7 ms·

Nobody ‘stealing’ your jobs, you spend too much on wars, Jack Ma tells US

68 points by ghosh 10y ago

taxicabjesus 10y ago
The plutocracy, who runs things behind the scenes, decided long ago that the rent extracted from the outsourcing of industry could finance their imperial war machine. Perkin's Confessions of an Economic Hitman [1][2] is a good read. The US' problem with China is that they think long-term... Their leaders long ago realized they needed to industrialize, and started with whatever low-tech jobs western companies were willing to give them. Now they are demanding western companies share their crown jewels with Chinese companies (requiring that much of their high-speed rail infrastructure be manufactured in-country, etc). Similarly, the US' problem with Russia is that they play chess, while US politicians play checkers. I think Señor Trump is smart enough to know that the Imperialists are America's true enemy, but that Joe and Jane American don't realize the full extent of their government's "Economic Hitmen" activities. Hopefully he'll rename the Department of Homeland Security to something that doesn't imply imperialism. Similarly, hopefully he'll order the department of defense to reimagine itself into a department concerned with the country's defense, rather than being obsessed with the ability to destroy anything anywhere on the planet at a moment's notice. [1] https://books.google.com/books?isbn=1576755126 https://books.google.com/books?isbn=1576755126 [2] https://books.google.com/books?isbn=1626566763 https://books.google.com/books?isbn=1626566763 (just learned there's a 2016 edition)
- RichardHeart 10y ago
  I'm not sure that the "US politicians play checkers." I don't think it is a coincidence that both Russia and the US are intervening in Syria, and causing problems for the EU. US currency hegemony benefits from a week EURO and Eurasian Economic Union. The complete and total dominance in so many metrics by the USA leads me to think that something better than checkers might be happening behind the scenes. I think it would be much easier to pick on the coutries with vastly worse citizen outcomes such as China and Russia, than it would be to pick on the USA. That being said, I think reduction in military spending and retasking soldiers into say, home building, is ok with me. If you can fire an automatic rifle, you can use a nailgun. The concept that no highschool graduate can afford a home is less than optimal.
- rtpg 10y ago
  For all the political chess, Russia's economy is still smaller than Italy's, despite having a pretty good setup in theory. Russia is able to make noise and do things to Eastern Europe, but the government's moves seem to be much more about preserving the current government rather than advancing the interests of the nation as a whole For example: how does annexing Crimea help Russia? Was that one navy port worth it? A calculated risk, perhaps. But they seem to be bad at math.
  - tunap 10y ago
    Don't forget the gas resources in the calculations. Well worth it, for Russia. https://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/18/world/europe/in-taking-crimea-putin-gains-a-sea-of-fuel-reserves.html?_r=0 https://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/18/world/europe/in-taking-cr...
  - RDeckard 10y ago
    >how does annexing Crimea help Russia? Was that one navy port worth it? >A calculated risk, perhaps. But they seem to be bad at math. Not everything in life is measured in money, or done because of money.
  - JoeAltmaier 10y ago
    It was something they could annex, to drum up nationalistic fervor, that wouldn't get them into too much trouble.
- wolfgke 10y ago
  > Similarly, the US' problem with Russia is that they play chess, while US politicians play checkers. In Germany they rather say that Russia plays chess, while the USA play poker.
- touristtam 10y ago
  > Now they are demanding western companies share their crown jewels with Chinese companies This has been the case for the last 20 years or so (at least). The recent industrial history of China is littered with failed join venture between a minority western partner and a majority local one. Also, it isn't unheard from to have technology transfer on big contract, with often national interest seeking to secure local production.
- witty_username 10y ago
  > The plutocracy, who runs things behind the scenes, decided long ago that the rent extracted from the outsourcing of industry could finance their imperial war machine. What does this mean? Who is the plutocracy? What is this rent? The gains of outsourcing go to customers. War is funded by government debt.
  - ionised 10y ago
    Government Sachs
    - witty_username 10y ago
      Could you explain?
  - taxicabjesus 10y ago
    > War is funded by government debt. About 1/3 of U.S. government debt is held by foreigners. China, Japan, and the oil-producing nations use their trade surplus to buy US Bonds, because they have more cash than they need for the goods & services they purchased America. I think this was covered in Mr. Perkins' book, but it's been a long time since I read it.
- trashtoss 10y ago
