Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Pentagon’s $52k trash can

responsiblestatecraft.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 387 posts

Re: The Pentagon’s $52k trash can

#31

Post by hef19898 »

cushychicken wrote: post #24

This is a reducto ad absurdum example of how the US government is paying out the nose to keep a bunch of manufacturing and development work on-shore in the USA. Yeah, sure, it's a trash can, there's no reason it should cost $50k. We're all agreed that's an absurd amount to pay for a trash container. The government isn't just paying for the trash can. They're paying for people to design, tool, and maintain that design…

Stuff for old models, like the E-3, is even more expensive. Obsolescence, tooling no longer available... A similar sotuation happens with spares for classic cars. Try getting rubber and plastic parts some old car models, same story: Lost tooling, low demand. For aircraft you have to recertify production and parts. All of that is actually quite expensive.

Edit: Since the article mentions circuits and such: The alternative to paying through the nose for spares for obsolete systems and parts is a new development. In which case price, and lead times, increase even more. And now contractors are obviously abusong that situation, but parts of those high prices can be explained by the fact that a lot of current, top notch, military hear is running on old, commercially sometimes even obsolete tech.

Re: The Pentagon’s $52k trash can

#32

Post by batch12 »

cushychicken wrote: post #24

This is a reducto ad absurdum example of how the US government is paying out the nose to keep a bunch of manufacturing and development work on-shore in the USA. Yeah, sure, it's a trash can, there's no reason it should cost $50k. We're all agreed that's an absurd amount to pay for a trash container. The government isn't just paying for the trash can. They're paying for people to design, tool, and maintain that design…

I think I can deliver a trashcan that matches specs for a mere 40k.

Re: The Pentagon’s $52k trash can

#34

Post by afterburner »

MontyCarloHall wrote: post #8

While defense spending is the most egregious, governmental budgets are inflated across the board in the US. For instance, the US spends far more per capita on infrastructure and education than other industrialized countries, for at best comparable (and often worse) results. I wonder how much of this is due to the US’s unique ability to essentially endlessly deficit spend. If the supply of governmental funding is effe…

> US’s unique ability to essentially endlessly deficit spend

This is not unique to the US, nor even unique to countries. Almost all countries deficit spend endlessly, which is fine as long as it's offset by economic growth. And that deficit spending can speed up that economic growth.

The US's uniqueness is being massively wealthy, so its deficits are bigger.

Re: The Pentagon’s $52k trash can

#35

Post by kossTKR »

cushychicken wrote: post #24

This is a reducto ad absurdum example of how the US government is paying out the nose to keep a bunch of manufacturing and development work on-shore in the USA. Yeah, sure, it's a trash can, there's no reason it should cost $50k. We're all agreed that's an absurd amount to pay for a trash container. The government isn't just paying for the trash can. They're paying for people to design, tool, and maintain that design…

Is this comment a joke?

Re: The Pentagon’s $52k trash can

#36

Post by einpoklum »

The problem is not the Pentagon's $52,000 trash can, but the US' $858,000,000,000 trash heap which is the defense budget:

other than massive corruption and unaccountable-for assets - the actual delivery of this budget is military intervention, occupation and war-mongering all over the world. Not to mention the danger of nuclear holocaust.

And - almost all members of the congress vote for these monstrosities. Here are the Senate results:

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2022/12/16/moral-and-polit...

https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1...

very few righteous people in Soddom, and even those - who knows how they would vote if their Nay actually had a chance to block the bill.

Re: The Pentagon’s $52k trash can

#37

Post by cushychicken »

hef19898 wrote: post #31
cushychicken wrote: post #24

This is a reducto ad absurdum example of how the US government is paying out the nose to keep a bunch of manufacturing and development work on-shore in the USA. Yeah, sure, it's a trash can, there's no reason it should cost $50k. We're all agreed that's an absurd amount to pay for a trash container. The government isn't just paying for the trash can. They're paying for people to design, tool, and maintain that design…

Stuff for old models, like the E-3, is even more expensive. Obsolescence, tooling no longer available... A similar sotuation happens with spares for classic cars. Try getting rubber and plastic parts some old car models, same story: Lost tooling, low demand. For aircraft you have to recertify production and parts. All of that is actually quite expensive. Edit: Since the article mentions circuits and such: The alterna…

Played that game before myself. It's really, really hard! And it costs a lot of human effort and time to do right.

Re: The Pentagon’s $52k trash can

#39

Post by goodoldneon »

cushychicken wrote: post #24

This is a reducto ad absurdum example of how the US government is paying out the nose to keep a bunch of manufacturing and development work on-shore in the USA. Yeah, sure, it's a trash can, there's no reason it should cost $50k. We're all agreed that's an absurd amount to pay for a trash container. The government isn't just paying for the trash can. They're paying for people to design, tool, and maintain that design…

“Military spending is good for the economy” is basically the same as the broken window fallacy. There’s a massive opportunity cost

Re: The Pentagon’s $52k trash can

#40

Post by cushychicken »

batch12 wrote: post #32
cushychicken wrote: post #24

This is a reducto ad absurdum example of how the US government is paying out the nose to keep a bunch of manufacturing and development work on-shore in the USA. Yeah, sure, it's a trash can, there's no reason it should cost $50k. We're all agreed that's an absurd amount to pay for a trash container. The government isn't just paying for the trash can. They're paying for people to design, tool, and maintain that design…

I think I can deliver a trashcan that matches specs for a mere 40k.

I encourage you to submit a coubterproposal! I'm sure you'd learn a ton about plane based trash cans.
Post reply on HN