Chinese Billionaire Jack Ma Says the US Wasted Trillions on Warfare Instead of Investing in Infrastructure (cnbc.com) 594
Alibaba founder Jack Ma fired a shot at the United States in an interview at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. An anonymous reader shares a report: Ma was asked by CNBC's Andrew Ross Sorkin about the U.S. economy in relation to China, since President-elect Donald Trump has been talking about imposing new tariffs on Chinese imports. Ma says blaming China for any economic issues in the U.S. is misguided. If America is looking to blame anyone, Ma said, it should blame itself. "It's not that other countries steal jobs from you guys," Ma said. "It's your strategy. Distribute the money and things in a proper way." He said the U.S. has wasted over $14 trillion in fighting wars over the past 30 years rather than investing in infrastructure at home.
To be sure, Ma is not the only critic of the costly U.S. policies of waging war against terrorism and other enemies outside the homeland. Still, Ma said this was the reason America's economic growth had weakened, not China's supposed theft of jobs. In fact, Ma called outsourcing a "wonderful" and "perfect" strategy. "The American multinational companies made millions and millions of dollars from globalization," Ma said. "The past 30 years, IBM, Cisco, Microsoft, they've made tens of millions -- the profits they've made are much more than the four Chinese banks put together. ... But where did the money go?"
To be sure, Ma is not the only critic of the costly U.S. policies of waging war against terrorism and other enemies outside the homeland. Still, Ma said this was the reason America's economic growth had weakened, not China's supposed theft of jobs. In fact, Ma called outsourcing a "wonderful" and "perfect" strategy. "The American multinational companies made millions and millions of dollars from globalization," Ma said. "The past 30 years, IBM, Cisco, Microsoft, they've made tens of millions -- the profits they've made are much more than the four Chinese banks put together. ... But where did the money go?"
He not wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
The US could cut its defense budget in half and nothing would change. The Russians would still have invaded and kept Crimea. The Chinese would still not have invaded Taiwan. Syria, Afghanistan and Iraq would be pretty much in the same state.
Re:He not wrong (Score:5, Interesting)
The US could cut its defense budget in half and nothing would change. The Russians would still have invaded and kept Crimea. The Chinese would still not have invaded Taiwan. Syria, Afghanistan and Iraq would be pretty much in the same state.
Indeed. US spends an insane amount on the military- and as you say, even at half the current spending it would still dominate. The trick is spending smartly too. Invest in technology and the tools to be able to rapidly build up if needed; do we really need so many active service men in a time of peace?
Jack Ma, is also right, we're losing against China economically because we're not growing our infrastructure. Keep investing for the future and stop spending everything now. Roads, stations, ports and harbours, electrical grids and technology... that's what makes you stronger tomorrow. Not having a base in the middle of nowhere filled with soldiers.
Re:He not wrong (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:He not wrong (Score:4, Insightful)
Comparing based on raw dollars is like comparing food budget of an apartment complex in first world vs the food budget of a single family in a developing nation. You're ignoring differences in population and economic productivity.
Re: (Score:2)
U.S. military spending is huge because the military budget is where most government science funding comes from. That and everything added from Iraq 2 on can be cut.
Somehow I doubt the US is going to cut its military budget at the suggestion of our biggest threat though.
Re:He not wrong (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:He not wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
do you really think China wants to get into a war with the US? all of the money they generate making stuff will go away. that would be cutting their hands off to spite their face
What makes you think that all the players on the Chinese are rational actors who make rational decisions and that there are no war hawks on the Chinese side? Or as Eisenhower pointed out: "Wars are stupid and they can start stupidly," ... and that stupidity is usually born of nationalism and patriotic fever.
Wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
We re losing jobs because China and other countries tolerate working conditions, environmental transgressions, and things that would never fly in the US.
You CANNOT pick up a Chinese steel plant, drop it in Ohio, and operate it at the same level of profit as you can in China, even taking into account the wages and cost of materials. THAT is why US manufacturers go there.
Some people say we have outsourced jobs. What we really outsourced was the pollution and working conditions that would never be tolerated in the U.S.
Which begs the question: If it's not OK to manufacture things in the US under these conditions, then why is it OK to do so in China? If we import these items, are we not even a little bit morally responsible for the misery and pollution inflicted while creating these things?
Re:Wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
Wrong, we are losing jobs because they are gone. Today it takes 20 hours of human labor to build a car, in 1980 it was over 100. So most of the auto workers are gone. Not coming back. Ever.
Re:Wrong (Score:5, Interesting)
Maybe you should have gone all-in with the Paris Agreement then. Push hard for countries like China to clean up.