  Nah, Trump and his crew are useful idiots when it comes to Russia; they think they are #1 teaming up with #3 to keep China stuck at #2, when the reality is they are getting tricked by the old "let's you and him fight, partner" gambit. So, useful idiots, some bought off for stunningly cheap and others true believers or just outright incompetent. Far likelier than a non-imperialist defense policy will be Flynn finally trying to launch that pre-emptive Christian jihad he's been salivating for, in partnership with Russia. It would be nicer to see what you see, of course, but I can't what with having familiarity with the people involved.
  - taxicabjesus 10y ago
    > Nah, Trump and his crew are useful idiots when it comes to Russia; Since Eisenhower, which presidents have not been 'useful idiots'? I'd nominate Kennedy and Carter. Someone I respect said that Nixon hated the globalists, but he escalated the war in Vietnam (only ending it after his re-election), and I wasn't alive then so I don't know. In recent history, Clinton continued G.H.W. Bush's free trade agenda. GW Bush couldn't even read a teleprompter. Obama was good at reading the teleprompter, but didn't have a good understanding of any of the problems he was supposedly addressing. I think the real useful idiots are those employed by the traditional news media: CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, etc. They lived in a little bubble, thinking that people really wanted four more years of the Reagan-Bush-Clinton-Bush-Obama status quo.
    - trashtoss 10y ago
      You have "interesting" and, to be polite, "idiosyncratic" ideas and framing to the point that the expected cost/benefit (for me) of having a real discussion doesn't seem favorable. Instead, I would offer you some friendly advice: since you have such strong views, I encourage you to write down your political predictions (what you think the new admin will do; what you think will happen as a result; how you think other parties will react, and how those reactions will play out...whatever you think is valuable). File these predictions away and revisit them at some future date. Keep score! What did you get right? What did you get wrong? When you get things right, were you right for the reasons you expected to be right, or did you get lucky? When you get things wrong, was it because you had bad information? Faulty reasoning? Unexpected left-field development not reasonably foreseeable? Doing this exercise will only serve to sharpen your mind and your understanding!
kbart 10y ago
Didn't read the article, but RT (Russia Today) is Kremlin's propaganda channel[0] and it's links should neither be trusted nor shared. 0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT_(TV_network)#Propaganda_claims_and_related_issues https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT_(TV_network)#Propaganda_cla...
- Arnt 10y ago
  Are you implying that Jack Ma did not really say that?
  - kbart 10y ago
    No, I'm implying that sharing of propaganda channels should not be encouraged, because it makes them look legitimate.
    - RDeckard 10y ago
      What about CNN, BBC and Western propaganda channels? Are you The Ministry of Truth?
      - Arnt 10y ago
        Ad hominem here, blind faith in the beeb there, either way, Jack Ma has a point. Another posting on HN a few days ago said something like "noone will be able to beat the F-35 on cost". That cost is real. The F-35 doesn't become cheaper when RT runs story about it.
      - kbart 10y ago
        CNN, BBC and probably all of Western media channels have their agenda, but none of them is straightforward propaganda with direct control by government as RT is. Don't make mistake here, there are no RT counterpart in West, despite RT trying very hard to "prove" otherwise.
        chopin 10y ago
mrle 10y ago
$5 trillion USD on war on terror, and the world is not safer than before. with $5 trillion you could buy Google, Apple, Microsoft, Facebook etc.
- talmand 10y ago
  Like most government "wars" on a problem it has turned out to be an expensive effort to make the problem worse. I agree with the theory that this is by design; if a government program actually solved a problem then the funding goes away.
JoeAltmaier 10y ago
Does this even make sense? How does "employing millions of people for a war" become "job loss"?
- talmand 10y ago
  Did the article change? Because you put employing millions in a quote as if he said that, I don't see the articles quoting him on that. But, it is possible to consider that employing millions in this sector could lead to decline of various types in other sectors. Still, there were not "millions" employed for war. I would require a source on that.
  - JoeAltmaier 10y ago
    From a random article I googled, Over 1,400,000 Americans are now on active duty; another 833,000 are in the reserves, many full time. Another 1,600,000 Americans work in companies that supply the military with everything from weapons to utensils. (I’m not even including all the foreign contractors employing non-US citizens.)
    - nojvek 10y ago
      What about all the jobs US destroyed. The world is much larger than the US. Bombing the shit out of Iraq totally destroyed their economy. The ISIS exist because they're US military fucked up big time. If trump manages to close a number of expensive military programs and put the money in infrastructure, I think that would make the world a slightly better place.
      - JoeAltmaier 10y ago
        Yes war is bad. The topic was, a strange claim that war caused unemployment. Its been long understood that war created nearly full employment, for all the obvious reasons.
        avisser 10y ago

