China has trillion dollar surplus, we're in massive debt? [Archive]

Jakub

03-19-2007, 10:25 AM

That's not a surplus.

That's how much foreign cash they're holding. And they're doing that to lower the value of the yuan, specifically against the dollar. China's propping up the dollar and devaluing the yuan daily to keep investment and exports high. However, this is not something it can do indefinitely (it's also not desirable), and sooner or later for its own economic health and that of the world, the yuan will be allowed to gain value.

All this money China's using to keep the yuan low is money that isn't being invested in its military, infrastructure, government, etc. There's a lot of foreign investment and China is taking advantage of that, but that means a great deal of "Chinese" business is actually foreign, just operating in China. Also, foreign investors aren't going to do things like education, roads, health, culture, military, and so on.

wisefool

03-19-2007, 11:20 AM

If the average citizen can't balance it's books, why should the government?

Stop buying games, electronic gadgets, cell phones, movies. Wait. Those are all American products for the most part. Keep buying it.

This week's economist has an article mentioning China intends to diversify its assets away from US Treasuries.

China's government, one of America's best creditors, has announced it is seeking a better return on a chunk of its foreign-exchange reserves. It will create a new investment agency, which looks sure to diversify some of the central bank's assets out of the American Treasury bonds that now dominate its portfolio (see article).

http://www.economist.com/finance/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8864359
(Subscription required)

Kalle

03-19-2007, 11:24 AM

The thing to do would be to decrease spending, but our massive military and government spending on entitlements like Social Security take up over a trillion each year.

Now you know why the dollar is losing ground to the Euro.

Because us Europeans don't spend any money on frivolous entitlements like social security?

Nick Walter

03-19-2007, 11:32 AM

The thing to do would be to decrease spending, but our massive military and government spending on entitlements like Social Security take up over a trillion each year.

No disagreement on the military bit, but does the government actually spend much on Social Security? I thought the money being withheld from my paycheck was going directly to fund Social Security and thus the government budgets wouldn't need to direct money to Social Security.

SlyFrog

03-19-2007, 11:34 AM

So the Chinese government has a trillion dollar surplus, and the U.S. govt and it's states, and many cities can't pay their bills without borrowing more and more. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6106280.stm

Why isn't the U.S. doing something to fix this?

We somehow need to convince Bush that Mao tried to kill his father, and all of China's resources will soon be ours!

TheTrunkDr

03-19-2007, 11:52 AM

Because us Europeans don't spend any money on frivolous entitlements like social security?
You Europeans also don't have the stupidly large military to maintain that the US has and you pay considerably more in taxes. It's pretty silly to try and argue that any other nation has a deficit that even approaches that of the US.

Jason McCullough

03-19-2007, 11:57 AM

No disagreement on the military bit, but does the government actually spend much on Social Security? I thought the money being withheld from my paycheck was going directly to fund Social Security and thus the government budgets wouldn't need to direct money to Social Security.

Social security is actually "off budget" in a dedicated fund. Taxes go in, payments go out; the surplus taxes are being invested in treasury bills - so effectively social security is loaning money to the rest of the government.

drewl

03-19-2007, 12:34 PM

awww stupit merican keep buying prastic junk while we build biggest army in world....

ElGuapo

03-19-2007, 12:39 PM

Add up the federal budget, for last year, and it's bigger than GDP of Germany.

Nick Walter

03-19-2007, 12:41 PM

Add up the federal budget, for last year, and it's bigger than GDP of Germany.

But it's a very managable percentage of the GDP of the USA. If Bush wouldn't have cut taxes and started an expensive foreign war, I believe the deficit would still be shrinking like it was under Clinton.

Andrew Mayer

03-19-2007, 01:16 PM

We somehow need to convince Bush that Mao tried to kill his father, and all of China's resources will soon be ours!

How much of Iraq's resources are ours?

noun

03-19-2007, 01:24 PM

Ha! Trick question. The answer is "Halliburton". Multinational corporations, remember?

SlyFrog

03-19-2007, 01:54 PM

How much of Iraq's resources are ours?

All of them. As every good Iraqi knows, we're there to steal the oil. I know my gas prices have dropped due to my "Free Iraqi Oil" voucher card received as an American citizen.

shift6

03-19-2007, 05:53 PM

The difficulty with China's entry into the "real" global market is two-fold for America. First, they recently (about a year ago I think?) unlocked their currency, the yuan, from the US dollar and it now floats against all world currencies on "the market". Previous to this, there was nothing they could really do to the US dollar that wouldn't also seriously harm the yuan. But now someone could speculate between the yuan and Euro (for instance) and not care about the dollar.

Second, the Chinese have a hojillion dollars of foreign investment going in, and it is so much that they have quietly proposed measures to curb it by changing certain tax and ownership brackets. If these measures stick, they can seriously dimish foreign investment into China. Much of this foreign investment is propping up the developing economy so that, for instance, the Chinese will be able to continue to produce little plastic umbrellas; if a large chunk (and by "large" I mean 50% or more) of foreign investment is stopped by government fiat, that could be really bad for investors who have put US dollars into Chinese markets.

If both of these things happen, on a macro level one could say that the US would then not be getting money out of China anymore (on foreign investments) and would seriously hamper the really cheap goods as well, while continuing to owe them a bajillion bucks a month on those long term bonds, and not be able to do anything about it through clever US currency tricks.

Exciting times.

wildpokerman

03-19-2007, 07:02 PM

Social security is actually "off budget" in a dedicated fund. Taxes go in, payments go out; the surplus taxes are being invested in treasury bills - so effectively social security is loaning money to the rest of the government.

Kind of correct but kind of not...

http://www.slate.com/id/2093707/

The reported deficit includes the reciepts for social security.

Also see how letting the remaining Bush tax cuts expire in 2010 would not only eliminate the Deficit but cover the social security shortfall:

http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/webfeatures_snapshots_20050323

Also the reason European countries, Democratic Asian countries and Australia and New Zealand are able to spend so freely on social programs without going into heavy debt is because the US military is pretty much taking up the slack of defending the free world. It's pretty much give up that policy or give up 24% of GDP to taxes in 2020 and beyond.

Grifman

03-19-2007, 08:25 PM

It's pretty silly to try and argue that any other nation has a deficit that even approaches that of the US.

In absolute terms that's true, but a worthless assertion, since the US has the world's largest economy. As a percent of GDP, which is a more relevant measure, there are several countries that are in a lot worse shape both in terms of annual deficit and accumulated debt.

Jason McCullough

03-19-2007, 09:10 PM

Also the reason European countries, Democratic Asian countries and Australia and New Zealand are able to spend so freely on social programs without going into heavy debt is because the US military is pretty much taking up the slack of defending the free world. It's pretty much give up that policy or give up 24% of GDP to taxes in 2020 and beyond.

Defending from who? A bunch of guys in caves in Afghanistan takes 500 billion a year?

I imagine you could defend the free world for a quarter of what we spend, if that. Now, invading all the countries with shit you want, that's pricier, but not the same thing.

AaronSofaer

03-20-2007, 07:18 AM

Defending from who? A bunch of guys in caves in Afghanistan takes 500 billion a year?

I imagine you could defend the free world for a quarter of what we spend, if that. Now, invading all the countries with shit you want, that's pricier, but not the same thing.

I dunno. Personally, I'd be pretty worried about the China/Taiwan thing, Iran/Lebanon/Syria problem hasn't gone away yet, and India/Pakistan used to be pretty huge.

And I don't know anything about South/Central America or Africa, but there might be situations there for all I know.

wildpokerman

03-20-2007, 09:30 AM

Defending from who? A bunch of guys in caves in Afghanistan takes 500 billion a year?

