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

[stone]

Gumby, they can slip from one state to the other and be a bit of both. I think countries currently cover a spectrum. My guess is that places such as the UK, India, Canada and Australia do draw on US military capability BUT in the absence of the US such countries could defend themselves and if a Hitler sprung up again, then such countries could thwart him. Afghanistan clearly has a puppet government.

[stone]

Gumby, my great-grandparents thought colonization (by the British) of India, Africa etc was good for all concerned. I just see it as having created misery, injustice and famine. I'm not so sure that future generations won't see the current set up in much the same light.

Have you seen stuff by Michael Hudson?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Hudson_(economist)
"Hudson views dollar hegemony as grossly unfair and gives various opinions as to why countries tolerate it: desire to prevent their currency from appreciating, limited options in purchasing alternative U.S. assets, fear of the U.S. military, wanting to be part of the U.S. "orbit", and "lack of imagination". He states the dominance protects the U.S. from austerity that it has subjected other countries to through the IMF and World Bank. He states the U.S. treasury debt is limited only by the net productive surplus of the world as measured by the balance of payments. He states it will end only when countries decide to take political action in their own best interests and break dollar dependence.[5]

He states that world is dividing into two currency blocs as countries, led by China, try to get away from dollar dependence by creating non-dollar trade between the BRIC countries as well as most of Asia, Iran, Nigeria, and Turkey. He says it's happening now because "the United States is trying to rescue the real estate market from all the junk mortgages, all the crooked loans, all of the financial fraud, instead of just letting the fraud go and throwing the guys in jail like other economists have suggested."[2]

Hudson views foreign central banks buying treasuries as a legitimate effort to stabilize exchange rates rather than a currency "manipulation". Foreign central banks could sell the excess dollars on the exchange market which would appreciate their currency, but he calls this a dilemma because it decreases their ability to continue a trade surplus, even though it would also increase their purchasing power. He believes "keyboard credit" and treasury outflows in exchange for foreign assets without a future means for the U.S. to repay the treasuries and a decreasing value of the dollar is akin to military conquest. He believes balance of payments "surplus" countries have the right to stabilize exchange rates and expect repayment of the resulting loans even as industry shifts from the U.S. to creditor nations.

Hudson states that a balance of payments "deficit" is mostly the result of military spending and capital outflows rather than the trade deficit. It "forces" foreign central banks to buy U.S. treasuries that are used to finance the federal deficit and thereby a large U.S. military.[7] The balance of payments deficit is also caused by quantitative easing that encourages purchases of foreign currencies and assets that results in even more treasury purchases.[8] In exchange for providing a net surplus of assets, commodities, debt financing, goods, and services, foreign countries are "forced" to hold an equal dollar amount of U.S. treasuries. It drives U.S. interest rates down which enables a currency trade that causes a feedback process that exacerbates the problem, as long as foreign countries insist on off-loading the dollars by buying U.S. treasuries despite the risks of a dollar devaluation.
[edit] Books

Hudson is the author of several books.[2][4]

    * Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire,[2][9] was the first book to describe the global free ride for America after it went off the gold standard in 1971, putting the world onto a paper U.S. Treasury-bill standard. Obliging foreign central banks to keep their monetary reserves in Treasury bonds forced them to finance U.S. military spending abroad, which was responsible for the U.S. balance-of-payments deficit at that time. See exorbitant privilege for more discussion of reserve currency status, and super-imperialism for history and use of the term"

[Gumby]

Gumby, they can slip from one state to the other and be a bit of both. I think countries currently cover a spectrum. My guess is that places such as the UK, India, Canada and Australia do draw on US military capability BUT in the absence of the US such countries could defend themselves and if a Hitler sprung up again, then such countries could thwart him. Afghanistan clearly has a puppet government.

Sorry, Stone. You'll have to do better than that. 1 or 5 clear puppet governments doesn't explain the other 115+ countries. They can't all be slipping in and out of being puppet governments of the United States. That doesn't make any sense, and goes completely against your theorem of them being able to defend themselves against regional conflicts properly.

Secondly, you're ignoring the fact that the world history has already played out in a way that goes against everything you're saying. Throughout the history of our world, countries have always steamrolled through other countries. The Romans and even the UK colonized an entire empire. Small non-aggressive countries are rarely ever able to band together and fight those invaders off in the way you imagine. When it does happen, it's usually an anomaly.

