|
|
Post by Doug on Mar 23, 2016 20:27:23 GMT -5
While the government does make money selling arms to other countries arms makers* make a lot more.
*Who get big government deals.
|
|
|
|
Post by patrick on Mar 23, 2016 20:35:04 GMT -5
I'm not aware of any mechanism by which the government profits by arms sales.
Much of US "foreign aid" is, in fact, taxpayer dollars given or loaned at low rates to foreign governments to buy arms, but only US manufactured arms. It's just another example of socialism for the rich.
|
|
|
|
Post by PaulKay on Mar 24, 2016 11:37:47 GMT -5
With retirement, I have time to think about stupid shit. And today's stupid shit is the realization that there are probably many thousands of high paying jobs in engineering, management, production, and support that depend on the U.S. military to use/destroy the existing guns, bullets, tanks, jeeps, shipes, missiles, and aircraft to make room for new guns, bullets, tanks, jeeps, ships, missiles and aircraft to keep the Industrial Militeay Complex humming along and keeping all those people and businesses running. Basically we need the US to continually engage in wars/conflicts to keep the vast segment of the economy moving. Not to mention all the downstream jobs that support all those businesses and working families. It is sad to thnk that if the military just sits around and does nothing, the economy could eventually suffer contraction. Military engagement is good for business. How screwed up is that? I was thinking about the same thing today as I was listening to NPR discussing the situation in Europe and opining about the candidate's positions on our intervening. My first thought was to let Europe fix their own damn problems and quit relying on us for the very intervention they then condemn us for...though our military build up has allowed all the comparisons the left uses that makes Europe seem so progressive and us so evil (they spend a greater percentage of their GDP on education, medicine, blah, blah, blah. Well OF COURSE THEY DO. We do the military shit for them. And, again, they condemn us for that.) Well, I thought, let them dig themselves out of this mess. Then I though about the reality that the military industrial complex is about the only revenue positive endeavor in which the government engages. Do we really want to stop it? I think it is accurate to say the military industrial complex is a major "US economic driver." It isn't revenue positive for the government since it is actually spending borrowed money that flows into the economy by way of military salaries and equipment purchases. In fact, in general, the government spends everything it gets; tax revenue or borrowed. Which was my main point...the economy "needs" the government to keep doing this or there will be signifiacant economic contraction. Our economy has become dependent on conflict. |
|
|
|
Post by fauxmaha on Mar 24, 2016 11:55:13 GMT -5
If one accepts the premise of Keynesian stimulus spending, then all of this expands the pie and makes us all richer than we would be otherwise.
Personally, I think that's a load of crap and that the "Keynesian multiplier" is, in and of itself, less than 1.
That being said, it is undoubtedly true that DoD stuff has been a meaningful technology driver for some time. Whether or not that is a good thing is debatable. One could argue that technology would expand even without DoD, and one could also argue that the expansion of technology would be more relevant to the average citizen if DoD stuff was not driving it into different areas. Which is to say, just because one arrives at a given point, it does not mean that the path taken to that point is the only path available, and does not mean that the point arrived at is optimum.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fingerplucked on Mar 24, 2016 13:24:32 GMT -5
If one accepts the premise of Keynesian stimulus spending, then all of this expands the pie and makes us all richer than we would be otherwise. Personally, I think that's a load of crap and that the "Keynesian multiplier" is, in and of itself, less than 1. That being said, it is undoubtedly true that DoD stuff has been a meaningful technology driver for some time. Whether or not that is a good thing is debatable. One could argue that technology would expand even without DoD, and one could also argue that the expansion of technology would be more relevant to the average citizen if DoD stuff was not driving it into different areas. Which is to say, just because one arrives at a given point, it does not mean that the path taken to that point is the only path available, and does not mean that the point arrived at is optimum. Keynesian stimulus spending: It works, at least in the short term. That it stimulates the economy is irrefutable. The multiplier is theoretical, and the theory is debated back and forth without any real resolution. The downside to Keynesian theory is the resulting accumulated debt. And one part of Keynesian theory that is usually overlooked by both R’s and D’s is that the debt is to paid back down once the economy is back up to speed. What we’ve done instead over the last 60 years is to accelerate economic growth through Keynesian policies and then ignore the debt which no longer looks so big in relation to a larger GDP. Technology can and has grown independently of DOD advancements. There is nothing in DOD developments stifling private sector technological advancements. If anything, it’s the exact opposite. Once released to the private sector, DOD technologies have been expanded for commercial uses. We’d be much further behind today without the benefit of DOD technology. Not that I’m arguing for DOD spending. I’d like to see a big slice of that pie reallocated to things that could improve our lives like infrastructure, renewable energies, hunger, and health. Even binders. I mean, does the world really need three rings? What if we had just one, really good ring? |
|
|
|
Post by fauxmaha on Mar 24, 2016 13:33:13 GMT -5
How about less coercion and more freedom.
