Bringing Jobs Back To America

ex-minister
atheistHigh Level ModeratorSilver Member
ex-minister's picture
Posts: 1708
Joined: 2010-01-29
User is offlineOffline
Bringing Jobs Back To America

Religion Kills !!!

Numbers 31:17-18 - Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

http://jesus-needs-money.blogspot.com/


Sage_Override
atheistBlogger
Sage_Override's picture
Posts: 582
Joined: 2008-10-14
User is offlineOffline
I laughed, I cried and cried

I laughed, I cried and cried a little harder.  Then I laughed again.  I felt bad for laughing once more so I got a beer.  It didn't help.  Maybe a hamburger then...

 

Oh, on another note, we can safely cut outsourcing down to nothing if this world had it's shit together, but it won't happen for a long time.  Until then, we shall enjoy our slave labor products and turn the other cheek.

"When the majority believes in what is false, the truth becomes a quest." - Me


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Sage_Override wrote:Oh, on

Sage_Override wrote:
Oh, on another note, we can safely cut outsourcing down to nothing if this world had it's shit together, but it won't happen for a long time.  Until then, we shall enjoy our slave labor products and turn the other cheek.

Out-sourcing is being reduced in some industries, where companies are finding that customers don't like talking to people who have fake names and speak bad English.

As for Slave Labor, there is a growing Fair Trade movement.  Just wait until that hits durable goods.

Funny story -- I have a colleague who buy two of whatever they need to buy whenever they shop Harbor Freight.  They figure that way when one of them breaks, they still have the other one.  Trouble is, what happens when the second one breaks?

This Spring I needed a set of high speed steel twist drill bits.  I wasn't sure how much I'd use them, so I picked up a cheap set from Harbor Freight.  After drilling maybe 8 or 10 holes with the 7/32" bit, it was shot.  Just plain =shot=.  In addition to being dull (tool steel is supposed to be much harder than galvanized mild steel, go figure ...) it had a bit of a bend in it.  Which was the clue that it wasn't tool steel -- tool steel is so hard that it breaks before bending.  As far as I could figure, it was just plain high carbon steel.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


Tapey
atheist
Tapey's picture
Posts: 1474
Joined: 2009-01-23
User is offlineOffline
Want to create jobs? Easy,

Want to create jobs? Easy, two options. One destroy labour regulation getting rid of pesky things like minimum wage and making it hard to fire people all that stuff that we as employees love. Or you can make sure you as a country only import from countries that treat their workers right i.e. not from china. or put heavy tariffs on imports. Yes you will have to pay more for the products and you will complain and say give the jobs back to china and ignore the growing poverty around you. Once it is cheaper to manufacture in your own country than it is to import you will create jobs in your own country.

 

Yeah I know its not that simple.

 

On a side note, this is why the US should not be worried about china, there business model is not sustainable though neither is the US but whatever. I would imagine that some time in the next 10 to twenty years there is going to be a lot of trouble unless labour policy improves. Which will make it more expensive to create things there which will make china a less attractive place to manufacture your product. I cannot imagine the people of china will put up with that forever.

Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.


ex-minister
atheistHigh Level ModeratorSilver Member
ex-minister's picture
Posts: 1708
Joined: 2010-01-29
User is offlineOffline
 Tapey, I hope you are

 Tapey, I hope you are right about Chinese people.

 

 

“If you make peaceful revolution impossible you make violent revolution inevitable” 

― John F. Kennedy

 

 

 

 

Religion Kills !!!

Numbers 31:17-18 - Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

http://jesus-needs-money.blogspot.com/


blacklight915
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Tapey wrote:Once it is

Tapey wrote:

Once it is cheaper to manufacture in your own country than it is to import you will create jobs in your own country.

Well, if you reduce the corporate tax and the capital gains tax, it would make it cheaper for corporations and small businesses to have facilities (and jobs) located here...

Of course, it'd probably still be cheaper to manufacture in China...

 

Wait, is the information about that foxconn factory accurate?

 


Tapey
atheist
Tapey's picture
Posts: 1474
Joined: 2009-01-23
User is offlineOffline
blacklight915 wrote:Tapey

blacklight915 wrote:

Tapey wrote:

Once it is cheaper to manufacture in your own country than it is to import you will create jobs in your own country.

Well, if you reduce the corporate tax and the capital gains tax, it would make it cheaper for corporations and small businesses to have facilities (and jobs) located here...

Of course, it'd probably still be cheaper to manufacture in China...

 

Wait, is the information about that foxconn factory accurate?

 

Yes you can do that but its really not ideal. What happens in my county is we provide tax breaks to industry that moves there factory to certain areas in order  provide emplyment for that area. But in reality what happens is these tax breaks cannot be made permanant as the country needs the tax and after the 5 fives years of tax breaks end they close the factory. This would be the case as well in the US if you used tax breaks to draw industry. It cannot be permanant as you have a ton of debt and simply need the tax. The industry would disappear as soon as the tax breaks ended. No the best way I can see is heavy import tariffs. Gain more tax to deal with the debt, sure consumers get screwed but when aren't they anyway and here at least you are creating jobs. You protect what local industry is there and incentivise companies that bring factories to America, and they will come if the tariffs are high enough, its one of the biggest markets in the world, one competator will open a factory and soon the entire industry will be forced to have some manufacturing in the country or lose business. But as I said you as a consumer will be paying a lot more, if that video is to be believed 20% more on pretty much everything made in china. But America doesn't need to go this far, your unemployment is not that bad, anything less than 25% unemployment is acceptable in my eyes, anything more than that and you need to start thinking about drastic action. Not that I know much about economics but its what I would think would be common sense. Then again America is still spending more than they have even though they know there is a problem and only a full retard is that stupid.

Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.


blacklight915
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Tapey wrote:Yes you can do

Tapey wrote:

Yes you can do that but its really not ideal. What happens in my county is we provide tax breaks to industry that moves there factory to certain areas in order  provide emplyment for that area. But in reality what happens is these tax breaks cannot be made permanant as the country needs the tax and after the 5 fives years of tax breaks end they close the factory. This would be the case as well in the US if you used tax breaks to draw industry. It cannot be permanant as you have a ton of debt and simply need the tax. The industry would disappear as soon as the tax breaks ended. No the best way I can see is heavy import tariffs. Gain more tax to deal with the debt, sure consumers get screwed but when aren't they anyway and here at least you are creating jobs. You protect what local industry is there and incentivise companies that bring factories to America, and they will come if the tariffs are high enough, its one of the biggest markets in the world, one competator will open a factory and soon the entire industry will be forced to have some manufacturing in the country or lose business. But as I said you as a consumer will be paying a lot more, if that video is to be believed 20% more on pretty much everything made in china. But America doesn't need to go this far, your unemployment is not that bad, anything less than 25% unemployment is acceptable in my eyes, anything more than that and you need to start thinking about drastic action. Not that I know much about economics but its what I would think would be common sense. Then again America is still spending more than they have even though they know there is a problem and only a full retard is that stupid.

I was thinking more along the lines of massive spending cuts. That way you could offer tax breaks and still not go into debt. Of course, since the US is already in massive debt, the spending cuts would have to be incredibly large. Unfortunately, it's very difficult for both parties to agree even on small spending cuts...

I would stop all the overseas wars, close all the overseas military bases, cut military spending on the research and development of new weapons, end the war on drugs, get rid of the federal department of education, repeal any and all subsidies for businesses, stop all government foreign aid, get rid of the Transportation and Security Administration, get rid of the Department of Homeland Security, get rid of the Federal Reserve, repeal the Patriot Act, repeal the laws banning "assault weapons", extended clips, and specialized ammo, and probably much more...

 

Wait, what country do you live in?

