Chalmers Johnson on Military Spending & the Debt Crisis

Somewhere in the last month or so, I posted this link about the
U.S. federal budget, and military spending:
http://www.warresisters.org/piechart.htm

It's a good link. But Chalmers Johnson is better. If you don't
know him, you should get acquainted, and this is a good time to
do so. At the link below is a nice essay, plus a very nice video clip of
old Chalmers himself, dry wit and all, speaking the truth about our
outrageous, insane, monstrous, ruinous "defense" budget.

You cannot help but like the guy.

The immediate relevance is that one of the main reasons that
we are now facing collapse and national bankruptcy is this
outrageous unproductive spending on "defense" for so many
years. It drove the FSU to collapse; it is driving US to collapse,
as well.

Enjoy!



http://aep.typepad.com/american_empire_project/

http://aep.typepad.com/american_empire_project/2008/01/going-bankrupt.html

January 22, 2008

Going Bankrupt

Why the Debt Crisis Is Now the Greatest Threat to the American Republic

By Chalmers Johnson

[youtube box]

A clip from a new film, "Chalmers Johnson on American Hegemony," in Cinema Libre Studios' Speaking Freely series in which he discusses "military Keynesianism" and imperial bankruptcy

The military adventurers of the Bush administration have much in common with the corporate leaders of the defunct energy company Enron. Both groups of men thought that they were the "smartest guys in the room," the title of Alex Gibney's prize-winning film on what went wrong at Enron. The neoconservatives in the White House and the Pentagon outsmarted themselves. They failed even to address the problem of how to finance their schemes of imperialist wars and global domination.

As a result, going into 2008, the United States finds itself in the anomalous position of being unable to pay for its own elevated living standards or its wasteful, overly large military establishment. Its government no longer even attempts to reduce the ruinous expenses of maintaining huge standing armies, replacing the equipment that seven years of wars have destroyed or worn out, or preparing for a war in outer space against unknown adversaries. Instead, the Bush administration puts off these costs for future generations to pay -- or repudiate. This utter fiscal irresponsibility has been disguised through many manipulative financial schemes (such as causing poorer countries to lend us unprecedented sums of money), but the time of reckoning is fast approaching.

There are three broad aspects to our debt crisis. First, in the current fiscal year (2008) we are spending insane amounts of money on "defense" projects that bear no relationship to the national security of the United States. Simultaneously, we are keeping the income tax burdens on the richest segments of the American population at strikingly low levels.

Second, we continue to believe that we can compensate for the accelerating erosion of our manufacturing base and our loss of jobs to foreign countries through massive military expenditures -- so-called "military Keynesianism," which I discuss in detail in my book Nemesis: The Last Days of the American Republic. By military Keynesianism, I mean the mistaken belief that public policies focused on frequent wars, huge expenditures on weapons and munitions, and large standing armies can indefinitely sustain a wealthy capitalist economy. The opposite is actually true.

Third, in our devotion to militarism (despite our limited resources), we are failing to invest in our social infrastructure and other requirements for the long-term health of our country. These are what economists call "opportunity costs," things not done because we spent our money on something else. Our public education system has deteriorated alarmingly. We have failed to provide health care to all our citizens and neglected our responsibilities as the world's number one polluter. Most important, we have lost our competitiveness as a manufacturer for civilian needs -- an infinitely more efficient use of scarce resources than arms manufacturing. Let me discuss each of these.

The Current Fiscal Disaster

[...snip...]

[...continues at URL...]

Well, once HillaryCare gets in, the military problem is solved instantly. There is no country with socialized medicine that has much of a military and most have none.

By none, I mean have the ability to project their power outside their borders.

And some people might think that is a good thing. They are people who think a proper war is one that is fought on their lands. Unfortunately, when you think about it, you realize that is not a good thing.

Troke said:

Well, once HillaryCare gets in, the military problem is solved instantly. There is no country with socialized medicine that has much of a military and most have none.

By none, I mean have the ability to project their power outside their borders.

And some people might think that is a good thing. They are people who think a proper war is one that is fought on their lands. Unfortunately, when you think about it, you realize that is not a good thing.

Click to expand...

Why?

Yes, it is POSSIBLE to fight a just or defensive war outside one's borders.
Possible -- about as possible as it is to take ONE hit of crack cocaine and
leave it at that. One human in a thousand might be able to do that.

