3 ms·

It's funny you go within a single paragraph from > you have no expertise or authority to make claims as to whether we're spending the right amount of money To

by hvb2 2mo ago

It's funny you go within a single paragraph from > you have no expertise or authority to make claims as to whether we're spending the right amount of money To > Maybe the US is actually spending too little, and other countries are spending proportionally much less on vaporware? But more on topic, the real question is if this is spending that is worth going into debt for. No family anywhere in the world can sustain a long period of overspending relative to income. You talk about weapons and stuff but just understand that you're handing over your bargaining power because the rest of the world controls your debt. And at these ratios thats significant leverage. By now you can win a war without a single shot being fired.

ericmay 2mo ago
> It's funny you go within a single paragraph from You made a general, pedestrian claim about spending, I questioned your claim based on what you wrote. That's all. I wouldn't read in to it more than that. > But more on topic, the real question is if this is spending that is worth going into debt for. No family anywhere in the world can sustain a long period of overspending relative to income. Sure but then we can just cut in other areas that aren't the military, if that's what we decide to do. You're not making a serious claim that we're overspending. > You talk about weapons and stuff but just understand that you're handing over your bargaining power because the rest of the world controls your debt. And at these ratios thats significant leverage. Not really. Most US debt is owed to Americans, and in the circumstances in which we're worried about some other country amassing so much debt that they can leverage us, well, it's a good thing we bought all those ships, planes, and tanks and whatnot so we can fix the issue with kinetic force. > By now you can win a war without a single shot being fired. Yea true enough in some cases. I'm not sure I'd disband the US military, withdraw from NATO, relocate US personnel from overseas bases supporting allies in the Philippines, Japan, Korea, and elsewhere under the assumption that maybe we can win a war without any weapons. But I'm certainly interested in your view here.
- hvb2 2mo ago
  > You made a general, pedestrian claim about spending I didn't do anything, that wasn't me. > You're not making a serious claim that we're overspending. This is the thread about debt to GDP ratio hitting 123%. I don't claim anything, but if this isn't overspending then I think we agree to disagree. > Not really. Most US debt is owed to Americans, and in the circumstances in which we're worried about some other country amassing so much debt that they can leverage us, well, it's a good thing we bought all those ships, planes, and tanks and whatnot so we can fix the issue with kinetic force. According to [1], 23.5% is owned by foreign investors. That's a minority of the total, but you don't need a majority to cause a big problem because trust is all that matters (see 2008). You want to solve that with weapons?? That'll only make everyone drop the dollar, as simple as that. > But I'm certainly interested in your view here. The US military is there in all of those countries for influence, more so than for actual defense. The US can defend every NATO country simply by reaffirming article 5, you don't have to be present. Not even Russia would attempt an attack, they've been in a war of attrition for years now with a non NATO country with no end in sight for limited gains in territory. They've done this for the past 70 years, starting from 1945. Whether this is something the US has benefitted from can be debated, I think they certainly have. The Russia vs Ukraine war and the Iran conflict show that super powers can try to use their military power but 'winning' is hard. No matter how superior you are based on the numbers. Iran isn't winning on the battlefield, their most potent weapon is economic, that has turned out to be more powerful than all their weapons combined. 1: https://www.us-debt-clock.com/blog/who-owns-us-debt-breakdown https://www.us-debt-clock.com/blog/who-owns-us-debt-breakdow...
  - ericmay 2mo ago
    > I didn't do anything, that wasn't me. Ok you're defending it. > I don't claim anything, but if this isn't overspending then I think we agree to disagree. Ok if it's over-spending then let's cut the programs that align with my ideology instead of cutting military spending. > You want to solve that with weapons?? That'll only make everyone drop the dollar, as simple as that. Not worried at all - those dollars become worthless in a fire sale. The strength of the dollar is because of the actual physical reality and capabilities of the United States. > The Russia vs Ukraine war and the Iran conflict show that super powers can try to use their military power but 'winning' is hard. No matter how superior you are based on the numbers. Iran isn't winning on the battlefield, their most potent weapon is economic, that has turned out to be more powerful than all their weapons combined. You're directionally right but also wrong w.r.t America. What you've shown here isn't a weakness of the US, but a strength of the US. Unlike Russia we spend and that spending (overspending according to some) ensures that our equipment works. That's why when Iran went and bought Russian and Chinese air defense for example, we blew it up with impunity. Iran is of course hard because we have some political considerations which would only get worse over time as we would have continued to do nothing, Iran would build more missiles and drones and then seize control of the Strait of Hormuz and then it would be too costly to do anything to stop them from doing that or continuing their nuclear weapons program. Specifically in the case of economic warfare, Iran is losing badly. The worst outcome is some MAGA coal rollers have to pay more for gas. Iran's economy literally doesn't function due to our blockade (which means we also control the Strait of Hormuz). I'd rather pay extra at the pump (well I drive an EV but w/e) then have like 80% of my economy held hostage. But this also reinforces the need for a higher military budget and the need to spend more to acquire more arms and capabilities. By the way, the military budget isn't actually that high as a percentage of GDP. You're welcome to do that comparison yourself.