 


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3140
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Sage_Override wrote: Oh, on

Sage_Override wrote:

 

Oh, on another note, we can safely cut outsourcing down to nothing if this world had it's shit together, but it won't happen for a long time.  Until then, we shall enjoy our slave labor products and turn the other cheek.

What's the alternative? Bump up their wages and increase the prices so few products are bought? So then these jobs are only for a fotunate few, the rest go unemployed and starve to death? So getting a job is like winning the lottery, but losing is death.

 

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


ex-minister
atheistHigh Level ModeratorSilver Member
ex-minister's picture
Posts: 1708
Joined: 2010-01-29
User is offlineOffline
 and if you get a job in

 and if you get a job in China you want to commit suicide, literally

 

impossible to compete at that level

Religion Kills !!!

Numbers 31:17-18 - Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

http://jesus-needs-money.blogspot.com/


Tapey
atheist
Tapey's picture
Posts: 1474
Joined: 2009-01-23
User is offlineOffline
blacklight915 wrote:Wait,

blacklight915 wrote:

Wait, what country do you live in?

 

South Africa. We have our own problems.


Sage_Override
atheistBlogger
Sage_Override's picture
Posts: 582
Joined: 2008-10-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote:What's the

Quote:
What's the alternative? Bump up their wages and increase the prices so few products are bought? So then these jobs are only for a fotunate few, the rest go unemployed and starve to death? So getting a job is like winning the lottery, but losing is death.

 

The alternative is to stop dicking around on this fucking Earth and get it together.  If people didn't have this instant-gratification mentality and a "gimme gimme gimme, I need that RIGHT THE FUCK NOW OR I'LL DIE!!!!!!" mind set, we wouldn't have the kind of slavery we have across the globe.  Companies want money, they care nothing about people's lives and want to keep the population with THEIR products as quickly and with as many "faults" as possible so that they can keep employing people to update THOSE problems, then employ other people to improve on those problems so that there are seemingly LESS problems, but in fact, there are MORE problems because the NEW shit has even MORE problems than the last product.  It's all a giant wheel of nonsense. 

 

Those workers would starve to death anyway employed or not.  Hell, if they don't, they'd just off themselves.  We're doing them a favor by paying them to be slaves?  How dangerously, absurdly, irresponsibly, horrifyingly disgusting.

"When the majority believes in what is false, the truth becomes a quest." - Me


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3140
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Sage_Override wrote: Those

Sage_Override wrote:

 

Those workers would starve to death anyway employed or not.  Hell, if they don't, they'd just off themselves.  We're doing them a favor by paying them to be slaves?  How dangerously, absurdly, irresponsibly, horrifyingly disgusting.

Technically they are not slaves. They can always leave and face life without any job or money.

But now you see why they need a one child policy. That is the only thing that will eventually end this situation. That same senario is comming to America unless we act soon.

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


Sage_Override
atheistBlogger
Sage_Override's picture
Posts: 582
Joined: 2008-10-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Technically they are

Quote:

Technically they are not slaves. They can always leave and face life without any job or money.

But now you see why they need a one child policy. That is the only thing that will eventually end this situation. That same senario is comming to America unless we act soon.

 

Well, TECHNICALLY, those that work aren't slaves because they get paid for labor and have a roof over their heads, but still feel like they're working for no cause and spinning a hamster wheel; that can be said for just about anything in life if you put it in the right context.  The way these people work vs. the consequences of not working keep them in a life of servitude rather than no life at all.  The trade-off is still the same; an awful, criminal way of living and being treated.  As for the one child policy, you are correct; overpopulating on top of scarcity creates such shitty living for the majority of the populace in China and imposes strict guidelines for people wanting children.  The major problem is unless scarcity is ended there and in other heavily populated pockets of the world, this will extend everywhere, not just America, in due time.   

"When the majority believes in what is false, the truth becomes a quest." - Me


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
blacklight915 wrote:Well, if

blacklight915 wrote:
Well, if you reduce the corporate tax and the capital gains tax, it would make it cheaper for corporations and small businesses to have facilities (and jobs) located here...

I don't think I addressed this.

Most of the whining about corporate tax rates and capital gains taxes is a massive load of crap.

Taxes are due on what is left over after =everything= is paid out, including salaries, benefits, property, plant and equipment.  What this means is that a company can =grow= without paying taxes and corporate growth is a good thing.

For small businesses, most of which are "Limited Liability Corporations" (LLC), all profits pass through the company without being taxed at all at the corporate tax rate.  The owners pay personal income tax on the profits and the corporation doesn't.  That may or may not be a bad thing, depending on the tax bracket of each owner.

The key point is that corporate taxes are quite often one of the smallest expenses a company has -- it is a percentage of the profit margin, which is itself a percentage of the total sales.  It's not like sales tax -- a company that does $1M per year in gross sales and has $900K in expenses is taxed on that $100K, not the $1M.  If the tax rate is 25%, they pay $25K in taxes, as compared to $900K for their other expenses.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


blacklight915
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder wrote:Taxes

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Taxes are due on what is left over after =everything= is paid out, including salaries, benefits, property, plant and equipment.  What this means is that a company can =grow= without paying taxes and corporate growth is a good thing.

For small businesses, most of which are "Limited Liability Corporations" (LLC), all profits pass through the company without being taxed at all at the corporate tax rate.  The owners pay personal income tax on the profits and the corporation doesn't.  That may or may not be a bad thing, depending on the tax bracket of each owner.

The key point is that corporate taxes are quite often one of the smallest expenses a company has -- it is a percentage of the profit margin, which is itself a percentage of the total sales.  It's not like sales tax -- a company that does $1M per year in gross sales and has $900K in expenses is taxed on that $100K, not the $1M.  If the tax rate is 25%, they pay $25K in taxes, as compared to $900K for their other expenses.

Hmm, so what could be done to make starting a small business cheaper and easier?

 


Tapey
atheist
Tapey's picture
Posts: 1474
Joined: 2009-01-23
User is offlineOffline
blacklight915

blacklight915 wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Taxes are due on what is left over after =everything= is paid out, including salaries, benefits, property, plant and equipment.  What this means is that a company can =grow= without paying taxes and corporate growth is a good thing.

For small businesses, most of which are "Limited Liability Corporations" (LLC), all profits pass through the company without being taxed at all at the corporate tax rate.  The owners pay personal income tax on the profits and the corporation doesn't.  That may or may not be a bad thing, depending on the tax bracket of each owner.

The key point is that corporate taxes are quite often one of the smallest expenses a company has -- it is a percentage of the profit margin, which is itself a percentage of the total sales.  It's not like sales tax -- a company that does $1M per year in gross sales and has $900K in expenses is taxed on that $100K, not the $1M.  If the tax rate is 25%, they pay $25K in taxes, as compared to $900K for their other expenses.

Hmm, so what could be done to make starting a small business cheaper and easier?

 

Government provides low interest loans to people looking to create their own business. Training workshops paid for by the state also help. Less paper work that need filling out etc. But really there is only so much that can be done to help, in the end of the day its whether the the person has a good idea or not.

Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.


blacklight915
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Tapey wrote:Government

Tapey wrote:

Government provides low interest loans to people looking to create their own business. Training workshops paid for by the state also help. Less paper work that need filling out etc. But really there is only so much that can be done to help, in the end of the day its whether the the person has a good idea or not.

Hmm, getting rid of regulations would certainly help. Of course, it would probably be rather difficult to get the necessary amount of support: a lot of people in the US underestimate the ability of non-governmental entities to keep them safe. Still, I imagine there are some very costly and ineffective regulations that lots of people would be okay with eliminating: the SOPA and PIPA bills, for example.

