Don't have an account yet? You can create one. As a registered user you have some advantages like theme manager, comments configuration and post comments with your name.
Online
172 guest(s) and 0 member(s)
You are Anonymous user. You can register for free by clicking here
VideoGamesSuck.com :: View topic - Alez from romania
There are, obviously, a lot of reasons why the US is not number 1 (even though they are the richest country), but in my opinion, it's b/c the US spends much more (on the military) then it can afford to.
This is probably true. I just wonder why? Why are US taxpayers willing to spend billions on the military? These billions could have been spent on healthcare or education (or could not have been taxed in the first place).
Having such a huge military power begs to use it. Why spend all this money and then let it go to waste?
The threads the US face are mainly terrorist groups, and it would seem they do not need superior firepower (let alone WMD) to defeat those. Better intelligence would seem far more desirable.
Posted: Mon May 11, 2009 8:19 am
puk
A Winner is me!
Joined: Jun 23, 2008
Posts: 2140
Location: Southampton, UK
berzerker wrote:
I just wonder why? Why are US taxpayers willing to spend billions on the military? These billions could have been spent on healthcare or education (or could not have been taxed in the first place).
I think it has to do with a sense of hopelessness. For example, in Canada, every year our health care system keeps getting worse and worse, but none of us are willing to do anything about it.
berzerker wrote:
Having such a huge military power begs to use it. Why spend all this money and then let it go to waste?
You could make the argument that the whole point of capitalism is to make waste, so capitalism and war go hand in hand. As luck be have, I read this one line in Michael Sherry's book today (In the Shadow of War...terrible book)
"Since all war production is sheer economic waste, there is never a danger of producing too much" (p 75)
berzerker wrote:
The threads the US face are mainly terrorist groups, and it would seem they do not need superior firepower (let alone WMD) to defeat those. Better intelligence would seem far more desirable.
Is terrorism really a threat to america? I think it's blown out of proportion just like the old soviet union was. Back in the day, the big threat was threats to America's "Commercial Interests", and other euphamisms like "modernization in a single generation".
Chomsky touched on this in an interview by pointing out that the administration was aware that invading Iraq would increase terrorism, but they didn't care, b/c control of the oil was deemed more important (I presume)
Posted: Mon May 11, 2009 9:13 am
berzerker
A Winner is me!
Joined: Nov 01, 2006
Posts: 2350
puk wrote:
You could make the argument that the whole point of capitalism is to make waste
How could you make that argument? It would seem silly. In the end everything becomes waste, that is not unique to capitalism, is it?
puk wrote:
Is terrorism really a threat to america? I think it's blown out of proportion just like the old soviet union was.
I agree. I made the statement because this is now the greatest threat as perceived by the public/voters. No matter how peacefull the world will become, there will always be a 'greatest threat' I guess.
Posted: Mon May 11, 2009 9:27 am
puk
A Winner is me!
Joined: Jun 23, 2008
Posts: 2140
Location: Southampton, UK
berzerker wrote:
puk wrote:
You could make the argument that the whole point of capitalism is to make waste
How could you make that argument? It would seem silly. In the end everything becomes waste, that is not unique to capitalism, is it?
From my understanding, as depicted in 1984, and as expressed by Noam Chomsky, amongst others, the whole purpose of capitalism is to create waste.
That's why you have these huge public relations companies trying to convince you to buy crap that you don't actually need.
It is true that in the end everything becomes waste, but 40,000 nukes that never get used is much more of a waste than, say, food for the poor.
It's a complicated concept to get your head around, but try to start from year zero. Before Industrialization you had people living simple lives, based on farming, then these massive industries spring up, and they start massively changing people's lifestyles.
You now have people buying clothes on a regular basis, when before they wore the same thing most of their lives. It just seems like waste to me
Posted: Mon May 11, 2009 9:36 am
Pogma9
A Winner is me!
Joined: Nov 19, 2008
Posts: 2522
Capitalism is just a method of producing goods and services, our problems are that we're willing to put up with so much junk.......go to the grocery store and 80% is junk.
