Obama Administration Foolishness, Part 2
I took a couple of days to let life interfere with blogging, but none of the standard politics/economics bloggers seems to have highlighted this note from the Lex column of last Wednesday’s (13 October 2010) FT (again, no link; feel free to provide in comments) under the heading “Defence M&A”:
Lockheed has two small services businesses on the block. [These] in particular appear vulnerable as Robert Gates, secretary of defence, looks for back-office savings to fund operational spending.
That’s pretty much a fair description of the reason for the existence of MERS.* If there is an area of the U.S. economy that it
is more corrupt has poorer incentive-alignment than FIRE, it is Defense Spending. Mr. Gates’s willingness to encourage that by removing processing controls does not bode well for long-term budgetary value.
*Well, the other reason, after tax evasion.
Good lord, man. What are you talking about? You’re going from defense to mortgages to FIRE. Post more from the article if you don’t want your readers’ heads to spin.
Today I hear England is ready to chop 8% from their military budget.
ok ken, I give up. What do Lockheed selling two service divisions, Robert Gates, and MERS have in common?
However, I do like the title to your post. Promises to be a long and entertaining series.