NationalJournal.com - Don’t Be Alarmed by the Drone Blimps Hovering Over D.C.

[Andre Kesteloot]

On 7/27/2013 18:23 PM, Alberto di Bene wrote:
> On 7/27/2013 4:03 PM, Andre Kesteloot wrote:
>> /NationalJournal.com - Don’t Be Alarmed by the Drone Blimps Hovering Over D.C. They’re Here to Stop Cruise Missiles -
>>
>> http://www.nationaljournal.com/nationalsecurity/don-t-be-alarmed-by-the-drone-blimps-hovering-over-d-c-they-re-here-to-stop-cruise-missiles-20130726//
>> /
>
> Copied from that article :
>
>> /According to Raytheon 
>> <http://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/rtnwcm/groups/gallery/documents/digitalasset/rtn_134404.pdf>//, 
>> the units will protect a city at 500-700 percent less than the cost to //
>> //operate the reconnaissance planes necessary to maintain the same 
>> amount of coverage./
>
> Maybe my math is a bit rusty, but IMHO a saving of 100% means bringing 
> the total cost to zero.
> So, what a saving of 500-700% does mean ? Do they actually gain, 
> instead of spending, money doing that ?
> Please enlighten me, thanks 73  Alberto  I2PHD
>
Dear Alberto,

I am sorry to tell you that yours is the "Old Europe" way of looking at 
accounting.
Clearly you fail to understand how Washington Government Mathematics work.

Yes, per that statement from Raytheon, we gain between 500% and 700% 
with two Blimps (Just imagine: if we had 4 blimps, we could be 
overprotected...)

That is how we balance our books. (We call it QE3, Quantitative Easing  
3, to the tune of $40 Billion a month (yes Siree, a mere $40B).

If only Italy (and Spain, and Greece. and Portugal) used the same WGM 
(Washington Government Mathematics), the EU would not be on the verge of 
bankruptcy.
Now, if we only could teach Detroit how to understand the same modern 
accounting principles...

73s
André N4ICK

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://amrad.org/pipermail/tacos/attachments/20130727/d1db4337/attachment.html>