Posted: Mon May 11, 2009 9:57 am
puk
A Winner is me!
Joined: Jun 23, 2008
Posts: 2140
Location: Southampton, UK
Pogma9 wrote:
Capitalism is just a method of producing goods and services
To make it even more simple, Capitalism is about capital. So you build a factory (capital), and try to make a profit out of it (convincing people to buy new cell phones every 4 months)
Posted: Mon May 11, 2009 10:09 am
Kasrkin
Troll
Joined: Feb 25, 2007
Posts: 193
berzerker wrote:
And these statistics may well be manipulated indeed, but this would still seem a bit more useful than the GDP. Is it really a coincidence that the US are only the smallest possible margin ahead of Spain, yet the US is in the top group and Spain is not? Nonetheless this still looks pretty bad for the US, taken the fact that they are supposed to be the richest country on earth.
Maybe they are measuring that in the US if you are ill or need expensive medicines you can die in the front door of a hospital or a pharmacy and they laugh at you for not having a private health care.
Same with the public pensions, here everyone have right to get a pension when reaching 65 years, another if you are ill or disabled and can't get a job, another if you are orphan, etc...
And still there is a public unemployment insurance, the more time you are working the longest time you can receive that payment until maximum 2 years.
Plus another public services like subsidized houses, education beyond college and many others.
In the US there isn't any of the stated above, it's better if you are rich and everyone is better paid, but these are almost the only advantages.
Posted: Mon May 11, 2009 11:23 am
Pogma9
A Winner is me!
Joined: Nov 19, 2008
Posts: 2522
puk wrote:
Pogma9 wrote:
Capitalism is just a method of producing goods and services
To make it even more simple, Capitalism is about capital. So you build a factory (capital), and try to make a profit out of it (convincing people to buy new cell phones every 4 months)
That's consumerism, and is related to my comments on junk products.
Posted: Mon May 11, 2009 11:57 am
puk
A Winner is me!
Joined: Jun 23, 2008
Posts: 2140
Location: Southampton, UK
Pogma9 wrote:
That's consumerism, and is related to my comments on junk products.
From my understanding, capitalism is about freely selling stuff (supply and demand), and left untouched (laisez fair), the situation just spirals out of control, until the whole system falls apart (great depression)
Posted: Mon May 11, 2009 12:15 pm
Pogma9
A Winner is me!
Joined: Nov 19, 2008
Posts: 2522
puk wrote:
Pogma9 wrote:
That's consumerism, and is related to my comments on junk products.
From my understanding, capitalism is about freely selling stuff (supply and demand), and left untouched (laisez fair), the situation just spirals out of control, until the whole system falls apart (great depression)
Consumerism is an aspect of a capitalist system, but it's not integral, ie, we could remove the pressure to buy a new phone every few months and capitalism could still function....obviously the number of phone companies would diminish....but no great loss.
The goal is a balance of money and happiness.
Posted: Mon May 11, 2009 12:34 pm
puk
A Winner is me!
Joined: Jun 23, 2008
Posts: 2140
Location: Southampton, UK
i c
Posted: Mon May 11, 2009 2:09 pm
berzerker
A Winner is me!
Joined: Nov 01, 2006
Posts: 2350
Pogma9 wrote:
we could remove the pressure to buy a new phone every few months and capitalism could still function....obviously the number of phone companies would diminish....but no great loss.
But who forces anyone to buy a new phone every few months? I do not feel compelled to do that at all, why should other feel compelled?
Posted: Mon May 11, 2009 2:16 pm
puk
A Winner is me!
Joined: Jun 23, 2008
Posts: 2140
Location: Southampton, UK
berzerker wrote:
Pogma9 wrote:
we could remove the pressure to buy a new phone every few months and capitalism could still function....obviously the number of phone companies would diminish....but no great loss.
But who forces anyone to buy a new phone every few months? I do not feel compelled to do that at all, why should other feel compelled?
ask yourself these questions then:
-how many phones have you owned in your life?
-how many tv's have you owned?
-how many pairs of sneakers have you owned?