I imagine you could defend the free world for a quarter of what we spend, if that. Now, invading all the countries with shit you want, that's pricier, but not the same thing.

It's not the people who we're actually fighting that we're defending them from but the people that would want to fight with our allies. What keeps China from just invading Taiwan or Japan even? What keeps North Korea out of South Korea? What keeps Russia out of the Ukraine and Poland? What keeps Egypt out of israel and kept Iraq out of Kuwait? The answer is the bloated US military budget.

Those guys in caves in Afghanistan are just the only people who have nothing to lose taking on the US military.

Jason McCullough

03-20-2007, 09:55 AM

Jakub

03-20-2007, 09:59 AM

I don't get it. Why the hell would Russia invade the Ukraine and Poland? Isreal keeps Egypt out. What do Iran, Lebanon, and Syria, have to do with defending the free world? What the hell is India and Pakistan even in this discussion for?

Pretty much the only places we're defending anything are South Korea - where they're pissed at us for egging on North Korea, note - and Tiawan, where it's debatable what China would do without our quasi-guarentee. The rest are great power politics.
"I don't get it, why would Russia invade Poland, except in 1772, 1793, 1795, 1815, 1832, 1919, 1939, and 1945?"

Because Russia has signed a deal with the Germans to build a new gas pipeline all the way through the Baltic, strangely avoiding the much cheaper route to Poland, perhaps because it wants to squeeze Poland like it was squeezing Ukraine?

MikeJ

03-20-2007, 10:01 AM

What keeps China from just invading Taiwan or Japan even? What keeps North Korea out of South Korea? What keeps Russia out of the Ukraine and Poland? What keeps Egypt out of israel and kept Iraq out of Kuwait? The answer is the bloated US military budget.

The US accounts for about half the military spending in the world. Add in France, the UK, Germany, Japan, South Korea, Canada, Australia and all the other US allies and it's probably about 3/4 of all the world's military spending.

Granted, some of these 'potential foes' have a serious cost advantage in terms of manpower, but if you're outspending all of your potential foes combined by a factor of 3 to 1, you have to wonder if there isn't some potential for cost savings in there. Maybe build one less billion-dollar airplane and spend half the savings on hiring some people who know Arabic.

AaronSofaer

03-20-2007, 10:10 AM

Maybe build one less billion-dollar airplane and spend half the savings on hiring some people who know Arabic.

My guess is that people who really understand Arabic, if they're lacking in the intelligence services, are hard to find; that is, ones that you can give a security clearance to are hard to find.

But what do I know. :)

Also, how much does China spend on its military? They have a really big one, right?

MikeJ

03-20-2007, 10:25 AM

Also, how much does China spend on its military? They have a really big one, right?

According to this site (http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/ArmsTrade/Spending.asp#WorldMilitarySpending), China in 2005 was $62.5 billion versus the US $420.7 billion. I'm sure that doesn't reflect the number of guys with assault rifles though.

Edit: The spending is growing quickly, however, and probably not all of it is on the books.

Kalle

03-20-2007, 10:27 AM

The number of guys with assault rifles is fairly pointless though, unless they somehow learn to march across the sea floor to Taiwan.

Vincent_GC

03-20-2007, 10:37 AM

It's a bit dated, but here is a list from The World Factbook (https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2067rank.html)

Also, you can do a search on wikipedia and it will give a list of the countries in order of largest active military (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_active_troops)

So, it does seem kind of odd at first glance that China spends so little on it's military compared to the USA, but then you figgure that the US is constantly projecting it's power across the world, supporting nato, spending exourberant amounts on weopon development/research, and of course the war, it's not hard to see how the costs skyrockets.

Kalle

03-20-2007, 10:40 AM

How much does a US carrier fleet cost to operate per year?

DeepT

03-20-2007, 10:49 AM

That list is just physical bodies, and it doesn't give any kind of relative military power index.

What is the relative power of an American soldier compared to a Chinese solder? In other words, if China and America got in a fight, would America's kill / loss ratio make up the difference?

I think it would, I think it would be a huge disparity. You get what you pay for, and China is paying the minimum price.

Lets see dividing the total money spent by the troops, China is spending 11600 USD per soldier.

The United states is spending 192909 USD per soldier. That is a significant amount of training and toys the American soldiers have that the Chinese do not.

drewl

03-20-2007, 10:52 AM

Due to the fact that our companies are providing China with free tech that they spent $$$$ on, China will be able to outfit their soldiers with all the latest goodies for alot less money.

TheTrunkDr

03-20-2007, 10:54 AM

Lets see dividing the total money spent by the troops, China is spending 11600 USD per soldier.

The United states is spending 192909 USD per soldier. That is a significant amount of training and toys the American soldiers have that the Chinese do not.
Assuming these numbers are correct, I'm skeptical that spending 16 times the money makes that soldier 16 times more effective on the battlefield. A 16:1 kill ratio strikes as pretty god damn big.

DeepT

03-20-2007, 11:03 AM

I divided the money spent in the world fact book by the populations given in the wiki.

However, here is some context for the first gulf war (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War)

At the time, his army was considered the 5th most powerful in the world. I remember this statistic being thrown around by CNN before the war started.

The coalition had 378 deaths (most attributed to friendly fire) and the Iraqi about 25,000. Dividing them out gives a ratio of 66 to 1.

We had 1,000 wounded (again, mostly attributed to friendly fire) they had 75,000. That is 75 to 1.

It would seem that 16 to 1 isn't such a high number after all. Looking at the above, I would consider 16 to 1 to be a low ratio, not a high one. Further more, the Chinese military only out numbers us by about 3 to 1.

AaronSofaer

03-20-2007, 11:08 AM

Assuming these numbers are correct, I'm skeptical that spending 16 times the money makes that soldier 16 times more effective on the battlefield. A 16:1 kill ratio strikes as pretty god damn big.

As well as what's been posted about the Gulf War, consider that the US doesn't really have the option to expand its military that much. Therefore, the way our force can be greater is only through more effective technology.

Or something like that.

Israel has the same thing; everyone's already in the army, you can't recruit more people, so the only thing left is force-multipliers of technology and training. (And strategy etc, which Israel fails at).

Jason McCullough

03-20-2007, 12:41 PM

Jakub

03-20-2007, 12:59 PM

You guys are bonkers. Seriously, the US has to spend 500 billion dollars a year to....defend eastern europe from Russia, potentially some day, even though Russia would get jack shit from taking over the place? Furthermore, you can call it "defending the free world?" On top of that, we don't even have any damn troops in Poland or the Ukraine.
If Russia would get jack shit from "taking over the place", why has Russia consistently tried to "take over the place" for close to 200 years now? More importantly, it's not so much about what Russia gains, but what America loses.

I mean, hello, why did America even bother with the Cold War if it's all hunky dory, if it doesn't matter whose soldier's boots are stomping all over Europe?

And incidentally, Poland has recently agreed to allow Americans to build strategic anti-missile bases. Do you know why? It's so Russian missiles can't reach western Europe, and more importantly, America. I'd call that a pretty fucking vital area of interest, don't you?

Also, that's not the summary of the expenditure. Much of it goes to the fleets which keep Taiwan and Japan safe, troops guarding the Korean border, as well as research.

Kalle

03-20-2007, 01:07 PM

If the Russians want Poland so bad, I say let them have it. I mean, who cares about Poland? People living there don't count.