 


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Tapey wrote:
Want to create jobs? Easy, two options. One destroy labour regulation getting rid of pesky things like minimum wage and making it hard to fire people all that stuff that we as employees love. Or you can make sure you as a country only import from countries that treat their workers right i.e. not from china. or put heavy tariffs on imports. Yes you will have to pay more for the products and you will complain and say give the jobs back to china and ignore the growing poverty around you. Once it is cheaper to manufacture in your own country than it is to import you will create jobs in your own country.

Yeah I know its not that simple.

Problem is it results in a US production base that is not competitive in the world market. Things would cost too much. It is fine to talk about paying workers well. I have this image of China paying $5/hr and people being murdered for their jobs. Like it or not economics and human nature rule the real world.

As an analogy before there was clothing from China there was clothing from well-paid highly unionized workers in New England in the US -- the states north of New York. In between the clothing companies moved to the Southern States without Unions. Should there have been state excise taxes as on cigarettes to keep the prices high in New England to keep workers in New England employed? It would not work. Why? Whereas before New England was supplying the entire country the much smaller market means many fewer employees. US companies are in fact outsourcing production to stay competitive in world markets. If prices were kept artificially high by tariffs duties it would support only a fraction of the number of workers. So the choice is between losing 90% of jobs with outsourcing and 80% with trade barriers just as it would have happened with New England taxes on clothing. 

Further the only Americans complaining about moving clothing manufacture were the ex-garment workers. Workers in the South were not objecting to the jobs or the wages. Consumers around the country were very happy to buy the same quality clothing at half the price. The same is being repeated with China.

Lets consider the poor workers. If conditions are so bad and wages so low, why don't they stay on the farm? Answer: It is better than farm work. What about child labor? Children work on farms. Farm labor is more dangerous than factory labor. Shouldn't they be in school? What schools? When did the West get all sanctimonious about child labor? After it could afford otherwise.

40 years ago the paved roads in Turkey ended five miles outside of Istanbul. So also they end five miles outside of every Chinese city today. China has to improve that before the peasants get a decent standard of living and schools for their children. How can they possibly improve without manufacturing? And from their point of view they are manufacturing things with such a low profit margin that no one else wants to make them. They are things that do not demand an educated workforce. They are essentially doing work no one else wants to do. They are assembling NOT designing cell phones. They are not assembling 787s.

Even if it were affordable to make in the US it would be done by the lowest paid, entry level workers who would have no job future. They are not going to stick around in the job as almost any other job is better just as burger-flippers don't stick around. Americans do not want to do work the Chinese are doing. Americans are doing the engineering, designing, prototyping, marketing and sales. Americans are doing the labor that is so skilled we don't even call it labor.

The only place the US really screwed the pooch was in cars but not in the way most people think of it. The sales model for Detroit was for the average owner to buy a new car every three point something years. They were designed for a life time of something like 9 years factory to scrap metal. Japanese cars were designed for roughly double that. If Detroit had matched that it would have immediately cut its earnings in half, meaning half the factories and half the employees. Unions made shedding workers nearly impossible so Detroit tried everything but making cars last longer before giving up and making them last longer. The years of trying other things only made matters worse as Detroit fell behind in other desirable features like cost and fuel economy. (Sidebar: Fuel economy is drastically over-rated as a desirable feature.)

The last thing is average income. It has been flat in inflated dollars for over twenty years. True but because jobs have been outsourced products have become cheaper so the same income buys more. Not just electronics which is Moore's Law. Cellphones are really so cheap they can be given away as an inducement for a service contract. The real basis of cellphones is the cell tower infrastructure. Lets leave that entirely and look at clothing from China. It is cheaper in inflated dollars today than it was decades ago, that means way cheaper in uninflated dollars. Cars last much longer and are now kept a bit over ten years by the original owner if I remember correctly. So if it costs three times as much new it is break even in dollars per year. Discounting everything else their costs have been as flat as income. Throw in safety features and amenities and they are cheaper in terms of value.

After transportation and clothing clothing there is food. That is essentially an internal commodity. It has remained roughly the same fraction of income since I was a kid although quality has drastically improved. And if the percent of income has increased so has obesity so quantity is a factor in addition to price. And if people can't afford as many nights out at the restaurant maybe if they ate less ... In any event the issue is confounded by obviously increased consumption.

BTW: Without looking at premium foods, prepared foods are all nearly the same cost per ounce or per calorie. Cooking your own is always a bargain. People eat more prepared foods these days so it is not just increased consumption that would affect the percentage of income going to food.

After clothing and food there is housing which is our present mess. We had a housing bubble. It was drastically overpriced. And instead of letting it seek its market value the banks are trying to hang out until the demand matches the previously inflated price again. That is why this year and next should be the worst years for the economy. When housing bubbles are local such as SOCAL in the mid 80s and DC in the late 70s the economy lets the speculators sink. Nationwide and in this case worldwide it is another story. Bottom line is it cannot be considered as for a certain income affording a home and keeping a home have turned out to be entirely different things.

But even here home sizes have increase as well as amenities. You can't compare the 1950s standard family home of one bedroom for the parents and one for the children with one today's standard. And the size of the rooms have increased and the minimum for appliances is larger and there are more appliances and extra places like laundry rooms and basements are finished and called rec rooms or there is an extra room called that. All of those are increased costs. Have prices increased ahead of costs? Yes, in a housing bubble.

Quote:
On a side note, this is why the US should not be worried about china, there business model is not sustainable though neither is the US but whatever. I would imagine that some time in the next 10 to twenty years there is going to be a lot of trouble unless labour policy improves. Which will make it more expensive to create things there which will make china a less attractive place to manufacture your product. I cannot imagine the people of china will put up with that forever.

That is the way it has progressed. The lowest profit production has always moved on to the next cheaper labor country. Hard drives used to be Indonesia. Now it is Thailand -- damn their flood! China is just the last in line. BTW: 20 years ago most of the parts in a PC we made in Indonesia, a Muslim country. They priced themselves out of the business and out of the grasp of the mullahs.

The question is, after costs in China increase will it be possible to move production to Africa? And if not the world is out of cheap labor sources. And if African countries can't do the work how will they ever get the money to become developed countries?

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Tapey wrote:
...But America doesn't need to go this far, your unemployment is not that bad, anything less than 25% unemployment is acceptable in my eyes, anything more than that and you need to start thinking about drastic action....

How very European of you. In the US 8% unemployment being viewed as too high has swung presidential elections. Americans get alarmed at 7% unemployment. It has to be explained to Americans 0% is not desirable.

 

 

 

 

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

blacklight915 wrote:
...I would stop all the overseas wars, close all the overseas military bases, cut military spending on the research and development of new weapons, end the war on drugs, get rid of the federal department of education, repeal any and all subsidies for businesses, stop all government foreign aid, get rid of the Transportation and Security Administration, get rid of the Department of Homeland Security, get rid of the Federal Reserve, repeal the Patriot Act, repeal the laws banning "assault weapons", extended clips, and specialized ammo, and probably much more...

I used to work for DOD in DC Navy HQ. Odd thing about closing bases. They were situated where they would contribute to the local economy, generally in places where there was no local economy. When the Cold War ended the Germans were really hot to get us out of the country until they realized the economic devastation it would cause. Every few years the people of Okinawa do a Kabuki dance about getting rid of our base there. But Japan will not insist on it until it can find a way to replace something like $5 million a month the troops spend in the local economy. There is nothing sadder than thousands of unemployed prostitutes.

As for DOD, it has been decreasing as a fraction of GDP and of the Federal budget since the end of the Cold War. 1) Drastic cuts would have the same internal impact as closing foreign bases. 2) 1/3 of the budget is retirement pensions. 3) R&D is required to develop the weapons needed for a smaller military such as drones.

And a sea story. I signed on in 1967 which was about the last of the spend it or lose it years. After that any new system (R&D) not only had to be better but cheaper over its life. Between its first production unit in 1959 and the replacement R&D started in 1981 it was bloody obvious it not only could be but had to be improved. Only when in 1980 it was clearly cheaper life cycle was the SQS-26 and its incarnations replaced with the SQS-53C. The fantastic performance improvement was almost in the noise compared to the cost saving.

