Two nitpicks Rags:
Don't you mean 400 billion with a "B"?
and
But, but but, don't we need the immigrants to keep the social security and welfare ponzi schemes working?*
*note: Not my actual position
(04-01-2017, 09:41 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: [ -> ]Two nitpicks Rags:
Don't you mean 400 billion with a "B"?
and
But, but but, don't we need the immigrants to keep the social security and welfare ponzi schemes working?*
*note: Not my actual position
1. Yes, that's a B, as in Billion, not an M as in million. M ybad.
2. I'm pretty sure robots / other technology will make lots of jobs redundant. As for Social Security, I think popping the cap would do something. As for "welfare, I'm guessing, WIC, SNAP, etc. That money can be part of the 400 billion dollars I'd lop off the MIC.
3. MMT? That would work if some built in mechanism were added to force tax raises when inflation reaches a certain level. I don't trust politicians since they never cut spending / raise taxes when the economy if overheating and always cut taxes / raise spending in depressed times.
(04-01-2017, 07:52 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote: [ -> ]Like the title sez, the US spends way too much on the MIC.
![[Image: largest-defense-budgets.png]](https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5848c7efc534a569f5f24890/t/58b6c21f17bffc4933391626/1488372255423/largest-defense-budgets.png)
Looking at this pic, I advocate cutting the MIC spending by 2/3's. That's about 400 million that can be put to way better use. 
On the other hand, looking at total military personnel including reserves and paramilitary, the US has only the seventh largest military in the world.
The truth is somewhere in between.
(04-02-2017, 01:09 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: [ -> ] (04-01-2017, 07:52 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote: [ -> ]Like the title sez, the US spends way too much on the MIC.
Looking at this pic, I advocate cutting the MIC spending by 2/3's. That's about 400 million that can be put to way better use.
On the other hand, looking at total military personnel including reserves and paramilitary, the US has only the seventh largest military in the world.
The truth is somewhere in between.
We have a capital-intense military. We prefer cannons to cannon-fodder, so to speak. We far prefer inflicting casualties to taking them. That's what one expects in First World countries, the worst countries to face in major wars. Think of Finland in the Second World War -- the Finns achieved a 30-1 kill-to-loss ratio against the Soviet Union, a country still preferring cannon fodder to capital.
Poorer countries can simply give a rifle to infantry and tell the infantry to keep firing until commanded to cease firing once the war starts. Very often the infantrymen end up being killed before they get any order to cease firing. Such is the reality of
All Quiet on the Western Front, a reality that none of the participants of the "Great" War of a century ago want to endure again.
(04-02-2017, 02:46 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ]We have a capital-intense military. We prefer cannons to cannon-fodder, so to speak. We far prefer inflicting casualties to taking them. That's what one expects in First World countries, the worst countries to face in major wars. Think of Finland in the Second World War -- the Finns achieved a 30-1 kill-to-loss ratio against the Soviet Union, a country still preferring cannon fodder to capital.
Poorer countries can simply give a rifle to infantry and tell the infantry to keep firing until commanded to cease firing once the war starts. Very often the infantrymen end up being killed before they get any order to cease firing. Such is the reality of All Quiet on the Western Front, a reality that none of the participants of the "Great" War of a century ago want to endure again.
And the Soviets still won the war against Finland, and the Italians lost against the Ethiopians. Sometimes the capital wins, and sometimes the cannon fodder wins.
I'm not saying we shouldn't have a capital intensive military - we should have it - I'm just saying that looking only at the dollars provides a false sense of security.
(04-02-2017, 06:15 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: [ -> ] (04-02-2017, 02:46 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ]We have a capital-intense military. We prefer cannons to cannon-fodder, so to speak. We far prefer inflicting casualties to taking them. That's what one expects in First World countries, the worst countries to face in major wars. Think of Finland in the Second World War -- the Finns achieved a 30-1 kill-to-loss ratio against the Soviet Union, a country still preferring cannon fodder to capital.