-how many digital cameras?
-how many computers?
-items of furniture?
-jackets?
Posted: Mon May 11, 2009 2:19 pm
berzerker
A Winner is me!
Joined: Nov 01, 2006
Posts: 2350
Kasrkin wrote:
Maybe they are measuring that in the US if you are ill or need expensive medicines you can die in the front door of a hospital or a pharmacy and they laugh at you for not having a private health care.
Same with the public pensions, here everyone have right to get a pension when reaching 65 years, another if you are ill or disabled and can't get a job, another if you are orphan, etc...
And still there is a public unemployment insurance, the more time you are working the longest time you can receive that payment until maximum 2 years.
Plus another public services like subsidized houses, education beyond college and many others.
In the US there isn't any of the stated above, it's better if you are rich and everyone is better paid, but these are almost the only advantages.
Don't forget the poor infrastructure there.
Apparently the American electorate do not want to pay more taxes for these purposes than is absolutely necessary. I can understand this (with some effort), but I do not understand why at the same time they are perfectly happy to pay so much for their military. The military does not improve the quality of their living one bit, I would think.
Posted: Mon May 11, 2009 2:45 pm
Suislide
VGS Admin
Joined: Aug 14, 2003
Posts: 509
berzerker wrote:
Kasrkin wrote:
Maybe they are measuring that in the US if you are ill or need expensive medicines you can die in the front door of a hospital or a pharmacy and they laugh at you for not having a private health care.
Same with the public pensions, here everyone have right to get a pension when reaching 65 years, another if you are ill or disabled and can't get a job, another if you are orphan, etc...
And still there is a public unemployment insurance, the more time you are working the longest time you can receive that payment until maximum 2 years.
Plus another public services like subsidized houses, education beyond college and many others.
In the US there isn't any of the stated above, it's better if you are rich and everyone is better paid, but these are almost the only advantages.
Don't forget the poor infrastructure there.
Apparently the American electorate do not want to pay more taxes for these purposes than is absolutely necessary. I can understand this (with some effort), but I do not understand why at the same time they are perfectly happy to pay so much for their military. The military does not improve the quality of their living one bit, I would think.
You are wrong on the military part, there have been an absolutely enormous amounts of technology that were developed through the military which have GREATLY affected civilian life and advanced it.
Let's pick a small invention by the military for starters.....The Internet
Posted: Mon May 11, 2009 2:48 pm
berzerker
A Winner is me!
Joined: Nov 01, 2006
Posts: 2350
puk wrote:
ask yourself these questions then:
All the items you mention (except PC's) I replace once the old ones start to fall apart. (WTF are sneakers anyway, you mean shoes?)
I had 3 mobile phones in 10 years (if the first had not had malfunctions, I would still use it, the same goes for the second), still have my first digital camera, etc. Only computers are replaced before they are broken (I had 5 in a period of >15 years).
Am I through to the next round?
Last edited by berzerker on Mon May 11, 2009 4:13 pm, edited 2 times in total
Posted: Mon May 11, 2009 2:51 pm
berzerker
A Winner is me!
Joined: Nov 01, 2006
Posts: 2350
Suislide wrote:
You are wrong on the military part, there have been an absolutely enormous amounts of technology that were developed through the military which have GREATLY affected civilian life and advanced it.
So the justification for investing billions in the military is the hope that it may have positive effects on civilian life, as a spin-off or side effect I assume? That does not seem like a solid investment plan to me. It would seem wiser to invest directly in those effects on civilian life then. I might add that this huge government involvement in these investments does not seem very American to me in the first place.
Posted: Mon May 11, 2009 4:54 pm
Suislide
VGS Admin
Joined: Aug 14, 2003
Posts: 509
berzerker wrote:
Suislide wrote:
You are wrong on the military part, there have been an absolutely enormous amounts of technology that were developed through the military which have GREATLY affected civilian life and advanced it.