68 points by ghosh 10y ago

The plutocracy, who runs things behind the scenes, decided long ago that the rent extracted from the outsourcing of industry could finance their imperial war machine. Perkin's Confessions of an Economic Hitman [1][2] is a good read. The US' problem with China is that they think long-term... Their leaders long ago realized they needed to industrialize, and started with whatever low-tech jobs western companies were willing to give them. Now they are demanding western companies share their crown jewels with Chinese companies (requiring that much of their high-speed rail infrastructure be manufactured in-country, etc). Similarly, the US' problem with Russia is that they play chess, while US politicians play checkers. I think Señor Trump is smart enough to know that the Imperialists are America's true enemy, but that Joe and Jane American don't realize the full extent of their government's "Economic Hitmen" activities. Hopefully he'll rename the Department of Homeland Security to something that doesn't imply imperialism. Similarly, hopefully he'll order the department of defense to reimagine itself into a department concerned with the country's defense, rather than being obsessed with the ability to destroy anything anywhere on the planet at a moment's notice. [1] https://books.google.com/books?isbn=1576755126 https://books.google.com/books?isbn=1576755126 [2] https://books.google.com/books?isbn=1626566763 https://books.google.com/books?isbn=1626566763 (just learned there's a 2016 edition)

RichardHeart 10y ago
I'm not sure that the "US politicians play checkers." I don't think it is a coincidence that both Russia and the US are intervening in Syria, and causing problems for the EU. US currency hegemony benefits from a week EURO and Eurasian Economic Union. The complete and total dominance in so many metrics by the USA leads me to think that something better than checkers might be happening behind the scenes. I think it would be much easier to pick on the coutries with vastly worse citizen outcomes such as China and Russia, than it would be to pick on the USA. That being said, I think reduction in military spending and retasking soldiers into say, home building, is ok with me. If you can fire an automatic rifle, you can use a nailgun. The concept that no highschool graduate can afford a home is less than optimal.
rtpg 10y ago
For all the political chess, Russia's economy is still smaller than Italy's, despite having a pretty good setup in theory. Russia is able to make noise and do things to Eastern Europe, but the government's moves seem to be much more about preserving the current government rather than advancing the interests of the nation as a whole For example: how does annexing Crimea help Russia? Was that one navy port worth it? A calculated risk, perhaps. But they seem to be bad at math.
- tunap 10y ago
  Don't forget the gas resources in the calculations. Well worth it, for Russia. https://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/18/world/europe/in-taking-crimea-putin-gains-a-sea-of-fuel-reserves.html?_r=0 https://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/18/world/europe/in-taking-cr...
- RDeckard 10y ago
  >how does annexing Crimea help Russia? Was that one navy port worth it? >A calculated risk, perhaps. But they seem to be bad at math. Not everything in life is measured in money, or done because of money.
- JoeAltmaier 10y ago
  It was something they could annex, to drum up nationalistic fervor, that wouldn't get them into too much trouble.
wolfgke 10y ago
> Similarly, the US' problem with Russia is that they play chess, while US politicians play checkers. In Germany they rather say that Russia plays chess, while the USA play poker.
touristtam 10y ago
> Now they are demanding western companies share their crown jewels with Chinese companies This has been the case for the last 20 years or so (at least). The recent industrial history of China is littered with failed join venture between a minority western partner and a majority local one. Also, it isn't unheard from to have technology transfer on big contract, with often national interest seeking to secure local production.
witty_username 10y ago
> The plutocracy, who runs things behind the scenes, decided long ago that the rent extracted from the outsourcing of industry could finance their imperial war machine. What does this mean? Who is the plutocracy? What is this rent? The gains of outsourcing go to customers. War is funded by government debt.
- ionised 10y ago
  Government Sachs
  - witty_username 10y ago
    Could you explain?
- taxicabjesus 10y ago
  > War is funded by government debt. About 1/3 of U.S. government debt is held by foreigners. China, Japan, and the oil-producing nations use their trade surplus to buy US Bonds, because they have more cash than they need for the goods & services they purchased America. I think this was covered in Mr. Perkins' book, but it's been a long time since I read it.
trashtoss 10y ago
Nah, Trump and his crew are useful idiots when it comes to Russia; they think they are #1 teaming up with #3 to keep China stuck at #2, when the reality is they are getting tricked by the old "let's you and him fight, partner" gambit. So, useful idiots, some bought off for stunningly cheap and others true believers or just outright incompetent. Far likelier than a non-imperialist defense policy will be Flynn finally trying to launch that pre-emptive Christian jihad he's been salivating for, in partnership with Russia. It would be nicer to see what you see, of course, but I can't what with having familiarity with the people involved.
- taxicabjesus 10y ago
  > Nah, Trump and his crew are useful idiots when it comes to Russia; Since Eisenhower, which presidents have not been 'useful idiots'? I'd nominate Kennedy and Carter. Someone I respect said that Nixon hated the globalists, but he escalated the war in Vietnam (only ending it after his re-election), and I wasn't alive then so I don't know. In recent history, Clinton continued G.H.W. Bush's free trade agenda. GW Bush couldn't even read a teleprompter. Obama was good at reading the teleprompter, but didn't have a good understanding of any of the problems he was supposedly addressing. I think the real useful idiots are those employed by the traditional news media: CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, etc. They lived in a little bubble, thinking that people really wanted four more years of the Reagan-Bush-Clinton-Bush-Obama status quo.
  - trashtoss 10y ago
    You have "interesting" and, to be polite, "idiosyncratic" ideas and framing to the point that the expected cost/benefit (for me) of having a real discussion doesn't seem favorable. Instead, I would offer you some friendly advice: since you have such strong views, I encourage you to write down your political predictions (what you think the new admin will do; what you think will happen as a result; how you think other parties will react, and how those reactions will play out...whatever you think is valuable). File these predictions away and revisit them at some future date. Keep score! What did you get right? What did you get wrong? When you get things right, were you right for the reasons you expected to be right, or did you get lucky? When you get things wrong, was it because you had bad information? Faulty reasoning? Unexpected left-field development not reasonably foreseeable? Doing this exercise will only serve to sharpen your mind and your understanding!