Poorer countries can simply give a rifle to infantry and tell the infantry to keep firing until commanded to cease firing once the war starts. Very often the infantrymen end up being killed before they get any order to cease firing. Such is the reality of All Quiet on the Western Front, a reality that none of the participants of the "Great" War of a century ago want to endure again.
And the Soviets still won the war against Finland, and the Italians lost against the Ethiopians. Sometimes the capital wins, and sometimes the cannon fodder wins.
The Finns were severely outnumbered. They needed a big kill-to-loss ratio just to survive. They got out of the war very gracefully -- probably because their kills were strictly in warfare and not in torture chambers or concentration camps. I'm guessing that the Finns got favors from Churchill and Roosevelt that the Croats, Hungarians, Romanians, or Bulgarians could never get. The British and Americans promptly delivered war criminals to the harsh justice of the Soviet Union or people that Stalin trusted to impose harsh judgment upon Holocaust perpetrators. The Italians lost to the Ethiopians with much British aid to the Ethiopians in the first big Axis disaster. (In the Italo-Abyssinian War, the Italian Army faced astonishing setbacks).
Quote:I'm not saying we shouldn't have a capital intensive military - we should have it - I'm just saying that looking only at the dollars provides a false sense of security.
True. We have Special Forces. The Russians have Spetsnaz -- and I don't want to be anywhere near a Spetsnaz target, let alone be that target. Had the 9/11 attack been against Russia, there would have been no safe hiding place against Spetsnaz -- not even the USA. Special Forces have their limitations: they are good for pin-point rescues or for personal revenge.
There is a $250,000 compensation to families for American military servicemen killed in combat, a good fiscal reason to not sacrifice thousands of lives on charges against trenches in the manner of World War II. Downed drones do not cause compensation for anyone.
(04-02-2017, 01:09 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: [ -> ] (04-01-2017, 07:52 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote: [ -> ]Like the title sez, the US spends way too much on the MIC.
Looking at this pic, I advocate cutting the MIC spending by 2/3's. That's about 400 million that can be put to way better use.
On the other hand, looking at total military personnel including reserves and paramilitary, the US has only the seventh largest military in the world.
The truth is somewhere in between.
Not, really, there Warren. If you consider the MIC as evil, like I do. I was "there" if you will in the 1970's. Do you also recall the lies that were spread to justify the 'Nam war? And... ever since then, lies have been behind all subsequent wars. Let me count the ways, Somalia, Beirut, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Panama, etc. After all, man, the first casualty in war is the truth. Death to the MIC, death to Big Oil, death to the Empire Project. So, yeah, I'm sticking to the 2/3's defense cuts. Btw, may the people who are employed in the I-Spy complex [NSA, CIA, etc. ]
just go fucking burn in hell. I have no use for would be fascists. Damn, damn, them to burn forever in hell. My level of hatred of them knows no limits. Fucking Arab sheiks aren't worth one drop of American blood. --- Mars in Aries.
As per Eric, we're a fiery bunch, ya know.
(04-03-2017, 11:11 AM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: [ -> ] (04-02-2017, 02:46 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ] (04-02-2017, 01:09 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: [ -> ] (04-01-2017, 07:52 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote: [ -> ]Like the title sez, the US spends way too much on the MIC.
Looking at this pic, I advocate cutting the MIC spending by 2/3's. That's about 400 million that can be put to way better use.
On the other hand, looking at total military personnel including reserves and paramilitary, the US has only the seventh largest military in the world.
The truth is somewhere in between.
We have a capital-intense military. We prefer cannons to cannon-fodder, so to speak. We far prefer inflicting casualties to taking them. That's what one expects in First World countries, the worst countries to face in major wars. Think of Finland in the Second World War -- the Finns achieved a 30-1 kill-to-loss ratio against the Soviet Union, a country still preferring cannon fodder to capital.
Poorer countries can simply give a rifle to infantry and tell the infantry to keep firing until commanded to cease firing once the war starts. Very often the infantrymen end up being killed before they get any order to cease firing. Such is the reality of All Quiet on the Western Front, a reality that none of the participants of the "Great" War of a century ago want to endure again.