The Framers, wisely, were VERY clear about the imperative need
to avoid foreign entanglements and to NOT maintain a standing army.
They knew. They knew. We forgot. And now we have ruined our
country, because we forgot.

PS: why pick on Shillary in particular? She's a warmonger
and corporate stooge no more or less than anyone else on the
national political stage.

Personally, I think we should spend (at the federal level, less on "human resources" and more for defense. A lot more! Enough to be able to protect our boarders and fight over seas.

Troke said:

Well, once HillaryCare gets in, the military problem is solved instantly. There is no country with socialized medicine that has much of a military and most have none.

By none, I mean have the ability to project their power outside their borders.

And some people might think that is a good thing. They are people who think a proper war is one that is fought on their lands. Unfortunately, when you think about it, you realize that is not a good thing.

Click to expand...

military Keynesianism

only if you think of things in terms of a Keynesian model.


why pick on Shillary in particular?

the only way to be a good stooge is to continue to broadcast the same ignorant statements as if there is some truth to them.

The leftists in Congress would do NOTHING to reduce the overall growth in Federal outlays.

Nothing

Nada

Zip

Zilch


Sure, they might reduce military spending a bit, and then jack up entitlement spending massively, which is just as dangerous for the economy.


This is just typical propaganda, meant to convince people to blow huge wads on NEW government spending programs.

mbo said:

The leftists in Congress would do NOTHING to reduce the overall growth in Federal outlays.

Nothing

Nada

Zip

Zilch

Sure, they might reduce military spending a bit, and then jack up entitlement spending massively, which is just as dangerous for the economy.

Click to expand...

Not true. Money spent on unneeded "defense" hardware and etc. is money
thrown down a rathole, never to be seen again. It is like spending
money digging ditches, and then filling them up again. Whereas "entitlement
spending", or social spending, results in both growth and circulation of
wealth. Growth because human and other forms of capital are supported,
and circulation because the money is not simply buried immediately, like
it is with the military crap, but rather changes hands and can be used for
beneficial purposes.

The economies of nations with extremely high social spending (denmark,
sweden, etc.), and essentially NO military spending, are doing just fine.
In fact, those countries are much better places to live. Higher quality of
life, all around, in all measurable respects.

Conrad Nimikos said:

Personally, I think we should spend (at the federal level, less on "human resources" and more for defense. A lot more! Enough to be able to protect our boarders and fight over seas.

Click to expand...

Spoken like a true liberal/radical anti-Constitutionalist and enemy of the U.S.

Alan2012 said:

Not true. Money spent on unneeded "defense" hardware and etc. is money
thrown down a rathole, never to be seen again. It is like spending
money digging ditches, and then filling them up again. Whereas "entitlement
spending", or social spending, results in both growth and circulation of
wealth. Growth because human and other forms of capital are supported,
and circulation because the money is not simply buried immediately, like
it is with the military crap, but rather changes hands and can be used for
beneficial purposes.

The economies of nations with extremely high social spending (denmark,
sweden, etc.), and essentially NO military spending, are doing just fine.
In fact, those countries are much better places to live. Higher quality of
life, all around, in all measurable respects.

Click to expand...

I was looking around the Cooperative Extension Service bulletins found some economic brochures from 1995 & 2001 (I couldn't find anything later) and they said essentially the same thing. Where there is Social Security and Pension fund income, it raises the overall well being of whatever town/city and county. Because SS is steady income with no large ups or downs, counties can rely on that tax base in order to provide services.

Instead of spending trillions of dollars in Iraq, we can spend the same dollars here repairing our infrasture with the provisio that NO PRIVATE CORPORATION CAN THEN BUY THAT SAME INFRUSTRUCTURE. PERIOD. Though most people do not see repairs of their freeways and streets as entitlements, those on the neo-con/liberal globalist/corportists side do. Anything that a corporation doesn't get is an entitlement. When can we stop that diacotomy?

In the 1950s & 1960 when the freeways were first built was a huge expansion in taxpayer bases around the country. There also seemed to be less crime because young men could find a job, especially in the summers between college semesters.