Jakub

03-20-2007, 01:09 PM

Assuming these numbers are correct, I'm skeptical that spending 16 times the money makes that soldier 16 times more effective on the battlefield. A 16:1 kill ratio strikes as pretty god damn big.
Because China doesn't have a blue water navy. It doesn't have anything resembling a modern air force. China can defend itself to a great extent, but its ability to project power - which is what a navy and air force help you do - is extremely limited. Once the Chinese ramp up their fleet program (something they're already beginning to do) and modernize their air force, you'll quickly see the per-soldier cost skyrocket.

Incidentally, if it came down to a conventional war, I'd guess the Chinese would be happy to have a 1:16 kill ratio. Modern large-scale conventional warfare is really dominated by air power, communications, and mobility. Without air superiority, you can't move. Heck, it's even dangerous to sit still. If you can't move, you're going to be surrounded and cut into pieces. If you do try to move, aircraft will destroy you, or your supplies, or the bridges that lead to where you want to move. Without communications, you can't give orders to fight, retreat, operational movements, anything like that. Divisions need food, munitions, and fuel to be effective. If those supplies are destroyed or prevented from arriving, that division ceases to exist as an effective fighting force.

I mean, why do you think Iraq got its ass handed to it so decisively in both wars? Air power was the major difference, pure and simple. The kill ratio for the Allies in both wars was likely well in excess of 100:1.

Jakub

03-20-2007, 01:11 PM

If the Russians want Poland so bad, I say let them have it. I mean, who cares about Poland? People living there don't count.
Because Germany is next, and I mean, who cares about Germany? People living there don't count. Then it's France, and we really don't care. But the Netherlands has some pretty big oil and gas reserves. Then Czech, Yugoslavia, Italy, Spain... well, there goes Europe. Like seriously, in the grand scheme of things, how important is Europe? Oh, let's not forget Finland and Sweden, because they're in the way of Russians getting to Norway and Norway's oil and gas.

And shit, once Europe is gone, you've removed one shield against Russian nukes. Hot damn =/

Jason McCullough

03-20-2007, 01:13 PM

If Russia would get jack shit from "taking over the place", why has Russia consistently tried to "take over the place" for close to 200 years now? More importantly, it's not so much about what Russia gains, but what America loses.

I mean, hello, why did America even bother with the Cold War if it's all hunky dory, if it doesn't matter whose soldier's boots are stomping all over Europe?

Territory is worthless now; there's been very few "go grab some territory" wars since world war 2. The cold war, in case you didn't notice, is over, and Russia isn't overly worried about the US any more. You still have your resource wars, but what the hell resources does Poland have?

And incidentally, Poland has recently agreed to allow Americans to build strategic anti-missile bases. Do you know why? It's so Russian missiles can't reach western Europe, and more importantly, America. I'd call that a pretty fucking vital area of interest, don't you?

Alternatively, it's because we've bribed the shit out of them, the same way we're paying the rest of Eastern Europe tons of money for bases, to...fuck, I don't know. Scare Russia? It makes no sense.

Kalle

03-20-2007, 01:21 PM

Because Germany is next, and I mean, who cares about Germany? People living there don't count. Then it's France, and we really don't care. But the Netherlands has some pretty big oil and gas reserves. Then Czech, Yugoslavia, Italy, Spain... well, there goes Europe. Like seriously, in the grand scheme of things, how important is Europe? Oh, let's not forget Finland and Sweden, because they're in the way of Russians getting to Norway and Norway's oil and gas.

And shit, once Europe is gone, you've removed one shield against Russian nukes. Hot damn =/

Yeah, but unlike Poland people actually care about those places. What has Poland ever done for humanity I ask?

Jakub

03-20-2007, 01:48 PM

Territory is worthless now; there's been very few "go grab some territory" wars since world war 2. The cold war, in case you didn't notice, is over, and Russia isn't overly worried about the US any more. You still have your resource wars, but what the hell resources does Poland have?

Alternatively, it's because we've bribed the shit out of them, the same way we're paying the rest of Eastern Europe tons of money for bases, to...fuck, I don't know. Scare Russia? It makes no sense.
Jason I really can't believe you're this fucking dumb.

MikeJ

03-20-2007, 01:52 PM

Because China doesn't have a blue water navy. It doesn't have anything resembling a modern air force. China can defend itself to a great extent, but its ability to project power - which is what a navy and air force help you do - is extremely limited. Once the Chinese ramp up their fleet program (something they're already beginning to do) and modernize their air force, you'll quickly see the per-soldier cost skyrocket.

I think you are right that all the equipment that money and tech gives you is a really strong force multiplier in a conventional war. If that's the case though, why does the free world and America in particular have to spend so much *more* money than Russia and China in order to defend against possible aggression? Can we not mount an effective deterent without spending 3-5 times more than they do?

Glenn

03-20-2007, 01:57 PM

Yeah, but unlike Poland people actually care about those places. What has Poland ever done for humanity I ask?Hello? Third most powerful member of the famous Group of Over Forty Nations.

Vincent_GC

03-20-2007, 08:52 PM

I think you are right that all the equipment that money and tech gives you is a really strong force multiplier in a conventional war. If that's the case though, why does the free world and America in particular have to spend so much *more* money than Russia and China in order to defend against possible aggression? Can we not mount an effective deterent without spending 3-5 times more than they do?

Quite possibly. I am sure there are many places where the military basicly just throws money away. At the same token, I am sure that there are other areas that could desperately use more funding.

That bieng said, it's not like the U.S. military sits on it's ass all day, waiting to go to war. It's constantly training it's soldiers, performing war games, upgrading thier equipment, and researching better weopons. Large portions of the military are deployed around the globe 24/7 performing operations not just for the US but for NATO as well. All this amounts to a ridiculous amount of money, even in peace. Now ramp that up in wartime, and now include all the millions more of dollars spent in compensating soldiers and thier families when they are wounded/killed, the cost to transport food and water for over a hundred thousand solders every day oversees, the horribly inefficiant vehicles using tons of gasoline daily.

It all adds up

Jakub

03-21-2007, 01:15 AM

I think you are right that all the equipment that money and tech gives you is a really strong force multiplier in a conventional war. If that's the case though, why does the free world and America in particular have to spend so much *more* money than Russia and China in order to defend against possible aggression? Can we not mount an effective deterent without spending 3-5 times more than they do?
Because America isn't defending itself from aggression. It's projecting force. Also, American doctrine is heavy on equipment and light on troops. It has been for 30 years now.

America projects force into Europe and Asia because if it doesn't, Russia or China will. If Russia or China are the most active bullies in the area, that means that the small states there (western Europe included, sadly), will dance to their tune and playing according to their policies. This means economic and military and political support. Power, like any liquid or gaseous matter, flows from areas of high concentration to low.

Fact of life.

drewl

03-21-2007, 05:07 AM

Cold war....that made sense....fight to stop communism while China (commy no?) is becoming the world leader....
and if they keep making everything for us we will get our ass handed to us in the eventual conflict in about 10-20 years.
Learn to speak Chinese stupit merican....and buy more prastic crap..

Aeon221

03-21-2007, 05:18 AM

This is the dumbest thread I've ever seen on Qt3.

MikeJ

03-21-2007, 06:08 AM

America projects force into Europe and Asia because if it doesn't, Russia or China will. If Russia or China are the most active bullies in the area, that means that the small states there (western Europe included, sadly), will dance to their tune and playing according to their policies.

Yet the European Union itself spends more money on defence than Russia, a lot more. Say the US had a $300 billion defence budget, instead of $5-600 billion. That would still be more than twice Russia and China combined and doesn't even count all of the western allies. How could Russia bully Europe then, other than threaten to shut off the gas pipes, which they can do now anyway? How is China going to invade Japan if you just finished saying that they are only capable of defending themselves?

This subtopic started because someone said America had to spend so much because US allies weren't spending enough to defend themselves, yet they already spend substantially more than their potential enemies, so how much do they need to spend?