kbart 10y ago

Didn't read the article, but RT (Russia Today) is Kremlin's propaganda channel[0] and it's links should neither be trusted nor shared. 0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT_(TV_network)#Propaganda_claims_and_related_issues https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT_(TV_network)#Propaganda_cla...

Arnt 10y ago
Are you implying that Jack Ma did not really say that?
- kbart 10y ago
  No, I'm implying that sharing of propaganda channels should not be encouraged, because it makes them look legitimate.
  - RDeckard 10y ago
    What about CNN, BBC and Western propaganda channels? Are you The Ministry of Truth?
    - Arnt 10y ago
      Ad hominem here, blind faith in the beeb there, either way, Jack Ma has a point. Another posting on HN a few days ago said something like "noone will be able to beat the F-35 on cost". That cost is real. The F-35 doesn't become cheaper when RT runs story about it.
    - kbart 10y ago
      CNN, BBC and probably all of Western media channels have their agenda, but none of them is straightforward propaganda with direct control by government as RT is. Don't make mistake here, there are no RT counterpart in West, despite RT trying very hard to "prove" otherwise.
      - chopin 10y ago

mrle 10y ago

$5 trillion USD on war on terror, and the world is not safer than before. with $5 trillion you could buy Google, Apple, Microsoft, Facebook etc.

talmand 10y ago
Like most government "wars" on a problem it has turned out to be an expensive effort to make the problem worse. I agree with the theory that this is by design; if a government program actually solved a problem then the funding goes away.

JoeAltmaier 10y ago

Does this even make sense? How does "employing millions of people for a war" become "job loss"?

talmand 10y ago
Did the article change? Because you put employing millions in a quote as if he said that, I don't see the articles quoting him on that. But, it is possible to consider that employing millions in this sector could lead to decline of various types in other sectors. Still, there were not "millions" employed for war. I would require a source on that.
- JoeAltmaier 10y ago
  From a random article I googled, Over 1,400,000 Americans are now on active duty; another 833,000 are in the reserves, many full time. Another 1,600,000 Americans work in companies that supply the military with everything from weapons to utensils. (I’m not even including all the foreign contractors employing non-US citizens.)
  - nojvek 10y ago
    What about all the jobs US destroyed. The world is much larger than the US. Bombing the shit out of Iraq totally destroyed their economy. The ISIS exist because they're US military fucked up big time. If trump manages to close a number of expensive military programs and put the money in infrastructure, I think that would make the world a slightly better place.
    - JoeAltmaier 10y ago
      Yes war is bad. The topic was, a strange claim that war caused unemployment. Its been long understood that war created nearly full employment, for all the obvious reasons.
      - avisser 10y ago