War on terror to cost 2.4 Trillion.

[max_boost]

Originally posted by Xtrema


The answer is "not yet" but seems to be within 2 to 3 decades.

In the end, China doesn't need weapon. It has enough $US reserve to start a economic war and make $US worth less than the paper it printed on.

Yeah
What is it at now? $1.3 trillion?

Man do the Americans have a lot of shit to worry about.

Originally posted by treg50


But seriously, the U.S. can't educate and take care of all it's citizens. It need to create a certain amount of the population to be poor, desperate, and uneducated to look for a 'future' by joining... the front lines of the military.

The dumber the people, easier to control and manipulate

[RiCE-DaDDy]

all US's power is useless cause they have horrible intel (i.e. iraq)

[Hakkola]

Originally posted by max_boost


Man do the Americans have a lot of shit to worry about.

I wouldn't laugh, unless there are some major changes in the next few years. If they're fucked, we're fucked.

[Antonito]

Originally posted by 01RedDX


Relax, pretty sure he was referring to what's going on in America, and his assertion is entirely accurate.

Exactly. While there are many people who go into the army for different reasons, you can't deny there are a buttload of people in the US army simply because it's the best job available to them. If the army was only staffed by people who are noble and actually give a crap, it'd be a lot smaller by far.

[Antonito]

Originally posted by RiCE-DaDDy
all US's power is useless cause they have horrible intel (i.e. iraq)

Yeah, the government really got suckered on that one.

[mark4091]

Originally posted by RiCE-DaDDy
all US's power is useless cause they have horrible intel (i.e. iraq)

Then you should be worrying you're ass off.

[randedge]

Re: Trickle down effect.


Aren't the only places that trickle down effect works for are the things that the rich spend their money on?

As in, you cannot solve the urban poor problem because no rich person really spends their money directly that could potentially help that.

You cannot solve public education funding problems because if you find public education lacking, and you're rich enough to enroll your child in a private school, then fuck everyone else. "My Child's education is taken care of" they'd say.

Inner city infrastructure? Who cares? If they're rich enough they'd probably live in their closed gated communities. Or at the very least, reside in communities with high property values and property tax; exclusive enough to keep the rabble out. So if inner city low cost housing is falling apart. Oh well. Too bad so sad.

The only thing that trickle-down economy sustains are the service industries that the rich spend their disposable income on. And if these service industries are sustainable enough for the proprietor to keep it to an exclusive rich clientele, then what motivation is there to keep it affordable for the masses?




Generalization? Yes. But no better than the assumption that if there are rich people, their money would make it down to where EVERYONE would benefit.


There may be a McDonnell Douglas engineer who's worth 8 figures who lives in the same city as an orphaned child of crack addicts adopted by a single mom working a double shift at McD's, but how does his existence help her existence in a direct way? Ok, so maybe he does pay more taxes. But then in a military economy, his taxes would just go back to his company because his country needs more weapons to fight a war overseas.

At least us here, in an oil boom economy, we could say that having rich oil execs here does benefit us in a more direct way. Natural resources = Collective commons = Royalty tax.

[Hakkola]

Originally posted by randedge
Re: Trickle down effect.

Aren't the only places that trickle down effect works for are the things that the rich spend their money on?

No, because the money is going to companies, yes, the rich get richer but there are also jobs created, think about all the R&D, and Factory jobs and service jobs created and sustained by increased military spending. The companies are also traded publicly, so any investor sees profits, not just the super rich.

That said, I agree, the spending is a little over the top, there is a such thing as too much.

[Toma]

You know that "trickle down" economics has never been proven, or agreed upon in the economic community as actually working?

[01RedDX]

.

[Antonito]

Originally posted by Toma
You know that "trickle down" economics has never been proven, or agreed upon in the economic community as actually working?

So do you live in a different country or something? Just wondering, because you obviously don't live in Calgary.

[Toma]

Originally posted by Antonito


So do you live in a different country or something? Just wondering, because you obviously don't live in Calgary.

Yep Calgary.... and I had the benefit of having one of Canada's premier economists (IMO)as one of my guest professors at the U of C for a class....

Its not as "obvious" as it seems, and entire volumes were written on the subject, so I wont be teaching you anything about it here....

[Antonito]

Originally posted by Toma

Yep Calgary.... and I had the benefit of having one of Canada's premier economists (IMO)as one of my guest professors at the U of C for a class....

