Countries progressives like

When these countries developed their welfare states, mainly after WWII, they were pretty socially homogeneous. Your taxes paid for things for people who looked like you.

That has changed in Europe, and was never true in the US. You’re probably familiar with the work of Robert Putnam, who has shown that diversity erodes social solidarity (duh!). [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_D._Putnam]

Conservatives ought to look at how the completely unsentimental Chinese run the ferociously-capitalist society of Singapore, with respect to both ethnic diversity and welfare measures. [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Provident_Fund ] We should consider adopting some of the types of solutions they have.

South Korea, Taiwan … and – to a lesser extent, most of LatinAmerica. Fukayama was not wrong, in my opinion, about the ‘end of history’ – he just compressed the timeline a lot, plus – initially – thinking that speeding up evolution towards a decent society could be imposed by the 82nd Airborne. Worked for Arkansas, not Iraq.

The Biden puppet is getting ready to send payments every month to people with children. To pay for this he is planning on raising taxes through the roof and probably have the Treasury sell more bonds to the Federal Reserve there by creating more money out of thin air.

Most other unlimited, unrestricted schemes to increase to the money supply to pay for irresponsible government spending have resulted in massive inflation. We are assured that it will be different this time because the little professors in the great big universities have ruled it so.

I have also heard the Federal Reserve wants to force private pension funds to take a share the low yielding bonds that it has bought from the Treasury. The trouble is these pension fund need yields of at least 7% to pay their recipients. Since these government securities yield less than 1%, damage the private pension system will result.

But who cares? Most of the recipients are probably benefiting from “White Privilege” so they don’t deserve that money. Besides, this might make those retirees depend upon the government, which would be good. :astonished:

I’m getting at the fact that you must be a racist because you’re advocating for a white country.

Not very woke Gene. Not very woke at all.

And it’s a noose around their neck.

Given, they’ve reformed their systems several times in an attempt to stave off the fiscal consequence, but they’ve still had a generation of people who were used to those benefits.

A generation that raised another generation who were expecting the same, but can only look forward to seeing those benefits cut, as France no longer has the dominant economic position to pay for them.

When your system is not sustainable, you end up lying to people about what they can plan their lives around. The consequences of that are truly awful.

3 Likes

This absolutely gets to the heart of the issue. The thing is, I think we can do both. Our annual military spending is ~3/4 Trillion USD. Which is more than the next 10 highest spending countries use combined. We could save a 1/4 Trillion dollars and still be spending double what China spends.

I know a lot of the proposed social programs cost more than that in a vacuum, but if we could even take steps towards better helping our people I believe that would be the ethical thing to do.

South Korea… right?

South has a very large Christian population for an Asian Country; 30%. There are more Christians than Buddhists.

The orphanage spike, which has now declined, was likely due to this weird condition where citizenship is denied if you can’t confirm Korean Male paternity, but would be confirmed if you were an Orphan.

This remained in place until the late 90s.

First, you are naive if you believe the military spending numbers that countries like China are reporting. They have an aggressive foreign policy, and their aim is dominate Asia and then the world.

Second the U.S, military expenditures are high because we are involved all over the world. One of the problems is that countries, like Germany, don’t contribute their fair share. When Trump pushed them on that issue, they didn’t like it. That’s too bad, but Putin poses an ever bigger threat to them. They have no excuse to leave the U.S. with picking up most of the tab.

I have long said that the U.S. gets involved in more wars than are necessary. We need to do a better job at choosing our battles. We also need to look at counties, like Israel, who are eager to defend themselves and spend less money on hopeless causes like Afghanistan and Iraq.

George W. Bush should have stayed out of Iraq. He blew it. If Saddam had stayed in power, maybe he’d be fighting Iran instead of us. Saddam was a turd, but perhaps that was all the Iraqis deserved.

Making the people of the nation so dependent upon the government has never been a good idea. It fits into a cycle that I’d heard before, but hadn’t known the origin (which, according to Wikipedia, is debated). Emphasis mine:

Gah. Yeah, I meant South Korea.

I believe their numbers as much as I believe our own self-reported ones.

Agreed, we seem to have appointed ourselves police of the world and frankly it doesn’t seem like much of the world appreciates our intervention.

Sorry Gene it’s not the same.

We hide what we spend our defense dollars on, the Chinese hide both that and the amount.

Realpolitik.

If we weren’t there, it’s not clear Russia, or China would be better regional top dogs. Nor does them bending countries there to their interests sound appealing.

If we weren’t in the Middle East, Saudi Arabia would be ravaging Qatar, and Turkey, Kurdish Iraq.

I’d agree we should aim to be an off-shore balancer rather than enforcer, but that’s not the same as not being there.

  1. The official budget of China has defense spending around $180bn, the number closer to $250bn is from NGO estimates based on their activities.

  2. I’m saying I don’t believe our reported numbers. NGOs estimate the U.S. actual spending is >$1tn

May want to read this:

Equivocating doesn’t make sense here.

Not entirely, but that’s why in the original post I used U.S. self reported numbers vs. China 3rd party estimates. The roundabout point to this whole thing is that we do indeed spend at least triple what they do on defense.

But you’re right, saying:

Was unnecessary exaggeration of the situation

@gene needs to realize the score. The Chinese Communist Government is wearing the black hats here.

Their conduct through the Pandemic has been reprehensible. They have done all they could to hide the origins of the Coved and have used the World Health Organization to run interference here. There is evidence that the Chinese spread the virus to the rest of the world after they realized they had a problem.

In the meantime, they build up their bases and armaments and threaten their neighbors. They also conduct campaigns of genocide against the people in their country. There is not admirable about them.

There is nothing to be gained by playing games with their defense budget. The cold war has returned, like it or not.

Is it “playing games” to only spend double what they do instead of triple? Far more per capita by the way, since they have >1,000,000,000 more people than we do.

Which is more than enough for them to create asymmetries, which they already have for both hypersonic and air to air missiles.

They don’t have to spread their forces as far, they don’t pay their soldiers nearly as well.

Thus, they don’t have to spend the same amount to get equipment parity or advantadges over us.

In a country where labor costs are lower, and far less goes to things like lifetime service benefits, they don’t have to equate our spending to equate our capability.

Am I naive to think the days where those weapons and soldiers matter are over? There will never again be large scale battles like WWI and WWII. If we’re backed into a corner or China is backed into a corner, nukes come out before they hand over the keys to the castle. Everything short of that is just incredibly expensive posturing.

Geopolitics is about capabilities; if China can leverage the capability to keep us out of the South China Sea because they have enough advanced missile systems to flatten any Carrier group we sail there, suddenly, they control more than a 1/3 of the world’s sea lanes, and can pressure Taiwan and Japan to give into their whims.

The Chinese game on this extensively, hence their “cabbage tactics” of building up their artificial islands overtime, and putting layers of missile systems, air, and naval bases on them, until no country can question their claims, even if the Hague rules them illegal.

WWIII would only have to last one or two days to equate the damage of either. And I’m not even counting nukes.

Salami tactics.

It’s what Russia did to take Crimea and parts of Ukraine, it’s what China did to ruin Hong Kong, surge the seas to their south, and eventually, in their minds, take Taiwan.

Which they very much plan on doing, whether that’s direct military action, or intense pressure.

Given mankind’s lust for power, I think that yes, there will be a WWIII.