It seems to me that the US spending is more than is neccessary to back up allies against aggression and is more in keeping with maintaining the role of global hegemon.

shift6

03-21-2007, 08:14 AM

This is the dumbest thread I've ever seen on Qt3.
QFT

It seems to me that the US spending is more than is neccessary to back up allies against aggression and is more in keeping with maintaining the role of global hegemon.
That's probably true in large part, but the US also does a majority of the R&D in defense tech for the world. We spend $X billion developing some new airplane or missile, whereas other nations (especially allies) can spend $X million buying a fleet of 50 of our last generation. It's added cost for being and developing on the cutting edge, just like any technology. That plus the ability to project power is expensive. Our defense budget was huge even before the Iraq debacle.

wisefool

03-21-2007, 10:23 AM

Jason I really can't believe you're this fucking dumb.

As a card-carrying Commitee member I'd like to remove Jason's membership credentials: He is no longer fit to represent the left-wing.

Joke aside I'd like to add in a factor to DeepT's math. You forget that one dollar spent in China is worth a lot more than one dollar spent in the USA. I'm not even taking into account $200 Pentagon screwdrivers (perhaps it's more exagerated than the truth).

Jason McCullough

03-21-2007, 01:08 PM

On what planet is Russia a threat to Poland? Seriously. There's nothing worth stealing in the world anymore but oil and eastern european hookers - oops, maybe that's why!

DeepT

03-21-2007, 01:21 PM

Joke aside I'd like to add in a factor to DeepT's math. You forget that one dollar spent in China is worth a lot more than one dollar spent in the USA.

How do you figure? If you are building an aircraft carrier, and you need to buy steel on the global market, how does the fact that 100,000 USD spent by China can get you more steel then 100,000 USD spent by America?

Nick Walter

03-21-2007, 01:25 PM

How do you figure? If you are building an aircraft carrier, and you need to buy steel on the global market, how does the fact that 100,000 USD spent by China can get you more steel then 100,000 USD spent by America?

I'm going to go out on a huge limb here and hazard a very tentative guess that maybe, just maybe, the average country spends a heck of a lot more of their military budget on labor than on buying commodities from the international market.

But I could be wrong, it is a pretty extreme theory.

DeepT

03-21-2007, 01:37 PM

I do not know about the average country, but you would be wrong (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States) to make that assumption about the United States.

The 2006 budget is 419.3 Billion, of that $108.8 Billion is "Military Personnel", which I can assume is some training, feeding, housing, and their pay checks.

The rest of the budget is mostly divided up into maintaining / operating their toys, buying / building new toys, and researching better toys.

Now lets assume you are correct Nick, about the rest of the world. Lets say at least half the Chinese budget is just feeding, training, clothing, and pay-checks.

This would point to an even bigger disparity in the over all quality of the military then just assuming it was all spent on toys and training.

MikeSofaer

03-21-2007, 01:42 PM

The rest of the budget is mostly divided up into maintaining / operating their toys, buying / building new toys, and researching better toys.
You don't think maintenance is largely labor? Research not largely labor?

Nick Walter

03-21-2007, 01:44 PM

DeepT

03-21-2007, 01:47 PM

What makes you think I am mad?

Jason McCullough

03-21-2007, 03:37 PM

Actually, "how capital intensive is the military" is a pretty fascinating question. No idea how to find that answer, though.

MikeSofaer

03-21-2007, 03:52 PM

Actually, "how capital intensive is the military" is a pretty fascinating question. No idea how to find that answer, though.
Email the press office of the Pentagon? You're allowed, you know, they won't eat you.

Jason McCullough

03-21-2007, 04:04 PM

I want to stay off the no-fly list. :(

Grifman

03-21-2007, 07:23 PM

Grifman

03-21-2007, 07:27 PM

How do you figure? If you are building an aircraft carrier, and you need to buy steel on the global market, how does the fact that 100,000 USD spent by China can get you more steel then 100,000 USD spent by America?

Maybe because the Chinese don't have any carriers other than some cheap ex-Soviet knockoffs that have nothing like the capability of a US carrier. There's a whole lot more than steel that goes into a carrier - electronics, the planes, etc.

Aeon221

03-21-2007, 08:08 PM

This thread grows like a tumor.

Johan123

03-21-2007, 08:58 PM

Wait a second...isn't debt great? We must have an amazing credit score!! ;)

Having money is overrated, isn't it? Probably not...

Linoleum

03-21-2007, 09:13 PM

Pretty much all defense analysists will tell you that the official numbers China says they spend on defense are way low. Just what the real numbers are, however, is a source of contention.

Considering the number of state owned enterprises the Chinese military has their fingers in, I doubt even the Chinese have a complete grasp of the accounting. Just imagine if the Marines owned a big chunk of El Pollo Loco.

Jakub

03-21-2007, 09:54 PM

Yet the European Union itself spends more money on defence than Russia, a lot more. Say the US had a $300 billion defence budget, instead of $5-600 billion. That would still be more than twice Russia and China combined and doesn't even count all of the western allies. How could Russia bully Europe then, other than threaten to shut off the gas pipes, which they can do now anyway? How is China going to invade Japan if you just finished saying that they are only capable of defending themselves?

This subtopic started because someone said America had to spend so much because US allies weren't spending enough to defend themselves, yet they already spend substantially more than their potential enemies, so how much do they need to spend?

It seems to me that the US spending is more than is neccessary to back up allies against aggression and is more in keeping with maintaining the role of global hegemon.
Right, but European states spend individually, and act individually. Coalition warfare is a dicey proposition. Issues of trust, command authority, acceptable losses, the territory being fought over, the political goals - it's remarkably complex and almost always makes a coalition weaker than one single great power. This can be seen throughout history, from the wars against Louis XIV, Frederick the Great, Napoleon, and the two World Wars. You can already see the division in Europe on this issue. The Germans sold out the Poles when they signed that gas pipeline agreement. Where's the unity? Where's the trust? Everyone is naturally inclined to look out for #1 and that doesn't work in a coalition.

And yes, America is THE dominant power in the world and does exercise that power. And guess what? Most states want it that way.

1. It provides stability. People and states crave stability. Tension and conflict only exists if one superstate can challenge another's hegemony, or if the smaller states are oppressed to such a degree that war is preferable to a brutal peace.
2. America is a MUCH NICER bully than Russia or China would be. Especially Russia. China's an unknown quantity but you're not going to see too many countries welcome a Chinese hegemony until they've proven themselves. Europe especially is vulnerable to Russian influence, and China would have to go through Russia to contest that, unlike America.

That's just how it works. You can't have a power vacuum, or even a difference in power levels, without that power flowing outward from areas with high power to low power.

Imagine you live in the ghetto. There is no police, just like in the world political stage there is no police. There are several gangs (high power) roaming around and they want protection money from your family and business (low power or no power). Now one gang, gang America, is pretty laid-back. They're strong, they take some money, they hit on your sister, they might beat up your little brother for being nosey or mouthy, but otherwise they're decent. The alternative is gang Russia. Gang Russia fucks your mom and sister up the ass while you watch, then takes all your money, then takes all your food, and says you'd better have more shit next week when they drop by or they're gonna break your knees.

Which gang do you choose? Remember, there's no police. You can't turn to your neighbors. Well, you can try, but odds are they'll be too afraid of getting killed. You face the fundamental problem of coalition warfare - trust - you need to trust that they're committed to fighting, not selling you out, not quitting early. That's a lot to ask for, especially when you need to get 50 or 60 families together to fight a gang. People prefer to live with a nice bully, or even a tolerably mean bully, as long as they can live in peace. The same goes for nation states.