So the justification for investing billions in the military is the hope that it may have positive effects on civilian life, as a spin-off or side effect I assume? That does not seem like a solid investment plan to me. It would seem wiser to invest directly in those effects on civilian life then. I might add that this huge government involvement in these investments does not seem very American to me in the first place.
Way to try and divert it away from the main point I was bringing forth. You said the military does not improve the quality of life and it does so HUGELY. There isn't any hoping as they know these numerous inventions only help to further society along. Not realizing the amount of progress the military has provided is almost on the level of being retarded.
Though, that is not the reason for investing so much into the military, the reason the US does that is first, that is one of the government's main jobs stated in the constitution. So I don't know what the fuck you are talking about because the idea to provide defense is provided in our highest form of government. Second, the USA is currently the worlds only superpower in existence, and superpowers always have a very large military to retain their status.
Posted: Mon May 11, 2009 11:14 pm
berzerker
A Winner is me!
Joined: Nov 01, 2006
Posts: 2350
Suislide wrote:
You said the military does not improve the quality of life and it does so HUGELY.
If you pour billions in *anything* that requires technical solutions, that is bound to have spin offs to other sectors. So this is no argument at all to invest anything into the military. You could also invest it in space travel, deep see exploration, public transport or whatever and get similar results.
Quote:
Though, that is not the reason for investing so much into the military, the reason the US does that is first, that is one of the government's main jobs stated in the constitution. So I don't know what the fuck you are talking about because the idea to provide defense is provided in our highest form of government.
All governments anywhere in the world have an obligation to defend their countries. As the richest country, it is not strange that the US have the biggest defense system, but the amounts of money invested in the military go way beyond this. Like I pointed out before in another thread, the US spends about as much on the military as all other countries in the world combined, so this would seem an overkill by a huge margin. Why do taxpayers in the US not insist on huge cuts on military spending? Even with a quarter of the current budget the US would be better defended than, say, the Germany or Australia. How on earth can these countries survive so relatively undefended?
I would think in situations like the current one, in which there is hardly any outside threat to the US, you could cut defences. Should a threat arise, it is possible to build up defences in a relatively short period of time (as Germany prove in the period of 1933 - 1939).
Quote:
Second, the USA is currently the worlds only superpower in existence, and superpowers always have a very large military to retain their status.
You mean the military is necessary for being able to bully other countries around?
And what's the point of being a super power in the first place? Does it bring any benefit to the US taxpayers (if so, is this worth those billions invested yearly), or is it just a status thing?
Last edited by berzerker on Mon May 11, 2009 11:19 pm, edited 1 time in total
Posted: Mon May 11, 2009 11:17 pm
Suislide
VGS Admin
Joined: Aug 14, 2003
Posts: 509
berzerker wrote:
Suislide wrote:
You said the military does not improve the quality of life and it does so HUGELY.
If you pour billions in *anything* that requires technical solutions, that is bound to have spin offs to other sectors. So this is no argument at all to invest anything into the military. You could also invest it in space travel, deep see exploration, public transport or whatever and get similar results.
Quote:
Though, that is not the reason for investing so much into the military, the reason the US does that is first, that is one of the government's main jobs stated in the constitution. So I don't know what the fuck you are talking about because the idea to provide defense is provided in our highest form of government.
All governments anywhere in the world have an obligation to defend their countries. As the richest country, it is not strange that the US have the biggest defense system, but the amounts of money invested in the military go way beyond this. Like I pointed out before in another thread, the US spends about as much on the military as all other countries in the world combined, so this would seem an overkill by a huge margin. Why do taxpayers in the US not insist on huge cuts on military spending? Even with a quarter of the current budget the US would be better defended than, say, the UK or Australia.
Quote:
Second, the USA is currently the worlds only superpower in existence, and superpowers always have a very large military to retain their status.
You mean the military is necessary for being able to bully other countries around?
And what's the point of being a super power in the first place? Does it bring any benefit to the US taxpayers (if so, is this worth those billions invested yearly), or is it just a status thing?
Yeah it does bring us a huge benefit politically and economically. Have you forgotten the economy here affects the entire world?
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Page 6 of 10Goto page Previous1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10Next
