8 ms·

For some perspective: Finalnd's military budget: 300 million US military budget: 700 BILLION The US could dump a lot of money into these social services to a

For some perspective: Finalnd's military budget: 300 million US military budget: 700 BILLION The US could dump a lot of money into these social services to address people who are homeless, drug addicts, and other people on the fringes of society. We are however, constantly put in a place where other nations depend on us for their security. As such, they don't have to have a massive defensive budget when they can rely on us to take care of them. If we had a military budget that was more inline with simply keeping our own country safe, we would have a ton more money to take care of the people who really need it.

commandlinefan 7y ago
Assuming, of course, that if Finland had to provide for its own defense (rather than relying on us), they would still have money left over for social programs.
- Gravityloss 7y ago
  How are you providing for the defense of Finland? Maybe you're a conscript in the Finnish armed forces?
- pjc50 7y ago
  Accusing Finland of not providing for its own defense is an insult to the memory of the Winter War. It's one of the few European countries that still has universal conscription!
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- aglavine 7y ago
  1. USA cuts military budget 2. Russia invades Finland. USA does nothing. 3. Homelessness in Finland peaks
  - tappio 7y ago
    Why would USA defend Finland as Finland is not part of NATO? The same way they defended Ukraine as Russia occupied Crimea and invaded East Ukraine?
  - distances 7y ago
    Finland has always prepared to defend a Russian attack alone, for obvious historical reasons. Russia being a superpower, or trying to be at least, means the selected defence doctrine is to make an attack too expensive to be worth it. Definitely isn't depending on US military intervention -- last time around US was siding with the Soviets, after all.
- arethuza 7y ago
  Why do you think Finland depends on the US - they aren't in NATO?
  - commandlinefan 7y ago
    Well, that’s OP’s premise (which I do agree with). He says the U.S. spends 700 billion/year on defense, but needs less and that the rest is spent protecting other countries. There are 195 countries, so if that’s distributed evenly, we’re contributing about 3.5 billion/country/year, that they would each have to come up with if we stopped. Now, maybe it’s not evenly distributed like that - maybe Finland doesn’t rely on U.S. presence at all (but I think you, and they, would be surprised), but the point is that we’re indirectly subsidizing a lot of these social programs by providing military defense for a lot of these countries.
    - arethuza 7y ago
      One interesting fact about Finland that I learned from "The Doomsday Machine: Confessions of a Nuclear War Planner" by Daniel Ellsberg is that in the event of a "general war" the US attack on the Soviet Union was expected to completely destroy Finland and kill at least 100 million in Western Europe.
ASlave2Gravity 7y ago
But isn't the US hegemony all about dictating global markets, ect. ? So whilst the US might be ensuring other nation's security, it is also ensuring that the markets are in its desired condition. This modus operandi, I suppose, means that the US homeless will suffer more, as those desired conditions are desired by the people who are able to control the military decisions, and not the homeless, who would most likely want cheaper health care & housing.
- huffmsa 7y ago
  Yeah, but only because we needed the oil. But now that we're a net exporter, no need to be abroad
  - ASlave2Gravity 7y ago
    Do you think the hegemony is only about oil?
- pjc50 7y ago
  You'd be surprised at how many of the homeless are veterans with PTSD.
  - ASlave2Gravity 7y ago
    I don't find that surprising at all! It's a tragedy.
s_y_n_t_a_x 7y ago
For some more perspective... Finland's military GDP spending is around 4%, very close to America's military GDP spending, but the two countries have largely different GDPs of course. That's the fair way to compare things though. Also a very large portion of the military budget goes to the salary's of our military employees as well as R&D. We wouldn't have the internet if it wasn't for ARPA. And finally, Finland isn't a superpower.
34679 7y ago
Oregon's budget for retired state employees: $100 Billion I tried to find the same for California, but it seems they do a better job of hiding it. My point is that we are spending a tremendous amount of money on former government employees, so they can have nice homes, good healthcare, and a quality education for their children. But in the process, we're neglecting a large portion of the population that those people were supposed to be serving.
- jandrese 7y ago
  If I'm looking for money to help the poor I'm not going to start by raiding pensions. That would be self destructive.
- mattkrause 7y ago
  What would you do instead? It takes good, motivated staff to run an effective government department. Those same people have a lot of options, so the government has to compete for them somehow. We’re unwilling to pay them high salaries (take a look at the federal pay scales: GS-12, which is usually a scientist with a grad degree, starts at $66k). Benefits seem a little more politically palatable, so the government competes on those instead: we won’t pay you a lot, but you can earn a (slightly) better retirement instead. Without either, who’s going to work for the government? Do you really want a government full of people who can’t land any other job?
  - 34679 7y ago
    What would I do? Reduce the number of state employees. And I'd do it without firing anyone. See: Gary Johnson, New Mexico. When an existing employee retires or otherwise ends their employment with the state, don't hire a replacement unless that job is critical to the operation of the government.
- pjc50 7y ago
  That's obviously not the correct number; perhaps that's the total liability for all future pensions? It's not clear what the actual pensions number is, but the total budget for absolutely everything for the two years 2019-21 for Oregon appears to be $82bn from Schedule VI of https://www.oregon.gov/das/Financial/Documents/2019-21_gb.pdf https://www.oregon.gov/das/Financial/Documents/2019-21_gb.pd...
tlaturi 7y ago
That is not correct. The Finnish military budget is 3.2 billion Euros ($3.6B). On top of that, Finland has a universal male conscription, costs of which are not included. (I.e. the opportunity cost of being in the army) Source: https://www.defmin.fi/files/4804/Puolustusministerion_hallinnonalan_menojen_osuus_bruttokansantuotteesta_2020.pdf https://www.defmin.fi/files/4804/Puolustusministerion_hallin...
- at-fates-hands 7y ago
  My bad, I was actually reading the chart wrong: https://tradingeconomics.com/finland/military-expenditure https://tradingeconomics.com/finland/military-expenditure Military Expenditure in Finland increased to 3615 USD Million in 2018 from 3430 USD Million in 2017. Which you're correct, it's actually 3.6 Billion. US military spending still dwarfs Finland's, but not nearly as paltry as I had originally stated.
  - distances 7y ago
    Others have additionally already pointed out how Finland isn't in NATO either. The defence doesn't expect or imagine US intervention, but also doesn't expect a nuke attack. Defence matching the threat, full conscription and modern cost-conscious armament purchases to counter the long land border with Russia.
ThrowawayR2 7y ago
> "If we had a military budget that was more inline with simply keeping our own country safe, we would have a ton more money to take care of the people who really need it." Resulting in a new wave of rearmament and arms races across the entire planet as everybody scrambles to build up their military in the resulting power vacuum. If you want to see another wave of all-out wars in your lifetime, well, that's how you get it. The United States has been amply repaid for its military budget (despite it being put to stupid use by certain Presidents) in terms of global political and economic stability, which is good for business.
727262826hdhd 7y ago
The only perspective this gives is perspective into your personal worldview. Why wouldn't you use % of total spending or frame it relative to national gdp if you were trying to make a meaningful comparison between the two countries?