As for Russia, it's not just unified and militarily strong (at least in nuclear terms), but it sits on Europe's gas reserves. Oil can be transported from the mid East or far East or wherever. Gas isn't compact, you need a pipeline to get it and Russia provides Europe's natural gas.

JessicaM

03-22-2007, 03:20 AM

In absolute terms that's true, but a worthless assertion, since the US has the world's largest economy. As a percent of GDP, which is a more relevant measure, there are several countries that are in a lot worse shape both in terms of annual deficit and accumulated debt.

Who cares what percentage of the GDP the national debt is? It doesn't really matter how high the GDP is; what matters is how much the government spends versus how much it brings in and our national will to repay that debt.

When we're $9 trillion in debt and spending over $400 billion every year just in interest, who thinks we'll EVER pay down the debt? Look at what it took Clinton just to balance out the budget and create a small surplus. Can anyone imagine we'll ever bring it back down to zero?

DeepT

03-22-2007, 06:37 AM

As much as I hate Buch, and as much as I liked Clinton, I do not think the president has very much power over the economy. They have some influence, but it is only a tiny bit.

If Al Gore had been elected in 2000, I am sure we still would have seen the dot.com bomb. If Bush Sr. won in 1992, I am sure we would have still seen a growing economy.

Now the effects on the National debt, yes, I will agree the presidents have a very strong influence, even though I doubt that if Bill Clinton was in office in 2002 that he would have had a balanced budget. It would just simply have been a much less deficit that Jr. racked up.

SlyFrog

03-22-2007, 07:24 AM

As much as I hate Buch, and as much as I liked Clinton, I do not think the president has very much power over the economy. They have some influence, but it is only a tiny bit.

Well, you've just proven yourself smarter than 99% of Americans, who seem to think that the President dictates everything from the price of corn to what is on television.

wisefool

03-22-2007, 07:59 AM

The key concept is Purchasing Power Parity.

This article http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/budget.htm

By official accounts, the composition of China's defense expenditure in 1997 was as follows:

29.162 billion yuan for personnel expenses, accounting for 35.89 percent; 26.536 billion yuan for maintenance of activities, 32.66 percent;
25.559 billion yuan for equipment, 31.45 percent.

Most of the defense outlay went to the personnel's living costs and maintenance of normal activities. In addition, more than four billion yuan, or about 5 percent, was spent to fund activities associated with social welfare.

In China a bottle of coke is 5 cents. Doesn't the aluminum can and corn syrup cost money, eh? Our capitalistic culture sometimes makes me near-sighted. The US spends something about a million US dollars to train a jet pilot. It's not far fetched to think China only needs a small fraction of that amount to train an equivalent pilot.

How much of the aircraft's carrier total cost is steel? Melt down a carrier for scrap and how much cash you will get? 1% of the original cost? Capital makes us forget how much value is actually added by labor.

ElGuapo

03-22-2007, 08:43 AM

China is now a blue water threat because France keeps selling them submarines. Tango class. Six, if I recall correctly the last sale.

But yeah, projections are that China would have a tough time taking over Taiwan in a ground assault, even without our help. Taiwan has some nice coastal defenses.

DeepT

03-22-2007, 10:02 AM

Steel was meant a surrogate for any non-domestically produced products.

For example, all those fancy high-tech ICs that make everything run? Who makes them?

The giant engines that propel the ship, who makes that?

The fuel used to run the ship, who makes that?

Even steel, you say melt down scrap. Scrap from what? Another aircraft carrier? 50,000 automobiles? If the net steel in China increases, they must pay for it. The actual source doesn't matter.

Subs from France, this is a whole package deal, and X dollars is X dollars, regardless if China spends it or not.

To really know, we would need a detailed expense report of the Chinese and American militaries, or we could just take an aggregate view of their military machine vs ours.

Linoleum

03-22-2007, 12:49 PM

The US spends something about a million US dollars to train a jet pilot. It's not far fetched to think China only needs a small fraction of that amount to train an equivalent pilot.

The actual amount is not a small fraction, but effectively infinite. At this present time, China cannot train an equivalent pilot for any amount of money. They do not have the technology, infrastructure or institutional knowledge. Getting to the point where say the USAF is now requires a multi-decade investment in time and resources.

China is now a blue water threat because France keeps selling them submarines. Tango class. Six, if I recall correctly the last sale.

China does not have a blue water fleet. With the exception of Taiwan, they have to focus on trying to protect their coastal lanes first and foremost as opposed to force projection. They are presently extremely vulnerable to interdiction. While they are planning to build subs, in the short to mid-term their fleeting is actually shrinking (http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/2007/02/post_2.php) due to age.

Also, France has not sold any subs to China. This would be an interesting trick given that the EU arms embargo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_arms_embargo_on_China) is still in effect. France is selling six Scorpène class subs to India (http://www.nti.org/db/submarines/france/export.html), you may have gotten the countries confused.

grahamiam

03-22-2007, 01:05 PM

No to derail all the military what-if's, but I read an interesting article today in the NYT on the Chinese retirement -> crisis http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/22/world/asia/22china.html?th&emc=th

Seems worse than our babyboomer retirement crisis.

Soapyfrog

03-22-2007, 01:13 PM

China is now a blue water threat because France keeps selling them submarines. Tango class. Six, if I recall correctly the last sale.

Tango class subs are Russian/former Soviet diesel subs. Over 30 years old. not really that suitable for serious blue water operations. So on the face of it your statement doesn't seem accurate.

Also, since I'm late to the thread, I'd like to point out that historically Russia (at least since the 18th centruy) has coveted Poland as a buffer to invasion from the west, not for any particular desire to acquire whatever resources it might have. Probably less applicable today since one imagines the threat to Russia from the west has greatly dimished... but Russians are also historically quite paranoid, with some historical justification ;).

Nick Walter

03-22-2007, 02:04 PM

The actual amount is not a small fraction, but effectively infinite. At this present time, China cannot train an equivalent pilot for any amount of money. They do not have the technology, infrastructure or institutional knowledge. Getting to the point where say the USAF is now requires a multi-decade investment in time and resources.

That's a baffling statement, what makes you think the Chinese are unable to train pilots up to the same level as American pilots? Unless you are bringing some racist beliefs about inferiority of asian races to the discussion, there doesnt' seem to be any way to justify that.

I'll certainly agree that the USAF spends more on pilot training and has nicer facilities and simulators and so forth, but that doesn't guarantee better training.

Linoleum

03-22-2007, 02:44 PM

That's a baffling statement, what makes you think the Chinese are unable to train pilots up to the same level as American pilots? Unless you are bringing some racist beliefs about inferiority of asian races to the discussion, there doesnt' seem to be any way to justify that.

I'll certainly agree that the USAF spends more on pilot training and has nicer facilities and simulators and so forth, but that doesn't guarantee better training.

Don't be silly, it has nothing to due to race. It has everything to do with money, technology and institutional experience.

First off, the technology gap. You can't train on capabilities you don't have. Example: AWACS. China is only now starting to test (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A46477-2004Nov12.html) a platform that gives them that basic functionality. Same thing with C4I capabilities, i.e. JTIDS etc. Over the next decade China will be reaching where the US was in the early 1980s. I don't think you comprehend just how big the gap is and what it means in terms of air combat capability.

Money. Flight time is expensive. Very expensive. It doesn't get magically cheaper in China. Sure, it's cheaper, but not as much as you might think, and relatively speaking the US military spends *much* more which means more flight-hours and real-world combat training.

The combination of high tech, lots of training time, lots of combat experience, and an intensive training scenarios and tactics developed through decades of experience isn't something you can just develop overnight, no matter how much money you spend.

