Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
Also, we are not a "hyper warmonger" society by any stretch of the imagination. Most of the population has never seen military service. If you want militarized, look at the mid-20th century, at the height of our global power. Heck, it used to be impossible to get elected President if you hadn't served in the military; it was considered an inviolable rule.
If anything, we've gone in the opposite direction, to the point where recruiting quotas are going unfilled on a regular basis.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"A year ago- a month ago- I would have said we should just loosen up a little, take a good chunk out of defense spending (maybe send some of it to those supposedly alienated rural citizens discussed in that Cracked article- and props for linking that, it was so easy beforehand to dismiss Trump's voter base as backwards and irrelevant) and let the world take care of itself for a bit. All this saber rattling gives me pause, though.
There is no beginning. There is no end. There is only... Hooty.![]()
The portion of our economy that's dedicated to the military is what I'm talking about. Per capita we're already 4th behind Israel (and really a large part of that comes from
The US), Saudi Arabia, and strangely enough Singapore. Note that Saudi Arabia also gets a big military subsidy contribution from the United States.
I should also add that what'a at stake here is the American Empire, and just certain parts of it at that. Ignoring that though, if we further expand our military budget, we're going to be cutting social spendings, privatizing social security, repealing the ACA, further weakening labor regulations, cutting education and so on. If we want to keep those, we need to start picking and chosing our battles more carefully.
edited 14th Oct '16 8:24:18 AM by CaptainCapsase
![]()
Well, it's not a country known to be particularly aggressive.
Also, I suppose there's a third option; Trump's proposal to extort our allies for defense funding put into more diplomatic terms. I don't like that one either, though I have my suspicions it'll end up happening simply because eliminating the welfare state would result in massive unrest, and giving up parts of our empire is off the table for the powerful.
edited 14th Oct '16 8:31:16 AM by CaptainCapsase
Well to be fair if russia wants to expand anywhere not controlled by NATO they have very few options and those options ain't great anyway. The alternative is nuclear hellfire and ain't nobody wanting that.
Now if you really want to see a shit show the Philippines is currently in the hate part of the love/hate relationship with the US and telling them to leave by years end. In reality they're just looking for a handout or for us to stop talking about the whole genocide thing. But if they really did kick the US out china would essentially gain control of the region (at which point the Philippines would realize their horrible mistake) and that could lead to a proper trade war.
Is using "Julian Assange is a Hillary butt plug" an acceptable signature quote?Military spending is Keynesian in principle, although the big problem with it these days is that the major contractors have figured out how to soak as much money out of that trough as possible for their own personal cash vaults, so the final multiplier isn't as great as it ought to be.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Keynesian policies are intended for crisis responses; sustained economic stimulus will eventually lead to a economic collapse, which is why spending is supposed to be cut in periods of rapid growth.
That put's a limit on how much more long term spending we can have without cutting spending elsewhere.
edited 14th Oct '16 8:37:22 AM by CaptainCapsase
@ Fighteer:
But where are the crews going to come from? What about the transport, training, repair and support organisations to support these tanks?
@ Capsase: Singapore doesn't have the greatest of relations with the country it split from — Malaysia. And a simple matter of fresh water supply is a life-or-death matter for Singapore.
Keep Rolling OnKeynesian theory isn't just about climbing out of recessions; it also prescribes thrift by the federal government in boom times so that you don't get huge bubbles and to reduce federal debt so you have more policy room to respond to future crises.
Spend in a bust, save in a boom. Simple recipe, so easily ignored by those responsible for policy.
A fundamental point raised by Keynes is that the nature of the spending only matters in degree, not kind. Spending on consumption, be it military, consumer, or whatever, is stimulatory period. Now, some forms of spending have greater multiplier effects, and/or contribute more societal value, but that's not germane to the fundamental principle.
Increasing the wages of soldiers is super double plus good from a Keynesian perspective. That would be absolutely fantastic in all possible respects — it carries a higher multiplier than paying Northrop-Grumman to build more planes, has unquestionable moral benefits, and helps get better soldiers. It's a win/win, assuming that you have a good use for the soldiers.
edited 14th Oct '16 8:41:22 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"![]()
Yes, but the point is if you spend too much your economy
will eventually collapse, hence why you cut spending during a boom.
As for raging waves, that creates the hypermilitarizstion issue I mentioned. People who would otherwise have gone into different sectors will join the military, and society will thus become increasingly militarized.
edited 14th Oct '16 8:43:20 AM by CaptainCapsase
We aren't in a boom, Capsace. And you're getting the concept all wrong. "Spending too much money" is not bad in and of itself; in fact, it's a meaningless term. You cause problems when you spend money so fast that it outstrips your production capacity and causes more than trivial inflation. Otherwise, spending increases incomes, which increases spending, which incentivizes investment in production, which gives people more stuff to buy and more income to buy it with, etc. It's a positive spiral. We need positive spirals currently, after 40 years of negative or stagnant performance.
The sign that you're spending too fast is when demand for investment capital exceeds supply, such that interest rates rise sharply on private debt. This means that people aren't saving enough (because they're too busy spending money) to supply capital for investment. The natural check on this (without any government intervention) is that interest rates (and inflation) will rise and sap purchasing power. The trick is to keep this from happening all at once, as a major collapse.
edited 14th Oct '16 8:45:02 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"In fact, as JFK had figured out, if you want to cool off the economy, it's time to go full Republican and cut taxes on the rich.
Keynesian economic management requires the government to have its hand on the lever at all times, something that's mostly anathema to libertarians, but is impossible with America's current level of economic functionality.
edited 14th Oct '16 8:44:53 AM by Ramidel
@Capsase
You do realise that carrier warfare is effectively the answer to the defense conundrum presented in the Art of War? It's a good book on the general idea of irregular strategy, but ignoring its historical context is a mistake.
By what I can see, the US is not even close to militaristic. Like any other superpower in history, the military is a facet of its power projection, which is perfectly normal. There were quite a few articles a year back saying, that normal US citizens are getting ever more divorced from the military experience.
North Korea is hypermilitaristic. The US simply has a military.
edited 14th Oct '16 8:44:59 AM by TerminusEst
Si Vis Pacem, Para PerkeleIn part because such a move is politically unpopular, and that it is probably hard to predict when an economy is in a boom.
Not that there's much of a difference to be honest. Who says the military can't fund science?
edited 14th Oct '16 8:46:34 AM by Greenmantle
Keep Rolling OnLots of smart things are politically unpopular. It is the job of politicians to help sell the public on the need for them, not bow to the public's paranoia, inspired by decades of right-wing propaganda. And your second statement is absurd: there is so much economic data available that failing to see these things represents comical ineptitude on the part of the people in charge.
@Capsace: The choice of whether to fund science, military, infrastructure, healthcare, or what have you is basically a political one, determined by your priorities and needs as a society. From a macroeconomic perspective, the difference is slight.
edited 14th Oct '16 8:48:58 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

Solving that long-term might involve a radical overhaul of the very notion of what the USA are. Something's got to give.
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.