5 ms·

The only problem with slashing military spending and ending foreign interventions is that it has been just that spending, and those interventions, that have mad

The only problem with slashing military spending and ending foreign interventions is that it has been just that spending, and those interventions, that have made the US the economic powerhouse it is today. The US has a history, stretching back well over a century, of launching military campaigns to support corporate interests. Be it South America, the Middle East, or Asia, the US has invaded countries and toppled governments time and again in support of its economic goals. Now, I think this is reprehensible, but I also wouldn't be so naive as to say that the path to economic recovery lies in an end to military adventurism. The US is rich for the same reason Rome, England, and Spain were: they won their riches at the the end of a sword. The American military budget is clearly unsustainable, but that doesn't mean an end to foreign wars is in their economic interest. It's no coincidence that the US has been both the most prosperous nation on Earth, as well as the most aggressive, for nearly 200 years. Take a look at the history of US military actions on Wikipedia [1], and see how many times the phrase "protected American interests/property" is mentioned. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_military_operations http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_milit...

dereg 15y ago
You're making a spurious correlation. If your assertion was correct, the French, British, Danish, Portuguese, and Spanish, et al.--the great colonial powers--should be stronger economies than the United States. http://qed.princeton.edu/getfile.php?f=European_Colonialism_1500_AD_to_2000.jpg http://qed.princeton.edu/getfile.php?f=European_Colonialism_... In conclusion, you've made a spurious correlation.
- redthrowaway 15y ago
  They were stronger. Much stronger. They collapsed for varied reasons, but suffice to say if the British Empire was as big today as it was in its heyday, it would be a larger economy than the US. Also, no need to say "in conclusion" when the sum total of your argument is a single sentence.
  - petercooper 15y ago
    Yeah. Despite Britain's significant fall from grace over the past 100 years, its wealth per capita is still not significantly below that of the US, even now. The US has nothing on how onerous and profiteering the British empire was.
jaredmck 15y ago
Isn't the primary reason the US is rich due to being located far from the battlefields in WW1&2, and after each of these wars an influx of immigration out of Europe into the newly stimulated American industrial economy? We've essentially been riding the demographic wave up the hill since, and yet few in govt/media seem to really take this into account when planning for long-term spending and economic projections. Something has to give eventually, the question is when this long-run day of reckoning will finally come- although to quote Keynes (IMO the only thing he's been proven right about thus far), in the long run, we're all dead.
- redthrowaway 15y ago
  That's been important, but it's not the only factor. Yes, intactness of American industry after WWI&II was key. It certainly gave the US a big leg up in post-war industry and rebuilding. Imigration was a huge driver of the economy when it came primarily from Europe, and professionals were over-represented. Demographics can't be ignored, but neither can they tell the whole picture. I'm not trying to insinuate that the US is rich only because it has invaded countries and overthrown governments when doing so suited its economic interests, only that that behaviour has played a large role in its success. As such, the commonly-held libertarian view that an end to military adventurism will be a boon for the US economy strikes me as naive. I still think it's the right thing to do, but I don't argue for it on economic grounds.
  - stcredzero 15y ago
    As such, the commonly-held libertarian view that an end to military adventurism will be a boon for the US economy strikes me as naive. Driving economic activity by having the military act as a major consumer is really just running on a treadmill. We need to find an outlet which will lead to increases in economic activity. There is a huge investment hurdle involved, but space exploration and colonization could fit the bill. Once there is a significant human presence in space beyond low earth orbit, there will be tremendous economic growth. The major problem is that hundreds of billions of dollars of investment would be required to jump start it.
forgottenpaswrd 15y ago
"The US is rich for the same reason Rome, England, and Spain were" Not really, have you been in England, Rome or Spain? Rome legionaries were used to make roads and bridges and mining 90%of their time. If I show you the extensions of the land they "washed" to get mineral you won't believe it(you can see it using google earth, e.g in the north of spain, look for grooves around mountains). England made itself rich because of commerce, like Spain(they took the risk to travel the ocean and won the first mover advantage, and when the rest of the world notice, it was late for them). That was what made them rich, not the military. The US is rich because... IT IS RICH. It is a huge place with huge resources for a small population. The US became the more powerful country on earth because Japan and Europe totally destroyed itself by the military in the WWII. The US waited for them to auto destroy, and then entered the world and finished it with all their cities untouched, 90% of the world gold reserves and creditor to them all, being able to force the dollar as world currency and english the official language of aviation, and naval commerce. Every body lost their colonies and US got them all(they just wanted the commerce and influence without having to build roads like English or Portuguese did in Africa). Yes, it was a coincidence(being far away), no, US was not the most prosperous nation on Earth 200 years ago. If you believe in that, please study some real history. US was not the technical leader that is today thanks to all the Europeans that went there thanks to Hitler(militarization and economic totalitarism), the Edisons, the von Brauns and von Newmans. Thomas Jefferson and other of the US founding fathers thought a permanent military and central banking would ruin the country because military people do nothing while things work at it should they need to create new enemies so they can justify their existence. I had family members that were in Soviet Russia when something like 95% engineers were used in the war industry, while people needed cars, washing and sewer machines. This was not wealth for Russia, that was a bully inside. Mass media brainwashed them all them about how cool they were being able to destroy anybody else.(This strange pride remains today) Today 60% of the engineering in US goes to war efforts, 50% of all their money to the military, so they can kill better, while the rest of the world expends significantly less. They will talk about GPS, but the question is if this money expended in real economy would be able to create as much as the military does?
- encoderer 15y ago
  Where do you think the money goes? Military spending is still government spending. It's going to contractors, vendors and soldiers. They are, respectively: making jobs and selling to everybody (not just the gov't), and buying cars and houses.

