3 ms·

You know.. if I could only get a small fraction of that $5b instead of contributing to it being send to everyone but me, I would be a happier man. edit: I will

You know.. if I could only get a small fraction of that $5b instead of contributing to it being send to everyone but me, I would be a happier man. edit: I will make a less convoluted statement. Ideally, the amount of that small 5b donation abroad would be zero.

cl0ckt0wer 3y ago
That's called universal basic income.
nradov 3y ago
You probably wouldn't be happier in the long run if Russia succeeds in their goal of reconquering much of Eastern Europe. That will make the entire world poorer and more violent. A few billion dollars is a cheap price to contain Russian expansionism.
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  What would have been really cheaper is if when Russia told NATO not to offer MAPs to Ukraine and Georgia in 2008, claiming that doing so would lead to regional instability while refraining would support peace, NATO had thanked them for their input and done the opposite, rather than complying. Over a decade of unchecked Russian aggression before the 2022 Russian escalation in Ukraine made constraining that aggression more expensive, but still less so than it would be with additional Western appeasement.
  - smallmancontrov 3y ago
    Yeah, well, the best time to stop appeasing might have been 20 years ago but the next best time is today.
  - alienicecream 3y ago
    Why would Ukraine and Georgia belong in NATO for any reason other than to piss off the Russians? Should we put Uganda and Congo in NATO? I hear Rwanda has territorial ambitions. Why don't we just stick to places we belong instead of trying to control every part of the world. Would you like to fight in Ukraine? Because I hear they take volunteers. Guaranteeing the security of volatile third rate countries you don't really care about is a sure fire way of avoiding war, as we saw in WW1.
    - dragonwriter 3y ago
      > Why would Ukraine and Georgia belong in NATO for any reason other than to piss off the Russians? For mutual defense against outside aggressors and to coordinate regional security efforts, same as every other NATO member. The fact that the Russians were clearly in 2008 (and have demonstrated that even more clearly since) the most likely and dangerous outside aggressors facing Georgia and Ukraine doesn't mean the purpose is to piss off Russia, though, to be fair, pissing off someone who w is inclined to aggression against you because you've made that less easy is not a bad thing. > Should we put Uganda and Congo in NATO? Uganda and the DRC have expressed no interest, that I know of, in NATO membership or partnership, and are rather distant from the explicit geographic focus of NATO as specified in the treaty (Europe and North America) [0], as well as having political issues (like Russia when it tried to jump ahead of the readiness process and join) that would require, at best, a long onramp leaving geography aside. They'd probably be better candidates for NATO global partner status if they decidedto pursue a NATO affiliation than membership any time in the forseeable future. [0] Hence the language in Article 9 that, beyond the founding members which notably include some North American states, “The Parties may, by unanimous agreement, invite any other European State in a position to further the principles of this Treaty and to contribute to the security of the North Atlantic area to accede to this Treaty.”
      - alienicecream 3y ago
        Yeah, thanks for the boilerplate. Exactly what mutual defense of the United States or Western Europe is Ukraine or Georgia going to provide? Western Europe and the United States is not under any outside threat, let alone one that these countries could meaningfully assist with. This is nothing more than "containment" policy, an attempt to restrict another power's freedom of action, which only works as long as they're weak enough to be imposed on. When they're strong enough to contest it, you're going to be over there fighting for Ukranian soil, and if you care that much, you should just volunteer and leave the rest of us out of it.
