• AIhasUse@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      You’re so cryptic. I don’t know if it is intentional or not, but you really don’t answer clearly or explain your reasoning.

      • DancingBear@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        I mean, I guess the us military is the largest military in the world apparently even if you added up all the other militaries together.

        So by your logic there is no other private or public military that is better than the United States, but their goal is being the best, so but, and

        If you are suggesting that the military of a government can be better run by a private organization, such as a corporation…. I mean, I guess you are saying that oligarchy and corporate rule is better than democracy?

        To start with such a large organization won’t benefit your argument in any way

        , and I suppose the service of the military is being the best?

        • AIhasUse@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          By what metric do you think the US has a military larger than all other militaries combined? The firepower index puts the US at the top, but most other metrics don’t. Even with the firepower index, though, no stretch of the imagination would put the US above all other militaries combined.

          The reason the US military is as powerful as it is is not because it is such a well run organization. It is because it gets so much money from taxes. It has nothing to do with governments being able to run things more efficiently than for-profit companies. So many issues in the world are a direct result of how hyper efficient companies are. Running more efficiently doesn’t mean it is better for the world. The opposite is true.

            • AIhasUse@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              5 months ago

              Well, my whole point is that just that government doesn’t usually do as good at running things as private companies. Another big example would be NASA vs. SpaceX. I think it is much easier to come up with examples of private companies getting more bang for their buck than governments. My hunch would be that it has to do with profit incentives. Government workers generally get a set salary whereas private companies stand to gain a whole lot more if they have big innovations.

              Also, oftentimes, there is an incentive for government agencies to get involved in worse deals if it means siphoning money off to friends, whereas this makes less sense in private companies.

              • DancingBear@midwest.social
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                5 months ago

                Well, again. Show me an example of a private company that is comparable to the United States military.

                In the case of space x. It is precisely space x’s ability to waste money that made it so that it could do the research and development.

                NASA would never be allowed to test and blow up ten rockets to build a new space ship.

                Your own examples are proving you wrong

                • AIhasUse@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  Yeah, the freedom to research is a good thing and leads to increased efficiency. SpaceX was able to make reusable rockets in a fraction of the time that NASA has been around. It’s astonishing how badly you want to cling to this narrative that governments run highly efficient organizations. This isn’t even something that people generally debate about. NASA is literally hiring SpaceX to make their rockets because they are so much better at it. Your stance is that Billy is better at making burgers than Sally and yet Billy is literally buying Sally’s burgers instead of making their own. The issue is that you came into discussion with a conclusion, and now that you are trying to justify it, it’s just slipping between your fingers. There’s no shame in taking some time to rethink things if it’s not adding up.