dereg 15y ago

You're making a spurious correlation. If your assertion was correct, the French, British, Danish, Portuguese, and Spanish, et al.--the great colonial powers--should be stronger economies than the United States. http://qed.princeton.edu/getfile.php?f=European_Colonialism_1500_AD_to_2000.jpg http://qed.princeton.edu/getfile.php?f=European_Colonialism_... In conclusion, you've made a spurious correlation.

redthrowaway 15y ago
They were stronger. Much stronger. They collapsed for varied reasons, but suffice to say if the British Empire was as big today as it was in its heyday, it would be a larger economy than the US. Also, no need to say "in conclusion" when the sum total of your argument is a single sentence.
- petercooper 15y ago
  Yeah. Despite Britain's significant fall from grace over the past 100 years, its wealth per capita is still not significantly below that of the US, even now. The US has nothing on how onerous and profiteering the British empire was.

jaredmck 15y ago

Isn't the primary reason the US is rich due to being located far from the battlefields in WW1&2, and after each of these wars an influx of immigration out of Europe into the newly stimulated American industrial economy? We've essentially been riding the demographic wave up the hill since, and yet few in govt/media seem to really take this into account when planning for long-term spending and economic projections. Something has to give eventually, the question is when this long-run day of reckoning will finally come- although to quote Keynes (IMO the only thing he's been proven right about thus far), in the long run, we're all dead.

redthrowaway 15y ago
That's been important, but it's not the only factor. Yes, intactness of American industry after WWI&II was key. It certainly gave the US a big leg up in post-war industry and rebuilding. Imigration was a huge driver of the economy when it came primarily from Europe, and professionals were over-represented. Demographics can't be ignored, but neither can they tell the whole picture. I'm not trying to insinuate that the US is rich only because it has invaded countries and overthrown governments when doing so suited its economic interests, only that that behaviour has played a large role in its success. As such, the commonly-held libertarian view that an end to military adventurism will be a boon for the US economy strikes me as naive. I still think it's the right thing to do, but I don't argue for it on economic grounds.
- stcredzero 15y ago
  As such, the commonly-held libertarian view that an end to military adventurism will be a boon for the US economy strikes me as naive. Driving economic activity by having the military act as a major consumer is really just running on a treadmill. We need to find an outlet which will lead to increases in economic activity. There is a huge investment hurdle involved, but space exploration and colonization could fit the bill. Once there is a significant human presence in space beyond low earth orbit, there will be tremendous economic growth. The major problem is that hundreds of billions of dollars of investment would be required to jump start it.

forgottenpaswrd 15y ago

"The US is rich for the same reason Rome, England, and Spain were" Not really, have you been in England, Rome or Spain? Rome legionaries were used to make roads and bridges and mining 90%of their time. If I show you the extensions of the land they "washed" to get mineral you won't believe it(you can see it using google earth, e.g in the north of spain, look for grooves around mountains). England made itself rich because of commerce, like Spain(they took the risk to travel the ocean and won the first mover advantage, and when the rest of the world notice, it was late for them). That was what made them rich, not the military. The US is rich because... IT IS RICH. It is a huge place with huge resources for a small population. The US became the more powerful country on earth because Japan and Europe totally destroyed itself by the military in the WWII. The US waited for them to auto destroy, and then entered the world and finished it with all their cities untouched, 90% of the world gold reserves and creditor to them all, being able to force the dollar as world currency and english the official language of aviation, and naval commerce. Every body lost their colonies and US got them all(they just wanted the commerce and influence without having to build roads like English or Portuguese did in Africa). Yes, it was a coincidence(being far away), no, US was not the most prosperous nation on Earth 200 years ago. If you believe in that, please study some real history. US was not the technical leader that is today thanks to all the Europeans that went there thanks to Hitler(militarization and economic totalitarism), the Edisons, the von Brauns and von Newmans. Thomas Jefferson and other of the US founding fathers thought a permanent military and central banking would ruin the country because military people do nothing while things work at it should they need to create new enemies so they can justify their existence. I had family members that were in Soviet Russia when something like 95% engineers were used in the war industry, while people needed cars, washing and sewer machines. This was not wealth for Russia, that was a bully inside. Mass media brainwashed them all them about how cool they were being able to destroy anybody else.(This strange pride remains today) Today 60% of the engineering in US goes to war efforts, 50% of all their money to the military, so they can kill better, while the rest of the world expends significantly less. They will talk about GPS, but the question is if this money expended in real economy would be able to create as much as the military does?

encoderer 15y ago
Where do you think the money goes? Military spending is still government spending. It's going to contractors, vendors and soldiers. They are, respectively: making jobs and selling to everybody (not just the gov't), and buying cars and houses.