Given the U.S. fiscal situation, should military spending change (how much?)

Other discussions not related to the Permanent Portfolio

Moderator: Global Moderator

Does America spend too much on the military?

Poll runs till Fri Mar 20, 2054 6:42 am

No, we should spend more
2
9%
No, it is just right
0
No votes
Yes, cut by 1-25%
4
17%
Yes, cut by 26-50%
4
17%
Yes, cut by 51%+
13
57%
 
Total votes: 23
User avatar
stone
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2627
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2011 7:43 am
Contact:

Re: Given the U.S. fiscal situation, should military spending change (how much?)

Post by stone » Sun Feb 12, 2012 10:27 am

Gumby, anyway from what I can see, recent US military adventurism has all been about petrodollars rather than choke points.

Let's imagine Sudan was to set it's mind to closing the Suez canal, for a start, why would they do that? They would presumably just be wanting to charge more. Well pricing passage is anyway just a function of not charging so much that ships simply go around the Cape of Good Hope or whatever. I recently bought a Wok. It cost me £2. Would it have cost £2.20 if it wasn't for the Suez canal?
"Good judgment comes from experience. Experience comes from bad judgment." - Mulla Nasrudin
Gumby
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4012
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 8:54 am

Re: Given the U.S. fiscal situation, should military spending change (how much?)

Post by Gumby » Sun Feb 12, 2012 10:33 am

Honestly, Stone. Your responses are telling me that you are unwilling to consider what the ramifications of a global oil shock/freeze (or loss of some other key resource or trading partner) would be — via the Strait of Hormuz, for example.

If you are unwilling to consider those ramifications, then I see no point in continuing this conversation.
Last edited by Gumby on Sun Feb 12, 2012 10:35 am, edited 1 time in total.
Nothing I say should be construed as advice or expertise. I am only sharing opinions which may or may not be applicable in any given case.
User avatar
stone
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2627
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2011 7:43 am
Contact:

Re: Given the U.S. fiscal situation, should military spending change (how much?)

Post by stone » Sun Feb 12, 2012 10:57 am

Gumby, much oil does come through the gulf of Hormuz. It is very true that it would be very costly if it were closed.  It means that it is worth making sacrificies IF those sacrifices are likely to help keep it open and not have some other worse consequence. That doesn't mean that counterproductive military adventurism is any less counterproductive.
"Good judgment comes from experience. Experience comes from bad judgment." - Mulla Nasrudin
Gumby
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4012
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 8:54 am

Re: Given the U.S. fiscal situation, should military spending change (how much?)

Post by Gumby » Sun Feb 12, 2012 11:13 am

stone wrote: Gumby, much oil does come through the gulf of Hormuz. It is very true that it would be very costly if it were closed.  It means that it is worth making sacrificies IF those sacrifices are likely to help keep it open and not have some other worse consequence. That doesn't mean that counterproductive military adventurism is any less counterproductive.
I agree. And most people would probably agree with that. But, that implies that a superpower plays an important role in keeping trade routes flowing — which is what I've been trying to communicate to you.
Nothing I say should be construed as advice or expertise. I am only sharing opinions which may or may not be applicable in any given case.
User avatar
stone
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2627
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2011 7:43 am
Contact:

Re: Given the U.S. fiscal situation, should military spending change (how much?)

Post by stone » Sun Feb 12, 2012 11:18 am

Gumby wrote:
stone wrote: Gumby, much oil does come through the gulf of Hormuz. It is very true that it would be very costly if it were closed.  It means that it is worth making sacrificies IF those sacrifices are likely to help keep it open and not have some other worse consequence. That doesn't mean that counterproductive military adventurism is any less counterproductive.
I agree. And most people would probably agree with that. But, that implies that a superpower plays an important role in keeping trade routes flowing — which is what I've been trying to communicate to you.
Whether you take that interpretation entirely depends on whether you believe that superpowers' "sacrifices are likely to help keep it open and not have some other worse consequence". I don't believe that and you do.
Last edited by stone on Sun Feb 12, 2012 11:22 am, edited 1 time in total.
"Good judgment comes from experience. Experience comes from bad judgment." - Mulla Nasrudin
User avatar
stone
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2627
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2011 7:43 am
Contact:

Re: Given the U.S. fiscal situation, should military spending change (how much?)

