5 ms·

I'm not really inclined to spend time on a detailed analysis at the moment, but given what the US wastes (imo) on military spending and healthcare (relative to

by qrendel 11y ago

I'm not really inclined to spend time on a detailed analysis at the moment, but given what the US wastes (imo) on military spending and healthcare (relative to other similar nations, e.g. Canada), you could get a good portion of the way to a UBI just by cuts to those and similar programs. A previous back-of-envelope estimate put it at around $6,800/person just for halving the total military budget (not just DoD) and switching to single-payer.

marcoperaza 11y ago
Canada isn't responsible for keeping the peace and keeping trading routes open in Europe, the South China Sea, the Persian Gulf, etc. Nor is it responsible for defending Taiwan, South Korea, and Japan. Nor will it be be able to make any decisive contributions to the defense of the easternmost NATO countries. The West's military might rests almost entirely in the United States. You don't want to see a world where we don't inspire fear in the halls of power of China and Russia. Never have the good been so much more powerful than the bad. Let's keep it that way. ==================================================== I've been rate-limited by HN, so here's my response to derefr: ==================================================== That's a good point. I've heard the argument that the US's defense of Europe has infantilized Europeans into thinking that they don't need military might, that institutions like the ICC and the UN can actually keep them safe. Much like a child doesn't understand the value of money because he's never had to work for it. I think there's a little more to it than that; the horrors of the two world wars are surely part of Europeans' distaste for military power. Unfortunately, if the US just withdrew its defense of Europe, I have no doubt that Russia would conquer the rest of Ukraine and the Baltics. Japan has been trying to become more responsible for its own defense under Prime Minister Abe, but look at the vicious opposition he's gotten for it. Maybe one day the political tides will shift in Europe and elsewhere and the US can responsibly hand over some of its current military obligations. For now, I reckon it's a price worth paying for a world of peace and commerce. And in which America does exceedingly well.
- derefr 11y ago
  You'd think, if these countries also benefited economically (presumably more so than the US does, even) from being defended, then the cost of doing so could be made part of their budgets. Nobody's suggesting taking the US military off of these tasks; it's a question of where to send the bill.
  - enraged_camel 11y ago
    The US may not be getting paid for it, but it receives enormous political capital for it. And that can be far more valuable in a lot of situations.
  - jacquesm 11y ago
    It's a mixed bag. The US is part of the solution but also part of the problem.
- qrendel 11y ago
  Similarly to what the other reply said, if the claim is that these countries can only afford to provide healthcare for their citizens because the US subsidizes their defense, then the implication is that the US is paying for both their defense and healthcare at the expense of its own people. But the US military budget is enormous, and has largely failed to achieve any of the major foreign policy goals it's been applied towards. After 15 years of wars in the Middle East things are as bad as ever. Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and Syria are hardly on the road to stable democratic governments such much as bogged down (to one degree or another) in internal conflicts and civil wars. Russia and China are already kept in check by NATO, around 2/3rds of whose ~3.5 million active military personnel are not US based, aside from other non-conventional military deterrents (e.g. nukes and economic sanctions). Framing US foreign policy as "good vs bad" with the military as being the only thing keeping the evil foreign hordes at bay is borderline agitprop. That aside, my point was that the money is there for UBI, it's just a question of what other programs to take it from. Military spending and healthcare are two of the largest portions of the budget (along with social security, which would also be partially replaced by a UBI), so while people might debate the merits and dangers of cutting those programs, the money could certainly be found without significantly increasing taxes on the rich.
  - marcoperaza 11y ago
    People were making the economic interdependence argument at the beginning of the 20th century too. We all know how that played out.
- jacquesm 11y ago
  > Never have the good been so much more powerful than the bad. How incredibly clueless. Really, what prompts you to post these things? The US could not even hold down a bunch of insurgents in a country that a tin-pot dictator managed to stabilize, gave us - directly or indirectly - Al Quada, IS and a whole bunch of other instability besides. Ask the Swiss how much they need American defenses. Russia would - and could - wipe out Poland, the Ukraine and a large chunk of Romania in a couple of days if they set their mind to it, fortunately even Putin realizes the economic backlash from that will be the end of his reign. In case you didn't get the message: the world balance of power is held through ever stronger economic ties, not by weapons or dumb saber rattling. What hurts the party that you'd name your enemy hurts you too. There is a good reason why NK and Iran are just the way they are in spite of being the subject of much rhetoric: a war would not end well for either side, economically those countries are not the most important (though, arguably, Iran has some resources the US covets) but from the point of view of manpower and gear they would do a lot of damage to anybody stupid enough to invade. Think Iraq but much much worse. The annexation of Ukraine into the EU/Nato is what drove Russia to take action. If it had been left to sit the way it had for the last 20 years or so everything would be unchanged because it was not a threat. Cowboy politics and games don't go well with the role of a country that 'keeps the peace and keeps the trade routes open' (as far as that's correct anyway, most times it's not the peace that's being kept). Greetings from one of those infantilized Europeans.
  - marcoperaza 11y ago
    >The annexation of Ukraine into the EU/Nato is what drove Russia to take action. If it had been left to sit the way it had for the last 20 years or so everything would be unchanged because it was not a threat. So the West should have refused to engage with Ukraine for fear of upsetting Russia? What ever happened to self-determination? Peace for our time?
    - jacquesm 11y ago
      No, the West should have properly analyzed the situation and should have realized the time isn't ripe - yet, rather than setting us back a decade or more. The way it went down, the (hollow) promises that were made to Ukraine were a sure indication that Ukraine was used as a pawn in a much larger game and that the outcome of that game was anything but certain.
qnnlu 11y ago
I think those numbers are not right. To give all Americans 7K, you may need $2T. That is half of the the total budget of the federal government.