Nick Walter

03-22-2007, 02:56 PM

First off, the technology gap. You can't train on capabilities you don't have. Example: AWACS. China is only now starting to test (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A46477-2004Nov12.html) a platform that gives them that basic functionality. Same thing with C4I capabilities, i.e. JTIDS etc. Over the next decade China will be reaching where the US was in the early 1980s. I don't think you comprehend just how big the gap is and what it means in terms of air combat capability.

I don't disagree with you, but that doesn't back your assertion that Chinese pilots all have inferior training. Unless you consider it inferior training because it doesn't include systems they don't have? That would be pretty silly now wouldn't it.

Money. Flight time is expensive. Very expensive. It doesn't get magically cheaper in China. Sure, it's cheaper, but not as much as you might think, and relatively speaking the US military spends *much* more which means more flight-hours and real-world combat training.

Are you assuming that the average American fighter jockey gets more cockpit hours than the Chinese ones or do you have some evidence?

The combination of high tech, lots of training time, lots of combat experience, and an intensive training scenarios and tactics developed through decades of experience isn't something you can just develop overnight, no matter how much money you spend.

Sure, but your original assertions were around training, not around overall capabilities. Perhaps you just meant capabilities and used the wrong word?

Linoleum

03-22-2007, 03:42 PM

I don't disagree with you, but that doesn't back your assertion that Chinese pilots all have inferior training. Unless you consider it inferior training because it doesn't include systems they don't have? That would be pretty silly now wouldn't it.

Why? As a contrived hypo, let us say we have two football teams. One trains to be able to call an audible, one does not (because they 'can't'). All things being equal the capabilities, and therefore the training is inferior.

Are you assuming that the average American fighter jockey gets more cockpit hours than the Chinese ones or do you have some evidence?

Good grief, there doesn't seem to be nice concise page for GCC level quals for various airframes on current fliers, but just take a look at the training path run by 19th Air Force (http://www.randolph.af.mil/library/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=5925) alone. Unfortunately, there isn't much PRC stats outside of classified intelligence estimates, but gleanings from open literature suggests under 200 flight hours (http://www.jamestown.org/publications_details.php?volume_id=408&issue_id=3390&article_id=2369972) a year.

Needless to say, conducting large scale combat exercises also matter. A lot.

Sure, but your original assertions were around training, not around overall capabilities. Perhaps you just meant capabilities and used the wrong word?

No, you can't split the two.

Jakub

03-22-2007, 03:51 PM

Unless you are bringing some racist beliefs about inferiority of asian races to the discussion, there doesnt' seem to be any way to justify that.
I can't believe you automatically brought that up. What in his post made you think that?

Kalle

03-22-2007, 04:05 PM

Chinese pilots also lack combat experience while the United States has kept itself busy with minor wars over the past decades to make sure that the flyboys get put their long training to use.

Mike O'Malley

03-22-2007, 04:28 PM

Kudos to Nick for taking one for the team...this misbegotten thread just got a second wind.

Jakub

03-22-2007, 04:34 PM

Chinese pilots also lack combat experience while the United States has kept itself busy with minor wars over the past decades to make sure that the flyboys get put their long training to use.
Yes, precisely. We know that Gulf War I, Yugoslavia, and Somalia were fought for the explicit purpose of training American pilots! You've blown the conspiracy wide open.

Dirt

03-22-2007, 04:52 PM

Taiwan will become part of China without a war. Economy unites all peoples.

Glenn

03-22-2007, 04:55 PM

Taiwan will become part of China without a war. Economy unites all peoples.How does your theory correspond with the reality of Canada?

Grifman

03-22-2007, 05:02 PM

Who cares what percentage of the GDP the national debt is? It doesn't really matter how high the GDP is; what matters is how much the government spends versus how much it brings in and our national will to repay that debt.

That's a rather dumb statement. If I make a $1 million/year, then a $10,000 loan is not going to matter all that much, while if I make $20,000/year that's very signficant. The same applies to the US economy.

The original poster was comparing the overall amount of US debt to that of other countries. Of course the US debt is going to be bigger - our GDP is bigger and we can afford more.

When we're $9 trillion in debt and spending over $400 billion every year just in interest, who thinks we'll EVER pay down the debt? Look at what it took Clinton just to balance out the budget and create a small surplus. Can anyone imagine we'll ever bring it back down to zero?

That's an entire separate issue. Please read what I wrote. I never said the US had little debt or that we had the right amount. I was merely stating that the correct way to look at it when comparing to the countries is the relative size compared to GDP. We may be in a lot of trouble - I never claimed we weren't.

SlyFrog

03-22-2007, 05:48 PM

When we're $9 trillion in debt and spending over $400 billion every year just in interest, who thinks we'll EVER pay down the debt? Look at what it took Clinton just to balance out the budget and create a small surplus. Can anyone imagine we'll ever bring it back down to zero?

Yes, the ultimate legacy of Bush. Just what everyone wants most, a fiscal liberal and social conservative.

Jakub

03-22-2007, 11:27 PM

On what planet is Russia a threat to Poland? Seriously. There's nothing worth stealing in the world anymore but oil and eastern european hookers - oops, maybe that's why!
So you really ARE this stupid?

Man, I thought you were trolling me.

Jason McCullough

03-23-2007, 10:25 AM

MikeSofaer

03-23-2007, 10:31 AM

Short of NeoStalin coming back, I don't see it.
You mean Putin? I wouldn't be surprised if American military power is all that stood between Yushenko and anihilation at Putin's hands.

Jakub

03-23-2007, 10:56 PM

I'm being serious. Why would Russia invade Poland? A buffer against pacifist Germany? Note they'd have to take over Ukraine and all the independent baltic states in between, first.

Short of NeoStalin coming back, I don't see it.
You throw a hissy fit every time the US exercises diplomatic pressure to accomplish something.

Yet when the Russians cut off gas to the Ukraine and build a VERY expensive pipeline through the Baltic, deliberately going around Poland, so that in the future they can cut off Poland without cutting off the rest of Europe... you don't see a problem with that?

Like I said: are you really that fucking dumb?

Jason McCullough

03-23-2007, 11:11 PM

Jakub

03-23-2007, 11:40 PM

I didn't say they'd be nice. I just can't imagine a scenario where they invade - which is what the US military is there to stop, right? Unless your opinion now is that the US "defends the free world" by forcing Russia to sell Poland natural gas or something.
Jason, when a bank robber surrenders peacefully to the police, why does he do it? Is it because he knows it's the right thing to do, or because he knows he's liable to get shot or beat down, and face a longer jail term if he resists?

Jason McCullough

03-24-2007, 11:57 AM

Jason McCullough

03-24-2007, 12:19 PM

Back on the actual topic, China owns very little of our debt. See here (http://www.optimist123.com/optimist/2007/03/updated_pie_cha.html).

In fact, foreigners own very little of the debt.

US government itself (SS and the like): 3 trillion.
US citizens: ~3 trillion
Federal reserve: 800 billion
Japan: 650 billion
China: 354 billion

aaand that's it out of 9 trillion. All foreign holdings add up to 2.5 trillion.

Jakub

03-24-2007, 12:41 PM

Ok, just so we have that straight - you think US military spending is high so it can "defend the free world" by keeping Russia from charging too much for natural gas. Which would turn into an invasion somehow if they did.
No dude.

US military spending is high so that America walks around with the biggest gun on the block and maintain stability. Other countries are, obviously, influenced by this. Some negatively, some positively. Some like Poland look to America for protection against Russian influence.

