Agree, but I think cannibalizing the CVN fleet to buy more would be a mistake. It would be useful to see that capability exercised sooner or later.
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Road to 350: What Does the US Navy Do Anyway?
- Thread starter Randy Daytona
- Start date
Agree, but I think cannibalizing the CVN fleet to buy more would be a mistake. It would be useful to see that capability exercised sooner or later.
The Deficit Myth, while expertly written, is just horrible. Like all MMT theorists it assumes the only true form of economics...barter...is dead forever. It isn’t. While I agree with the outlines of how we create and use money (and she does a marvelous job of explaining it) the notion that all we need to do is control inflation so that people can exchange their “fake” cash for real services fails in the face of real world challenges like crop failure, war, terrible weather trends, and such. It dismisses the idea of professionalism through experience (basically the old apprentice system) and replaces it with guarantees of a federal job for all. In short, it imagines a world where people will do hard, nasty, terrible jobs because that is their dream. Until we get our Roddenberry food replicators and transport beaming we aren’t going to reach the “egalitarian” goals of MMT.
Ah, yes, MMT: The theory of rationalizing runaway national debt and zero interest rates. Or, a path to total government control of everything.
No, thanks.
No, thanks.
Last edited:
Did you read it? If that's your take away, then you should read it again.
TBH, I fast forwarded past the middle section where she drones on about all the things we should be spending money on to attain societal nirvana, but my main take away was that there are likely unrealized benefits in tweaking how we currently balance employment and inflation that the conventional deficit hawk mindset doesn't account for.
In that sense, her work is worth reading and considering. Her points about the governments place in the cash chain will make you scratch your head and say...hmmmm.
I admit my comment was cynical and somewhat facetious- a lot of statements about debt and taxes have been falsely attributed to MMT. Unfortunately, a lot of the profligate spending crowd believes them.
But no, I haven’t read the piece you mentioned. I probably will take your advice and read it. I have read several articles on MMT, both for and against, and I am pretty sure which side I come down on.
My main issue with MMT stems from politics and human nature. Any well-designed system has to take those into account- MMT arguments seem to assume everyone takes social responsibility. I also don’t like the potential that MMT has to put party politics even more in the driver’s seat. Finally, I don’t think it has been long enough since the financial crisis for MMT’s assumptions to have been sufficiently tested. Post ‘08, inflation didn’t kick off as expected in part because we only managed to reach “full employment” right before COVID hit. I think if we’d seen sustained employment at February 2020 levels, inflation might have started to gain steam quickly.
But I’m no expert- always worth reading more.
I did not find that argument made in the book.
Not sure what you're getting at here. Other than the fact that the Fed is quasi-insulated from the Executive Branch whims, government spending is already 100% controlled by party politics. "Full employment" is defined differently in the book, which reconciles some of the categories that BLS uses to give a more accurate picture. The book argues that the "natural rate" understates true unemployment for a host of reasons.
Bottom line, recommend reading it. It doesn't have to replace your current doctrinaire economic perspectives, but it does add depth to the conversation.
From the 2019 Commandant's Planning Guidance:
As Commandant Krulak noted nearly 25 years ago, the Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU) “is the jewel in our crown, and must be kept ready, relevant, and capable.” Regrettably, it no longer has the same relevance as it once had to the Fleet; however, this will change. We will consider employment models of the Amphibious Ready Group (ARG) / MEU other than the traditional three-ship model. We will accept and prepare for Fleet Commander employment of LHA/Ds as part of three-ship ESGs as desired. I see potential in the “Lightning Carrier” concept, based on an LHA / LHD; however, do not support a new-build CVL. Partnering a big-deck amphib with surface combatants is the right warfighting capability for many of the challenges confronting the joint force, and provides substantial naval and Joint operational flexibility, lethality, and survivability.
Combined with the divestment of armor, tube artillery and substantial amounts of helicopters and the planned buy of 300+ F-35B's to fill out 14 fleet Marine squadrons, I think you are going to see Lightning carriers as a supplement to the CVN's. They might work in conjunction with a CVN so the carrier can provide electronic and tanker support, but considering the performance differential between a nuke and gator, I still think it is more likely you will see multiple gators operating as a separate task force with Ospreys providing tanker support in the event of a major conflict.
Alright. Fess up. Which one of you writes for Proceedings?
www.usni.org
A Case for Light Carriers
The U.S. Navy already has viable light carriers. It just needs to build more of them.