commandlinefan 7y ago

Assuming, of course, that if Finland had to provide for its own defense (rather than relying on us), they would still have money left over for social programs.

Gravityloss 7y ago
How are you providing for the defense of Finland? Maybe you're a conscript in the Finnish armed forces?
pjc50 7y ago
Accusing Finland of not providing for its own defense is an insult to the memory of the Winter War. It's one of the few European countries that still has universal conscription!
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
aglavine 7y ago
1. USA cuts military budget 2. Russia invades Finland. USA does nothing. 3. Homelessness in Finland peaks
- tappio 7y ago
  Why would USA defend Finland as Finland is not part of NATO? The same way they defended Ukraine as Russia occupied Crimea and invaded East Ukraine?
- distances 7y ago
  Finland has always prepared to defend a Russian attack alone, for obvious historical reasons. Russia being a superpower, or trying to be at least, means the selected defence doctrine is to make an attack too expensive to be worth it. Definitely isn't depending on US military intervention -- last time around US was siding with the Soviets, after all.
arethuza 7y ago
Why do you think Finland depends on the US - they aren't in NATO?
- commandlinefan 7y ago
  Well, that’s OP’s premise (which I do agree with). He says the U.S. spends 700 billion/year on defense, but needs less and that the rest is spent protecting other countries. There are 195 countries, so if that’s distributed evenly, we’re contributing about 3.5 billion/country/year, that they would each have to come up with if we stopped. Now, maybe it’s not evenly distributed like that - maybe Finland doesn’t rely on U.S. presence at all (but I think you, and they, would be surprised), but the point is that we’re indirectly subsidizing a lot of these social programs by providing military defense for a lot of these countries.
  - arethuza 7y ago
    One interesting fact about Finland that I learned from "The Doomsday Machine: Confessions of a Nuclear War Planner" by Daniel Ellsberg is that in the event of a "general war" the US attack on the Soviet Union was expected to completely destroy Finland and kill at least 100 million in Western Europe.