|
|
|
|
Post by millring on Mar 24, 2016 17:27:59 GMT -5
I was thinking about the same thing today as I was listening to NPR discussing the situation in Europe and opining about the candidate's positions on our intervening. My first thought was to let Europe fix their own damn problems and quit relying on us for the very intervention they then condemn us for...though our military build up has allowed all the comparisons the left uses that makes Europe seem so progressive and us so evil (they spend a greater percentage of their GDP on education, medicine, blah, blah, blah. Well OF COURSE THEY DO. We do the military shit for them. And, again, they condemn us for that.) Well, I thought, let them dig themselves out of this mess. Then I though about the reality that the military industrial complex is about the only revenue positive endeavor in which the government engages. Do we really want to stop it? I think it is accurate to say the military industrial complex is a major "US economic driver." It isn't revenue positive for the government since it is actually spending borrowed money that flows into the economy by way of military salaries and equipment purchases. In fact, in general, the government spends everything it gets; tax revenue or borrowed. But wait. Aren't you a fan of Krugman and Reich? The only question asked is answered by whether anyone benefits from the accumulating debt...and whether that anyone is the morally right recipient. So, since we are currently enjoying a Democratic administration, the military is worth spending our debt on. It's during Republican administrations that the military is the force for evil in the world and therefore not worthy of our spending. Debt has less than nothing to do with it. |
|
|
|
Post by Marshall on Mar 25, 2016 7:54:42 GMT -5
I'm not aware of any mechanism by which the government profits by arms sales. Much of US "foreign aid" is, in fact, taxpayer dollars given or loaned at low rates to foreign governments to buy arms, but only US manufactured arms. It's just another example of socialism for the rich. I remember reading a passage years ago in the book; The Arms of Krupp. The book is a history about the German steel maker, the Krupp family. It goes through the entire history of steel making from late 1800s through WWII. Steel made the 20th century. Anyrate, around the 1900s there was big controversy in military circles about this new-fangled material steel. Most military experts favored good old reliable brass cannons. But Krupps were trying to sell the world on Steel. They were making steel cannon and selling them to whomever. The German hierarchy was slow to accept at first. But eventually caught on. At one point they were in a skirmish in a far part of the world; (China I think?). And their army had a hell of a time extracting some rebellious group for a fortified position. Upon finally being victorious, they (the German army) found they had been shelled by cannon made in Germany (by the Krupps). Caused a big stink back home. But arms sales were what kept the steel business going. There was a lot of discussion about should German industries be allowed to sell military technology to other countries. |
|
|
|
Post by coachdoc on Mar 25, 2016 8:19:45 GMT -5
I've been waiting for something to happen For a week or a month or a year With the blood in the ink of the headlines And the sound of the crowd in my ear You might ask what it takes to remember When you know that you've seen it before Where a government lies to a people And a country is drifting to war And there's a shadow on the faces Of the men who send the guns To the wars that are fought in places Where their business interest runs On the radio talk shows and the T. V. You hear one thing again and again How the U. S. A. Stands for freedom And we come to the aid of a friend But who are the ones that we call our friends-- These governments killing their own? Or the people who finally can't take any more And they pick up a gun or a brick or a stone There are lives in the balance There are people under fire There are children at the cannons And there is blood on the wire There's a shadow on the faces Of the men who fan the flames Of the wars that are fought in places Where we can't even say the names They sell us the president the same way They sell us our clothes and our cars They sell us every thing from youth to religion The same time they sell us our wars I want to know who the men in the shadows are I want to hear somebody asking them why They can be counted on to tell us who our enemies are But they're never the ones to fight or to die And there are lives in the balance There are people under fire There are children at the cannons And there is blood on the wire I recognize the other songs being quoted, but not this verse. Masters of War was the vehicle for one of my favorite high school memories. We had a folk club assembly each year where each of us got to perform something. An absolutely beautiful Joan Baez clone, in black turtleneck an high black boots, just nailed this song with grace and anger. It sent the conservative history teacher scurrying out of the auditorium. Thank you Nancy Friedman. |
|
|
|
Post by lar on Mar 25, 2016 10:03:09 GMT -5
The human aspect to this is depressing. We still haven't learned that sending off valuable young people to die in wars that are largely political in nature is a dumb thing.