Post by stone » Sun Feb 12, 2012 11:42 am

Gumby, I also think it is odd to describe enforcing the petrodollar system as acting to enable free trade. To me it seems like the exact opposit of that. To me free trade means allowing participants to trade what they have for what they want -not for what you insist on them accepting or else.
"Good judgment comes from experience. Experience comes from bad judgment." - Mulla Nasrudin
Gumby
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4012
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 8:54 am

Re: Given the U.S. fiscal situation, should military spending change (how much?)

Post by Gumby » Sun Feb 12, 2012 11:51 am

Stone, you just have a very cynical view of the world. I'm afraid there's not much I can do about that.
Nothing I say should be construed as advice or expertise. I am only sharing opinions which may or may not be applicable in any given case.
User avatar
stone
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2627
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2011 7:43 am
Contact:

Re: Given the U.S. fiscal situation, should military spending change (how much?)

Post by stone » Sun Feb 12, 2012 12:00 pm

Gumby, I don't think one or other of us is more cynical or more naive than the other. You trust the value of the petrodollar system, I'm a skeptic. I trust countries to muddle along without superpower oversight, you're a skeptic.

We each simply have our trust and our cynicism differently tuned to various targets but the overall balance seems to me similar.
"Good judgment comes from experience. Experience comes from bad judgment." - Mulla Nasrudin
Gumby
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4012
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 8:54 am

Re: Given the U.S. fiscal situation, should military spending change (how much?)

Post by Gumby » Sun Feb 12, 2012 1:52 pm

stone wrote:I trust countries to muddle along without superpower oversight, you're a skeptic.
Perhaps if 120 countries didn't request SOCOM and JSOC special forces an average of 70 times a day, I'd have more faith that those countries could muddle along without our help.
Nothing I say should be construed as advice or expertise. I am only sharing opinions which may or may not be applicable in any given case.
User avatar
MediumTex
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 9096
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 11:47 pm
Contact:

Re: Given the U.S. fiscal situation, should military spending change (how much?)

Post by MediumTex » Sun Feb 12, 2012 2:54 pm

Guys, I think that one thing we can presumably agree on is that very long supply lines require some entity that is able to protect those supply lines from disruptive effects, including various forms of banditry and action from unfriendly governments.

Has there been any period in world history when there were active trade routes over very long distances without some superpower-like entity that was able to impose order over multiple nations and trading partners?

What we have today is just the latest iteration of a pattern that has unfolded over and over and over throughout history of one dominant nation using its power to facilitate an economic system in which trading partners can focus on doing business without having to constantly worry about being plundered at gunpoint.  Of course, the price that is often paid for this security is the requirement to pay tribute to the superpower that is keeping the trading lanes open, and this tribute is normally extracted by using some form of coercion.

Harry Browne once said that governments are essentially like huge "protection" rackets in which you are required to pay the government a fee in the form of taxes for the "protection" they are providing you with, even though that protection is often from the government itself.  For example, if you ask the IRS why you are required to pay taxes, they will tell you that it is so that the government can protect you from all sorts of things that might harm you.  When you ask what harm will come to you if you don't pay the taxes, however, the answer is typically that agents of the government will seize your assets through the threat of force and perhaps even take away your freedom.  Isn't that the same basic gig that the neighborhood gangster uses to shake down local businesses?

I think it was Harry Browne who also said that the government really hates organized crime because it doesn't like having any competition.  (I'm sure that many people have said this, I just happen to have heard it from Browne.)
Q: “Do you have funny shaped balloons?”
A: “Not unless round is funny.”
User avatar
stone
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2627
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2011 7:43 am
Contact:

Re: Given the U.S. fiscal situation, should military spending change (how much?)