by hvb2 2mo ago

ericmay 2mo ago

> It's funny you go within a single paragraph from You made a general, pedestrian claim about spending, I questioned your claim based on what you wrote. That's all. I wouldn't read in to it more than that. > But more on topic, the real question is if this is spending that is worth going into debt for. No family anywhere in the world can sustain a long period of overspending relative to income. Sure but then we can just cut in other areas that aren't the military, if that's what we decide to do. You're not making a serious claim that we're overspending. > You talk about weapons and stuff but just understand that you're handing over your bargaining power because the rest of the world controls your debt. And at these ratios thats significant leverage. Not really. Most US debt is owed to Americans, and in the circumstances in which we're worried about some other country amassing so much debt that they can leverage us, well, it's a good thing we bought all those ships, planes, and tanks and whatnot so we can fix the issue with kinetic force. > By now you can win a war without a single shot being fired. Yea true enough in some cases. I'm not sure I'd disband the US military, withdraw from NATO, relocate US personnel from overseas bases supporting allies in the Philippines, Japan, Korea, and elsewhere under the assumption that maybe we can win a war without any weapons. But I'm certainly interested in your view here.

hvb2 2mo ago
> You made a general, pedestrian claim about spending I didn't do anything, that wasn't me. > You're not making a serious claim that we're overspending. This is the thread about debt to GDP ratio hitting 123%. I don't claim anything, but if this isn't overspending then I think we agree to disagree. > Not really. Most US debt is owed to Americans, and in the circumstances in which we're worried about some other country amassing so much debt that they can leverage us, well, it's a good thing we bought all those ships, planes, and tanks and whatnot so we can fix the issue with kinetic force. According to [1], 23.5% is owned by foreign investors. That's a minority of the total, but you don't need a majority to cause a big problem because trust is all that matters (see 2008). You want to solve that with weapons?? That'll only make everyone drop the dollar, as simple as that. > But I'm certainly interested in your view here. The US military is there in all of those countries for influence, more so than for actual defense. The US can defend every NATO country simply by reaffirming article 5, you don't have to be present. Not even Russia would attempt an attack, they've been in a war of attrition for years now with a non NATO country with no end in sight for limited gains in territory. They've done this for the past 70 years, starting from 1945. Whether this is something the US has benefitted from can be debated, I think they certainly have. The Russia vs Ukraine war and the Iran conflict show that super powers can try to use their military power but 'winning' is hard. No matter how superior you are based on the numbers. Iran isn't winning on the battlefield, their most potent weapon is economic, that has turned out to be more powerful than all their weapons combined. 1: https://www.us-debt-clock.com/blog/who-owns-us-debt-breakdown https://www.us-debt-clock.com/blog/who-owns-us-debt-breakdow...
- ericmay 2mo ago
  > I didn't do anything, that wasn't me. Ok you're defending it. > I don't claim anything, but if this isn't overspending then I think we agree to disagree. Ok if it's over-spending then let's cut the programs that align with my ideology instead of cutting military spending. > You want to solve that with weapons?? That'll only make everyone drop the dollar, as simple as that. Not worried at all - those dollars become worthless in a fire sale. The strength of the dollar is because of the actual physical reality and capabilities of the United States. > The Russia vs Ukraine war and the Iran conflict show that super powers can try to use their military power but 'winning' is hard. No matter how superior you are based on the numbers. Iran isn't winning on the battlefield, their most potent weapon is economic, that has turned out to be more powerful than all their weapons combined. You're directionally right but also wrong w.r.t America. What you've shown here isn't a weakness of the US, but a strength of the US. Unlike Russia we spend and that spending (overspending according to some) ensures that our equipment works. That's why when Iran went and bought Russian and Chinese air defense for example, we blew it up with impunity. Iran is of course hard because we have some political considerations which would only get worse over time as we would have continued to do nothing, Iran would build more missiles and drones and then seize control of the Strait of Hormuz and then it would be too costly to do anything to stop them from doing that or continuing their nuclear weapons program. Specifically in the case of economic warfare, Iran is losing badly. The worst outcome is some MAGA coal rollers have to pay more for gas. Iran's economy literally doesn't function due to our blockade (which means we also control the Strait of Hormuz). I'd rather pay extra at the pump (well I drive an EV but w/e) then have like 80% of my economy held hostage. But this also reinforces the need for a higher military budget and the need to spend more to acquire more arms and capabilities. By the way, the military budget isn't actually that high as a percentage of GDP. You're welcome to do that comparison yourself.