f16wolfpack

I am still perplexed, 14 years later...

Uhh...America is broke.

I nominate SEA to be the next MARLO at the nearest CAOC for a year.

I think the Air Force finally got it right. Here, here...to the PJs and Combat Rescue. You guys are the shit.

Undoubtedly, PJs and CSAR units are some of the unsung heroes in Afghanistan. I hope they do get additional helicopters out of this series. It's good to see the Air Force and DoD finally endorsing one of these shows. I also hope it lives up to its hype.

Yep. That was the date we learned somebody else's "Air Force" was better than ours. Unfortunately, it took a few years to catch back up. Like I said, we would rather sit back and be reactive. That's what we do best.

We would rather sit back and be reactive. That's what we do best.

Like I said before, I think we are a less risky investment now, relatively speaking, based on the fact others are more risky (i.e. the EU). However, let's not kid ourselves. The rate is deceptively low for another important reason. Since 2009, the Federal Reserve has been printing money to buy treasury bills and bonds at unprecedented rates, to the tune of over $2.3 trillion (see today's article: https://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/story/2012-08-30/ben-bernanke-speech-jackson-hole/57470268/1). Unfortunately, it is difficult to translate this approach to entities outside the government, which obviously has the ability to print its own money. The closest example I can come up with is comparing this to a Fortune 500 company. This would be like Coca-Cola purchasing its products off the shelves of convenient stores in order to keep its sales abnormally high. In the long run, it is not sustainable. It is a ploy to prevent us from sliding back further into another recession, but at what cost to the future? Sure, debt is cheaper today, deceptively cheaper as I've pointed out. Does that mean we should continue to finance projects, proposals, and policies with debt in the hopes of bailing ourselves out of a hole we dug for ourselves in the first place? I think it is a very risky proposition. In fact, isn't this also similar to financing a second home in order to turn a profit on your investment since financing is easier to obtain? That didn't work out so well in 2007 and 2008 for some Californians buying homes in Vegas and Phoenix. If we fund projects today that are not sustainable in the long term because of the costs required to maintain them and the potential for costs to increase, should we continue to go into debt because its cheaper or easier to obtain financing now versus later? That's assuming heavy risk for a very low return in my opinion. I don't believe it is sustainable either.

Again, this policy can probably stand in the short term, but the reason the credit downgrade was such a big deal is the fact it could lead to higher rates in the long term. Investors (individuals and other governments) want a decent return on their investment when they buy our debt through treasury bills (T-bills). If they are assuming a greater risk, they will demand a larger return. This larger return equates to higher interests rates. The Federal Reserve adjusts these rates based on the demand for the investment. As the demand drops, the interest rate must be increased in order to continue funding "soverign debt." That's where our government and public will suffer. If investors demand a higher rate for assuming greater risks, the Federal Reserve will be "forced" to raise rates. This will make it more difficult to continue the current policy, because it will cost the government too much in interest payments down the road. This rate increase will also make it more difficult for you and me to obtain financing through bank loans, because most bank loans base their rates on what the Fed sets. Attached is a good article that explains this a bit better than I did. https://www.elliottwave.com/freeupdates/archives/2012/08/30/When-Will-the-Fed-Raise-Interest-Rates-When-the-Market-Says-So.aspx

Good point. If you have the time, look up Zimbawawe. This is how sovereign debt can take down a country one dollar at a time.

One of the only reasons we have been able to avoid a debt crisis in the US is because there are other nations around the world with bigger debt problems (i.e. Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal, and Japan). The dollar and US treasury bills are still more solid than most other currencies or investments around the world. Do not expect this to always be the case. Printing more money can only carry us so far. Unless the economy rebounds quickly, additional revenue is generated, or spending is drastically cut, we are in for a rude awakening. Debt is debt and at some point, the piper has to be paid. To think otherwise is very naive and unsubstantiated.

Give the man 90 days, and then bitch all you want. I don't think you'll be disappointed.

Social D, I'm with you. I hate the fact Boyd put his endeavors before his blood, but I am grateful for what he did. It is a shame the Air Force essentially disowned him. It says a lot that most of his research, studies, and writings are with the Marines. It is not suprising though.

Good point. Radical visionaries are the ones still studied in history books. Those that carry on the norm are a dime a dozen. "Do you want to do something or be somebody?" That's the sheer genius in Boyd.

You can include this as one of many of Boyd's faults. He's not the only one that has bought into this notion though. I have known enough folks in the Air Force that have learned this lesson the hard way. On the other hand, you cannot discount his contributions to the military in general. As someone who spoke to Boyd on a regular basis once said, "With genius comes all of the other characteristics you can imagine." He was driven by an inherent desire to prove to people his worth. This was an attribute as well as a detriment.