3 ms·

It could work well under conditions of world wide demilitarization, if we stop wasting 90% of our resources on war and preparation for war we could have a prett

It could work well under conditions of world wide demilitarization, if we stop wasting 90% of our resources on war and preparation for war we could have a pretty massive pie left over.

valuearb 9y ago
The US spends far too much on the military, in fact it has the world's largest military, and in some measures larger than the rest of the world combined. But it's only 22% of US government spending, and if you include state and local government spending military spending is less than 20% of total governmental spending. https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/year_spending_2018USbf_19bs2n_001020#usgs302 https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/year_spending_2018USbf_... The article talked about a totally inadequate UK proposal that would cost over 6% of GDP to implement. The US spends more on the military as a percentage of GDP than virtually any other first world nation, but even it only spends 4.5%. If the US eliminated all it's military spending completely, it would still be many hundreds of billions short of the amount needed for the most barebones basic income plan.
- mmirate 9y ago
  Oh, it gets better. Many of our allies have so little military spending precisely because of our military bases on their territory, and our resulting ability to respond to threats with the same speed as their own military. So in some ways, we are, for better or worse, the world's policeman. And if we downsized our military, those nations would need to step theirs up (with accompanying spending increases on their end). Which makes me wonder if the U.S. is getting paid enough for our military services to those allies.
  - XR0CSWV3h3kZWg 9y ago
    Heavy Lies the Crown
- XR0CSWV3h3kZWg 9y ago
  Not to mention that arguing for funding something by defunding an unrelated service only serves to complicate the debate. Modern US govt spending does not need to be balanced, the US govt has shown the ability to run insanely high deficits without US bonds being significantly downgraded. If the argument was that the US can afford UBI because we can afford the military then that's more reasonable (although not quite correct as you pointed out).
mmirate 9y ago
Then only one single crazy national-leader has to not actually demilitarize, and he can then conquer anyone who truly did demilitarize. Which means that the logical thing for anyone is not to demilitarize. Which means that the overall result is we don't demilitarize. Breaking that equilibrium would require a militarized worldwide government, which also would likely e.g. lack the ability to respect current nations' differing cultures (to summarize the vast body of ways the very concept is ... unnerving at best).
XR0CSWV3h3kZWg 9y ago
We don't use 90% of our resources on war, per annum the world spends ~2% of GDP on defense. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_...

It could work well under conditions of world wide demilitarization, if we stop wasting 90% of our resources on war and preparation for war we could have a pretty massive pie left over.

valuearb 9y ago

The US spends far too much on the military, in fact it has the world's largest military, and in some measures larger than the rest of the world combined. But it's only 22% of US government spending, and if you include state and local government spending military spending is less than 20% of total governmental spending. https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/year_spending_2018USbf_19bs2n_001020#usgs302 https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/year_spending_2018USbf_... The article talked about a totally inadequate UK proposal that would cost over 6% of GDP to implement. The US spends more on the military as a percentage of GDP than virtually any other first world nation, but even it only spends 4.5%. If the US eliminated all it's military spending completely, it would still be many hundreds of billions short of the amount needed for the most barebones basic income plan.

mmirate 9y ago
Oh, it gets better. Many of our allies have so little military spending precisely because of our military bases on their territory, and our resulting ability to respond to threats with the same speed as their own military. So in some ways, we are, for better or worse, the world's policeman. And if we downsized our military, those nations would need to step theirs up (with accompanying spending increases on their end). Which makes me wonder if the U.S. is getting paid enough for our military services to those allies.
- XR0CSWV3h3kZWg 9y ago
  Heavy Lies the Crown
XR0CSWV3h3kZWg 9y ago
Not to mention that arguing for funding something by defunding an unrelated service only serves to complicate the debate. Modern US govt spending does not need to be balanced, the US govt has shown the ability to run insanely high deficits without US bonds being significantly downgraded. If the argument was that the US can afford UBI because we can afford the military then that's more reasonable (although not quite correct as you pointed out).

mmirate 9y ago

Then only one single crazy national-leader has to not actually demilitarize, and he can then conquer anyone who truly did demilitarize. Which means that the logical thing for anyone is not to demilitarize. Which means that the overall result is we don't demilitarize. Breaking that equilibrium would require a militarized worldwide government, which also would likely e.g. lack the ability to respect current nations' differing cultures (to summarize the vast body of ways the very concept is ... unnerving at best).

XR0CSWV3h3kZWg 9y ago

We don't use 90% of our resources on war, per annum the world spends ~2% of GDP on defense. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_...