The ideal would be a military industrial complex that existed as a deterrent to threats and that was effective enough that we didn't actually have to use it. Oh, yeah, and if we could figure out a way to make the countries we are defending pay for the whole thing so we didn't have to continually borrow to support the cost, it would be even better.
|
|
|
|
Post by Doug on Mar 25, 2016 10:06:11 GMT -5
The human aspect to this is depressing. We still haven't learned that sending off valuable young people to die in wars that are largely entirely political in nature is a dumb thing. The ideal would be a military industrial complex that existed as a deterrent to threats and that was effective enough that we didn't actually have to use it. Oh, yeah, and if we could figure out a way to make the countries we are defending pay for the whole thing so we didn't have to continually borrow to support the cost, it would be even better. Fixed it for you. |
|
|
|
Post by PaulKay on Mar 25, 2016 10:06:51 GMT -5
I think it is accurate to say the military industrial complex is a major "US economic driver." It isn't revenue positive for the government since it is actually spending borrowed money that flows into the economy by way of military salaries and equipment purchases. In fact, in general, the government spends everything it gets; tax revenue or borrowed. But wait. Aren't you a fan of Krugman and Reich? The only question asked is answered by whether anyone benefits from the accumulating debt...and whether that anyone is the morally right recipient. So, since we are currently enjoying a Democratic administration, the military is worth spending our debt on. It's during Republican administrations that the military is the force for evil in the world and therefore not worthy of our spending. Debt has less than nothing to do with it. You misunderstand the reason for this post to begin with. The post started simply as a recognition of the economic facts and not to either approve or disapprove of them. A major portion of our economy is "driven by" and therefore somewhat "dependent on" military spending. To change this course by reducing this spending will lead to economic disruption of the economy. Debt fueled military spending is certainly bad in my opinion, but I also recognize that to change, one needs to recognize the economic consequences of doing so. Thus it creates a dilemma for how one might fix it. We frequently lament how manufacturing jobs have been shipped to China and Mexico, but many of the jobs that are left are those jobs dependent on military spending. |
|
|
|
Post by lar on Mar 25, 2016 10:14:38 GMT -5
The human aspect to this is depressing. We still haven't learned that sending off valuable young people to die in wars that are largely entirely political in nature is a dumb thing. The ideal would be a military industrial complex that existed as a deterrent to threats and that was effective enough that we didn't actually have to use it. Oh, yeah, and if we could figure out a way to make the countries we are defending pay for the whole thing so we didn't have to continually borrow to support the cost, it would be even better. Fixed it for you. When something that doesn't need fixing is fixed, is it really a fix? Maybe the problem is my bad habit of making a distinction between what is purely political and what is political in nature but has moral overtones that seem to me to be more important. Fighting a war over what middle east country is going to sell oil to us seems to be pure politics. Fighting a war in Syria to overthrow a despot but without a clue as to who/what would be a better choice is pure politics. Certainly WWII was political but there was a component that had to do with the defense of our country. I see a difference. |
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Mar 25, 2016 10:51:53 GMT -5
When something that doesn't need fixing is fixed, is it really a fix? Maybe the problem is my bad habit of making a distinction between what is purely political and what is political in nature but has moral overtones that seem to me to be more important. Fighting a war over what middle east country is going to sell oil to us seems to be pure politics. Fighting a war in Syria to overthrow a despot but without a clue as to who/what would be a better choice is pure politics. Certainly WWII was political but there was a component that had to do with the defense of our country. I see a difference. I suggest you re-read history using the newer revised materials. Now they teach that FDR goaded Japan into bombing Pearl Harbor. The 100 years war was the fault of the U.S.A. even though it didn't exist yet. You are part of the problem. |