While we are fixing the freeway's, can someone tell me why we are not burying electrical lines? Why is it that we are having to constantly pay to have them repaired after every storm? Is this just a money-making scheme by the utilities? Telephone lines are buried and they don't have the same outage problems like above ground. (Yes, fiber's do go out, but are generally cut by some backhoe who doesn't pay attention to that sign that says to call before digging - DH gets the bulletins on these daily.) Update sewer lines too.

See, if these young people were out working instead of hanging out on the street corner causing problems, they could then use their earnings to go college. Or as John Edwards was saying, use Community Colleges for kids who didn't get the education the first time to go and actually learn how to read and write and cipher.

Investing in the people in this country is not entitlement is wise funding - then the young people will have a reason to be loyal to the foundations of this country and not to some corporate logo on their shoes, clothing and gadgets.

Kalliope, are you suggesting for one moment that resources should be
directed toward meeting the human needs of ordinary people, rather than
being retained by the super-rich and the corporations?! Gads! Just what
kind of a liberal socialist weasel ARE you, anyway?

military Keynesianism
only if you think of things in terms of a Keynesian model.

Gee, I thought I had the prize for being opaque. I have a rival.

why pick on Shillary in particular?
the only way to be a good stooge is to continue to broadcast the same ignorant statements as if there is some truth to them.

I use the term HillaryCare as a totem for Socialized Medicine, because of all the schemes around, it appeared to be the worst.

I say again, Socialized Medicine and you will see savage cuts in Defense. BTW, Billy Jeff inherited 15 Divisions of Army. We went to war with nine. The other 6 were eliiminated to balance the budget.

The thought will occur again. If Obama et al cut and run from Iraq, you think the cut in Defense will lower your taxes? Dream on Dreaming Sheep. It won't even lower the budget deficit. They already have plans for that money. And leaving it in your pocket ain't one of them.

"...While we are fixing the freeway's, can someone tell me why we are not burying electrical lines?.."

They can the feeder lines, anytime you want to pay for it.

Main lines, I doubt it.

More on military Keynesianism, disaster capitalism, and related
matters.......

"A Dean Baker study cited by Johnson found that after an initial demand stimulus, by about the sixth year, the effect of increased military spending turns negative. After 10 years of increased defense spending, there would be 464,000 fewer jobs than in a scenario of lower defense spending."


http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/02/21/7192/

Published on Thursday, February 21, 2008 by Foreign Policy in Focus

Capitalism in an Apocalyptic Mood

by Walden Bello

Skyrocketing oil prices, a falling dollar, and collapsing financial markets are the key ingredients in an economic brew that could end up in more than just an ordinary recession. The falling dollar and rising oil prices have been rattling the global economy for sometime. But it is the dramatic implosion of financial markets that is driving the financial elite to panic.

And panic there is. Even as it characterized Federal Reserve Board Chairman Ben Bernanke’s deep cuts amounting to a 1.25 points off the prime rate in late January as a sign of panic, the Economist admitted that “there is no doubt that this is a frightening moment.” The losses stemming from bad securities tied up with defaulted mortgage loans by “subprime” borrowers are now estimated to be in the range of about $400 billion. But as the Financial Times warned, “the big question is what else is out there” at a time that the global financial system “is wide open to a catastrophic failure.” In the last few weeks, for instance, several Swiss, Japanese, and Korean banks have owned up to billions of dollars in subprime-related losses. The globalization of finance was, from the beginning, the cutting edge of the globalization process, and it was always an illusion to think that the subprime crisis could be confined to U.S. financial institutions, as some analysts had thought.

Some key movers and shakers sounded less panicky than resigned to some sort of apocalypse. At the global elite’s annual week-long party at Davos in late January, George Soros sounded positively necrological, declaring to one and all that the world was witnessing “the end of an era.” World Economic Forum host Klaus Schwab spoke of capitalism getting its just desserts, saying, “We have to pay for the sins of the past.” He told the press, “It’s not that the pendulum is now swinging back to Marxist socialism, but people are asking themselves, ‘What are the boundaries of the capitalist system?’ They think the market may not always be the best mechanism for providing solutions.”

Ruined Reputations and Policy Failures

[...big snip...]

New Bubbles to the Rescue?

Do not overestimate the resiliency of capitalism. After the collapse of the dot.com boom and the housing boom, a third line of defense against stagnation owing to overcapacity may yet emerge. For instance, the U.S. government might pull the economy out of the jaws of recession through military spending. And, indeed, the military economy did play a role in bringing the United States out of the 2002 recession, with defense spending in 2003 accounting for 14% of GDP growth while representing only 4% of the overall U.S. GDP. According to estimates cited by Chalmers Johnson, defense-related expenditures will exceed $1 trillion for the first time in history in 2008.