It is the THREAT that matters. The THREAT of a giant Russian invasion. The THREAT of American retaliation. It's posturing, it's like two dogs sizing each other up and deciding without fighting who's more likely to win. And you cannot have that threat, you cannot posture, if you do not have the size and power to back it up.

wisefool

03-24-2007, 12:44 PM

60 people on a boat.

3 of them are American, yet they use up 25% of the gas and electricity with the playstation. They have detonators wired to explosives along the entire hull section. And they have a lot of guns, so they can keep playing playstation.

1 man is wearing a moustache and complaining about the lousy food in the pantry. He knows he's very cool but wants to be respected by everyone. He's got guns too but nobody cares.

There's 2 men wearing fur-coats. They used to be more, but they killed one cause he was rich and the others left to their own cabins later on. They also got detonators and are pretty pissed they're not getting as much playstation time as they used to.

14 of them are Chinese, and 16 are Indian. Most of them are down in the engine room covered in dirt and grime, but the others don't see much of them. They see only 1 of each upstairs. People used to be really scared of them because they outnumber everyone else and are finally learning to make their own guns.

The Americans were really scared of them but not anymore. They are distracted because someone snuck in and cut them up. They don't know who it is or how many there are.

DeepT

03-26-2007, 07:21 AM

What the hell is that supposed to mean? How unfair it is that the American's and their buddies get playstation time and the Chinese and Indian's get shafted?

Why not tell the whole story?

Why not tell us how the 3 Americans fought to free themselves from oppression, how they dedicated themselves to science and industry, how they worked very hard to become a major industrial power. How they innovated, adapted, and conquered the obstacles set before them?

Why not tell a tale of two nations who kept to the old ways, who didn't innovate, evolve or adapt in any way and then woke up one day and suddenly realized how backward they were?

Your story is some kind of communist propaganda that says the rich person is evil simply because he is rich while totally ignoring how he got to be rich. It venerates the poor peasant without telling us why he is poor. Somehow there is supposed to be nobility in being poor and backwards and we should all split the pie evenly even though the poor person did nothing to help themselves.

The Americans get their playstation because they earned it. The guys in the engine room are there because they did nothing to get themselves out of it.

wisefool

03-26-2007, 07:38 AM

Oh this is going to get evil.

The point is Americans are the sole-remaining superpower. All superpowers that wish to retain their status have to do certain things in the international arena. The US for example, has a long history of supporting "dictators" in the interests of power politics. This is fine. Like pointed above, I'd imagine it'd be much worse if the Soviets had taken over. Mao Tse Tung? My grandparents lived from the war through cultural revolution in China, so I know plenty on how evil it is.

From my reading of history, as a nation you either messed others up, or you got swallowed. Once you have external security (military hegemony over neighbors) you can have the LUXURIES of learning how to read and figuring out how to divide pies in bathtubs and what not. Then we become civilized people enjoying luxuries. W

here's the line between civilization and decadence? Are they actually equivalent? Is there a problem where the word "decadence" has negative connotations (probably the whole roman deal).

DeepT

03-26-2007, 08:53 AM

Try reading some American history then. Didn't we become a power, and then a super-power after we achieved all these nice things? Certainly life was good for American's before WWI. Only after WWI were we recognized as a power, and only in WWII did we become recognized as a super-power.

As far as maintain that status, how does keeping the Indian's down make us wealthy? How does keeping China poor make us wealthy? Contrary to what you might believe, if China became wealthy then the United States would have a nice new market so sell useless junk to. We might even have a trade surplus instead of a deficit. Dare we dream?

Yes, we have had a history of really bad foreign policy decisions. So what? What country who has the ability to meddle in the affairs of others doesn't? The more power you have, the bigger mistakes you can make, however lets not forget that every power is guilty of this.

Finally, there is a paradox in what you are saying:
From my reading of history, as a nation you either messed others up, or you got swallowed. Once you have external security (military hegemony over neighbors) you can have the LUXURIES of learning how to read and figuring out how to divide pies in bathtubs and what not.

So... in order to learn to read and figure out how to divide Pies (did you mean Pi or actual Apple pies, and why in bathtubs?) we need to conquer / oppress our neighbors.

However, if you can't read, can't do math, etc... you can't build a modern war machine, hence you can't project your power. If you can't project your power, then you can't dominate your neighbors, and thus can't take the time to learn to read...

Note: I am assuming you are using the term "read" metaphorically for intellectual pursuits.

wisefool

03-26-2007, 09:44 AM

DeepT, I don't understand why we are arguing. It seems we are saying the same things. The stupid boat is a stupid example showing current world power distribution and resources. it does not say right, wrong, or even how it got the way it is.

You seem to be reading a personal attack where there is none. I enjoy my HDTV and $300 video cards and other junk. I am laughing at my own hypocrisy. As human beings we have to forget certain things like ignoring all the homeless in the subway or the horrors in the Sudan. I rationalize to myself and say, oh how do I know it's not a scammer asking for money. As I get older it is easier to ignore other people's pain.

BennyProfane

03-26-2007, 09:49 AM

(did you mean Pi or actual Apple pies, and why in bathtubs?)

Wow, that one brought all sorts of interesting images to mind: Franklin's essay on farting in the bathtub, Jacques-Louis David's painting of the death of Marat, not sure what all flashed through my mind. Not sure what any of it has to do with the quote, either, but it is amazing the sort of resonances you get in your head sometimes.

We now return you to your program...

DeepT

03-26-2007, 11:24 AM

I am not taking it as a personal attack.

I philosophically disagree that, we as Americans, should feel the slightest guilt about being better off then the rest of the world. I do resent the implication we should. We earned it.

This does not mean we should be totally selfish either, but we should not be going on about how unfair it is. We should not be kicking ourselves about the fact that an hours work we can make more money then some people make in a month.

I guess what is comes down to really is the entire "Victimization" stuff that goes on all the time. That guy is a "victim" of poverty. This one is a "victim" of living in a shitty country. Or, on the opposite side, You are "lucky" to have a well paying job, you are "lucky" to have 3 square meals a day.

It is almost always, total and complete bullshit. Where is the self-responsibility? Why is that homeless person a homeless person? Did he get into drugs and destroy his life? Did he decide that 6th grade was all the schooling he needed and one day McDonalds decided they no longer needed his services? Maybe he just chooses to be that way, then again, maybe there really was a series of unfortunate events that forced him into the situation he is in.

I believe we should always offer a helping hand, a way out of any situation even if it is your fault, but you should always have to work for it. However, under no circumstances should we just give free handouts. I am not talking about a meal in a soup kitchen, but as a way of life. The homeless guy in the subway should have services available to him so he can help himself. Maybe a place where he can get a bath, some clothes, and most importantly a job. Maybe some free vocational training so he can make more then minimum wage.

All that is well and nice, but lets look at people in shitty countries, like the Sudan "so-called" Republic. Its a cluster fuck; Its a civil war. What is a peasant to do? FUCKING LEAVE. Run. Do not come back. Problem solved.

But wait! Isn't that over simplifying it? It is your ancestral homeland. No, not anymore. Its not an excuse to stay. My home is there! No, not anymore, it was looted and burned. My family is there! Take them with you, because if you don't they wont be living anywhere much longer. Stop waiting for someone else to fix the problem. Stop wondering when the UN is gonna step in. Do something about it. Living in peace is not an option anymore. Shit happens. Either leave, or join one of the factions.

The most charity I can really see is making sure we can help people willing to help themselves, but if I am having a nice juicy steak for lunch, I should not feel guilty because you live in desert and are starving. If there is no food there, then leave and go where you can find someone. You can always find some fish in the ocean. Ill even buy you a fishing rod.