Post by stone » Sun Feb 12, 2012 3:51 pm

Medium Tex, I guess one example is that when the Spanish conquestidors first arived in the Pacific North West they found Toledo steel knives that had been traded across Asia and Alaska. Trade has happened across the globe throughout history. There are lots of examples in that "History of the World in 100 Objects" series eg:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00sqw6c
"Neil MacGregor's world history as told through objects at the British Museum. This week he is looking at how objects moved around the medieval world in the context of war, trade and faith and the quite incredible degree of contact between Asia, Europe and Africa that existed around a thousand years ago. Today's object is a large glass beaker made at a time when Christians were warring with Muslims in the great crusades - a time, curiously enough, connected with a great flourishing of trade. This object was most likely made by Islamic glass workers but became associated with the miracles of a Christian saint, Hedwig. This glass container, or one of the few just like it, was what Hedwig famously used to turn water into wine! Neil describes the story of the Hedwig beaker with help from the economic historian David Abulafia and the historian of the Crusades Jonathan Riley-Smith. He also sees what happens when he pours water into this beautifully decorated vessel."
"Good judgment comes from experience. Experience comes from bad judgment." - Mulla Nasrudin
User avatar
stone
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2627
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2011 7:43 am
Contact:

Re: Given the U.S. fiscal situation, should military spending change (how much?)

Post by stone » Mon Feb 13, 2012 3:45 am

If you look at the history of the spice trade, you can see that one way or another, global trade continues.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spice_trade
"Rome played a part in the spice trade during the 5th century, but this role, unlike the Arabian one, did not last through the Middle Ages.[3] The rise of Islam closed off the overland caravan routes through Egypt and the Suez, and Arab merchants particularly from Egypt eventually took over conveying goods via the Levant to Europe.

The Spice trade had brought great riches to the Abbasid Caliphate, and even inspired famous legends such as that of Sinbad the Sailor. These early sailors and merchants would often set sail from the port city of Basra and eventually after many voyages they would return to sell their goods including spices in Baghdad. The fame of many spices such as Nutmeg and Vanilla are attributed to these early Spice merchants.[16]

The Indian commercial connection with South East Asia proved vital to the merchants of Arabia and Persia during the 7th and 8th centuries.[13] Arab traders—mainly descendants of sailors from Yemen and Oman—dominated maritime routes throughout the Indian Ocean, tapping source regions in the Far East - linking to the secret "spice islands" (Maluku Islands and Banda Islands). The islands of Molucca also find mention in several records: a Javanese chronicle (1365) mentions the Moluccas and Maloko;[17] and navigational works of the 14th and 15th centuries contain the first unequivocal Arab reference to Moluccas.[17] Sulaima al-Mahr writes: "East of Timor [where sandalwood is found] are the islands of Bandam and they are the islands where nutmeg and mace are found. The islands of cloves are called Maluku ....."[17]

Moluccan products were then shipped to trading emporiums in India, passing through ports like Kozhikode, and through Sri Lanka.[18] from there they were shipped westward across the ports of Arabia to the Near East, to Ormus in Persian Gulf and Jeddah in the Red Sea and sometimes shipped to East Africa, where they would be used for many purposes, including burial rites.[18] The Abbasids used Alexandria, Damietta, Aden and Siraf as entry ports to India and China.[19] Merchants arriving from India in the port city of Aden paid tribute in form of musk, camphor, ambergris and sandalwood to Ibn Ziyad, the sultan of Yemen.[19]

Indian spice exports find mention in the works of Ibn Khurdadhbeh (850), al-Ghafiqi (1150), Ishak bin Imaran (907) and Al Kalkashandi (14th century).[18] Chinese traveler Hsuan Tsang mentions the town of Puri where "merchants depart for distant countries."[20]

From there, overland routes led to the Mediterranean coasts. From the 8th until the 15th century, the Republic of Venice and neighboring maritime republics held the monopoly of European trade with the Middle East. The silk and spice trade, involving spices, incense, herbs, drugs and opium, made these Mediterranean city-states phenomenally rich. Spices were among the most expensive and in-demand products of the Middle Ages, used in medicine. They were all imported from Asia and Africa. Venetian merchants distributed then the goods through Europe until the rise of the Ottoman Empire, that eventually led to the fall of Constantinople in 1453, barring Europeans from important combined land-sea routes.[citation needed]"
"Good judgment comes from experience. Experience comes from bad judgment." - Mulla Nasrudin
Gumby
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4012
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 8:54 am

Re: Given the U.S. fiscal situation, should military spending change (how much?)

Post by Gumby » Mon Feb 13, 2012 10:03 am

Nobody is saying that trade didn't happen without a naval supremacy. But, you can't ignore the fact that having naval supremacy was a huge advantage for any country that depended on trade. It was highly desirable, and most nations wanted to have naval supremacy to protect their trade routes...

