Again, we manufacture different things but no less a mouthpiece than the Wall Street Journal disagrees with you.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/...d-save-it/
We don't seem to have any trouble manufacturing planes or tanks or ships. Even when we don't need them.
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2015/...-need.html
We insist on maintaining obsolete aircraft because politicians don't want to lose bases in their districts.
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2015/...etire.html
Not that the F-35 is anything to write home about but keeping obsolete planes because their base is in the home state of the Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee is, frankly, bullshit.
And, not to forget the Navy.... we insist on building $13.5 billion dollar carriers like the new USS Gerald Ford but even here there is a serious debate going on.
http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/why-the...1600899834
Our problem is one of will - and political expediency. But if there is one thing the military industrial complex can do it is build weapons....whether we need them or not.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/...d-save-it/
Quote:As you can see that recent recession hurt but output is indeed at or at least about at record ever levels. And do note what this is measuring: it’s the value of what is manufactured and yes, of course, as it is an index it is inflation adjusted. America makes more now than it did in the 90s, more even than in the 50s, those supposedly great days when a middle class living could be made by hitting things with a hammer.
What’s actually being complained about is that manufacturing employment has fallen as a percentage of the total workforce as this chart shows:
We don't seem to have any trouble manufacturing planes or tanks or ships. Even when we don't need them.
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2015/...-need.html
Quote:Pentagon Tells Congress to Stop Buying Equipment it Doesn't Need
We insist on maintaining obsolete aircraft because politicians don't want to lose bases in their districts.
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2015/...etire.html
Quote:The House Armed Services Committee inserted $683 million into the 2016 defense bill to stop the Air Force from retiring the A-10 Warthog.
However, Air Force leaders said the service will have to mothball F-16s and delay the deployment of the F-35 in response to the move by the committee.
Service leaders have said for years the Air Force can no longer afford the A-10. The service said it needs to dedicate resources and manning toward the F-35. Congress has since pushed back saying the service must keep the close-air-support aircraft.
Not that the F-35 is anything to write home about but keeping obsolete planes because their base is in the home state of the Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee is, frankly, bullshit.
And, not to forget the Navy.... we insist on building $13.5 billion dollar carriers like the new USS Gerald Ford but even here there is a serious debate going on.
http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/why-the...1600899834
Quote:Why The US Navy Should Build Smaller Aircraft Carriers
Our problem is one of will - and political expediency. But if there is one thing the military industrial complex can do it is build weapons....whether we need them or not.