MikeJ

03-26-2007, 11:35 AM

All that is well and nice, but lets look at people in shitty countries, like the Sudan "so-called" Republic. Its a cluster fuck; Its a civil war. What is a peasant to do? FUCKING LEAVE. Run. Do not come back. Problem solved.

Leave and come to America perhaps? What to do if 500,000 people decide to leave their shithole life in Sudan and want to live in the US? Tell them to go back where they came from, or perhaps wait 30 years for their immigration papers to come through.

AaronSofaer

03-26-2007, 11:39 AM

Personally, I'm all for letting the 500,000 people leave their shithole life in Sudan and come to the USA.

But I've never been a fan of the current restrictions on immigration the USA has.

Johan O

03-26-2007, 11:59 AM

...

All that is well and nice, but lets look at people in shitty countries, like the Sudan "so-called" Republic. Its a cluster fuck; Its a civil war. What is a peasant to do? FUCKING LEAVE. Run. Do not come back. Problem solved.

But wait! Isn't that over simplifying it? It is your ancestral homeland. No, not anymore. Its not an excuse to stay. My home is there! No, not anymore, it was looted and burned. My family is there! Take them with you, because if you don't they wont be living anywhere much longer. Stop waiting for someone else to fix the problem. Stop wondering when the UN is gonna step in. Do something about it. Living in peace is not an option anymore. Shit happens. Either leave, or join one of the factions.

The most charity I can really see is making sure we can help people willing to help themselves, but if I am having a nice juicy steak for lunch, I should not feel guilty because you live in desert and are starving. If there is no food there, then leave and go where you can find someone. You can always find some fish in the ocean. Ill even buy you a fishing rod.
How the fuck do you know that the people suffering in Sudan are not trying to get out, or try to better their situation in whatever way seems most realistic from where they are standing. You pointificating on their lack of will to better themselves is downright retarded. What do you think happen when they leave? That someone just offers them a job as soon as they leave Sudan? that fishing will come naturally to people that have grown up in a desert? that local people will welcome the refugees with open arms and share their scant resources with them? Because, you know, the rest of Africa is swimming in resources and food, and a flood of refugees would cause no problems at all. And if the Sudanis could just be arsed to swim an ocean or two the first world countries would also be delighted to recieve a flood of unskilled desert tribesmen.

Kalle

03-26-2007, 12:05 PM

All that is well and nice, but lets look at people in shitty countries, like the Sudan "so-called" Republic. Its a cluster fuck; Its a civil war. What is a peasant to do? FUCKING LEAVE. Run. Do not come back. Problem solved.

How about another example. Shithole Iraq. It's not quite civil war yet but there's still 2 million displaced people who really would like to live somewhere where people aren't threatening to kill or kidnap them. And I think we can all safely say the US invasion is to blame for the situation. So how many Iraqis got granted asylum in the US last year? roughly 700.

Henry Wilson

03-26-2007, 12:52 PM

Personally, I'm all for letting the 500,000 people leave their shithole life in Sudan and come to the USA.

But I've never been a fan of the current restrictions on immigration the USA has.

How do you feel about a right of return for Palestinian refugees?

AaronSofaer

03-26-2007, 12:59 PM

How do you feel about a right of return for Palestinian refugees?

I think that Right of Return is something that will never be granted, for the simple fact that it would be the immediate end of Israel in every way, shape, and form.

And personally, I'm perfectly happy to not have a few million Jews killed out of hand, probably while the world wrings their hands and says 'oh well!', again.

But thanks for trolling me, I really appreciate it.

Henry Wilson

03-26-2007, 01:04 PM

I think that Right of Return is something that will never be granted, for the simple fact that it would be the immediate end of Israel in every way, shape, and form.

And personally, I'm perfectly happy to not have a few million Jews killed out of hand, probably while the world wrings their hands and says 'oh well!', again.

But thanks for trolling me, I really appreciate it.

You say trolling. I say pointing out an inconsistency in your position.

Let's call the whole thing off.

AaronSofaer

03-26-2007, 01:06 PM

You say trolling. I say pointing out an inconsistency in your position.

Let's call the whole thing off.

*shrug* You brought it up, I counterpointed, you reply with a request for a cessation of hostilities. I accept the truce for now.

Henry Wilson

03-26-2007, 01:09 PM

*shrug* You brought it up, I counterpointed, you reply with a request for a cessation of hostilities.

Actually I was paraphrasing an old song about botanical pronunciation.

I accept the truce for now.

We've never been at war, my friend.

AaronSofaer

03-26-2007, 01:15 PM

Actually I was paraphrasing an old song about botanical pronunciation.

Yes, yes. I call it survival, you call it racism, let's call the whole thing off.

We've never been at war, my friend.

Sorry. I get plenty of people (especially on forums) acting like the lack of a Right of Return is a racist, apartheid measure designed to perpetuate the contiuous poverty of the innocent Palestinian people.

If you are not in fact in that group, I stand corrected. It was the conclusion I drew from your comment.

Henry Wilson

03-26-2007, 01:31 PM

Sorry. I get plenty of people (especially on forums) acting like the lack of a Right of Return is a racist, apartheid measure designed to perpetuate the contiuous poverty of the innocent Palestinian people.

If you are not in fact in that group, I stand corrected. It was the conclusion I drew from your comment.

I'm deeply conflicted about it. I do feel that a right of return for the Palestinians would be just, but recognize that as the Palestinians are presently constituted allowing it would be suicide for the Israeli Jews. Imposing it would be genocide.

And while I don't think much of Israel's legitimacy I recognize that all states have their origin in land theft, including my own.

So in the case of the Palestinian diaspora I reluctantly support a continuing injustice because I believe that ending it would lead to a greater injustice. It's obviously not a perfect world.

DeepT

03-26-2007, 01:31 PM

What do you think happen when they leave? That someone just offers them a job as soon as they leave Sudan? that fishing will come naturally to people that have grown up in a desert? that local people will welcome the refugees with open arms and share their scant resources with them?

I see. Your suggestion? They stay and die? We send our troops in, get accused of meddling, and have them die?

Oh, it is very easy to sit there and fantasize about being on the moral high-ground without offering any actual solutions.

My point is simply that those people should not sit around and wait for the rest of the world to do something. They should take action themselves. I have no idea what your point is.

MikeJ

03-26-2007, 02:07 PM

My point is simply that those people should not sit around and wait for the rest of the world to do something. They should take action themselves. I have no idea what your point is.

My understanding is that people are doing things. Many flee, or attempt to flee. Many join militias to fight the government death squads. Some continue to scratch out a living and hope their village won't be the next to be bombed. Some resist being driven from their homes and are killed.

These people are in a very bad situation and it's not because they simply lack the gumption to do anything about it.

As for what to do about it, I think it would require a very strong military commitment that no one is willing to make at the moment. None of the nations capable of pulling it off are willing to wade into the mess for basically zero return.

Johan O

03-26-2007, 02:28 PM

I see. Your suggestion? They stay and die? We send our troops in, get accused of meddling, and have them die?

Oh, it is very easy to sit there and fantasize about being on the moral high-ground without offering any actual solutions.

My point is simply that those people should not sit around and wait for the rest of the world to do something. They should take action themselves. I have no idea what your point is.
My point is that your point is retarded. What gives you the idea that they are just sitting around waiting for the world to do something. If it were that easy for them to not get raped, murdered, starved and tortured don't you think they would do it. Ýou seems to imagine that they are just lazy, that they can't be bothered so they might as well just get raped another day? I am sure they are doing whatever looks realistically possible to alter their situation, because you know, most people don't want to die, or live in constant fear of deathsquads. That they haven't solved their problem is not because they haven't tried. It is because the solutions aren't as facile as just trying a bit harder.