|
|
|
Post by Fingerplucked on Mar 25, 2016 11:09:35 GMT -5
But wait. Aren't you a fan of Krugman and Reich? The only question asked is answered by whether anyone benefits from the accumulating debt...and whether that anyone is the morally right recipient. So, since we are currently enjoying a Democratic administration, the military is worth spending our debt on. It's during Republican administrations that the military is the force for evil in the world and therefore not worthy of our spending. Debt has less than nothing to do with it. You misunderstand the reason for this post to begin with. The post started simply as a recognition of the economic facts and not to either approve or disapprove of them. A major portion of our economy is "driven by" and therefore somewhat "dependent on" military spending. To change this course by reducing this spending will lead to economic disruption of the economy. Debt fueled military spending is certainly bad in my opinion, but I also recognize that to change, one needs to recognize the economic consequences of doing so. Thus it creates a dilemma for how one might fix it. We frequently lament how manufacturing jobs have been shipped to China and Mexico, but many of the jobs that are left are those jobs dependent on military spending. Nothing you don’t already know here, but there is no easy fix. We can keep spending the same big portion of our tax dollars -- funded in part by an ever increasing debt -- on defense, or we can increase our spending, or we can decrease our spending. There are people advocating all three approaches, although most are in favor of increasing or decreasing spending. I’m going to ignore those who want to increase defense spending. I don’t want to say they’re nuts, but ... Decreasing spending will be disruptive. People will lose jobs. Companies will go belly up. There’s no way to prevent that from happening if we’re cutting defense spending. The disruption will be less severe if we reallocate the spending and put money into infrastructure, for example. The guy building drones will still be out of a job, because it’s not likely he will be laying concrete, but if the overall spending remains constant, the effects on the economy as a whole will be minimal. Overall unemployment rates should remain fairly constant with one group benefitting from another’s loss. Those who lost jobs in defense will at least have better odds of finding new employment with a stable job market. That may sound overly optimistic, but not if you compare it to the effects of cutting defense spending without offsetting increases elsewhere. |
|
|
|
Post by lar on Mar 25, 2016 13:42:39 GMT -5
When something that doesn't need fixing is fixed, is it really a fix? Maybe the problem is my bad habit of making a distinction between what is purely political and what is political in nature but has moral overtones that seem to me to be more important. Fighting a war over what middle east country is going to sell oil to us seems to be pure politics. Fighting a war in Syria to overthrow a despot but without a clue as to who/what would be a better choice is pure politics. Certainly WWII was political but there was a component that had to do with the defense of our country. I see a difference. I suggest you re-read history using the newer revised materials. Now they teach that FDR goaded Japan into bombing Pearl Harbor. The 100 years war was the fault of the U.S.A. even though it didn't exist yet. You are part of the problem. I'm okay with that. One of the problems with revising history is that they don't tell us old farts before they do it. I don't go to school anymore and my kids have been out of school for a long time. I have no one to tell me about this crap. And to think that I've kept my college history books all of these years so I could look stuff up when I wanted to. Now they are useless and I paid a lot of money for them. I'd send them of to the Goodwill but they will be useless there too. I should have seen this coming. I had a history professor; Dr. Anzulovich. The first day of class he told us that we needed to pay attention because there would be times when his lectures would be at odds with the information in the book. At such a time, he admonished us to understand that he was right and the book was wrong. He also promised that those variances would be covered in the tests. |
|