It is the same with drones. Forget all the other good things about them. The pilots do not cost $100 million to train and the drones do not cost $60 million each. They are incredibly cheaper to own and operate. A guy in wheelchair can fly them. You don't need spend tens of millions just to find the best qualified pilots and then be limited only to the most physically fit. Would it be rational to cancel R&D on drone combat fighters given this kind of cost savings?

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

blacklight915 wrote:
Hmm, getting rid of regulations would certainly help. Of course, it would probably be rather difficult to get the necessary amount of support: a lot of people in the US underestimate the ability of non-governmental entities to keep them safe. Still, I imagine there are some very costly and ineffective regulations that lots of people would be okay with eliminating: the SOPA and PIPA bills, for example.

The unadmitted purpose of regulations is to increase the threshold for competition to get into the business. I talked with a man who managed the opening of a new store in a drug store chain. His budget for what was essentially permits and regulatory compliance was $120,000 in 1983 in Northern Virginia suburb of DC. His brag was being one of the few who had ever done it under budget and on schedule.

Lease and stock can be largely recovered. Renovation is maybe half recoverable. Compliance is a sunk cost. The costs are the same for competition to the chain. That is a huge unrecoverable addition to the cost of getting into the business.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10719
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Why are pensions part of the

Why are pensions part of the military budget in the first place is a question I'd ask.

Regardless, no country in the world spends even a fifth of the money the US does on their military. China has more soldiers that may not be quite equal to American forces 1 vs 1, but certainly equal American forces by 10 vs 1. And they have more than ten times the army size. They are 2nd on the list of top military expenditures by nation. They seem to be handling themselves fairly well considering they spend a lot less per capita (687B US pop: 300M vs 114B CHI pop: 1.3B = ratio of 2290/87 per person per year), even ignoring the population difference (687B vs 114B for 300M people = 2290/380 per person per year), yet the US would never dare start a full fledged war with them.
Canada's military regularly defeats our American allies in war games, yet we spend 1/30th as much on our military per capita. Dozens of nations are currently effectively unattackable regardless of American influence.
There are exceptions, Israel and

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10719
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
South Korea immediately

South Korea immediately spring to mind. But not every US asset is critical to world peace.
The American contribution to a few local economies is also not the awesome you suggest. First, you're draining your own economy by stationing and maintaining bases anywhere outside your own country, for little benefit. You can't tell me there's any need or use for bases in Germany today, for example.
Second, it's not the boon for the locals you suggest either. Populations tend to go where the jobs are. Leave and the communities will simply move as surely as did all those that moved after the gold rush ended, and leave ghost towns like you can find in B.C.
It's a unsustainable outside source of income that can and will pick up and leave the moment the US can't afford to remain, and/or has no further reason to.
Best case scenario is that Japan itself occupies the base thereafter, but either way the presence isn't permanent, and eventually all the people there will find themselves in a dire position when

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10719
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
American soldiers aren't

American soldiers aren't contributing to the economy anymore.

The fact of the matter is simply that America can't afford to be the very best and police the world forever. It's concentrating so much on the world outside, most of which poses little to no direct threat, that it's unable to keep up the economy that allowed it so much power in the first place. The local manufacturing and the strong middle class are nearly gone. The education system has become crowded and lackluster. The politicians are spineless and self interested. These things need correcting to repair the economy. And if you have to pull some forces home and end mass military recruitment to do so, then that's what America needs to do. Japan will survive. You have troops in South Korea anyway. Get other nations involved to lessen the burden, and grow a greater sense of community with your allies. Cooperate instead of dominate, and rebuild what made America strong in the first place.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


blacklight915
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:I used to

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

I used to work for DOD in DC Navy HQ. Odd thing about closing bases. They were situated where they would contribute to the local economy, generally in places where there was no local economy. When the Cold War ended the Germans were really hot to get us out of the country until they realized the economic devastation it would cause. Every few years the people of Okinawa do a Kabuki dance about getting rid of our base there. But Japan will not insist on it until it can find a way to replace something like $5 million a month the troops spend in the local economy. There is nothing sadder than thousands of unemployed prostitutes.

You just made me want to close overseas bases even more. There are so many better things all that money could be spent on--like R&D for drones so that we can shrink our military.

 

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

It is the same with drones. Forget all the other good things about them. The pilots do not cost $100 million to train and the drones do not cost $60 million each. They are incredibly cheaper to own and operate. A guy in wheelchair can fly them. You don't need spend tens of millions just to find the best qualified pilots and then be limited only to the most physically fit. Would it be rational to cancel R&D on drone combat fighters given this kind of cost savings?

Of course not. However, you seem to be under the assumption that we need them at all--every dollar spent on defense is a dollar that cannot be spent on anything else. 

 


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Vastet wrote:
Why are pensions part of the military budget in the first place is a question I'd ask.

The simplest answer is, it has to be some place. That is not facetious. Government employee retirement is budgeted under the Civil Service Commission. If money is going to be spent it has to be accounted for some place. It is elementary accounting.

Quote:
Regardless, no country in the world spends even a fifth of the money the US does on their military. China has more soldiers that may not be quite equal to American forces 1 vs 1, but certainly equal American forces by 10 vs 1. And they have more than ten times the army size. They are 2nd on the list of top military expenditures by nation. They seem to be handling themselves fairly well considering they spend a lot less per capita (687B US pop: 300M vs 114B CHI pop: 1.3B = ratio of 2290/87 per person per year), even ignoring the population difference (687B vs 114B for 300M people = 2290/380 per person per year), yet the US would never dare start a full fledged war with them. Canada's military regularly defeats our American allies in war games, yet we spend 1/30th as much on our military per capita. Dozens of nations are currently effectively unattackable regardless of American influence.

Quite legitimate observations but they are a consequence of political decisions. There has been a law in effect since the late 1940s that the US be prepared to fight two and half WWII style wars. That means prepared to engage at day one at the fully mobilized level achieved during WWII. Change that law to one war or reduce the mobilization level and everything you list goes down sort of proportionately -- there is always overhead and things like retirement pay. The military is not lobbying to change the law because that it not its job. Despite the way you might read it in the press the military stays out of politics as a matter of policy. The only way to reduce the numbers you list is to start with the politicians.

BTW: There were a lot of naive folks like me who expected the end of the Cold War to reduce the military to a peace time footing. We naively thought that was a part of what we were working for. I fully support reducing the war requirement.

That said, in the dollar comparisons the other countries do not have combat ready militaries at the WWII level of readiness. For both Iraq wars it was a matter of getting troops in position to attack not a couple years building up the military to be capable of the attacks. In that sense it is a comparing apples and oranges.

As to these Canada/US wargames do you have a URL or two? It is difficult to see how you folks can win against 50:1 odds. Or were we, unlike war, playing fair? It has always seemed to me the US Army could have lunch in Ottawa on day one. Strategically it is a matter of moving the border 70 mi. north along a 400 mi front to hold all there is worth having in Canada. [1/30th per capita and 1/10th the capitas is 1/300th the US. Without looking it up I am confident even Canada spends more than that.]

Quote:
There are exceptions, Israel and

and ...

Last I heard Zionists would have packed up and gone home decades ago without US protection and financing.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Vastet wrote:
South Korea immediately spring to mind. But not every US asset is critical to world peace. The American contribution to a few local economies is also not the awesome you suggest. First, you're draining your own economy by stationing and maintaining bases anywhere outside your own country, for little benefit. You can't tell me there's any need or use for bases in Germany today, for example. Second, it's not the boon for the locals you suggest either. Populations tend to go where the jobs are. Leave and the communities will simply move as surely as did all those that moved after the gold rush ended, and leave ghost towns like you can find in B.C. It's a unsustainable outside source of income that can and will pick up and leave the moment the US can't afford to remain, and/or has no further reason to. Best case scenario is that Japan itself occupies the base thereafter, but either way the presence isn't permanent, and eventually all the people there will find themselves in a dire position when

You are preaching to the choir. I assume Canadians are familiar with that American expression.