by qrendel 11y ago

marcoperaza 11y ago

Canada isn't responsible for keeping the peace and keeping trading routes open in Europe, the South China Sea, the Persian Gulf, etc. Nor is it responsible for defending Taiwan, South Korea, and Japan. Nor will it be be able to make any decisive contributions to the defense of the easternmost NATO countries. The West's military might rests almost entirely in the United States. You don't want to see a world where we don't inspire fear in the halls of power of China and Russia. Never have the good been so much more powerful than the bad. Let's keep it that way. ==================================================== I've been rate-limited by HN, so here's my response to derefr: ==================================================== That's a good point. I've heard the argument that the US's defense of Europe has infantilized Europeans into thinking that they don't need military might, that institutions like the ICC and the UN can actually keep them safe. Much like a child doesn't understand the value of money because he's never had to work for it. I think there's a little more to it than that; the horrors of the two world wars are surely part of Europeans' distaste for military power. Unfortunately, if the US just withdrew its defense of Europe, I have no doubt that Russia would conquer the rest of Ukraine and the Baltics. Japan has been trying to become more responsible for its own defense under Prime Minister Abe, but look at the vicious opposition he's gotten for it. Maybe one day the political tides will shift in Europe and elsewhere and the US can responsibly hand over some of its current military obligations. For now, I reckon it's a price worth paying for a world of peace and commerce. And in which America does exceedingly well.

derefr 11y ago
You'd think, if these countries also benefited economically (presumably more so than the US does, even) from being defended, then the cost of doing so could be made part of their budgets. Nobody's suggesting taking the US military off of these tasks; it's a question of where to send the bill.
- enraged_camel 11y ago
  The US may not be getting paid for it, but it receives enormous political capital for it. And that can be far more valuable in a lot of situations.
- jacquesm 11y ago
  It's a mixed bag. The US is part of the solution but also part of the problem.
qrendel 11y ago
Similarly to what the other reply said, if the claim is that these countries can only afford to provide healthcare for their citizens because the US subsidizes their defense, then the implication is that the US is paying for both their defense and healthcare at the expense of its own people. But the US military budget is enormous, and has largely failed to achieve any of the major foreign policy goals it's been applied towards. After 15 years of wars in the Middle East things are as bad as ever. Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and Syria are hardly on the road to stable democratic governments such much as bogged down (to one degree or another) in internal conflicts and civil wars. Russia and China are already kept in check by NATO, around 2/3rds of whose ~3.5 million active military personnel are not US based, aside from other non-conventional military deterrents (e.g. nukes and economic sanctions). Framing US foreign policy as "good vs bad" with the military as being the only thing keeping the evil foreign hordes at bay is borderline agitprop. That aside, my point was that the money is there for UBI, it's just a question of what other programs to take it from. Military spending and healthcare are two of the largest portions of the budget (along with social security, which would also be partially replaced by a UBI), so while people might debate the merits and dangers of cutting those programs, the money could certainly be found without significantly increasing taxes on the rich.
- marcoperaza 11y ago
  People were making the economic interdependence argument at the beginning of the 20th century too. We all know how that played out.
jacquesm 11y ago
> Never have the good been so much more powerful than the bad. How incredibly clueless. Really, what prompts you to post these things? The US could not even hold down a bunch of insurgents in a country that a tin-pot dictator managed to stabilize, gave us - directly or indirectly - Al Quada, IS and a whole bunch of other instability besides. Ask the Swiss how much they need American defenses. Russia would - and could - wipe out Poland, the Ukraine and a large chunk of Romania in a couple of days if they set their mind to it, fortunately even Putin realizes the economic backlash from that will be the end of his reign. In case you didn't get the message: the world balance of power is held through ever stronger economic ties, not by weapons or dumb saber rattling. What hurts the party that you'd name your enemy hurts you too. There is a good reason why NK and Iran are just the way they are in spite of being the subject of much rhetoric: a war would not end well for either side, economically those countries are not the most important (though, arguably, Iran has some resources the US covets) but from the point of view of manpower and gear they would do a lot of damage to anybody stupid enough to invade. Think Iraq but much much worse. The annexation of Ukraine into the EU/Nato is what drove Russia to take action. If it had been left to sit the way it had for the last 20 years or so everything would be unchanged because it was not a threat. Cowboy politics and games don't go well with the role of a country that 'keeps the peace and keeps the trade routes open' (as far as that's correct anyway, most times it's not the peace that's being kept). Greetings from one of those infantilized Europeans.
- marcoperaza 11y ago
  >The annexation of Ukraine into the EU/Nato is what drove Russia to take action. If it had been left to sit the way it had for the last 20 years or so everything would be unchanged because it was not a threat. So the West should have refused to engage with Ukraine for fear of upsetting Russia? What ever happened to self-determination? Peace for our time?
  - jacquesm 11y ago
    No, the West should have properly analyzed the situation and should have realized the time isn't ripe - yet, rather than setting us back a decade or more. The way it went down, the (hollow) promises that were made to Ukraine were a sure indication that Ukraine was used as a pawn in a much larger game and that the outcome of that game was anything but certain.

qnnlu 11y ago

I think those numbers are not right. To give all Americans 7K, you may need $2T. That is half of the the total budget of the federal government.