Plus, the Chinese and Russians pay less for their gear. They don't have true private sector contractors like we do in the West.
Have y'all considered that we should ditch private sector contractors then? Fuck 'em and may they also burn in hell!
Hell, if the Chinese/Russian governments can get cheap gear with public sector production, let's copy them and nationalize our defense contractors! By the way, private sector employees have no loyalty to the US government. I even bet some are H1-B's on top of that. What a fucking stupid way to run a railroad. In short, I don't buy those arguments since there's a ready fix. The US is just so fucking stupid with this "private sector" fetish.
And so may the Republican Party burn in hell for always and always stating the private sector has all of the answers.
Ah, yes, change the radio dial on youtube, as for the American Empire, its high time, we all, turn on to weed, tune in to some Lucifer's Friend, and opt out of the MIC by advising our Millie kin to never,ever join the MIC. Ah yeah, I shall love to dance on the MIC's grave.
(04-02-2017, 01:09 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: [ -> ] (04-01-2017, 07:52 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote: [ -> ]Like the title sez, the US spends way too much on the MIC.
Looking at this pic, I advocate cutting the MIC spending by 2/3's. That's about 400 million that can be put to way better use.
On the other hand, looking at total military personnel including reserves and paramilitary, the US has only the seventh largest military in the world.
The truth is somewhere in between.
I disagree. I think that number of personnel is sufficient to defend the homeland. As for the rest of the world and all of those overseas bases, obviously, I'd love nothing better than to have some economic/social collapse... if that's what it takes to destroy the MIC. Death to the Pentagram, death to the I-Spies, death to McStain, death to other congressional hawks,death to President Humper .
[Now, that's what I consider true nationalism. Set our government budget free of such stupid fucks who think it's still 1946. Sorry, there is no industrial base -- that's been outsourced, there's also no domestic IT either. So, do you think H1-B's really care about the US? No, they don't, they all need to be shipped right back to India and all those India outsource companies need a huge slap in the face with stiff tariffs. Oh, Qod, do I hate those job takers who , yeah, I admitted stole my job. I admit I have a bone to pick with those ne'er do wells. So, let me say here, I don't care if Pakistan just nukes the fuck out of India.
People who fuck with my fundies need to just crawl into a hole and die, man.
(04-03-2017, 11:09 AM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: [ -> ] (04-01-2017, 07:52 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote: [ -> ]Like the title sez, the US spends way too much on the MIC.
Looking at this pic, I advocate cutting the MIC spending by 2/3's. That's about 400 million that can be put to way better use.
Source: https://www.datashown.com/blog/2017/3/1/...se-budgets.
Also, it appears there's no more room in the inn. The US also has way too many people. Either we control our population or reality will, via peak oil and global warming.
![[Image: countries-by-population-size.png]](https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5848c7efc534a569f5f24890/t/58d334c8cd0f68ac6fdeaaff/1490236617130/countries-by-population-size.png)
Source: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5...n-size.png
That means China is outspending us, in real terms (e.g. the China price). Russia's close.
1. Like I said before, man, that means some sort of nationalization is in order. The private sector paradigm costs too much.
2. The chart above is about population. I was referencing a 2T meme of population overshoot and the need to control population and stop this nonsense about "we need immigrants." No! we don't need anymore people. We must collectively accept the fact we need to decrease the US population to account for the affects of global warming/climate change. Population overshoot is not sustainable and at some point will reverse, whether we like it or not. Mother Nature is gonna spank our collective asses with disease/famine/war if we don't actively choose to limit / decrease our unsustainable population. Obviously , I choose the voluntary measure of first shutting down immigration and also add incentives to decrease the birth rate. Rags is a true child of the 1960's and I do think that Ehrlich is in the long run correct. The ongoing population explosion will ruin the earth first and the grim reaper will be unleashed upon mankind.
(04-03-2017, 08:09 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: [ -> ][quote pid='24500' dateline='1491261781']
<snip>
Of all the things to nationalize or at least put in place greater government control, defense production has to be #1.
[/quote]
Amen, brother!