The economic contributions to the countries they are in is not that much. The contribution to the part of the country they are in is important. There is no industry around Ramstein AFB in Germany. Okinawa is farming and fishing except for the US base. Yes, of course people can and will move on. And if it had only lasted a few years or maybe a decade but in those places we are talking third generation making a living off the bases. And there are a lot of them and they vote. The local and national governments want them to stay. I can think of three bases of value, Ramstein, Pireaus and Rota. It is a matter of forward positioning and rapid response IF we politically required preparation for certain conditions.

A few decades back the Philippines got on a high horse about a US base otherwise in the middle of no where called Subic Bay. To get there from civilization by land you had to travel through communist held territory. (A dirty little secret not found in the travel brochures even today. The Spanish-American war insurgency is still going on.) They demanded ten times what it was worth to renew the lease. The US continued negotiations and prepared to leave. Then a volcano buried the base under a meter of ash. Needless to say negotiations ended. It expanded Okinawa to make up for it. A base is worth no more than its replacement cost.

As to the choir, not my problem. Let them solve their own problems including South Korea. And if the North retakes the South that just reduces some of the competition for US products. And if China retakes Taiwan and a chunk of Japan, I'd rather deal with China than countries that can't carry their own weight. But rest assured there will be whiners selling war just as they did over Poland the last time around. Just like there war whiners today pushing for war on Iran because of the poor, nuclear armed Jews and their ICBMS.

Speaking of last time around, that WWII thing, remember when the whole damned world demanded the US save its ass. At least one participant here is pissed the US did not act quick enough to save the poor Brits from themselves. Remember the US spent huge amounts of its own money over four years to go from a pissant military to one that could do something? Am I misreading the audience to observe even eternal gratitude doesn't last forever? Am I also misreading the castigation for not acting sooner? One could wish the critics of the US would decide which way they want it.

It is not possible to be ready to save the world and have a second rate military at the same time.

Here is a dirty little secret. With the Vietnam war the US would have had a military with no combat experience by 1975. A military without combat experience isn't ever prepared for the last war. It would have been unprepared for the first Gulf war. Iraq would still hold Kuwait and salaam to Hussein. There would most certainly have been another Iran/Iraq war either before or after Iraq took the Saudi oil fields, probably after. Without the combat experience of Vietnam and readiness it could not have been prevented -- even I am skeptical of any projection beyond holding and keeping Kuwait. In any event the lack combat experience since 1973 is why Hezbollah kicked Israel's butt in its last invasion of Lebanon.

Readiness costs money. Practice wars cost money.

Another factor is if the US stops covering for the military needs of other countries they will do it themselves. Like Canada always screwing its military because it could hide behind the US, without the US in the Cold War (you do not want to violate your principles with a Cold War exception do you?) Western Europe would have had to militarize else involuntarily learn to speak Russian. As long as the US maintains is effectiveness level and global reach there is no vacuum to fill. I do not see that as all that important as it would take years of military growth to make a difference and that should be plenty of warning. However politicians make these decisions and they know political inertia in years. Perhaps they are correct.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Vastet wrote:
American soldiers aren't contributing to the economy anymore. The fact of the matter is simply that America can't afford to be the very best and police the world forever.

Again I agree but there is an entire world chorus trying to get the US to start a land war in Africa to save Tutsis or such such. They aren't Poles for god's sake. They aren't even white. The countries calling for it don't seem to have sent in their own troops. So while I agree the US should not be the world's police it would be good if the world would also stop calling the police.

It tommy this and tommy that and throw him out the brute

But its saviour of his country when the guns begin to shoot.

Quote:
It's concentrating so much on the world outside, most of which poses little to no direct threat, that it's unable to keep up the economy that allowed it so much power in the first place. The local manufacturing and the strong middle class are nearly gone. The education system has become crowded and lackluster. The politicians are spineless and self interested. These things need correcting to repair the economy. And if you have to pull some forces home and end mass military recruitment to do so, then that's what America needs to do. Japan will survive. You have troops in South Korea anyway. Get other nations involved to lessen the burden, and grow a greater sense of community with your allies. Cooperate instead of dominate, and rebuild what made America strong in the first place.

As for the whole cooperate thing, it is called NATO. Every member but the US is derelict in meeting its commitments. I would say after 64 years it has been proven that does not work.

Got any other ideas?

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

blacklight915 wrote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

I used to work for DOD in DC Navy HQ. Odd thing about closing bases. They were situated where they would contribute to the local economy, generally in places where there was no local economy. When the Cold War ended the Germans were really hot to get us out of the country until they realized the economic devastation it would cause. Every few years the people of Okinawa do a Kabuki dance about getting rid of our base there. But Japan will not insist on it until it can find a way to replace something like $5 million a month the troops spend in the local economy. There is nothing sadder than thousands of unemployed prostitutes.

You just made me want to close overseas bases even more. There are so many better things all that money could be spent on--like R&D for drones so that we can shrink our military.

While the choir is listening it does not have a seat in congress.

Let me pose a problem. Does not increasing military R&D decrease the available talent for civilian R&D? New products and new profits? And does that not reduce the taxes to pay for military R&D? How much military R&D is not too much?

Quote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
It is the same with drones. Forget all the other good things about them. The pilots do not cost $100 million to train and the drones do not cost $60 million each. They are incredibly cheaper to own and operate. A guy in wheelchair can fly them. You don't need spend tens of millions just to find the best qualified pilots and then be limited only to the most physically fit. Would it be rational to cancel R&D on drone combat fighters given this kind of cost savings?

Of course not. However, you seem to be under the assumption that we need them at all--every dollar spent on defense is a dollar that cannot be spent on anything else. 

I am under the impression that the politicians have laid requirements on the military for the number of wars and readiness to fight them. Until those are changed what you see is a modest optimization attempting to satisfy of the law.

Let me show  you how bad it is. I will premise this with the hopefully outrageous statement that the US never at any time doubted it would win WWII and any claim to the contrary was a propaganda lie.

My evidence is quite simple and obvious. A country that feared losing would have optimized the dollars spent. Instead the US spread war dollars all over the country opening military bases for no reason other than Congressional districts getting a share of the money. For 40 years after the war it was essentially impossible to close any of them even the most redundant and worthless solely for political resistance. The same thing happend with war materiel contracts.

The US had an incredible number of difference aircraft. That was not because they were needed but because contracts had to be parcelled out to congressional districts. The money had to be spread around. Even when there was some kind of standardization such as in combat rifles, it is the rare collector who has one from every company that made them. Why not one or two huge factories producing them as cheaply as possible? The money had to be spread around to congressional districts. If a state had a sea coast it had a naval base -- the more coast line the more bases. Mare Island in Alameda was still around when they made the fifth Startrek movie. I think the one in Long Beach is closed leaving only the pre-war one in San Diego  for California at least. There is still one at Puget Sound, Washington. Matter of fact even sea coast was not a requirement as there was one on Lake Erie. It might still be there.

Have I established the validity of the outrageous statement? If winning was in question the inefficient and often deadly in the case of shitty aircraft spreading around the money could not have been tolerated. All those war bond drives? BS! They were to raise more money to spread around. And the Americans all eager to kill Japs and Krauts and save the world? 94% of them were drafted. Obviously the people didn't feel threatened either.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


blacklight915
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:Let me

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Let me pose a problem. Does not increasing military R&D decrease the available talent for civilian R&D? New products and new profits? And does that not reduce the taxes to pay for military R&D? How much military R&D is not too much?