        nradov 3y ago
        We literally still have Russian nuclear weapons pointed at us. That seems like a serious threat. Containment as a policy worked well enough during the Cold War as the least bad alternative. There's no reason to stop it and allow Russia to reconquer Eastern Europe, which they absolutely would do absent a strong containment policy. The historical record shows that isolationism and appeasement never works in the long run. The Ukrainians are still willing to fight for their own soil so your point is illogical and irrelevant. They're just asking for weapons, logistics, and intelligence. The more Russian soldiers that they can kill, the less threat that Russia will pose in other areas. It's sad the situation has come to this point and I take no delight in those deaths but there is no realistic alternative.
- alephnerd 3y ago
  I disagree with the guy you're replying to, but he brings up a fair point to a certain extent. Here in the US, we view China as the bigger bad. In Europe, it's Russia. And it makes sense. Worst comes to worst, it's going to be Poles, Germans, Turks, etc dying on the battlefields in Eastern Europe, not that many Americans. We'll be dying in the Pacific or North Asia instead. It'll be for the best if our European allies succeed at taking over continental responsibilities, allowing us to shore up a similar consensus in Asia.
smallmancontrov 3y ago
Can you deliver a credible reduction in the amount of future money we will have to spend to contain Putin's territorial ambitions? No? In that case I think the $5b is best spent in Ukraine.
- A4ET8a8uTh0 3y ago
  Hmm, not exactly. I can, however, absolutely guarantee that if we do keep the printing press open for geopolitical projects of various kinds, there will be too many dollars of no value in the future. It is a fate America might want to avoid. Because I assume you know full well that is is not actually 5b. The amount is much greater[1]. Now, we can talk about priorities, which is fair. If you were in charge, what aid is fair game for scrapping? Because US will not be able to support it forever. [1]https://www.cfr.org/article/how-much-aid-has-us-sent-ukraine-here-are-six-charts https://www.cfr.org/article/how-much-aid-has-us-sent-ukraine...
  - smallmancontrov 3y ago
    > not exactly So you're advocating for fiscal irresponsibility while complaining about it at the same time. How very typical. > too many dollars of no value in the future Oh no, not a currency devaluation! You know that not only do many countries intentionally seek to devalue their currency, but there are regular fights in the UN about it. "(Other country) promised to not devalue their currency but did it anyway and now I am upset" is probably one of the top 3 recurring mini-dramas. These generally launch into political grandstanding without covering the macroeconomic basics of why a country might want to devalue their currency because it is such a common occurrence that everyone present is expected to know, and they generally do know, as do I. The way that you bring it up as if it is an unspeakable horror makes me suspect you do not. You might want to fix that. It's possible that you actually do occupy the parts of the American economy that would be hurt by a currency devaluation, in which case fine, everyone is entitled to their own self-serving opinions, just don't expect me to share them. However, I don't think that's the case -- those parts of the economy generally understand the macro 101 at play. It's a pet peeve of mine when someone who works in an economic sector that would benefit from a currency devaluation recoils from the prospect in horror because all they understand is what they heard on TV and the general principle of "line go down, bad." In any case, my point is: don't threaten me with a good time. There are negative consequences for fiscal irresponsibility, but that's not the one that keeps me up at night.