World history played out exactly as it has, and we clearly have a world that depends on the US military. Why do you suppose it turned out that way non-aggressive countries were supposedly capable of taking care of things themselves?

[Gumby]

Gumby, my great-grandparents thought colonization (by the British) of India, Africa etc was good for all concerned. I just see it as having created misery, injustice and famine. I'm not so sure that future generations won't see the current set up in much the same light.

This just proves my point. The world was never a bunch of peaceful hand-holding nations that sung songs and looked out for each other. Colonization and imperialism have always taken place over the course of human history and small non-aggressive countries have rarely ever stopped it. This should be obvious, but you still think that the US is somehow the cause of all evil in the world — yet evil forms of colonization and imperialism clearly existed before the US ever existed.

Have you seen stuff by Michael Hudson?

His suggestion that the foreign countries are "financing" our military is total crap. This was only true when the dollar had convertibility to gold. It's no longer is true. China doesn't "finance" our military. We've been fiat since 1971. Where ever the dollar winds up in the US banking system, it just gets recycled back into Treasuries as excess reserves. We don't call up China begging them to buy our bonds when we need to build an aircraft carrier. That's total garbage. Perhaps one could argue that various countries are agreeing to send us much-needed dollar-valued goods and resources in exchange for military protection or for fear of a US invasion. But, there's no "financing" of the military going on here. Anyway, you already know that.

Most countries want to save dollars — not sell them. Not to mentioning selling those dollars would only devalue them before countries had chance to divest themselves of dollars.

Those countries could easily remove themselves from the dollar hegemony — and stop sending us goods — if they hate the US so much. Yet, they choose not to. It seems like Hudson is arguing my point that the world keeps the dollar-hegemony running because it has become reliant on the US military.

Hudson views dollar hegemony as grossly unfair and gives various opinions as to why countries tolerate it: desire to prevent their currency from appreciating, limited options in purchasing alternative U.S. assets, fear of the U.S. military, wanting to be part of the U.S. "orbit", and "lack of imagination".

If the 120 different countries that constantly request US special forces somehow "fear" our military or "lack imagination", then that only proves my point that these countries are incapable of taking care of themselves. Whether that's because they haven't taken the courage to do things on their own or not is irrelevant. The world is still reliant on the US military no matter how you look at it.

[MediumTex]

My point is that the world is not a safer place for having a vast US military.

That's a very naive view, in my opinion. The world is a much safer place than it was 100 years ago or 50 years ago — thanks to the superpowers that made the world a safer place. If the US wasn't watching Syria, Iran, Sudan, North Korea or China it's highly unlikely that the 120 countries (that regularly request US special forces) who can barely take care of their own back yards would be able to do anything about those rogue nations.

Puppet rulers will obviously call upon the true power behind them. They wouldn't be puppet rulers if they didn't and wouldn't be reviled by their own people as such if they didn't. They would be in power without foreign help if they were not puppet rulers. Keeping puppet rulers in power takes a tremendous amount of military power.

Are you suggesting that the US military maintains a vast network of roughly 120 different puppet rulers? That's quite a conspiracy, Stone.

The exchange above highlights the fact that the last 100 years or so have been both the best and worst in human history.  Technological advancement in virtually every field led to dramatic improvements in living standards and in our understanding of the world around us.  At the same time, in the last 100 years we have seen repeated wide scale wars that resulted in death and destruction on a scale never before seen in human history.

As far as conspiracies and puppet governments, I think that many such conspiracies are what you might call "self-organizing" in that no one sits down and agrees to the conspiracy, but a conspiracy-like arrangement emerges over time based solely upon all parties acting in their own self-interest..

[stone]

Gumby, the whole point is that countries can not chose to not sell oil for USD. The USA enforces regime change whenever they try.

The fact that the USD is on a fiat system does not mean that the rest of the world is not funding the US military via the petrodollar set up. The USD that Sweden uses to buy oil from Norway or whatever were USD that originally the USA printed off and used to import stuff. No one in the rest of the world got anything real from the USA in return. They only got  USD that the USA can produce at zero cost to itself but that the rest of the world requires for commodity trading. All those trillions of USD outside the USA represent free stuff for the USA aquired at the rest of the world's expense. It is that free lunch that enables the USA to assume and finance its role of global enforcer. That is what is meant by exorbitant privilege.

