only lead NATO exercises and deployments, but “slot into” US navy operations wherever and whenever necessary.
The Empire’s inability to outsource its hegemonic duties to Britain has precipitated a critical “carrier gap”. Despite maintaining an 11-strong fleet, Washington cannot deploy the vessels to every global flashpoint at once, grievously undermining her power and influence at a time of tremendous upheaval worldwide. In a bitter irony, by encouraging and facilitating London’s emulation of its own flawed and outdated reliance on aircraft carriers, the US has inadvertently created yet another needy imperial dependant, further draining its already fatally overstretched military resources.
Read the whole thing and you will find the captured defense journalism class won’t utter these words.
https://www.kitklarenberg.com/p/collapsing-empire-rip-royal-navy?r=24rayn&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
* The F-35 the Brits crashed was due to their failure to remove one of the inlet plugs, which the MOD calls “intake blanks.” It’s bright orange and covers the entire air inlet. Impossible to miss unless everyone was drunk or British. In this case, it wasn’t the F-35’s fault. The MOD clown posse admitted this in a report.
Email me at cgpodcast@pm.me