(04-01-2017, 10:12 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote: [ -> ] (04-01-2017, 09:41 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: [ -> ]Two nitpicks Rags:
Don't you mean 400 billion with a "B"?
and
But, but but, don't we need the immigrants to keep the social security and welfare ponzi schemes working?*
*note: Not my actual position
1. Yes, that's a B, as in Billion, not an M as in million. M ybad.
2. I'm pretty sure robots / other technology will make lots of jobs redundant. As for Social Security, I think popping the cap would do something. As for "welfare, I'm guessing, WIC, SNAP, etc. That money can be part of the 400 billion dollars I'd lop off the MIC.
3. MMT? That would work if some built in mechanism were added to force tax raises when inflation reaches a certain level. I don't trust politicians since they never cut spending / raise taxes when the economy if overheating and always cut taxes / raise spending in depressed times.
1. Well it was a nitpick. When discussing the federal budget one has to realize that it is a million dollars here, and million dollars there till you get to real money.
2. Let us suppose that automation makes most jobs now done by humans redundant and as such just about everyone who isn't rich already is on some sort of welfare (IE essentially a Universal Basic Income [UBI]). I've calculated that even if we take off 10% of the population (the very richest) that a UBI of 12K/year would cost the government 3.24 TRILLION dollars.
I calculated this using the following formula: P equals population -10% or 270,000,000 (since I'm using rounded numbers); X equals the total expense of the UBI.
P*12,000=X
3. I would argue that if politicians are expected to create this built in mechanism then they cannot be trusted to create it as it is clear that they themselves cannot be trusted to cut spending/raise taxes when the economy over heats or cut taxes/raise spending during depressions.
(04-03-2017, 08:09 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: [ -> ]Of all the things to nationalize or at least put in place greater government control, defense production has to be #1.
Only if we want to go the way of the Soviet Union.
(04-07-2017, 11:33 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: [ -> ] (04-03-2017, 08:09 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: [ -> ]Of all the things to nationalize or at least put in place greater government control, defense production has to be #1.
Only if we want to go the way of the Soviet Union.
So we get the polar opposite: a fat cow milked to death by every corporate entity with the connection to get a piece of the action. We need to separate what is a viable product or service best provided by a vendor and all the things we have no business leaving to private enterprise. At the moment, we're far too open to vending of literally everything. A perfect example of a bad choice: prisons. Incarceration should be done by the government for the benefit of society, not as a cash cow for "prison contractors". The same applies to the military, public safety and the management of government facilities ... all of which are vended to some extent today.
I have no problem having contractors replace military mess halls. Some things are really commercial products or services. Using contractors to fight wars or provide embassy security: no.
(04-03-2017, 06:13 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote: [ -> ] (04-02-2017, 01:09 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: [ -> ] (04-01-2017, 07:52 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote: [ -> ]Like the title sez, the US spends way too much on the MIC.
Looking at this pic, I advocate cutting the MIC spending by 2/3's. That's about 400 million that can be put to way better use.
On the other hand, looking at total military personnel including reserves and paramilitary, the US has only the seventh largest military in the world.
The truth is somewhere in between.
Not, really, there Warren. If you consider the MIC as evil, like I do. I was "there" if you will in the 1970's. Do you also recall the lies that were spread to justify the 'Nam war? And... ever since then, lies have been behind all subsequent wars. Let me count the ways, Somalia, Beirut, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Panama, etc. After all, man, the first casualty in war is the truth. Death to the MIC, death to Big Oil, death to the Empire Project. So, yeah, I'm sticking to the 2/3's defense cuts. Btw, may the people who are employed in the I-Spy complex [NSA, CIA, etc. ]
just go fucking burn in hell. I have no use for would be fascists. Damn, damn, them to burn forever in hell. My level of hatred of them knows no limits. Fucking Arab sheiks aren't worth one drop of American blood. --- Mars in Aries.
As per Eric, we're a fiery bunch, ya know.
Yes yes, light the fire.