[stone]

As far as conspiracies and puppet governments, I think that many such conspiracies are what you might call "self-organizing" in that no one sits down and agrees to the conspiracy, but a conspiracy-like arrangement emerges over time based solely upon all parties acting in their own self-interest..

I totally agree. It is a bit like companies becoming dependent on subsidies or whatever. If the subsidies were not there, they would be independent but because they are they aren't. That is just like the way that a global superpower becomes drawn into other people's conflicts and IMO no one benefits.

I think we must have in the forefront of our minds just what a huge proportion of the 7B people on earth have minimal political freedom and live in poverty. I don't think the current global power structure works well at all for most people.

[Gumby]

Gumby, the whole point is that countries can not chose to not sell oil for USD. The USA enforces regime change whenever they try.

The fact that the USD is on a fiat system does not mean that the rest of the world is not funding the US military via the petrodollar set up. The USD that Sweden uses to buy oil from Norway or whatever were USD that originally the USA printed off and used to import stuff. No one in the rest of the world got anything real from the USA in return. They only got  USD that the USA can produce at zero cost to itself but that the rest of the world requires for commodity trading. All those trillions of USD outside the USA represent free stuff for the USA aquired at the rest of the world's expense. It is that free lunch that enables the USA to assume and finance its role of global enforcer. That is what is meant by exorbitant privilege.

Exactly. But, you still haven't explained why 120 countries aren't showing themselves as being capable of taking care of their own domestic and regional conflicts. They clearly aren't capable. Otherwise they wouldn't need to call up the "World Police" hotline 70 times a day. You say it's because they are all puppet government sometimes. But, if that's true, then you're just proving my point that the world is reliant on the US military to take care of its security requirements.

Over the course of human history, small non-aggressive countries have rarely ever shown an ability to band together and thwart imperialism or colonization.

[stone]

Gumby, does  « Reply #106 on: Today at 09:22:08 AM    go some way towards that? I guess we posted at much the same time.

[Gumby]

Gumby, does  « Reply #106 on: Today at 09:22:08 AM    go some way towards that?

I don't believe so.

I'm saying that the world is clearly reliant on the might of the US military. You're saying that it's "like companies becoming dependent on subsidies". We are basically saying the same thing.

But, you say "if the subsidies were not there, they would be independent but because they are they aren't".

I don't buy that.

As I keep saying (and you keep ignoring).... Over the course of human history, small non-aggressive countries have rarely ever shown an ability to band together and thwart tyranny, imperialism or colonization.

Your hypothesis that small non-aggressive countries would be able to stand up for themselves has been proven wrong by human history itself.

[stone]

Gumby, I'm not sure what historical examples there are of war "working" in any circumstances. One thing that is certain is that vast amounts of resources get diverted to the US military and Iraq and Afghanistan have been fiascos that have left it with more problems than it started out with.

Are you saying that the defeat of Hitler demonstrates that super powers are what we need? From what I can see, the USSR did not go into the war with a well developed military. They sort of developed it on the hoof. Perhaps the USA defeating the Japanese is a better example but in that case again Pearl harbor destroyed a lot of the US military didn't it and so it had to be rebuilt there and then?

Anyway, I think the way to deal with tyranny is through providing safe passage for refugees, insurrection and non-compliance. 

[stone]

As I keep saying (and you keep ignoring).... Over the course of human history, small non-aggressive countries have rarely ever shown an ability to band together and thwart tyranny, imperialism or colonization. Your hypothesis that small non-aggressive countries would be able to stand up for themselves has been proven wrong by human history itself.

Gumby, imagine that rather than the USA or Soviet Union invading Afghanistan, it had instead been some latter day Hitler. Do you think he would have been any more capable of conquering them? The British in the 1800s were just about as cruel and ruthless a regime as has existed and they also failed to conquer Afghanistan. I think tiny countries are more than capable of being unconquerable.

[Gumby]

Gumby, I'm not sure what historical examples there are of war "working" in any circumstances.

I never said war was good. I said that small non-aggressive countries do a poor job of protecting themselves — even when they (supposedly) band together. You haven't shown any evidence that small non-aggressive countries have the ability to stand up for themselves.