Stimulus could also come from the related “disaster capitalism complex” so well studied by Naomi Klein: the “full fledged new economy in home land security, privatized war and disaster reconstruction tasked with nothing less than building and running a privatized security state both at home and abroad.” Klein says that, in fact, “the economic stimulus of this sweeping initiative proved enough to pick up the slack where globalization and the dot.com booms had left off. Just as the Internet had launched the dot.-com bubble, 9/11 launched the disaster capitalism bubble.” This subsidiary bubble to the real-estate bubble appears to have been relatively unharmed so far by the collapse of the latter.

It is not easy to track the sums circulating in the disaster capitalism complex. But one indication of the sums involved is that InVision, a General Electric affiliate producing high-tech bomb-detection devises used in airports and other public spaces, received an astounding $15 billion in Homeland Security contracts between 2001 and 2006.

Whether or not “military Keynesianism” and the disaster capitalism complex can in fact fill the role played by financial bubbles is open to question. To feed them, at least during the Republican administrations, has meant reducing social expenditures. A Dean Baker study cited by Johnson found that after an initial demand stimulus, by about the sixth year, the effect of increased military spending turns negative. After 10 years of increased defense spending, there would be 464,000 fewer jobs than in a scenario of lower defense spending.

An more important limit to military Keynesianism and disaster capitalism is that the military engagements to which they are bound to lead are likely to create quagmires such as Iraq and Afghanistan. And these disasters could trigger a backlash both abroad and at home. Such a backlash would eventually erode the legitimacy of these enterprises, reduce their access to tax dollars, and erode their viability as sources of economic expansion in a contracting economy.
Yes, global capitalism may be resilient. But it looks like its options are increasingly limited. The forces making for the long-term stagnation of the global capitalist economy are now too heavy to be easily shaken off by the economic equivalent of mouth-to-mouth resuscitation.

Walden Bello is president of the Freedom from Debt Coalition, a senior analyst at Focus on the Global South, and a columnist for Foreign Policy In Focus (www.fpif.org).

Sources

Dean Baker, “The Menace of an Unchecked Housing Bubble,” in Joseph Stiglitz, Aaron Edlin, and J. Bradford DeLong, eds., The Economists’ Voice (New York: Columbia University Press, 2008)

Robert Brenner, The Boom and the Bubble (New York: Verso, 2002.)

“China: the Locomotive,” Strait Times, February 23, 2004.

Naomi Klein, The Shock Doctrine (New York: Metropolitan Books, 2007).

Philip Anthony O’Hara, “The Contradictory Dynamics of Globalization,” in B.N. Ghosh and Halil Guven, eds., Globalization and the Third World (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006).

Robert Rubin and Jacob Weisberg, In an Uncertain World (New York: Random House, 2003).

Robert Wade, “The Aftermath of the Asian Financial Crisis,” in Bhumika Muchhala, ed., Ten Years After: Revisiting the Asian Financial Crisis (Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, 2007)

Copyright © 2008, Institute for Policy Studies

Alan2012 said:

Not true. Money spent on unneeded "defense" hardware and etc. is money
thrown down a rathole, never to be seen again. It is like spending
money digging ditches, and then filling them up again. Whereas "entitlement
spending", or social spending, results in both growth and circulation of
wealth. Growth because human and other forms of capital are supported,
and circulation because the money is not simply buried immediately, like
it is with the military crap, but rather changes hands and can be used for
beneficial purposes.

The economies of nations with extremely high social spending (denmark,
sweden, etc.), and essentially NO military spending, are doing just fine.
In fact, those countries are much better places to live. Higher quality of
life, all around, in all measurable respects.

Click to expand...

Those countries are also completely homogeneous, without underlying racial and ethnic and illegal immigrant populations that would love nothing more than to live off the work efforts of others whenj those entitlements are piled on. Those other countries are also miniscule in scope of government size compared to the U.S. and don't have a history of massive fraud, waste, and abuse. The U.S. would immediately implode if it tried to emulate the economic system of a country of the size of Ohio.