In fact China is doing a hell of a lot. Peak coal for China was passed years ago. Massive investment in electric vehicles, especially for public transport. A lot of the polluting factories were shut down years ago too, back before the Olympics even.
You could also just do what the EU does and require companies that outsource manufacturing to China to account for emissions over there in their environmental tax burden.
Re:He not wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
Pretty much. The US has spent 4-5% of its GDP on military for decades. Are our US citizens safer for all these pricey foreign entanglements? No. We still lost Vietnam. We are more targeted by terrorists and murderers than ever before. We still handed over Iraq to Iran. We still let Russia waltz into Crimea. We are still side players in the fate of Syria.
The warmongers like to talk of the threat of China. But China is doing nothing more than all modern powers do: spends ballpark 2% or less. Because spending more is throwing money away.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Are our US citizens safer for all these pricey foreign entanglements? No.
But it's not just us....most European countries are safer. Japan is safer. Taiwan is safer. Australia, New Zealand, the list goes on. These are all countries that have defense treaties with the United States.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
When it comes to peacetime public safety missions, we could easily accomplish that at half the cost.
No, pretty much not.
$14 trillion is almost the entire budget of the US military for the past 30 years. The US averages about 3% GDP on military spending, which is not in the top 20 worldwide.
I keep hearing about how small our 3.1% is and how threatening China's 1.9% is. Even with our frayed alliances, the US plus a handful of allies literally outspend the rest of the world by a factor of two. If the world is unsafe, it is not for lack of Made In USA weaponry in circulation, that is for sure.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
I think the Chinese would be halfway down the South China sea and entering both Korea and perhaps even Japan. India would be left to fend for itself on various fronts.
Same goes for the Middle East, it would probably be either a pane of glass or Israel would be burning, the Suez and Panama canals, perhaps even the Bering Strait, the Chinese sea and various other shipping passage ways would either be closed or very expensive to cross.
If the US didn't intervene at all in various geopolitical issues across the
Re: (Score:2)
The specific issue was the active wars the US entered in the past 3 decades. They weren't necessary and simply worsened geopolitical stability that necessitated more military spending.
Having the US as the global police (or rather, having a global police) itself isn't a bad thing.
Re: (Score:2)
It is a bad thing. There is no reason the US should innately hinder China, Russia, or anyone else. If they aren't a threat to the US it isn't a problem and if we aren't trying to hinder them I think you'd find they'd stop giving many fucks about us.
Re: (Score:2)
The US could cut its defense budget in half and nothing would change.
Because halving 1/8 of spending is not much savings. Cutting the defense budget to zero would still leave an annual deficit.
Re:He not wrong (Score:5, Interesting)
You are correct in that there would still be an annual deficit. Current projections for 2018 show a deficit of $810 billion. That would be mean cutting defense spending in half would account for a 38% reduction in our yearly deficit.
I don't know about you, but if I could reduce my deficit by one third, that seems like a pretty good idea.
Re:He not wrong (Score:5, Informative)
Too many chump western politicians have let this go for far too long, rather than make the necessary waves.
Re:He not wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
The US could cut its defense budget in half and nothing would change. The Russians would still have invaded and kept Crimea. The Chinese would still not have invaded Taiwan. Syria, Afghanistan and Iraq would be pretty much in the same state.
How absolutely wrong can you be?
Is there no understanding of the deterrent effect of having a strong and world wide capable military presence? Isolationist policy doesn't work and hasn't worked for generations. "Speak Softly and carry a big stick" actually works, assuming the stick is big enough. So where you claim nothing would be different, you are obviously not considering what *could* have happened in a different environment with less deterrent from our military because it was weaker.
It seems to be that we are largely ignoring the lessons of history. Why did Japan attack us? Because they believed they had a chance to win the conflict because of our weakened military was incapable of fighting in Europe AND the Pacific at the same time. The USA was trying to navigate a isolationist policy, not get into the war, yet our weakened stance is what tempted Japan into risking a war. Had we already built up, they very likely would have not considered the risk of going head to head with the US and contented themselves with what they had.
Further, "provide for the common defense" is one of the primary purposes of the Federal Government established by the US Constitution. We need to take this purpose seriously for the benefit of our country in the future.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
So.. To sum up your arguments, because the F35 program was sooo expensive and other options *might* have been cheaper we should just not spend anything?
Look, I'm not here to defend the F35 program, but the promise of the program was (and still is) a common platform that will be the mass produced airborne weapons delivery truck for decades. They will be stamping out thousands of these for decades. The promise here is that instead of having a hundred platforms to support with parts, tooling, software, logi
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
You realize we have nuclear subs positioned strategically around the globe that can hit any country on earth at any time. Every other plane, soldier, tank, etc outside the US is unnecessary (except maybe embassy and special assignments).