One thing that is certain is that vast amounts of resources get diverted to the US military and Iraq and Afghanistan have been fiascos that have left it with more problems than it started out with.

Yes. And this has always been the case throughout human history — particularly in the Middle East.

Are you saying that the defeat of Hitler demonstrates that super powers are what we need?

Hitler could only have been defeated by a group of superpowers. Let's not kid ourselves. That's what happened! Even the Soviet Union did not single-handedly defeat Hitler. You make it sound like the US and Britain didn't make large sacrifices.

From what I can see, the USSR did not go into the war with a well developed military. They sort of developed it on the hoof. Perhaps the USA defeating the Japanese is a better example but in that case again Pearl harbor destroyed a lot of the US military didn't it and so it had to be rebuilt there and then?

The US had to become a superpower to help defeat the Axis powers. They became a superpower.

The statistics are remarkable. During 1939-1945, the industry became the largest single industry in the world and rose from 41st place to first among industries in the United States. From 1939, when fewer than 6,000 planes a year were being produced, the industry doubled production in 1940 and doubled it again in 1941 and 1942. In the first half of 1941, it produced 7,433 aircraft, more than had been produced in all of 1940. From January 1, 1940, until V-J Day on August 14, 1945, more than 300,000 military aircraft were produced for the U.S. military and the Allies—with almost 275,000 after Pearl Harbor. In the peak production month of March 1944, more than 9,000 aircraft came off the assembly lines. By the spring of 1944, more aircraft were being built than could be used and production began to be curtailed.
Source: http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay ... /Aero7.htm

Are you suggesting that the US shouldn't have built all those warplanes? Would you rather the US stayed out of WWII? You'd be speaking German if the US hadn't stepped up and became a superpower.

Anyway, I think the way to deal with tyranny is through providing safe passage for refugees, insurrection and non-compliance.

Really? If you were in charge of a country, and wanted to stay in power, you wouldn't just pick up the phone and call the US Secretary of State for help? My guess is you'd be more worried surviving the invasion itself.

You still haven't shown any evidence that small non-aggressive countries have the ability to stand up for themselves. Pointing to the US and Soviet Union stepping up to become superpowers is not the same as showing how small non-aggressive countries have the ability to stand up for themselves.

[Gumby]

Gumby, imagine that rather than the USA or Soviet Union invading Afghanistan, it had instead been some latter day Hitler. Do you think he would have been any more capable of conquering them? The British in the 1800s were just about as cruel and ruthless a regime as has existed and they also failed to conquer Afghanistan. I think tiny countries are more than capable of being unconquerable.

Nobody has ever really conquered the Middle East. I would hardly classify any country in the middle east as "non-aggressive." They're all aggressive in the Middle East — constantly invading each other and fighting each other.

Not to mention that the Middle East has always been a dangerous and unpleasant place to live — even before the US or British ever got there.

You need to show evidence that small "non-aggressive" countries have the ability to stand up for themselves — as you claim. I don't see it.

[MediumTex]

Gumby,

Do you think that Germany would have been defeated in WWII if the U.S. had stayed out of it?

I have always thought that Germany would have lost in Russia whether or not the U.S. got involved.

Maybe if the U.S. had stayed out of it we would still be speaking English but much more of Europe would be speaking Russian.

We should also be realistic about the fact that Stalin was just as much a cruel psycho as Hitler was.  Hitler was just more theatrical about it, and while Hitler seemed to enjoy killing one group of people more than others, Stalin seemed to get a kick out of killing people in general.  Over the course of the two rulers' reigns, they were each responsible for 20,000,000 or so deaths.

And if we are putting together a Hall of Fame of cruel psychos, we must also mention Mao Zedong, who presided over a parade of death that was equal to the efforts of Hitler and Stalin combined (40,000,000 or so deaths are estimated to have occurred under Mao's rule).

[Gumby]

Do you think that Germany would have been defeated in WWII if the U.S. had stayed out of it?

Probably not. I think the Russians were unprepared and the Germans had more fighting divisions that were better trained and prepared when the war broke out.

It's a difficult hypothetical to argue though, because the Germans were already rather depleted when they were fighting the Russians. So, it's anybody's guess.

My overall point is that fighting Hitler is what created the superpowers in the first place. The fact that superpowers had to rise up to defeat Hitler pretty much proves the point that small non-aggressive nations weren't able to band together and defeat his army.