I've got no problem with the government pulling back spending based on foreign intervention, military or otherwise. The government should be a fraction of its size. The Constiitution is clear about the role of the Federal government, and it's a limited one.

Any savings by reductions in spending should be just that - savings in reduction that reduce OVERALL federal spending, not offset by new pork and welfare spending.

You should re-read the Constitution, and quit pandering for a new Constitution.

BTW,


Your hero-boy Obama wants to spend hundreds of billions on worldwide poverty programs. Talk about throwing money down a rat-hole.

mbo said:

BTW,
Your hero-boy Obama

Click to expand...

Good old MBO, ever unwilling (or is it unable?) to read. I've never uttered
a SINGLE word in support of Obama. Never. Not one. I don't like him,
frankly. He seems to me like a young opportunistic guy with very little
if any substance.

mbo said:

Those countries are also completely homogeneous, without underlying racial and ethnic and illegal immigrant populations that would love nothing more than to live off the work efforts of others whenj those entitlements are piled on. Those other countries are also miniscule in scope of government size compared to the U.S.

Click to expand...

The "defense" establishment, for the most part, IS the "big government".
See: http://www.warresisters.org/piechart.htm

So yes, of course, their governments are very small compared to ours,
because they do not have 900-lb gorillas in the room (gigantic
military/industrial establishments) the way we do.

THREE TRILLION.

Yet another nail in the coffin of the U.S.

"The price in treasure has...been financed entirely by borrowing."



http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article3419840.ece

February 23, 2008

The three trillion dollar war

The cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts have grown to staggering proportions

Joseph Stiglitz and Linda Bilmes

The Bush Administration was wrong about the benefits of the war and it was wrong about the costs of the war. The president and his advisers expected a quick, inexpensive conflict. Instead, we have a war that is costing more than anyone could have imagined.

The cost of direct US military operations - not even including long-term costs such as taking care of wounded veterans - already exceeds the cost of the 12-year war in Vietnam and is more than double the cost of the Korean War.

And, even in the best case scenario, these costs are projected to be almost ten times the cost of the first Gulf War, almost a third more than the cost of the Vietnam War, and twice that of the First World War. The only war in our history which cost more was the Second World War, when 16.3 million U.S. troops fought in a campaign lasting four years, at a total cost (in 2007 dollars, after adjusting for inflation) of about $5 trillion (that's $5 million million, or £2.5 million million). With virtually the entire armed forces committed to fighting the Germans and Japanese, the cost per troop (in today's dollars) was less than $100,000 in 2007 dollars. By contrast, the Iraq war is costing upward of $400,000 per troop.

Most Americans have yet to feel these costs. The price in blood has been paid by our voluntary military and by hired contractors. The price in treasure has, in a sense, been financed entirely by borrowing. Taxes have not been raised to pay for it - in fact, taxes on the rich have actually fallen. Deficit spending gives the illusion that the laws of economics can be repealed, that we can have both guns and butter. But of course the laws are not repealed. The costs of the war are real even if they have been deferred, possibly to another generation.

On the eve of war, there were discussions of the likely costs. Larry Lindsey, President Bush's economic adviser and head of the National Economic Council, suggested that they might reach $200 billion. But this estimate was dismissed as “baloney” by the Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld. His deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, suggested that postwar reconstruction could pay for itself through increased oil revenues. Mitch Daniels, the Office of Management and Budget director, and Secretary Rumsfeld estimated the costs in the range of $50 to $60 billion, a portion of which they believed would be financed by other countries. (Adjusting for inflation, in 2007 dollars, they were projecting costs of between $57 and $69 billion.) The tone of the entire administration was cavalier, as if the sums involved were minimal.

[...snip...]

Alan2012 said:

The "defense" establishment, for the most part, IS the "big government".
See: http://www.warresisters.org/piechart.htm

So yes, of course, their governments are very small compared to ours,
because they do not have 900-lb gorillas in the room (gigantic
military/industrial establishments) the way we do.

Click to expand...

Tell you what - trade you any current foreign military spending for the elimination of the Department of Education and Department of Labor. That would be fair.

mbo said:

Tell you what - trade you any current foreign military spending for the elimination of the Department of Education and Department of Labor. That would be fair.

Click to expand...