Only the amount necessary to keep the country safe from invasion by another nation's army is not too much.

 

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

My evidence is quite simple and obvious. A country that feared losing would have optimized the dollars spent. Instead the US spread war dollars all over the country opening military bases for no reason other than Congressional districts getting a share of the money. For 40 years after the war it was essentially impossible to close any of them even the most redundant and worthless solely for political resistance. The same thing happend with war materiel contracts.

The US had an incredible number of difference aircraft. That was not because they were needed but because contracts had to be parcelled out to congressional districts. The money had to be spread around. Even when there was some kind of standardization such as in combat rifles, it is the rare collector who has one from every company that made them. Why not one or two huge factories producing them as cheaply as possible? The money had to be spread around to congressional districts. If a state had a sea coast it had a naval base -- the more coast line the more bases. Mare Island in Alameda was still around when they made the fifth Startrek movie. I think the one in Long Beach is closed leaving only the pre-war one in San Diego  for California at least. There is still one at Puget Sound, Washington. Matter of fact even sea coast was not a requirement as there was one on Lake Erie. It might still be there.

Have I established the validity of the outrageous statement? If winning was in question the inefficient and often deadly in the case of shitty aircraft spreading around the money could not have been tolerated. All those war bond drives? BS! They were to raise more money to spread around. And the Americans all eager to kill Japs and Krauts and save the world? 94% of them were drafted. Obviously the people didn't feel threatened either.

So, we agree that ending the wars in the Middle East, closing all overseas military bases, closing some home military bases, and cutting funding of non-drone-related R&D is a good idea?

 

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

I am under the impression that the politicians have laid requirements on the military for the number of wars and readiness to fight them. Until those are changed what you see is a modest optimization attempting to satisfy of the law.

All right, so the question is how to change these requirements, correct?

 


NMCP (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
 I have a question for you

 I have a question for you guys regarding the subject, I found it interesting because I find reasonable and honorable points on both sides.  The issue and argument came up on "Shark Tank" last night.  One entrepneur created a fold down truck rack that fits 95% of pickup trucks, a clearly well built and designed product.  His goal was to manufacture the product locally in his economically strained town somewhere in North Carolina.   It was clear his goal was more to bring jobs to "his" people, than to make a succesfull business.  It was pointed out that at his current price point of $250 cost per unit was too high, distributors could only buy the product for $320 if they were to resell at a competetive price and still profit themselves.  So for the business to succeed (atleast at first) he MUST outsource the manufacturing, and get the price per unit cost down to $150, just under half of what they would be sold for, a mark all investors look for in a company (if you cant sell your product for atleast double of what it costs to make, your business will most likely fail, or just stay stagnant).  This man refused to outsource the work as he found his venture to be honorable only if he brought jobs to "his" people, this certainly seems like an honorable position. 

 

   But it was pointed out by one of the investors, that all people should be "his" people, and he needs to think of the world more as a global economy, and that the people who would manufacture his product overseas all have children to feed and mortgages to pay aswell, and we are all ofcourse immigrants from other countries down the line.  Also it was pointed out "who can you help if your business fails with your current model, imagine how many you could help if your business was doing 5 million a year."  And also "you help the business first, grow it and make it successful, then with the new influence and resources you have find a way to bring jobs to your locals.  Marketing, accounting, sales, etc... You would need to hire a lot of locals for such a large company, and maybe in the future with enough buying power you could find a way to maybe one day bring the manufacturing home now that you are producing tens of thousands of units."

 

So what are your opigions, who is correct and who is not?  The investors were all out although they loved the guy, his passion, and his product, they could not get past the fact he was so stubborn on the outsourcing part in the business' startup.   He would not budge, and they simply would not invest in a company that manufactures a product for $250 and sells it for $320, because they know it is a doomed model.  And just to clarify, they were ofcourse talking about getting product manufactured ethically from reputable overseas companies that aren't paying 7 year olds 50c a day, they were not talking about slave labour here, just a company that can simply produce a product for less but are not local. 

 

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10719
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:The

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
The simplest answer is, it has to be some place. That is not facetious. Government employee retirement is budgeted under the Civil Service Commission. If money is going to be spent it has to be accounted for some place. It is elementary accounting.

That neither answers nor addresses my question. Pensions are not a military function, so why are pensions part of the military budget? All government pensions should be budgeted separately from other spending programmes.

Quote:
There has been a law in effect since the late 1940s that the US be prepared to fight two and half WWII style wars.

Holy fuck. That's insane. No nation who is not an ally in some form or another is currently a threat to world peace. Certainly not on the level of the axis.

Quote:
As to these Canada/US wargames do you have a URL or two? It is difficult to see how you folks can win against 50:1 odds.

It's not 50:1 odds. That wouldn't be very useful for training excercises.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10719
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Both nations assemble

Both nations assemble multiple teams to face off with other teams. America has many more teams than Canada during the games. Generally Americans will face Americans more often than Canadians simply because of the numbers.
It's not like we always win either, we just tend to have a higher win ratio.

I don't have a link off hand. It tends to be common knowledge here and in military circles though, so it shouldn't be hard to find one.

Quote:
Speaking of last time around, that WWII thing, remember when the whole damned world demanded the US save its ass. At least one participant here is pissed the US did not act quick enough to save the poor Brits from themselves. Remember the US spent huge amounts of its own money over four years to go from a pissant military to one that could do something? Am I misreading the audience to observe even eternal gratitude doesn't last forever? Am I also misreading the castigation for not acting sooner?

stand by, too many open windows...

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10719
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Frankly, the world would

Frankly, the world would probably be more respectful and thankful for the American role in WWII if your people didn't walk around like you won it all by yourself. Canada, Russia, Britain, France, Australia, and a number of other nations were at least as, if not more, critical to the allied victory as the US, but listening to an American you'd think they did it all by themselves, which is patently ridiculous.
And don't be so proud of how quickly you flipped over into a war economy either. Canada did exactly the same thing four years faster. We had one of the strongest militaries on Earth during WWII and we built it in a few months. The American version was impressive, but hardly unprecedented.
And the world NEVER suggested you save them. The very idea is insulting. You had no way to end the war. No troops to turn the tide. No bomb to make Hitler shit himself.
The allies said you should help us because if we lose, you're next. Which was true.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10719
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Here is a dirty little

Quote:
Here is a dirty little secret.

There is a nugget of truth in that, but none of us were prepared for WWI or WWII, and we still won. You don't need to have first hand experience to be combat capable. You would've rolled over Hussein without Vietnam. The Gulf war was a joke. 956,600 to 650,000 soldiers. Approx 3,000 casualties to 100,000. That's not a war, that's shooting fish in a barrel with a cannon.
The last real war the US participated in was Vietnam. Approx 1.8 million casualties on both sides. And even that war was overseas. You haven't faced an enemy on your own soil in more than a century. A real threat to the US would be capable of actually seizing territory. How are the puny wars since Vietnam preparing the US for a real threat?

The fact is that these wars have been the result of destabilising influences that the US often introduced in the first place. Some were thanks to the previous world powers (Britain, France, etc.), but most of the conflict in the last 40 years has a distinct

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10719
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
...American

...American flavour.