Its not as "obvious" as it seems, and entire volumes were written on the subject, so I wont be teaching you anything about it here....

True, I didn't listen to a lecture by a professor once, so I'm not an expert

However, given that Alberta is an exact model of trickle down economics (tax breaks and corporate pandering used to create high paying jobs), and a lot of people are a lot better off financially now than before solely because of this, I'd say that there is at least one exampe of it working.

[Toma]

Originally posted by Antonito


True, I didn't listen to a lecture by a professor once, so I'm not an expert

Wasn't "once" it was a class... as in semester.

Oh, and the best attribute that TRUE experts have is being able to say "I dont know for sure"....

[Hakkola]

I'll argue WW2 and the FACT that it ended the great depression as evidence enough, for myself at least. That is, after all what I'm talking about here.

[Toma]

Originally posted by Hakkola
I'll argue WW2 and the FACT that it ended the great depression as evidence enough, for myself at least. That is, after all what I'm talking about here.

Maybe, maybe not.... but true free market style economics created it to begin with..... 1929 was a RESULT of "trickle down" economics and uncontrolled "capitalism".... as you may know (or not know) what saved them was what became know as "Keynesian economics"..... which was MUCH more socialist then Alberta today.....

In fact.... interesting tidbid on Keynes.... he easily foresaw WW2 before it happened .... and warned about it.... but no one listened, because, as always.... "they" wanted war.

[Crymson]

I don't believe in trickle down economics either, for a number of reasons. Mostly because the rich are rich because they're good with their money, and they're good at finding ways to keep it. Poor people are bad with their money, or more truthfully, never have enough to realize that money is a tool to be used to create more weath because all their income is necessary to live. If your basic economic model is "let rich people spend their money so that more poor people will be employed" but the reality is that the poor people are the ones spending their entire monthly budgets plus whatever credit they get, and it's the rich who're building up assets, you're well on your way to developing a permanent underclass.

I'm in no way a socialist, i believe in economic liberty and government moderated capitalism, but people have to remember that we are a greedy species where status and jealously is practically in our genes. Capitalism run rampant is simply exploitation. No economic model will be fair until we can somehow overcome our materialistic memes and realize some other goals which are non-economic.

[Hakkola]

Originally posted by Toma

Maybe, maybe not.... but true free market style economics created it to begin with..... 1929 was a RESULT of "trickle down" economics and uncontrolled capitalism.... as you may know (or not know) what saved them was what became know as "Keynesian economics"... which was MUCH more socialist then Alberta today.....

The difference between those trickle down economics and todays are laws, there was a large number of immigrants coming in, no minimum wage and no job security whatsoever.

I know a bit about keynesian economics, we're actually covering that in one of my classes right now.

You don't have to preach to me about the problems with uncontrolled capitalism, I'd be the first to agree with you that there was problems with it, and problems with the systems of today. I'm all for a more Nordic style system of gov't in Canada. I'm all about socialist democracies.

If it wasn't for lack of government spending, the depression wouldn't have hit Canada as hard as it did.

[Hakkola]

Originally posted by Crymson
I don't believe in trickle down economics either, for a number of reasons. Mostly because the rich are rich because they're good with their money... "let rich people spend their money so that more poor people will be employed"

I don't think you understood what I was trying to argue. The military spending isn't going directly into the pockets of the rich, it's not like it's a cheque going into their bank accounts. TO stay competitive they need to do R&D and sell products, and this provides jobs for millions of people in the U.S. I won't refute any of your points because I completely agree with pretty much everything you've said.

[Crymson]

Originally posted by Hakkola


I don't think you understood what I was trying to argue. The military spending isn't going directly into the pockets of the rich, it's not like it's a cheque going into their bank accounts. TO stay competitive they need to do R&D and sell products, and this provides jobs for millions of people in the U.S. I won't refute any of your points because I completely agree with pretty much everything you've said.

Oh no, i get what you're saying. I'm just abstractly throwing out my thoughts on trickle down economics. I wasn't trying to argue against you.

After watching "Why we fight" i have a different take on military spending. Now before all the flamers come screaming out of the wood work about bias and one-sidedness. YES, the movie has an agenda but it's on of those "even if it's a 1/4 true, that is REALLY fucked up" kind of documentaries. Comparing the industrial military complex of today to that of 1939 would be like comparing a multi billion dollar multi-media advertising campaign of today, to a 30 second plug for dapper dan's hair wax from the of the equivalent era and it's impact on the population.