ASlave2Gravity 7y ago

But isn't the US hegemony all about dictating global markets, ect. ? So whilst the US might be ensuring other nation's security, it is also ensuring that the markets are in its desired condition. This modus operandi, I suppose, means that the US homeless will suffer more, as those desired conditions are desired by the people who are able to control the military decisions, and not the homeless, who would most likely want cheaper health care & housing.

huffmsa 7y ago
Yeah, but only because we needed the oil. But now that we're a net exporter, no need to be abroad
- ASlave2Gravity 7y ago
  Do you think the hegemony is only about oil?
pjc50 7y ago
You'd be surprised at how many of the homeless are veterans with PTSD.
- ASlave2Gravity 7y ago
  I don't find that surprising at all! It's a tragedy.

s_y_n_t_a_x 7y ago

For some more perspective... Finland's military GDP spending is around 4%, very close to America's military GDP spending, but the two countries have largely different GDPs of course. That's the fair way to compare things though. Also a very large portion of the military budget goes to the salary's of our military employees as well as R&D. We wouldn't have the internet if it wasn't for ARPA. And finally, Finland isn't a superpower.

34679 7y ago

Oregon's budget for retired state employees: $100 Billion I tried to find the same for California, but it seems they do a better job of hiding it. My point is that we are spending a tremendous amount of money on former government employees, so they can have nice homes, good healthcare, and a quality education for their children. But in the process, we're neglecting a large portion of the population that those people were supposed to be serving.

jandrese 7y ago
If I'm looking for money to help the poor I'm not going to start by raiding pensions. That would be self destructive.
mattkrause 7y ago
What would you do instead? It takes good, motivated staff to run an effective government department. Those same people have a lot of options, so the government has to compete for them somehow. We’re unwilling to pay them high salaries (take a look at the federal pay scales: GS-12, which is usually a scientist with a grad degree, starts at $66k). Benefits seem a little more politically palatable, so the government competes on those instead: we won’t pay you a lot, but you can earn a (slightly) better retirement instead. Without either, who’s going to work for the government? Do you really want a government full of people who can’t land any other job?
- 34679 7y ago
  What would I do? Reduce the number of state employees. And I'd do it without firing anyone. See: Gary Johnson, New Mexico. When an existing employee retires or otherwise ends their employment with the state, don't hire a replacement unless that job is critical to the operation of the government.
pjc50 7y ago
That's obviously not the correct number; perhaps that's the total liability for all future pensions? It's not clear what the actual pensions number is, but the total budget for absolutely everything for the two years 2019-21 for Oregon appears to be $82bn from Schedule VI of https://www.oregon.gov/das/Financial/Documents/2019-21_gb.pdf https://www.oregon.gov/das/Financial/Documents/2019-21_gb.pd...

tlaturi 7y ago

That is not correct. The Finnish military budget is 3.2 billion Euros ($3.6B). On top of that, Finland has a universal male conscription, costs of which are not included. (I.e. the opportunity cost of being in the army) Source: https://www.defmin.fi/files/4804/Puolustusministerion_hallinnonalan_menojen_osuus_bruttokansantuotteesta_2020.pdf https://www.defmin.fi/files/4804/Puolustusministerion_hallin...

at-fates-hands 7y ago
My bad, I was actually reading the chart wrong: https://tradingeconomics.com/finland/military-expenditure https://tradingeconomics.com/finland/military-expenditure Military Expenditure in Finland increased to 3615 USD Million in 2018 from 3430 USD Million in 2017. Which you're correct, it's actually 3.6 Billion. US military spending still dwarfs Finland's, but not nearly as paltry as I had originally stated.
- distances 7y ago
  Others have additionally already pointed out how Finland isn't in NATO either. The defence doesn't expect or imagine US intervention, but also doesn't expect a nuke attack. Defence matching the threat, full conscription and modern cost-conscious armament purchases to counter the long land border with Russia.

ThrowawayR2 7y ago

> "If we had a military budget that was more inline with simply keeping our own country safe, we would have a ton more money to take care of the people who really need it." Resulting in a new wave of rearmament and arms races across the entire planet as everybody scrambles to build up their military in the resulting power vacuum. If you want to see another wave of all-out wars in your lifetime, well, that's how you get it. The United States has been amply repaid for its military budget (despite it being put to stupid use by certain Presidents) in terms of global political and economic stability, which is good for business.

727262826hdhd 7y ago

The only perspective this gives is perspective into your personal worldview. Why wouldn't you use % of total spending or frame it relative to national gdp if you were trying to make a meaningful comparison between the two countries?