Quote:
Another factor is if the US stops covering for the military needs of other countries they will do it themselves. Like Canada always screwing its military because it could hide behind the US

Canada has never hidden behind the US. That's American bullshit propoganda designed to infiltrate foreign military influences into my country. We're perfectly capable of taking care of ourselves. We neither need nor want your troops on our soil or in our waters. Push comes to shove and your country will remember just how capable we are. We don't currently have an army capable of conquering other countries because there's no threat. We didn't have one before WW1 or WW2 either, but we sure as hell built one quick. You can be damn sure we won't be sitting on our asses if WW3 starts.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10719
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Again I agree but

Quote:
Again I agree but there is an entire world chorus trying to get the US to start a land war in Africa to save Tutsis

Not exactly accurate. That's a counter to the claim that the US is starting shit in the Middle East supposedly in the name of freedom when Africa is in much worse shape than the Middle East. Most of us know it's for the oil. But some bought the propoganda and thus think the logical next step is to liberate swaths of Africa. But Africa has no oil, and no likely threat of nuclear capability, and would be an actual war, so the US has no interest. In your defence, noone else is rushing in either. Noone really even wants to talk about it, let alone have to actually get bloody.

Quote:
As for the whole cooperate thing, it is called NATO.

NATO. A whole new topic. I don't even feel like getting into it really. My gaming is being delayed. But suffice to say NATO is not the kind of thing I'm referring to. You notice that a number of countries can't or won't join? That's because

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10719
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
the most powerful nation in

the most powerful nation in NATO is a hypocrite. You're all over the Middle East because of oil and all over South and Central America because of drugs, and you really don't need to be doing either. You could lessen your dependence on oil and decriminalise drugs and shut out any need to care about foreign powers influencing and profiting off your population.
You'll never see an effective global coalition against aggression when the biggest member is also the most aggressive.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


blacklight915
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:There has

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

There has been a law in effect since the late 1940s that the US be prepared to fight two and half WWII style wars.

Wait, what is this law called? Or, rather, do you know where I could find a copy of the text?

At the college I go to, I'm part of a libertarian political group that, among other things, is quite anti-war. I'm sure everyone in the group would be quite interested in this law (if they don't already know about it) and they may even be able to do something to change it. Of course, even if they can't, the more people aware of this law, the better.

 

Vastet wrote:

Holy fuck. That's insane. No nation who is not an ally in some form or another is currently a threat to world peace. Certainly not on the level of the axis.

No kidding, the only nation that is a threat to world peace is the US. I could be wrong, but I know of no other countries currently engaged in international wars.

 

Vastet wrote:

You're all over the Middle East because of oil and all over South and Central America because of drugs, and you really don't need to be doing either. You could lessen your dependence on oil and decriminalise drugs and shut out any need to care about foreign powers influencing and profiting off your population.

It is inaccurate to refer to a nation as "you". The government that rules a piece of land and the people who live on that are completely different, even in a democracy. That said, it is at least partially correct to say "you" when referring to dependence on foreign oil, since pretty much everyone in the US uses oil. However, while the actions of the US government clearly favor drug criminalization and foreign wars, I, a US citizen, am quite against both these things. In addition, there are probably a number in of people in every level of government in the US that are also against these things.

The problem, I think, is that people are so sure of their "good ideas" that they don't think anyone reasonable could possibly think otherwise. So, they pass these ideas into law...and label "unreasonable" anyone who objects to them. I know am guilty of this too, which is why I spread my ideas by explaining them to others, rather than by passing them into law.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3704
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
blacklight915 wrote: No

blacklight915 wrote:

 

 

No kidding, the only nation that is a threat to world peace is the US. I could be wrong, but I know of no other countries currently engaged in international wars.

 

 

Haven't most of the US's military excursions of late been referred to as military "coalitions" ?   Even though the US contributed the lion's share of effort ( being a military super power ) other countries ended up involved as well,   .....Britain for example ?  Don't most US military alliances tend to follow the old NATO relationships ( and even cooperating with some former Warsaw Pact nations ) depending on the scenario ?  Isn't that the reason that the US military sometimes even trains in conjunction with other nation's military forces and even have weapon STANAG ( standardization agreements ) so that they may all fight on a common front and rely upon the same weapons and other logistical compatibility ?  See a pattern yet ?

And most importantly, wouldn't that mean that those nations who choose to align themselves with the US are also culpable ?

 

www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/misanthropy

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." Rudyard Kipling


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3704
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: We're

   Sorry for the duplicates posts but the connection would keep timing out every time I clicked "post comment".   Most frustrating !!!

 

 

 

 

www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/misanthropy

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." Rudyard Kipling


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3704
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: We're

 

 

 

                           http://www.GlobalFirepower.com    ( here is the correct link with 2012 conventional military power stats.  For some reason I can't edit my main post )

   

 

 

www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/misanthropy

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." Rudyard Kipling


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3704
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: We're

Vastet wrote:
We're perfectly capable of taking care of ourselves.

 

       Then Canada should immediately disentangle itself from any alliances with the US once and for all.

 

Vastet wrote:
We neither need nor want your troops on our soil or in our waters.

 

         If Canada truly is a military juggernaut why wouldn't your government just politely say "no thanks" and go it alone ?

 

Vastet wrote:
Push comes to shove and your country will remember just how capable we are.

 

  Now you sound just like Watcher who personally believes that the US military has never been "defeated" or even could be.   Like him, you are just spewing a lot of patriotic bluster and delusional thinking.   And unlike Watcher I fully acknowledge limited US military weaknesses and yet despite our vulnerabilities the US military is still vastly more powerful than Canada's, and I'm speaking of purely conventional military forces.  No offense but Canada's "capabilities" would be utterly overwhelmed. 

 

 

       Check out this Vastet....          http://www.GlobalFirepower.com    Canada ranks 25'th as a world military power.  Even Brazil eclipses Canada in military might.   Even tiny Israel exceeds Canada in conventional military strength.    Sorry dude, Canada would be like a vicious toy poodle nipping at our ankles and would be easily swatted away.  I'm just being realistic based upon the facts.  And remember, I don't have anything against your government or your military.  I think of Canada in much more kindly terms than you do my country.

 

                                                              

  

Vastet wrote:
We don't currently have an army capable of conquering other countries because there's no threat. We didn't have one before WW1 or WW2 either, but we sure as hell built one quick.

 

 

How quickly can Canadian industry build a sufficiently powerful military if you were suddenly attacked by an enemy ( like the US military ? ) who already has their military strong enough to defeat you ?  Do you call for a "time out" so you can go tool up your arms industry and try and make up the difference ?  Even the Romans knew better that you..... "If you want peace, prepare for war."    Here's another appropriate adage for your military  "He who hesitates is lost".

 

 

 

Vastet wrote:
You can be damn sure we won't be sitting on our asses if WW3 starts.

 

The only thing I can be sure of is that if there ever is a WW3 the real threat will be thousands of nuclear tipped mirvs falling from the skies.  That means whatever is underneath it just gets melted and burned.  I die, you die, we all die.

www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/misanthropy

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." Rudyard Kipling


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3704
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: We're

OMG, now after I log on, it logs me off.  WTF ?

 

 

 

                                                              

 

 

www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/misanthropy

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." Rudyard Kipling


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10719
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Quote:It is inaccurate to

Quote:
It is inaccurate to refer to a nation as "you".

I did make an effort not to do that, but by the end I just wanted to play a game so I rushed a bit. Sticking out tongue

Quote:
And most importantly, wouldn't that mean that those nations who choose to align themselves with the US are alsoculpable ?

Yes. Britain effectively said "how high" when the US jumped. Australia has joined the US in every war since WW2 so far as I know. Even Canada joined in later, thanks to a new right wing nut Prime Minister. I wouldn't assign culpability to 2nd/3rd world nations that didn't actually contribute significant resources though. The most powerful nation on Earth said you're with or against us. And there aren't more than a couple countries who could laugh that off. Even those who could are hardly in a position to actively oppose the US.

Quote:
       http://www.GlobalFirepower.com    ( here is the correct link with 2012 conventional military power stats.  For some reason I can't edit my main post )

Sweet.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10719
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
I wouldn't have thought we

I wouldn't have thought we were so high on the list. 25 out of 200 is pretty damn high.

