Not at all.

I think you're trying to oversimplify it too much, though. And in that oversimplification, you're tossing out quite needed justifications and reasons.

Sometimes, actually, quite often, inefficient is *good*. "Competition" implies that there are 2 (or more) systems that are redundant, thus wasting resources.

But when one of those resources is down, the other can step in. Hospitals, for instance, often have many empty beds, which is inefficient. But the alternative - lack of space in an emergency is enough of a criteria to make that the planning goal, rather than what is the statistical need.

That's part of the question that gets raised with your example of your apartment owner. He's got some inefficiencies (at least potentially) with what he owns, so he's got to cover for that with his rates to you. But again, the easy availablity is worth a certain amount to you.

The question then becomes how much inefficiency can exist before the exchange of energy becomes worthless?

And that's a valid question. I just think you're applying it to situations where it doesn't [apply].

Such as the owner. He's not "inefficient", (well, he might be personally, but for the case of this situation he's not considered that. :)) he's the one providing capital and services for you to purchase. If he outsources the care and maintanence, that might be "inefficient" to have a layer of management, but then again, it might not be. So you now hire apartment managers and maintenance people, or the managers get contracts... There's another layer involved now, and as a result, there's another possible problem area.

But on the other hand, there's also now more resources to working, and more that can be done.

I am not arguing for no military force at all - I am quite aware of what happened to the French.

But its a good example of something that by definition isn't used all that often, but you spend a lot of money on it. (well, can, anyway).

Its the sort of "spare capacity" question that lots of things have, hospitals, police, even banks..

I mean, hell, why can't we use that %#!$ Harrier, instead of reinventing the wheel with that POS Osprey, which will probably kill more soldiers than the enemy ever will...

I think Drew answered this one already, but I'll elaborate a tad, I think this is showing the oversimplification you're trying to reduce things to.

Not that I think you're wrong for doing it, I try to do the same thing a lot. :)

The Harrier's job and the Osprey's job aren't very similar. They have a overall similarity (use by the Marines), but one is a one person killing machine, and the other is a transport (when its not being a killing machine).

Its intended to replace the (very old) helicopters that the Marines are currently using.. Helicopters are very inefficient flying machines. They're very effiecient HOVERING machines, but not flying. So as a result, in the tradeoffs you make with power/fuel/range/speed/weight/armor/armament, speed is often very shortchanged. Which if you want to move people, in a hurry, is a detriment, of course... So the Marines want a vehicle that can fly
as fast as a plane (and on the fuel savings of a plane over a helicopter), but be able to drop down and deposit people and gear without having to have a prepared landing strip.

So they're very different machines - and you need both, since once can't do both jobs well. (But would be more efficient from some standpoints).

So I think the problem with classifying thing in terms of efficiency is hard, since efficency is really a ratio - and what you're comparing to get that ratio can change, based on differing inputs/viewpoints, etc.

Addison