But again, "lies behind" a "subsequent war" in "Syria"? WHAT war in Syria? A few special forces and bombers fighting the Islamic State near Raqqa? What lies about
them? I don't think there's USA lies about the Islamic State. They
are demons who need to be on your damned list. Even if you don't agree that the American Empire should be the damning agent per se.
And Drump hasn't started a war in Syria--- yet.
(04-10-2017, 03:38 PM)Rags Wrote: [ -> ][quote pid='24498' dateline='1491261206']
em to burn forever in hell. My level of hatred of them knows no limits. Fucking Arab sheiks aren't worth one drop of American blood. --- Mars in Aries.
As per Eric, we're a fiery bunch, ya know.
Eric Wrote:Yes yes, light the fire.
But again, "lies behind" a "subsequent war" in "Syria"? WHAT war in Syria? A few special forces and bombers fighting the Islamic State near Raqqa? What lies about them? I don't think there's USA lies about the Islamic State. They are demons who need to be on your damned list. Even if you don't agree that the American Empire should be the damning agent per se.
And Drump hasn't started a war in Syria--- yet.
[/quote]
Yeah, Herr Strumpher Snickerdoolpher Drumpher really screwed the pooch this time. He "promised" he'd refrain from that , but didn't , so that means he's one of fucking Neocons.
A possible lie is who actually did the offending deed. So many, so many matches to do that. Assad, Peshmerga, IS, CIA psyops , etc.
The US usually does not lie about IS. As for said "demons". I say let global warming do it. If any entity in the MIdeast sticks with its Medieval practices and if they don't lower the population growth rate then ecology will smite them for you. What was old, is new again. <- Pretty much for eons now. Any living thing that experiences population overshoot is pretty much doomed to the ensuing collapse.
(04-03-2017, 07:02 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote: [ -> ] (04-02-2017, 01:09 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: [ -> ] (04-01-2017, 07:52 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote: [ -> ]Like the title sez, the US spends way too much on the MIC.
Looking at this pic, I advocate cutting the MIC spending by 2/3's. That's about 400 million that can be put to way better use.
On the other hand, looking at total military personnel including reserves and paramilitary, the US has only the seventh largest military in the world.
The truth is somewhere in between.
I disagree. I think that number of personnel is sufficient to defend the homeland. As for the rest of the world and all of those overseas bases, obviously, I'd love nothing better than to have some economic/social collapse... if that's what it takes to destroy the MIC. Death to the Pentagram, death to the I-Spies, death to McStain, death to other congressional hawks,death to President Humper . [Now, that's what I consider true nationalism. Set our government budget free of such stupid fucks who think it's still 1946. Sorry, there is no industrial base -- that's been outsourced, there's also no domestic IT either. So, do you think H1-B's really care about the US? No, they don't, they all need to be shipped right back to India and all those India outsource companies need a huge slap in the face with stiff tariffs. Oh, Qod, do I hate those job takers who , yeah, I admitted stole my job. I admit I have a bone to pick with those ne'er do wells. So, let me say here, I don't care if Pakistan just nukes the fuck out of India.
People who fuck with my fundies need to just crawl into a hole and die, man.
You're not disagreeing with what I'm saying there, then; you just think it's fine to reduce our military capability because you don't think we need global power. We still disagree, just not on military measurement metrics.
I agree with you on H1Bs, by the way. Let's only take immigrant who want to become Americans, rather than those who only come here for the money.
The Absent Super Power by Peter Zeihan. Quoting:
"...a populist, isolationist, anti-trade bent has insinuated itself into American politics on both the Left and the Right....
"...the American retrenchment is deep, broad-based, and will remove the support structure that enable the international order to exist...."
(05-08-2019, 11:02 AM)Tim Randal Walker Wrote: [ -> ]The Absent Super Power by Peter Zeihan. Quoting:
"...a populist, isolationist, anti-trade bent has insinuated itself into American politics on both the Left and the Right....
"...the American retrenchment is deep, broad-based, and will remove the support structure that enable the international order to exist...."
Or maybe we're tired of being a Super Power and want to be a normal country again. That said, I firmly believe that with the exceptions of tea and coffee America could easily go full Artarky with only limited reduction in lifestyle.