4 ms·

> “What if machines of war are really the greatest investment of capital” Then it would negate modern History, specifically in regards to the collapse of the S

> “What if machines of war are really the greatest investment of capital” Then it would negate modern History, specifically in regards to the collapse of the Soviet Union, wherein a country with 100s of ICBs with nuclear warheads, warehouses churning out AK47s and ammunition surplus that still are being exported to this day (Viktor Anatolyevich Bout), tanks and war ships in such quantities that they'd trade Pepsi for them [1]! And still end up destitute, with a plutocracy and a massively disenfranchised population both at home as well as much of the former satellite nations. Capital investment is best spent on a sound currency, strong local manufacturing base and a strong legal system to protect both from corruption as well as the Human rights of its populations; unfortunately no nation Western or Eastern seems intent on doing that... like ever in History. Thus proving that Humanity is not capable of not giving into the intoxication of ending mutually beneficial collaboration with others for extended periods of Time in exchange 'for more of their share.' It may occur for short windows, but so long as a Human entity remains in charge of those aspects of Civilization it will always succumb to the same avarice and corruption regardless of whatever the rhetoric is espoused of National Brotherhood or Patriotic duty. Hence the argument for currencies and economic models outside the control of centralized systems like Governments. I'm sure many of you are seeing visions of Westworld or Psycho pass type dystopias but I'm convinced there is a middle ground between the two we just haven't been able to arrive to due to constant conflicts, and endless wars that drain the World of Human capital and technological resources best used for this end. But I also find it funny how some of Elon Musk's, an openly declared Utopian Anarchist, biggest proponents haven't realized the fact that all of his and Kimbal's businesses are aimed to help establish a colony on Mars where he has gone on record to say one of the biggest reasons to do so it try and re-do all of this non-sense on Earth with a blank slate canvas approach, and this is the extreme one has to go to do it. People keep accepting that War with China is inevitable, as it were some unavoidable deterministic outcome, but I disagree and have hope that Humanity can come to reason and refuse to participate. War is never in anyone's best interest, I really wish that we'd have learned that by now. 1: https://www.businessinsider.com/how-pepsi-briefly-became-the-6th-largest-military-in-the-world-2018-7?op=1 https://www.businessinsider.com/how-pepsi-briefly-became-the...

Mirioron 6y ago
The Soviet Union might've been poor, but it wasn't destitute. The issue with the Soviet system (and I believe socialism in general) is that individuals are discouraged from solving problems and offering those solutions to other people. In the West (and in ex-Soviet countries now) when you see an obvious gap in the market that you can provide a solution for you can start a business to do that. During Soviet times you could complain to the government and that was more or less it. That is to say, I don't think the Soviet Union's lack of wealth is necessarily a strong counterargument to the weapons-as-investment idea.
- Melting_Harps 6y ago
  > The Soviet Union might've been poor, but it wasn't destitute. Its population was and is, some are so much so they opine the former Soviet Union where it seemed to most that all were on equal terms because of this. Especially when they see the stark contrast of the oligarch's wealth in Moscow. > That is to say, I don't think the Soviet Union's lack of wealth is necessarily a strong counterargument to the weapons-as-investment idea. Well, then there is no appeasing you based on reason or logic then, because that example concretely shows how that met the criteria yet still failed as a nation-state, one that has real consequences to this day: eg Crimea annexation.
  - Threeve303 6y ago
    The Soviet Union may have invested in war heavily but failed to take control of global commerce. The United States invested more and "won" the cold war. It gets more complicated when you look at where the money went. The U.S. built up a massive global navy to control commerce and the shipping lanes. Meanwhile, the Soviets focused large on the European theater and ultimately could not compete with the U.S. Navy. Eventually you wind up considering a philosophical question about money, especially modern fiat currency, where there is a big question about why we continue to value it the way we do. Sure, we have all agreed on some common exchange rate for goods using it, but this is backed by the "full faith and credit of the U.S. government". It can be argued that faith and credit is ultimately backed by the war machine behind it. Even in older times, if you traded in a currency, and you had to go collect a debt in that currency from another nation, what are you going to use to collect it? Angry letters? No, you're going to send the military.

Mirioron 6y ago

The Soviet Union might've been poor, but it wasn't destitute. The issue with the Soviet system (and I believe socialism in general) is that individuals are discouraged from solving problems and offering those solutions to other people. In the West (and in ex-Soviet countries now) when you see an obvious gap in the market that you can provide a solution for you can start a business to do that. During Soviet times you could complain to the government and that was more or less it. That is to say, I don't think the Soviet Union's lack of wealth is necessarily a strong counterargument to the weapons-as-investment idea.

Melting_Harps 6y ago
> The Soviet Union might've been poor, but it wasn't destitute. Its population was and is, some are so much so they opine the former Soviet Union where it seemed to most that all were on equal terms because of this. Especially when they see the stark contrast of the oligarch's wealth in Moscow. > That is to say, I don't think the Soviet Union's lack of wealth is necessarily a strong counterargument to the weapons-as-investment idea. Well, then there is no appeasing you based on reason or logic then, because that example concretely shows how that met the criteria yet still failed as a nation-state, one that has real consequences to this day: eg Crimea annexation.
- Threeve303 6y ago
  The Soviet Union may have invested in war heavily but failed to take control of global commerce. The United States invested more and "won" the cold war. It gets more complicated when you look at where the money went. The U.S. built up a massive global navy to control commerce and the shipping lanes. Meanwhile, the Soviets focused large on the European theater and ultimately could not compete with the U.S. Navy. Eventually you wind up considering a philosophical question about money, especially modern fiat currency, where there is a big question about why we continue to value it the way we do. Sure, we have all agreed on some common exchange rate for goods using it, but this is backed by the "full faith and credit of the U.S. government". It can be argued that faith and credit is ultimately backed by the war machine behind it. Even in older times, if you traded in a currency, and you had to go collect a debt in that currency from another nation, what are you going to use to collect it? Angry letters? No, you're going to send the military.