MT was correct. Rarely has there been any period in world history when there were active trade routes over very long distances without some superpower-like entity that was able to impose order over multiple nations and trading partners.
Historically, many powers attempted to extend command of the sea into peacetime, imposing taxes or other restrictions on shipping using areas of open sea. For example, Venice claimed the Adriatic, and exacted a heavy toll from vessels navigating its northern waters. Genoa and France each claimed portions of the western Mediterranean. Denmark and Sweden claimed to share the Baltic between them. Spain claimed dominion over the Pacific and the Gulf of Mexico, and Portugal over the Indian Ocean and all the Atlantic south of Morocco (Hall, 148-9).

During the age of sail, there were two primary counter measures to another power holding control of the sea: smuggling, and privateering. Smuggling helped to ensure that a country could continue trading (and obtaining food and other vital supplies) even when under blockade, while privateering allowed the weaker power to disrupt the stronger power's trade. As these measures, which are examples of asymmetric warfare, came from non-governmental and sometimes criminal organizations, they fell into disfavor with stronger governments. An annex to the Treaty of Paris (1856) banned privateering. That treaty was an oddity in that it was ratified by relatively few countries, but quickly became the de facto law of the sea.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Command_of_the_sea
Those countries that didn't have naval supremacy had much more difficulty conducting trade.

So, this idea that long-distance trade happened easily, merrily and amicably was hardly ever true. Countries were always vying against each other for naval supremacy — even during peacetime.

Countries that maintained maritime realms were known as Thalassocracies. There are dozens of examples throughout history, here...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalassocracy

And let's not forget the Dutch–Portuguese War, which was basically a war for control over the Spice Trade.
Last edited by Gumby on Mon Feb 13, 2012 10:15 am, edited 1 time in total.
Nothing I say should be construed as advice or expertise. I am only sharing opinions which may or may not be applicable in any given case.
User avatar
stone
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2627
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2011 7:43 am
Contact:

Re: Given the U.S. fiscal situation, should military spending change (how much?)

Post by stone » Mon Feb 13, 2012 10:16 am

Gumby, I don't dispute any of that. It is all a cost benefit balancing act. I'm only saying that the current balance is off. I'd rather have a less onerous charge levied on the world (eg relaxing enforcement of the petrodollar system) and a smaller US military even if that meant some other countries charging ships for passage across choke points if it came to that.
"Good judgment comes from experience. Experience comes from bad judgment." - Mulla Nasrudin
Gumby
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4012
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 8:54 am

Re: Given the U.S. fiscal situation, should military spending change (how much?)

Post by Gumby » Mon Feb 13, 2012 10:22 am

That's all well in good, but, there's no real incentive for a superpower to reduce its control over trade routes. In fact, it's the opposite. History shows us that countries are constantly vying to increase their control over their own trade routes. Powerful countries have always made trade more burdensome for smaller countries.
Nothing I say should be construed as advice or expertise. I am only sharing opinions which may or may not be applicable in any given case.
User avatar
stone
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2627
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2011 7:43 am
Contact:

Re: Given the U.S. fiscal situation, should military spending change (how much?)

Post by stone » Mon Feb 13, 2012 11:31 am

Gumby, I guess it is much like the situation with the colonial European powers previously. I suppose it is also a bit like the lack of incentive not to own slaves etc.
"Good judgment comes from experience. Experience comes from bad judgment." - Mulla Nasrudin
User avatar
MachineGhost
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 10054
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2011 9:31 am

Re: Given the U.S. fiscal situation, should military spending change (how much?)

Post by MachineGhost » Mon Feb 13, 2012 1:24 pm

Gumby wrote: Too bad, Stone.

Since you wouldn't lift a finger to help the people of that particular independent country — which was requesting your help, mind you — the Prime Minister and his family was executed shortly thereafter. The invading rogue nation overthrew the government and the entire region has been destabilized.

All foreign shipments through that strategic choke point have been stopped indefinitely. Fabrication plants owned by major international corporations have been seized, and stock market futures are crashing across the globe.

Within months, the world will run out of key supplies and millions of innocent people will now being subject to the whims of a harsh dictator. The world is worse off. All because you didn't want to help.

You can forget about providing the safe passage for refugees — which you deem paramount. The rogue nation has sealed the borders and set up fortifications around all sides of the newly occupied nation.

Well done, Stone.
That sounds like a Choose Your Own Adventure(tm) book.