Not that we won't keep a strong military and continue to be the arms dealer of the world. Just having that honor means half the world would fight to protect our interests meaning we'd need even fewer actual troops of our own.
"The USA was trying to navigate a isolationist pol
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
We keep the same assholes in and expect things to change.
Also, militaries are a fail of the human race for still needing to exist after 8000 yearr.
Re:He not wrong (Score:5, Interesting)
This is coming from an admitted Communist Party member
Being a member of the CPC doesn't mean anything in terms of beliefs or ideology. Most people join to improve their career prospects. It is a difficult process. A candidate must take an exam, and provide personal references to his good character. But once you are in, you are in an elite club with many benefits and privileges ... which is sort of ironic when you consider what Communism is supposed to be.
In America, people with different views join different political parts. But in China, there is only one party, so ambitious people of every ideology join. The CPC has everything from reactionary Maoists to free-market libertarians.
... from a country that doesn't value Freedom.
Per capita, America imprisons far more people than China. This is true even if you include the ~1M Uyghurs in "re-education" camps. China is certainly repressive, but I don't think America is a good counter-example of a "Shining City on the Hill".
Well here in the USA we value are freedoms and will spend no expense to defend it.
If our defense budget was cut in half, which freedoms would I lose?
Re:He not wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
Per capita, America imprisons far more people than China. ... I don't think America is a good counter-example of a
Being arrested for drugs versus being arrested for the wrong religion. Seems comparable. What people are arrested for is far more important than total quantity and per capita.
Most of the incarcerations in the US are for drug offenses. People voted for those laws and have the power to repeal those laws, as many are doing. Enforcing laws with the consent of the governed via elections is a good thing. Even if the laws are bad. As long as it doesn't violate the Constitution the States can outlaw things, like drugs, incandescent light bulbs, and walking your giraffe down main street (is a law in a city I know).
Show me a country that cannot outlaw hate speech that allows unrestricted self defense and I will show you a more free country even with vigorously enforced drugs laws.
Re: (Score:3)
""Being arrested for drugs" ... "People voted for those laws"
Nearly all drug laws were created by politicians. I don't believe any were put to a vote by the people. Do you think the masses voted for cocaine to be legal at one point?
The US literally has laws against growing and possessing some plants. We aren't as free as you think. And some laws that restrict our freedoms are not 100 years old. In TN, it is illegal to share your Netflix password. In IN its illegal to catch a fish with your bare hand. There
Re: (Score:3)
Nearly all drug laws were created by politicians. I don't believe any were put to a vote by the people.
Indeed ... and where drug laws have been put to a direct vote by the people in referendums, people have voted to repeal them.
Marijuana is now legal in 10 states. None were legalized by politicians. All were by direct referendum.
Claiming that harsh drug laws represent "the will of the people" is absurd.
Re:He not wrong (Score:5, Interesting)
And who said that they have been sent to these camps simply because they are of the wrong religion.
It's mostly because of being suspected of anything less than a huge and undying love for Kim... sorry, Xi Jinping. And treatment is VERY harsh in the camps. They don't get killed en masse, but they get beaten up and tortured for anything less than total obedience, even for things you cannot know or didn't hear.
That isn't the worst part though. The worst part is the practice of putting party members with authority in the homes of citizens. Especially families with teenage daughters and where the husband or both parents are in a camp, are quite vulnerable. More and more stories about rape and abuse are coming up. If that is supposed to endear people to the party, well, it's not working as intended. The women that are raped have little chance of a good life left, and are exactly the type of person I would recruit for suicide attacks. This ham-handed operation will come back to haunt the Chinese eventually.
Re: (Score:3)
"People" voted for laws in China too, and they have the power to repeal those laws too. Just join the Communist party,
I am glad I don't have to register for a party to vote on laws or run for office. Maybe you don't see the difference but I do.
But you do need to register to vote [usa.gov] to elect in the politicians that you want to enact the laws you want changed. And it seems to me that you need to be affiliated with a party.
From the linked site:
"Your political party affiliation is the party that you choose to associate with. You may be asked your party affiliation when you register to vote."
...
"Your party affiliation is usually only important in primary elections. Many states have “closed” primaries. This means that you can only vote for
Re:He not wrong (Score:4, Informative)
The constitution is not the fucking ultimate ethical guide to everything.
It was written by some of the best educated and intelligent men of the day who had an incredible understanding in political science, sociology, and economics. They had insight into our bickering and partisanship that persists to this day. The Constitution has been the standard bearer of governance around the world.
Forgive me if I think your opinion is rather empty.
Re:He not wrong (Score:4, Insightful)
And they hated it, too many compromises and their plan was to come up with a better one within a decade or two, not to create a religion around it including making it unchangeable in many ways.
I doubt they'd like a country that sees police routinely kill people, people in large quantities locked up, and especially a huge standing army, even passed the second amendment to make sure the people were armed and didn't need a standing army.
They'd also be horrified by all the exceptions to the first 2 amendments. People actually getting executed for speech as if the 1st mentioned a national security exception and a think of the children exception as well as all the reasons that people can't be armed and government buildings where arms are banned.
They'd also be horrified at people being thrown in prison for possessing hemp, something they all grew and likely used.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The Constitution has been the standard bearer of governance around the world.
It's funny how you're so brainwashed by your own propaganda.
Almost no other country cares about the US constitution and certainly do not try to emulate or incorporate any part of it at all.
Cut "defense" budget, gain freedom. (Score:5, Informative)
You would gain freedom, because there would be more money for taking care of citizens.
The "Defense" of the U.S. is poorly managed. Highly qualified people don't want to work helping the military kill people and destroy property.
800 military bases in more than 70 countries: Where in the World Is the U.S. Military? [politico.com]
Quote:
"Despite recently closing hundreds of bases in Iraq and Afghanistan, the United States still maintains nearly 800 military bases in more than 70 countries and territories abroad -- from giant "Little Americas" to small radar facilities. Britain, France and Russia, by contrast, have about 30 foreign bases combined."
Re: (Score:3)
<quote>here is the text that I want to quote.</quote>
It will come out like this:
here is the text that I want to quote.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: He not wrong (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Why do we need infantry again? So they can go door to door in dirt-poor countries? Because
The national guard is essentially FEMA labor. Which, hey, yeah, maybe we could use more manpower there. Maybe like a fire-fighting division just for California.
But that whole "being outnumbered" thing has become way WAY less important since the invention of the machine gun. Having ANY troops squaring off against other developed nation became pretty moot after we got enough nukes to end the world. Really, if we e
We've been tricked by the 1% (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy." -- Alexander Fraser Tytler (aka Fake Ben Franklin)
"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they w
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But that's okay... we prefer to believe we all have a chance at the American Dream, rather than have anything that resembles socialism.
We have all of these in the U.S.:
Medicare
Medicade
Progressive Income Tax
Social Security
Social Security Disability
Unemployment Insurance
SNAP (Food Stamps)
WIC
What world do you live in where this doesn't resemble socialism?
Re:We've been tricked by the 1% (Score:5, Informative)
We have all of these in the U.S.:
Medicare
Medicade
Progressive Income Tax
Social Security
Social Security Disability
Unemployment Insurance
SNAP (Food Stamps)
WIC
What world do you live in where this doesn't resemble socialism?
You forgot bank bailouts. ("Socialism for the rich"). Which cost far more than all the other stuff put together.
Incidentally, state pensions and unemployment insurance were introduced by Bismarck in Germany, 1881-9. Bismarck was not a socialist.
Re:We've been tricked by the 1% (Score:5, Insightful)
Bismark introduced those measures because he was hoping to stave off the impending full-blown socialism that he saw coming. He was correct, and his measures were somewhat successful - it would be ~30 years before the final collapse of the German right, and it would be another 10 years after that before the emerging leader of the German left was able to step into the resulting vacuum and implement the rest of the plan that Bismark had tried to suppress.
But more to the point, there is no such thing as a pure socialist country or economy, nor is there anywhere to be found a pure free-market economy. Any example that can be found is actually a hybrid. In the west, we have modestly-free to mostly-free markets with some socialist-like features, such as the programs mentioned in the post you quoted. In places like China, they allow some free enterprise in small operations while everything large and/or important is operated by party operatives.
Re:We've been tricked by the 1% (Score:5, Insightful)
You forgot bank bailouts. ("Socialism for the rich").
Don't stop there. There's also auto bailouts, green energy subsidies, farm subsidies, economic grants for women and minorities, etc. You seem to be under the mistaken impression that just because someone is against social welfare that they can't be against corporate welfare as well.
Re:We've been tricked by the 1% (Score:5, Insightful)
"green energy subsidies"
Carbon, fossil fuel subsides also. Just for balance. The majority of coal in the US is now uneconomic against green energy but is subsidised so they still buy it.
Re: (Score:3)
You forgot bank bailouts. ("Socialism for the rich"). Which cost far more than all the other stuff put together.
This is patently false, and you know it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
https://www.nationalpriorities... [nationalpriorities.org]
Re:We've been tricked by the 1% (Score:4, Interesting)
Obama and other have claimed that everything was paid back and "the taxpayer made a profit". Well, I doubt if any taxpayers have seen any of the money that was paid back. That will have gone straight into killing people in Asia and Africa, and maybe trying to make the F-35 fly in the rain without killing its pilots.
But what do you mean by "the bank bailouts"? Obama mentioned a few hundred billion - lunch money to the Pentagon. How about $16.8 trillion and counting as of 2015? Who has paid THAT back - and why haven't we heard about it?
https://www.forbes.com/sites/m... [forbes.com]
Re: (Score:2)
It is, however, the world's shittiest socialism. Brits be looking at this and going, why you got two Medi- things?
America (Score:5, Insightful)
SNAP has been cut back for decades. WIC too.
The top brackets of our Progressive Income tax have been slashed non-stop for 40 years. Laws were put in place to make it hard to raise them again but easy to cut them, resulting in a "ratcheted" effect where they go down but never up. Government are then forced to implement regressive taxes like the "Netflix" and "Soda" taxes or just plain more sales tax because those aren't covered by the laws.
Good luck getting on SSI Disability. I've got a buddy who's been in a wheel chair his entire life and has massive hearing loss (no call center work for him) and he fights tooth and to get what little he can. Only reason he's not homeless is friends and family keep pitching in.
I could go on. We started slashing the safety net with Reagan. Nobody noticed because there were two massive economic bubbles in a row (Internet and Housing). Those bubbles are over and there's nothing on the horizon, folks are feeling it now. That's how we got a guy like Trump, the lower working class is looking for answers (well, their parents mostly, based on the polls of who voted for him and why). Thing is, we've danced this Charleston before: bad economy, demagogue, desperate working class.... It doesn't end well.
Re: (Score:2)
You forgot EIC (Earned Income Credit) which is a negative tax.
That and subsidized housing, subsidized public transport, tuition grants, etc. However, I felt that I provided enough to demonstrate that GP's point was patently false. We currently do have a system resembling something like socialism.
Re: (Score:2)
So socialism is now defined as helping the people who need it most? The poor and elderly.
Socialism is the redistribution of wealth, so yeah, I suppose it is.
"Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain."
--Frederic Bastiat, The Law
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Well, he's right... We've been complaining here about inequality and how trickle-down economics don't work, and that's exactly what he's saying. It's not news though. The billionaires took control of politics and have been accumulating both money and power, and have been lying and getting votes from the exact people that would benefit most from redistribution. But that's okay... we prefer to believe we all have a chance at the American Dream, rather than have anything that resembles socialism.
I've never see such disparity between the rich (ruling class) and the poor (working class) than observed in Socialist countries of history.
Why do we even care about the disparity? Why do we measure this? Should it not be about how well the poor live and how many poor you have? I think so.
So, the measure of success in my view should be how wealthy are the poor in your country and how few of them you have. So even if there are uber filthy rich among us and a large disparity between the lower class and t
Tariffs (Score:2)
The tariffs aren't to try and fix any economic problems for the US. They are to punish China for their unfair practices such as impeding imports in various ways, government subsidizing production of goods at a loss, and manipulating their currency. Reducing the US defense spending would correct those imbalances with China exactly how?
Re: (Score:2)
The tariffs aren't to try and fix any economic problems for the US. They are to punish China for their unfair practices such as impeding imports in various ways, government subsidizing production of goods at a loss, and manipulating their currency.
Read that again, slowly.
I think you meant "The tariffs there to try to fix economic problems for the US, for example ...".
He isn't wrong. (Score:3, Insightful)
While I expect his statement is meant as a Pro-China anti-US rant probably to rial up the Chinese citizens to help them deal with the economic hardships from the opposed restriction to their trade. Also would want the US to lower its military presence so China would have greater influence.
However he isn't wrong, the US has been complacent in investing into itself. Defecate spending isn't a bad thing, if the money is being put into US services that that will pay for it self later on. However our taxes go mostly to the Military first, and what is left will get the crumbs. This creates a lot of holes in our safety net. This will prevent people from trying to take a risk and start a new business, get up and move to a different state or city to get a new job, being afraid to switch jobs even ones you hate, because you need the medical insurance.
The conservative faction of the US calls such services as un-american, because that is what the Communist do. However a Democratic Republic with a Capitalist economy can have these support services as well too. The Communist also drink Vodka, so do Capitalist.
Re:He isn't wrong. (Score:4, Interesting)
I agree. When I moved to the US, I was stuck by two things :
So I was wondering .. where does all the money go ? Then I realized the obvious. Military.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, look! You were wrong about that too!
Yeah, the US Military budget is only a small part of total Federal spending, never mind total government spending....
Re: (Score:3)
It's one of the major differences between European and American spending though. Every western country has most of the big ticket items: social security and health care, infrastructure, etc. The US has less of some of those, and a *lot* more military spending.
Re: (Score:3)
Interesting theory you have there.
Let's see...Federal Budget 2018: $4.094 trillion.
Military budget 2018: $574 billion.
Oh, look! The military budget (all of it), is less than 1/6 the Federal budget....
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
"Defecate spending". I'm sure you meant "deficit", but poop is even funnier.
Re: (Score:3)
It's probably a little of column A, a little of column B. Calling Americans dumb plays well in China, but... yeah, he ain't wrong.
However our taxes go mostly to the Military first
eeeeeh, not really. Nothing gets "most". It really depends on how you group it. The biggest chunk is social security, which is really just forced retirement savings (plus a bit of welfare on the side). That's taxes that we're paying to ourselves later. That's a bit over a trillion this year. Hi baby-boomers. I'm not sure that system is going to survive another 30 years. Then co
Re: (Score:3)
Try looking at some numbers. 2015 Spending (pie graph breakdown) [nationalpriorities.org] 2018 Spending (no graph) [thebalance.com] ...
So in order of problems: Social Security very very very very big problem, Medicare and Health system very very very big problem, Military big problem, Debt not so bad a little a few more % points than on my home load, everything else chump change.
So, let's use your hypothetical situation on my home budget. My mortgage is the single largest cost I have month to month. Based on your logic, I should cut funds to that in order to free up funds for other more fun things that I would refer to as discretionary. Somehow I don't the bank would let me live in my house very long if I wasn't paying my mortgage...
There's a reason that no one talks about the mandatory spending when talking about budgets, they're systems that (in theory) cannot be taken away fr
Yes and no (Score:5, Insightful)
blaming China for any economic issues in the U.S. is misguided
You mean besides state sponsored IP theft, currency manipulation, dumping practices, and disregarding human & environmental welfare to compete on price?
He's not wrong about the war part. Bush, Cheney, and their cronies emptied the country's coffers to enrich a handful of millionaire and billionaires in the military industrial complex with their bullshit wars. What they did is inexcusable, especially when you consider the opportunity cost of not investing that vast sum of money elsewhere (ex infrastructure, education, healthcare, research, alternative energy, ect.). Think of what we could have if that money was spent productively, like finding cures for diseases (much more likely to hurt you than a terrorist) or aerospace, or any number of other things, and the US needs to get it's shit together when it comes to planning for the future. But China isn't playing entirely fair either.
he American multinational companies made millions and millions of dollars from globalization,
When Joe Schmoe's job disappeared, he didn't see a gain, it was so a millionaire could have even more. It's not hard to understand why some people are unhappy.
Re: (Score:2)
He's not wrong about the war part. Bush, Cheney, and their cronies emptied the country's coffers to enrich a handful of millionaire and billionaires in the military industrial complex with their bullshit wars. What they did is inexcusable, especially when you consider the opportunity cost of not investing that vast sum of money elsewhere (ex infrastructure, education, healthcare, research, alternative energy, ect.). Think of what we could have if that money was spent productively, like finding cures for diseases (much more likely to hurt you than a terrorist) or aerospace, or any number of other things, and the US needs to get it's shit together when it comes to planning for the future.
Bush and Cheney should definitely get blame for opening the can of worms however it's worth noting that little changed during Obama or Trump. We've yet to have a president that is serious about cutting military spending post 9/11.
Re: (Score:3)
Think of what we could have if that money was spent productively, like finding cures for diseases (much more likely to hurt you than a terrorist)
That always strikes me as oddly static thinking.
Behavior isn't static; terrorism is "rare" (when and where it is) because it is strongly opposed and rarely achieves its goal.
If we slack off of opposing it, it becomes more effective, and there is much more incentive to engage in it.
It's a bit like saying that we should save money by never buying antibiotics. After all, death from infectious bacterial diseases is rare in developed countries! What a waste!
Re: (Score:2)
You mean besides state sponsored IP theft, currency manipulation, dumping practices, and disregarding human & environmental welfare to compete on price?
I mean, it's not like the US doesn't subsidize a shitload of its own industries (which is why Canada and the EU had agricultural tariffs to begin with). Put up trade barriers (25% on pickup trucks) and mess with its currency value via huge Fed purchases of treasury bonds. But when we do it, it's "for the good of the country".
But China isn't playing entirely fair either.
The US didn't get to where it is by expecting everyone else to "play fair" or even by playing fair itself. It got to where it is by allowing its private market to do its thing while als
Today's Chinese Language Lesson (Score:2)
Chicom bullshit (Score:4, Insightful)
That's pretty fucking rich coming from a country that's pouring billions of dollars into building artificial islands in the South China Sea, a brand-new war fleet and expensive ballistic missiles, all of which are designed for the sole and explicit purpose of ejecting the United States from SE Asia by force of arms. To say nothing of blowing tens of billions on the "Belt and Road" initiative, which was intended to spread Chinese influence and control across the region, but has ended up being a colossal waste of money, just like skeptics warned. [bloomberg.com] And this shithead's going to sass us for "wasting money?" Fuck him.
Besides, he knows damn well where the money from globalization went - straight into the pockets of the huge multinational corporations that directly benefited from labor outsourcing, who've either sat on it or re-invested it in expanding factories overseas to employ more foreign workers and create more cheap product - everything and anything butb injecting it into the US economy. We know why our economy stagnated - worker wages flatlining (considering inflation, actual falling) while the globalizing corporations profits skyrocketed. And some of that money went into the pockets of Reps and Senators on both sides of the aisle to keep them lecturing those silly rube voters on why globalism "works."
Fuck Jack Ma, and fuck the Chicoms that brung'im.
Re:Chicom bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)
Trump knows what he's doing (Score:2)
He'll revive the clean coal industry and crush the rest of the industrialized world!
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
(please don't make me explain sarcasm)
It's actually BILLIONS (Score:5, Interesting)
"The American multinational companies made millions and millions of dollars from globalization"
Billions, not millions.
"Where did it go?
To officers and shareholders of the corporations, i.e. the "elites".
Some of it dribbled down to the workers in China and Vietnam in the form of slave wages, but not all that much. None of it went to American workers, because they're not using American workers. But hey no problem, just get 'em on food stamps and tell them to live in section 8 housing. Who needs a middle class lifestyle?
But it's gonna backfire on them sooner or later. I foresee a socialist revolution in the making, led by the likes of Ocasio-Cortez. Well not by her specifically, I don't think she has the ruthlessness or the balls to become the next Lenin. But someone in her orbit who does have what it takes to be a good dictator and who isn't afraid of executing a few thousand members of the opposition.
Do I want to see such a thing happen? No, not really. Soviet Union, Cuba, Venezuela etc. weren't exactly pleasant places to live. BUT ON THE OTHER HAND, the current rulers of USA (a.k.a. the Deep State) are such despicable characters, it would feel really good to see their billions wiped out and the high and mighty former CEOs and directors and senators become penniless, and then summarily executed 1918 style.
Re: (Score:2)
I foresee a socialist revolution in the making, led by the likes of Ocasio-Cortez.
That makes little sense ... there is, you may have noticed, a somewhat sizeable movement recently to oppose all this globalization, but it certainly isn't being led by whatsherface or her party.
Re: (Score:3)
>"To officers and shareholders of the corporations, i.e. the "elites"."
Elites? Shareholders are not the "elites." For the most part, they are ALL OF US. All our retirement savings, all the day traders, anyone can buy and own stock- there is no artificial barrier to entry there.
Now, if you want to make a case about the officers, perhaps we could discuss that. But keep in mind the shareholders elect and control the board of directors who hire the officers. And the shareholders want (and rightfully exp
Re: (Score:3)
When things get bad enough, you will see a convergence of leftist and right-wing forces come together. Look at France; the yellow vest protesters burning Paris at this very moment are composed of both far left AND far right. The ruling class has become so hated that the urge to remove them from power and blow them all to hell has become greater than whatever ideological difference exists between the two factions.
Tens of millions? (Score:2)
He should start at home (Score:5, Informative)
China doesn’t need any carriers, military airplanes, or build artificial islands in South China Sea. They totally could use that money to build more bridges, skyscrapers and maybe fix the roads between Tianjin and Beijing. Or maybe a few more nuclear plants.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:He should start at home (Score:4, Insightful)
He's not in our government either.
Idiot.
By 2030 90% Americans will have no wealth (Score:2)
Wasted trillions... (Score:2)
conservative welfare & socialism (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's face it: our military is conservative welfare. If you live in a small town or rural area, the only job opportunity for many young men is the military.
Worry about the message, not the messenger. (Score:5, Interesting)
duh (Score:2)
Calling Captain Obvious.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
It might just be possible to be a billionaire in the US without being an evil psychopath. Maybe. But not in China, where you must be complicit in the atrocities of its government in order to succeed in any noteworthy way.
But of course China wants us to have a weaker military. Water is wet, the Pope shits in the woods, and China wants the possible military opponent with the strongest military to be weaker. What were the odds? Taiwan isn't going to conquer itself, after all.
Re:Cool! (Score:5, Interesting)
Sure, but how much military strength is enough?
Of course this is like asking a billionaire how much wealth is enough. There is never enough!
Isn't it ironic that the supposedly anti-tax party is also the one that supports an expensive military?
Re: (Score:2)
I've said it on many occasions, too!
If all that money had been invested in energy research or something the USA could dominate the world by owning/running their power grids instead of by pointing missiles at people and making threats.
They'd also have almost-free electricity for manufacturing, enabling all sorts of fancy industrial processes and dominating the world economy by exporting cheap goods.
But noooooo...
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with you 100%. Why are you posting AC? With that much truth, you should put your name on it.
If we HAVE to spend money on military vehicle, how about designing vehicles that can be fossil fuel free. How many of our men and women are blown to bits each year from driving a tanker truck full of highly explosive fuel?
Re: (Score:2)
What HAVE we accomplished over there?
Killed over 10 million people - I'm looking at the whole of Asia, optionally with Africa and South America thrown in - since 1945. That's about 2-3 Holocausts, depending on who's counting.
Oh, and overthrown the governments of a few dozen nations, and destroyed their infrastructure.
If you can't make your own people rich, prosperous and happy, why not make everyone else poor, desperate and miserable? (Those who aren't dead).
It's much easier. And, as some people see it, more fun.
Re:Cool! (Score:5, Insightful)
What a dipshit
Logical fallacy: argumentum ad hominem [wikipedia.org].
The fact that he is a dipshit does not change the validity of his argument. An assertion should be judged on its merits, not on the character of the advocate.
America is spending a trillion dollars on a new manned fighter as we enter an age that will almost certainly be dominated by drones.
America is spending $1.2 trillion on nuclear modernization despite already having 10 times the nuke capability of China.
Prior to WW2, America spent little on the peacetime military. Instead, we had to "gear up" for each war. After WW2, we went to permanently high spending.
Let's look at the "before" and "after" scorecard:
Before:
1776 - Won - American Revolution
1812 - Tie - War of 1812
1847 - Won - Mexican War
1861 - Won - Civil War
1898 - Won - Spanish-American War
1914 - Won - WW1
1941 - Won - WW2
After:
1950 - Tie - Korean War
1964 - Lost - Vietnam
1982 - Lost - Lebanon intervention
1991 - Thought we won, but eventually lost - Iraq
1992 - Lost - Somalia
2003 - Lost - Iraq
2001 - Lost - Afghanistan
So is "eternal vigilance" actually working? I don't think so, and the evidence suggests that the main effect of a "always ready" military is that it makes it really easy to jump into stupid wars without clear goals or strategies.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, not communism. It is a Dictatorship. Also, our country is a plutocracy, regardless of the press and teachings. How is that any better.
No (Score:3)
China is communist in name only. It's a one party dictatorship market-ish economy with uncontrolled capitalism except by the state.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually no, the USSR wasn't certainly communist. Their official stance was that they were merely socialist with the communism as a long-term goal.
Re: (Score:3)
He's absolutely right. We've spent trillions of dollars destroying and then rebuilding infrastructure for the Taliban and other terrorist organizations while allowing our own to rot.
Half right, half absolutely wrong.
The US government has spent at least $3 trillion since 2001 destroying infrastructure in Asia and Africa.
But it hasn't rebuilt a single thing. Even in Raqqa, which it bombed relentlessly for months, there are still tens of thousands of corpses rotting under the ruins.
See much rebuilding here?
http://a.abcnews.com/images/In... [abcnews.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Meh. Come back when China's average person is as well off as a the US's average person. As a middle class member I'd rather be anywhere in the US than anywhere else in the world from an economic standpoint.
You'd like to live in San Francisco, for instance?
https://media.boingboing.net/w... [boingboing.net]
https://www.gospelherald.com/d... [gospelherald.com]
Or maybe in a district with open pools of raw sewage?
https://www.rt.com/op-ed/41857... [rt.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Uh, yes they do. Even the US, probably the wort example in the lot, has been on a steady downtrend of spending since 1954.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
France is the 3rd largest nuclear power, so 2nd largest 1st world nation on that front and their military spending as percent of GDP has been heading down since 1960 too.
https://data.worldbank.org/ind... [worldbank.org]
So, yeah, you're wrong on the first point. What follows is reasoning from incorrect da