Costs of a global empire

bluey890

mewbie wrote: »

Holland. Maybe Denmark. Perhaps Sweden.

Somewhere civilised.

the US is civilised.

have you lived there or are you getting your opinions from tv?

Cat695

mewbie wrote: »

Holland. Maybe Denmark. Perhaps Sweden.

Somewhere civilised.

When was the last world super power...nice?

mewbie_2

bluey890 wrote: »

the US is civilised.
have you lived there or are you getting your opinions from tv?

TV of course. Well and the internet. I'm not a 'one source' sort of guy.

But not books. Obviously.

Jennifer_Jane

bluey890 wrote: »

who would you prefer be the worlds military power?

Liechtenstein!

Jennifer_Jane

Is anyone else just a little concerned about the Argentinian President having been elected on a promise to return the 'Las Malvinas' to Argentina?

"There is nothing to discuss from our side," the prime minister said yesterday, as he flew into Santiago ahead of today's meeting with Cristina Kirchner, who won power in Argentina after promising to intensify efforts to reclaim "Las Malvinas". The Guardian 28 March 09

Jen
x

mewbie_2

Jennifer_Jane wrote: »

Is anyone else just a little concerned about the Argentinian President having been elected on a promise to return the 'Las Malvinas' to Argentina?

I'm not. I don't live anywhere near them.

Mr_Mumble

bubblesmoney wrote:

something is wrong in a country that spends a mere 6% of the money on education and jobs but a lot more than*** 45% on killing machines.

You're conflating the "government" with "country". Since the USA is world's greatest economic power what do you take from the US government historically keeping its nose out of "education and jobs"?

That "killing machine" created the likes of the Internet and GPS. Of course if the US government spent more on "science and technology" perhaps they could have world leading tech companies akin to those created by socialist states. The likes of Microsoft, Google and Intel have nothing on British, French, Cuban or North Korean tech firms do they?

stephen163 wrote: »

There's no way that figure is really 44% anyway. Look at the source - 'The friends Committee on National Legislation', a pacifist Quaker group.

The figure is high though, just not *that* high.

Yup,

"US Military Spending and Cost of Past Wars"

The US used to spend 75% of tax on its military - more a function of being a competitive growth orientated country that believed in light taxation than a socialist utopia like France - so the figure of 44% includes a lot of past spending that has yet to be paid off.

There is one big benefit of spending a lot of tax on the military - its usually spent with far more efficiency than any other form of tax. Heck, the incentive of not getting killed is as near as you can get to the incentive of self-interest. Of course with politicians and generals doing most of the military spending the armed forces become less-efficient but its still a long way from the inefficiencies seen in, say, local government.

Of course all these numbers are rather meaningless, Obama's spending plans dwarf anything seen before:

cocktail

ninky wrote: »

and now the US is giving loads of aid to pakistan (1.5. billion a year) as well as funding their military.

they are currently "secretly" paying for pakistani military helicopters. funny they have a border with afghanistan and iran....

stranger things have happened. well in war i suppose you have to dance with the wolves or sleep with the enemy.

bubblesmoney

stephen163 wrote: »

Also, the military supports thousands of jobs. The knock-on effect to civilian suppliers must be huge. So really, it can be seen as a big public works programme to some extent.

the knock on effect on civilian consumers (i mean the ones that get killed) at the receiving end will be huge as well.

if the money was instead used for the economy and education and health directly then the benefits would be bigger. after all what difference does having nuclear weapons enough to destroy the world 300 times make to security, even if deemed required then wouldnt a force deterrent capable to destroy half the globe once be enough. is there any point in making stuff 300 times the required number?

bubblesmoney

stephen163 wrote: »

There's no way that figure is really 44% anyway. Look at the source - 'The friends Committee on National Legislation', a pacifist Quaker group.

The figure is high though, just not *that* high.

see where the raw statistics were got from http://www.fcnl.org/issues/item.php?item_id=3149&issue_id=19

it was from president bushs budget 09 proposal.