MG
"All generous minds have a horror of what are commonly called 'Facts'. They are the brute beasts of the intellectual domain." -- Thomas Hobbes

Disclaimer: I am not a broker, dealer, investment advisor, physician, theologian or prophet.  I should not be considered as legally permitted to render such advice!
Gumby
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4012
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 8:54 am

Re: Given the U.S. fiscal situation, should military spending change (how much?)

Post by Gumby » Mon Feb 13, 2012 1:25 pm

stone wrote: Gumby, I guess it is much like the situation with the colonial European powers previously.
Yes. There's a long history of this. Before the British Empire, it was the Dutch. The Dutch Empire took its control of trading routes from the Spanish Empire. The Spanish Empire came shortly after the Portuguese Empire. And before the Portuguese, there were other empires (Ottoman, Mongols, Venician, etc) that made huge conquests through land-based trade routes. The fact that these land-based trade routes became harder and harder to navigate (safely) spurred the Portuguese into the Age of Exploration for naval supremacy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Exploration

Perhaps the Chinese will unseat the US as the empire of the future. But, my guess is that there is likely no future where trade is fair for smaller countries.
stone wrote:I suppose it is also a bit like the lack of incentive not to own slaves etc.
Perhaps that's one way to look at it. But, I'm not convinced it's the same as owning slaves. Do you think OPEC nations would treat their citizens much better if we paid them in a fair currency? I doubt it. Most OPEC leaders live in large palaces, while unemployment and poverty is exceptionally high in those countries. The money sent to OPEC nations almost never gets used for economic development. You can argue that America's policies keep these people in power. But, that's not entirely true. The truth is that the entire world keeps OPEC dictators in power — due to the fact that they own vast reserves of highly desirable oil. OPEC itself is a price-fixing oil cartel. And they have the world by the balls. That's how they keep themselves in power. And every OPEC member is also competing against one another. It's not exactly the same as slavery. It's a problem of dictators with key resources that every country wants a piece of (not just the US).

My sense is that these dictators would find ways to keep their palaces — and their citizens disenfranchised — whether the US was sending dollars or not.
Last edited by Gumby on Mon Feb 13, 2012 1:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Nothing I say should be construed as advice or expertise. I am only sharing opinions which may or may not be applicable in any given case.
Gumby
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4012
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 8:54 am

Re: Given the U.S. fiscal situation, should military spending change (how much?)

Post by Gumby » Mon Feb 13, 2012 1:27 pm

MachineGhost wrote:That sounds like a Choose Your Own Adventure(tm) book.

MG
Maybe more like, Choose Your Own Distopian Future books :-\
Nothing I say should be construed as advice or expertise. I am only sharing opinions which may or may not be applicable in any given case.
User avatar
stone
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2627
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2011 7:43 am
Contact:

Re: Given the U.S. fiscal situation, should military spending change (how much?)

Post by stone » Tue Feb 14, 2012 4:46 am

Gumby, I was thinking more in terms of the way the current system molds the entire global economy, determining who does and gets what throughout the world. I suspect that if there was a move towards a more equitable system, it would actually end up being robust. If the USA strings the current system along to the bitter end, then I agree a similar (or much worse) superpower based system will probably take over. I suppose it is a bit like within a country choosing whether or not to transition from an autocratic set up to a more democratic one.
"Good judgment comes from experience. Experience comes from bad judgment." - Mulla Nasrudin
User avatar
vnatale
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 9423
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: Given the U.S. fiscal situation, should military spending change (how much?)

Post by vnatale » Sat Jan 18, 2020 3:55 pm

I just voted for the first time.

I thought for certain my vote was going to be the great outlier. I was shocked to see that my vote fell among the great majority! 62%.

I guess that I was considering this to be a conservative group who generally want small government except for seemingly unlimited amounts for the military.

After I saw the results I realized this is better described as a Libertarian group who generally favor small government with almost no (?) exceptions?

Vinny
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
stuper1
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1365
Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2013 7:18 pm

Re: Given the U.S. fiscal situation, should military spending change (how much?)

Post by stuper1 » Sat Jan 18, 2020 10:26 pm

My sense is that this is a pretty diverse group politically.

Could me among any who favor small government, including small military.

I don't think that government can solve people's problems for them. They have to do that for themselves. That's how it's always been.
Post Reply