Quote:
Then Canada should immediately disentangle itself from any alliances with the US once and for all.

Lol. How does we don't need or want your troops on our soil translate to abandoning NORAD, NAFTA, NATO, and probably a thousand other treaties?

Quote:
If Canada truly is a military juggernaut why wouldn't your government just politely say "no thanks" and go it alone ?

There are so many fallacies and falsehoods in that statement that addressing it would be pointless.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10719
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Now you sound just

Quote:
Now you sound just like Watcherwho personally believes that the US military has never been "defeated" or even could be.   Like him, you are just spewing a lot of patriotic bluster and delusional thinking.   And unlike Watcher I fully acknowledge limited US military weaknesses and yet despite our vulnerabilities the US military is still vastlymore powerful than Canada's, and I'm speaking of purely conventional military forces.  No offense but Canada's "capabilities" would be utterly overwhelmed. 

I never said otherwise. But we'd make it hurt more than you've been hurt since Vietnam, and you're delusional if you think otherwise.

And how well could you defend yourself against us with more than half your military overseas? We'd take DC overnight while you were rushing to bring troops home.

The fact is we went from practically no military to having one of the ten biggest armies in the world in less than a year. It took 3 months to get troops into Europe. What did the US do for four years?

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Tapey
atheist
Tapey's picture
Posts: 1474
Joined: 2009-01-23
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:      

 

Quote:
       http://www.GlobalFirepower.com    ( here is the correct link with 2012 conventional military power stats.  For some reason I can't edit my main post )
Sweet.

For some reason  I cannot take that page too seriously, South Africas military is nothing more than an employment agency for people with aids. And we are rank 31? I believe over 50% have aids. Which makes no sense because it is against policy to put people with aids in the field. Add to this they are as poorly trained as you can get, they went on strike against direct orders and then ran away when the police showed up. Its says we have some planes... turns out we only have 1 person employed who can actually fly a fighter jet.

Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

blacklight915 wrote:

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Let me pose a problem. Does not increasing military R&D decrease the available talent for civilian R&D? New products and new profits? And does that not reduce the taxes to pay for military R&D? How much military R&D is not too much?

Only the amount necessary to keep the country safe from invasion by another nation's army is not too much.

If it were only that simple. So our oil can be cut off as long as we are not invaded? So our world trade can be terminated as long as we are not invaded? Like England we obviously need a navy.

So we can keep our sea trade lines open but some country can take control of oil (or other sources) and prevent them from selling to us? On the other hand prevent potential customers from buying from us? So we need to prevent that from happening. The peaceful way is to promote global trade for everyone not just for ourselves. If it is just for ourselves others will try the same thing leading to war again. But should it come to war over control of trade the ability to deal with the responsible country itself not just the sea routes is required. Thus an army and air force.

Simply here minimum military has to be able to inflict enough damage to make it cost more to restrict free trade than what can be earned from the restriction. China has announced it will restrict sale of the rare earth elements needed to make the magnets needed for electric cars. War or no war? If China decides to restrict the sales of finished magnets, war or no war? Finished products?

Not that simple.

Quote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

My evidence is quite simple and obvious. A country that feared losing would have optimized the dollars spent. Instead the US spread war dollars all over the country opening military bases for no reason other than Congressional districts getting a share of the money. For 40 years after the war it was essentially impossible to close any of them even the most redundant and worthless solely for political resistance. The same thing happend with war materiel contracts.

The US had an incredible number of difference aircraft. That was not because they were needed but because contracts had to be parcelled out to congressional districts. The money had to be spread around. Even when there was some kind of standardization such as in combat rifles, it is the rare collector who has one from every company that made them. Why not one or two huge factories producing them as cheaply as possible? The money had to be spread around to congressional districts. If a state had a sea coast it had a naval base -- the more coast line the more bases. Mare Island in Alameda was still around when they made the fifth Startrek movie. I think the one in Long Beach is closed leaving only the pre-war one in San Diego  for California at least. There is still one at Puget Sound, Washington. Matter of fact even sea coast was not a requirement as there was one on Lake Erie. It might still be there.

Have I established the validity of the outrageous statement? If winning was in question the inefficient and often deadly in the case of shitty aircraft spreading around the money could not have been tolerated. All those war bond drives? BS! They were to raise more money to spread around. And the Americans all eager to kill Japs and Krauts and save the world? 94% of them were drafted. Obviously the people didn't feel threatened either.

So, we agree that ending the wars in the Middle East, closing all overseas military bases, closing some home military bases, and cutting funding of non-drone-related R&D is a good idea?

No. I see there is a rational need for a military. I think it is time to get passed WWII and Cold War thinking. It is also time to find a means to auto-assassinate clowns like GW Bush and his father who start wars that cost more than they are worth in addition to wars based upon lies. Without those two clowns the worst me would have done since 1990 in the middle east is keeping the oil lanes open. It is also time to forget Iran took US hostages in its revolution. Iran can't turn back the clock and make it not happen.

And with the middle east in general, for both wars against Iraq and the current clamoring for war on Iran it has only been the izziehuggers pushing for those wars. Make it illegal to support a foreign country if necessary.

Castro is Cold War. Forget him too. If Cubans do not like their government they have shown their ability to revolt against it. That is how Castro did it.

In any event had those things been done after the Soviet Union collapsed we would not be having this exchange. How much military and what kind in that world is another issue. New weapons systems like drones are needed. It takes R&D to develop them for production. Something most people don't realize is something like 80% of R&D is spent developing the production prototypes. The R is the 20% then D is the rest. The different weapons systems won't reduce the R&D all that much.

The real money can only be saved by having fewer deployed and manned systems. To do that Congress has to reduce the 2 1/2 war readiness requirement. Make it 1 1/2 wars and mitary costs drop to half in the long term. There is a simple answer. This is the simple answer. It cannot be solved playing around with bits and pieces of the consequences of the prime mover behind the cost.

There are people who spend their entire military careers, cest moi as one, working to get costs down within the 2 1/2 war requirement. What you see is more or less the best there is, one answer within a wide range of good answers. Debating between good answers does not reduce the overall cost.

Drones are a good answer. I summarized their good points. They are dependent upon satellites in the $2-300 million cost of getting to orbit plus maintenance and operation meaning expensive manpower on the ground. These has to many of them depending upon altitude to have 24/7 coverage. They fail so spares in orbit are needed. In a war with a country that can reach orbit they can be destroyed. And if Iran really did bring down a drone they are obvously vulnerable to any country at that technological level. I can go on with more problems and more benefits. Everything is a tradeoff.

Quote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

I am under the impression that the politicians have laid requirements on the military for the number of wars and readiness to fight them. Until those are changed what you see is a modest optimization attempting to satisfy of the law.

All right, so the question is how to change these requirements, correct?

As Mad Madelyn Albright said almost, what good is a miltary if you can't kill things with it? In a South Carolina debate, Ron Paul was booed for suggesting we shouldn't go around invading other countries. While not considered a political philosopher Hermann Goring did understand political reality.

Quote:
Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship. ...voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.

Find a way to make him wrong.

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3704
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:I wouldn't have

Vastet wrote:
I wouldn't have thought we were so high on the list. 25 out of 200 is pretty damn high.

 

Glass half empty vs glass half full, right ?

 

Vastet wrote:
Lol. How does we don't need or want your troops on our soil translate to abandoning NORAD, NAFTA, NATO, and probably a thousand other treaties?

 

National alliances can swing from one extreme to another.  All it takes is the will to do so.  Before 1945 the Soviet Union was an ally whom the US government gave military aid to, after 1945 the Soviet Union became the "Evil Empire".  Before 1945 Japan was our sworn enemy who attacked us without warning, after 1945 we are in complete harmony with Japan.  See how it works ?

 

 

 

 

www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/misanthropy

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." Rudyard Kipling