cl0ckt0wer 3y ago

That's called universal basic income.

nradov 3y ago

You probably wouldn't be happier in the long run if Russia succeeds in their goal of reconquering much of Eastern Europe. That will make the entire world poorer and more violent. A few billion dollars is a cheap price to contain Russian expansionism.

dragonwriter 3y ago
What would have been really cheaper is if when Russia told NATO not to offer MAPs to Ukraine and Georgia in 2008, claiming that doing so would lead to regional instability while refraining would support peace, NATO had thanked them for their input and done the opposite, rather than complying. Over a decade of unchecked Russian aggression before the 2022 Russian escalation in Ukraine made constraining that aggression more expensive, but still less so than it would be with additional Western appeasement.
- smallmancontrov 3y ago
  Yeah, well, the best time to stop appeasing might have been 20 years ago but the next best time is today.
- alienicecream 3y ago
  Why would Ukraine and Georgia belong in NATO for any reason other than to piss off the Russians? Should we put Uganda and Congo in NATO? I hear Rwanda has territorial ambitions. Why don't we just stick to places we belong instead of trying to control every part of the world. Would you like to fight in Ukraine? Because I hear they take volunteers. Guaranteeing the security of volatile third rate countries you don't really care about is a sure fire way of avoiding war, as we saw in WW1.
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    > Why would Ukraine and Georgia belong in NATO for any reason other than to piss off the Russians? For mutual defense against outside aggressors and to coordinate regional security efforts, same as every other NATO member. The fact that the Russians were clearly in 2008 (and have demonstrated that even more clearly since) the most likely and dangerous outside aggressors facing Georgia and Ukraine doesn't mean the purpose is to piss off Russia, though, to be fair, pissing off someone who w is inclined to aggression against you because you've made that less easy is not a bad thing. > Should we put Uganda and Congo in NATO? Uganda and the DRC have expressed no interest, that I know of, in NATO membership or partnership, and are rather distant from the explicit geographic focus of NATO as specified in the treaty (Europe and North America) [0], as well as having political issues (like Russia when it tried to jump ahead of the readiness process and join) that would require, at best, a long onramp leaving geography aside. They'd probably be better candidates for NATO global partner status if they decidedto pursue a NATO affiliation than membership any time in the forseeable future. [0] Hence the language in Article 9 that, beyond the founding members which notably include some North American states, “The Parties may, by unanimous agreement, invite any other European State in a position to further the principles of this Treaty and to contribute to the security of the North Atlantic area to accede to this Treaty.”
    - alienicecream 3y ago
      Yeah, thanks for the boilerplate. Exactly what mutual defense of the United States or Western Europe is Ukraine or Georgia going to provide? Western Europe and the United States is not under any outside threat, let alone one that these countries could meaningfully assist with. This is nothing more than "containment" policy, an attempt to restrict another power's freedom of action, which only works as long as they're weak enough to be imposed on. When they're strong enough to contest it, you're going to be over there fighting for Ukranian soil, and if you care that much, you should just volunteer and leave the rest of us out of it.
      - nradov 3y ago
        We literally still have Russian nuclear weapons pointed at us. That seems like a serious threat. Containment as a policy worked well enough during the Cold War as the least bad alternative. There's no reason to stop it and allow Russia to reconquer Eastern Europe, which they absolutely would do absent a strong containment policy. The historical record shows that isolationism and appeasement never works in the long run. The Ukrainians are still willing to fight for their own soil so your point is illogical and irrelevant. They're just asking for weapons, logistics, and intelligence. The more Russian soldiers that they can kill, the less threat that Russia will pose in other areas. It's sad the situation has come to this point and I take no delight in those deaths but there is no realistic alternative.
alephnerd 3y ago
I disagree with the guy you're replying to, but he brings up a fair point to a certain extent. Here in the US, we view China as the bigger bad. In Europe, it's Russia. And it makes sense. Worst comes to worst, it's going to be Poles, Germans, Turks, etc dying on the battlefields in Eastern Europe, not that many Americans. We'll be dying in the Pacific or North Asia instead. It'll be for the best if our European allies succeed at taking over continental responsibilities, allowing us to shore up a similar consensus in Asia.

smallmancontrov 3y ago

Can you deliver a credible reduction in the amount of future money we will have to spend to contain Putin's territorial ambitions? No? In that case I think the $5b is best spent in Ukraine.

A4ET8a8uTh0 3y ago
Hmm, not exactly. I can, however, absolutely guarantee that if we do keep the printing press open for geopolitical projects of various kinds, there will be too many dollars of no value in the future. It is a fate America might want to avoid. Because I assume you know full well that is is not actually 5b. The amount is much greater[1]. Now, we can talk about priorities, which is fair. If you were in charge, what aid is fair game for scrapping? Because US will not be able to support it forever. [1]https://www.cfr.org/article/how-much-aid-has-us-sent-ukraine-here-are-six-charts https://www.cfr.org/article/how-much-aid-has-us-sent-ukraine...
- smallmancontrov 3y ago
  > not exactly So you're advocating for fiscal irresponsibility while complaining about it at the same time. How very typical. > too many dollars of no value in the future Oh no, not a currency devaluation! You know that not only do many countries intentionally seek to devalue their currency, but there are regular fights in the UN about it. "(Other country) promised to not devalue their currency but did it anyway and now I am upset" is probably one of the top 3 recurring mini-dramas. These generally launch into political grandstanding without covering the macroeconomic basics of why a country might want to devalue their currency because it is such a common occurrence that everyone present is expected to know, and they generally do know, as do I. The way that you bring it up as if it is an unspeakable horror makes me suspect you do not. You might want to fix that. It's possible that you actually do occupy the parts of the American economy that would be hurt by a currency devaluation, in which case fine, everyone is entitled to their own self-serving opinions, just don't expect me to share them. However, I don't think that's the case -- those parts of the economy generally understand the macro 101 at play. It's a pet peeve of mine when someone who works in an economic sector that would benefit from a currency devaluation recoils from the prospect in horror because all they understand is what they heard on TV and the general principle of "line go down, bad." In any case, my point is: don't threaten me with a good time. There are negative consequences for fiscal irresponsibility, but that's not the one that keeps me up at night.