SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (46780)10/28/2010 11:03:10 PM
From: TimF  Read Replies (1) of 71588
 
For who?

The world at large?


For the US, and for the world in general, or at least most of it (not for those who would want to shut down seaborne trade, or any significant part of it by force, obviously)

Which does not necessarily mean that it is a 'good' that is COST/EFFECTIVE or desirable from the point-of-view of the American taxpayer who is stuck with the tab....

True but

1 - The point was whether it was a public good or not, not whether it was generally beneficial and cost effective. If its a public good its not a subsidy, even if it is not cost-effective.

2 - Its highly desirable and beneficial for our country. Being absolutely certain that its cost effective, depends on knowing other people's intentions, and not just their current intentions, but their capabilities, and how their intentions would change (and how shippers would react to those intentions and the resultant actions, and all the indirect effects from those actions) in the very different world we would be in if their was no naval power to protect the sea lanes and intimidate those who would disrupt them. But I'd say over the long run it is cost effective.

3 - Again its not something that is because of oil.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext