The US: At the Bottom Again

Remove all ads!

It really is just like welfare. It buys votes from present day citizens by screwing the citizens of the future. It's only their money we are wasting...

 

Stop the war in Iraq, for a start. We don't want to short-change ourselves on defense. But at the same time we don't need to ship pallets of cash to Iraq just to "jumpstart" their economy, as Bremer commented before congress recently and as more taxpayer dollars are wasted:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17168266/

 

so the military-industrial complex is the keynesianism in at the heart of the free marketeers' adolation of milton friedman?

what's better, jobs or welfare? well, keynes famously proposed that if a government wanted to stimulated the economy they should bury a bunch of money in the ground and let people go dig it up. only, with the defense industry, you make stuff that kills people...

so if were going to bury a bunch of money in the ground, why not for health care or education? why not for a manhattan project for alternative energy sources?

 

Why funnel it at all? Cutting military spending combined with lowering taxes would mean more money in the pockets of tax-payers, who could then spend that money to get a better education (at a private institute) or start up their own business, or invest the money in a (non-defense industry-tied) company.

 

Because there'll be a period of time where millions of jobs are lost in the change, Sir Fink. How will you explain to that steel-worker, gunsmith, tailor or food-packager that he's going to lose his job because of a change in government spending?

Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't the US Military suffering from sub-standard arms and armor anyway? Cutting military spending is going to reduce the combat life expectancy of those soldiers also. "I have good news and bad news Sergeant Jones. The good news is that the health system of the United States has been improved, the bad news is that I'm going to have to take your armor from you to pay for the new budgeting sustem... and your APC... and your air support. Here's a salvaged AK-47 and a fistful of rounds for it. Now go protect the innocents of Iraq!"

 

I fail to see how cutting, say, the DDx program would negatively impact the situation of soldiers presently serving in Iraq or Afghanistan.

 

I'm just guessing that Hallyburton would not be involved?

 

Wouldn't be so sure about that. Isn't it strange how a man manages to survive with a stick alone if he has to? Or an empty bottle, some gas, and a handkerchief.

Perhaps, but there wouldn't be a mess in the first place if US hadn't caused it. Now they have to find a way out of it, which will not happen during the time of Bush. Otherwise he would be deemed as a "flip-flopper" (opinion-wise) and that would be bad. So my guess is that the next president will have a neat mess to handle.

By the way, why on earth does your president have so much power? Why hasn't the Senate reduced his rights and increased their own to make true democracy slightly more possible? It's kinda silly that the Senate can only "recommend" a course of action to the president, who then will generously show a finger to them.

 

Good point, Chandos. The problem is that, while those nations that rank above us do a superb job, they also have to sacrifice other things in order to have enough money to do it. The US spends a great percentage of the budget on military training, expenditures, and research. This is because the US is consistently militarily active, and has been in a semi-constant state of conflict since the end of the Korean War. Not necessarily a full state of war, but tiptoing on the brink of it, or at least involved in some minor military action (Kosovo, Somalia, etc.) In addition to that, the US is a much larger country, both in terms of geographic size and population than the European countries that excel in these studies, such as Finland. Many of them also have the remainder of a socialist governmental system left over from the many years under Soviet rule or influence. This means that they have much higher tax rates and a significantly more involved government. They have the ability to run a welfare state, whereas we have much more difficulty raising money and allocating it effectively given our other needs. And, of course, raising taxes means political suicide. The "tax and spend" label given to the Democrats has proven to be an effective mudslinging tool for anyone who wants to use it.

I rambled. My main thought is this: It's great to be on top of those surveys or studies or whatever the "scientists" who conduct them feel like calling them. Some countries, because of their politics and economics, can't. There's hundreds of private schools in the US that do an amazing job - if you're that worried about the education, support them. The rest of them aren't changing anytime soon.

 

Ireland is in the top 5 and I am not sure what we are sacrificing.

So why was it so necessary to go to war with Vietnam and more recently Iraq? The money could have been better spend on its citizens. There are slum areas outside of major cities, such as Pittsburgh that rival the shanty towns in Brazil.

Doesn't apply to Ireland and many other European countries. I also don't think size makes a difference. The does US brag about its invincible economy.

Not everyone in the US can afford private education.

The original story is not just about $'s. Countries like Ireland still place importance on family values.

 

It's good to see you back again, Slith. And I AM that worried about it. Whether or not I should ignore the public sector programs of healthcare, education, projects meant to overcome child poverty, etc, is not a solution, IMO. This is a problem that affects all Americans at some level. Investing in our children is not only the moral thing to do, but an investment in our personal and national futures as well. Our children are everything, regardless of their social or economic class, IMO.

 

As far as I know the countries under Soviet rule or heavy influence went through a very swift and traumatic change to a free market economy which created massive unequality and poverty for a short time. So really the development in these countries was quite the opposite of what you're trying to describe.

Nordic countries would fit the wellfare definition a whole lot better and claiming it to be reminder of soviet influence is ignorant to say the least. It has nothing to do with the soviet union. It's a completely separate path of development, which has been quite successful so far.

 

Quite so. Though I'd hesitate to say it was only for a 'short' time; Russia still ain't exactly in great shape.

 

The situation has stabilized though. You only need to compare Putin's Russia to Yeltsin's Russia. The Russian economy is doing a whole lot better now than it was then.

 

It has stabilized, but at what level? The average GDP of Russia, adjusted for purchasing power, is around $ 11.000. That's for comparison, is below that of Botswana, Mauritius, or Libya. If we use nominal GDP, it's below that of Equatorial Guinea at $ 5.349. Several other ex-soviet bloc countries (I can vouch for Bulgaria, arguably Romania and other ex-USSR countries aren't much better) are having similar problems.

 

Well I did not claim that the Russian economy is overly healthy or doing very well. I merely said that it's doing less worse than it was ten years ago or so.

 

True. Although if we want to look at dysfunctional economies, Latin America springs to mind. Given that, IIRC, each decade for the past century or so has seen a greater and greater proportion of the populace living in poverty, I think we can safely say something has gone quite wrong.

And we can hardly blame it on socialism.