[moda0306]

I always think it's worth pointing out exactly how these many people were killed.

In Hitler's case, he killed 6 million people, systeamatically putting them in camps, and then pushing them into gas chambers.

In Mao's case, his rule may have resulted in several times as many deaths, but I think it's worth asking exactly how this happened?  I'm really not sure, but I don't think he systematically rounded people up with the ultimate goal of ridding society of their presence with the major factor being their race.

How, and in what context, did Mao kill that incredible number of people?

[Indices]

I always think it's worth pointing out exactly how these many people were killed.

In Hitler's case, he killed 6 million people, systeamatically putting them in camps, and then pushing them into gas chambers.

In Mao's case, his rule may have resulted in several times as many deaths, but I think it's worth asking exactly how this happened?  I'm really not sure, but I don't think he systematically rounded people up with the ultimate goal of ridding society of their presence with the major factor being their race.

How, and in what context, did Mao kill that incredible number of people?

Mostly through starvation through collective farming in the Great Leap Forward.

[moda0306]

Indices,

So did he TRY to starve these people or was it just the disorganized bureaucracy of Communism basically "by accident?"

[Reub]

Hitler and the Nazis killed a lot more than 6 million people.

[MediumTex]

Hitler and the Nazis killed a lot more than 6 million people.

20 million is a common estimate.

[MediumTex]

Indices,

So did he TRY to starve these people or was it just the disorganized bureaucracy of Communism basically "by accident?"

Here is an aggregation of estimates by category of the deaths under Mao (don't you love the internet):

Perhaps a better way of estimating would be to add up the individual components. The medians here are:

    Purges, etc. during the first few years: 2M (10 estimates)
    Great Leap Forward: 31-33M (14 estimates)
    Cultural Revolution: 1M (13 estimates)
    Ethnic Minorities, primarily Tibetans: 750-900T (8 estimates, see below)
    Labor Camps: 20M (5 estimates)
    This produces a total of some 54,750,000 to 56,900,000 deaths. The weak link in this calculation is in the Labor Camp numbers for which we only have 5 estimates.

[brick-house]

Internet is cool...  Here is an article about Stalin's toll.  Evil...

http://www.socialaffairsunit.org.uk/blo ... 001190.php

It would be an interesting novel/movie to show an alternate reality where World War I was avoided. 

The two regimes were highly comparable in that both were the product of the breakdown of the European order in the First World War - Bolshevism a direct product, Nazism an indirect product of the effects of Versailles and the lack of legitimacy of the Weimar government. It is virtually inconceivable that either regime would have come to power if the First World War had not occurred, and it took until the collapse of Communism around 1990 to fully repair the damage the Great War did to European society.

[Indices]

Indices,

So did he TRY to starve these people or was it just the disorganized bureaucracy of Communism basically "by accident?"

Probably started out as an accident then I would imagine the thinking went that they might as well kill a few more to achieve a "solution".

[MediumTex]

Internet is cool...  Here is an article about Stalin's toll.  Evil...

http://www.socialaffairsunit.org.uk/blo ... 001190.php

It would be an interesting novel/movie to show an alternate reality where World War I was avoided.   

The two regimes were highly comparable in that both were the product of the breakdown of the European order in the First World War - Bolshevism a direct product, Nazism an indirect product of the effects of Versailles and the lack of legitimacy of the Weimar government. It is virtually inconceivable that either regime would have come to power if the First World War had not occurred, and it took until the collapse of Communism around 1990 to fully repair the damage the Great War did to European society.

WWI probably wouldn't have occurred if the U.S. had stayed out of it.  If the U.S. had stayed home, WWI would probably be remembered as just one more regional European conflict.

Here is what Winston Churchill said on this topic in 1936:

"America should have minded her own business and stayed out of the World War. If you hadn't entered the war the Allies would have made peace with Germany in the Spring of 1917. Had we made peace then there would have been no collapse in Russia followed by Communism, no breakdown in Italy followed by Fascism, and Germany would not have signed the Versailles Treaty, which has enthroned Nazism in Germany. If America had stayed out of the war, all these 'isms' wouldn't today be sweeping the continent of Europe and breaking down parliamentary government - and if England had made peace early in 1917, it would have saved over one million British, French, American, and other lives."