No, sorry, the globalists have told long enough as to how to spend and/or save public monies. They've been at the corp welfare feeding trough long enough. We've sat too long in the shadows waiting for the adults to show up but we now are the adults. Yes, all spending absolutely needs to be in the one and only apprpriations bill, but what you consider pork another state it maybe an essential. All depends on who it benefits - people come first and foremost.

In that I mean, anything that teaches a skill or other eductional tool that the public finances is absolutely necessary. Kick all the private contractors out of the educational system and it will work. On paper a Federal Educational chair should work. It's the corp piggies feeding snarfling up the dollars is where it breaks down. Every child should absolutely know math, hard science and to read, along with Home Economics and other Life Skills. Music and the Arts have been shown that they translate in higher scores and understanding in other classes. Those are essential.

It is the non-essentials that need to be combed over with a fine tooth comb. When 20/20 was a news magazine, they used to broadcast wasteful govt spending, like the pour rate of ketchup/catsup. WTFH? It is Food/Consumer Protection, something like that could be done in a college setting for next to nothing. We sure don't need to pour federal dollars into a program like that.

I'm currently working on a proposal and am going to present to our State Legislature on how to get current Programs talking to each other. In working for State Funded Grant, I see what is working and what is not. The simple fact that we exist has been the main problem. I want to justify my position, along with other Agencies. It would take no further funding, but it is a matter of getting the right people talking to each other to make a particular program to work. I am not going to say exactly what it is yet, I have to vet it through my supervisor, who I respect tremendously. As far as I am concerned, she can take the entire credit, who cares, as long as it works. I will say this, it's something that almost every person on this board could understand and appreciate, especially since no further funding is needed. It would a "showing up" type of proposal. I'll post it in the Personal Stories section once I am finished. It is using the Prep information on this board and using it on a local level. If truth be told, I would never have thought of it without the Prep information, so I could have not done without all the years of reading and gleaning. Now I just have to get it finished written up and polished.

I digress -- we've heard enough imput from the globalists, it's time we had a turn.

Kalliope said:

I'll post it in the Personal Stories section once I am finished.

Click to expand...

No, why don't you post it on main?

Also, would you please PM me about it when you're done? It sounds
interesting and I don't want to miss it.

Thanks

Alan2012 said:

More on military Keynesianism, disaster capitalism, and related
matters.......

"A Dean Baker study cited by Johnson found that after an initial demand stimulus, by about the sixth year, the effect of increased military spending turns negative. After 10 years of increased defense spending, there would be 464,000 fewer jobs than in a scenario of lower defense spending."


http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/02/21/7192/

Published on Thursday, February 21, 2008 by Foreign Policy in Focus

Capitalism in an Apocalyptic Mood
by Walden Bello

Skyrocketing oil prices, a falling dollar, and collapsing financial markets are the key ingredients in an economic brew that could end up in more than just an ordinary recession. The falling dollar and rising oil prices have been rattling the global economy for sometime. But it is the dramatic implosion of financial markets that is driving the financial elite to panic.

And panic there is. Even as it characterized Federal Reserve Board Chairman Ben Bernanke’s deep cuts amounting to a 1.25 points off the prime rate in late January as a sign of panic, the Economist admitted that “there is no doubt that this is a frightening moment.” The losses stemming from bad securities tied up with defaulted mortgage loans by “subprime” borrowers are now estimated to be in the range of about $400 billion. But as the Financial Times warned, “the big question is what else is out there” at a time that the global financial system “is wide open to a catastrophic failure.” In the last few weeks, for instance, several Swiss, Japanese, and Korean banks have owned up to billions of dollars in subprime-related losses. The globalization of finance was, from the beginning, the cutting edge of the globalization process, and it was always an illusion to think that the subprime crisis could be confined to U.S. financial institutions, as some analysts had thought.

Some key movers and shakers sounded less panicky than resigned to some sort of apocalypse. At the global elite’s annual week-long party at Davos in late January, George Soros sounded positively necrological, declaring to one and all that the world was witnessing “the end of an era.” World Economic Forum host Klaus Schwab spoke of capitalism getting its just desserts, saying, “We have to pay for the sins of the past.” He told the press, “It’s not that the pendulum is now swinging back to Marxist socialism, but people are asking themselves, ‘What are the boundaries of the capitalist system?’ They think the market may not always be the best mechanism for providing solutions.”

Click to expand...

You know, for some real original thinking is, why enact war in the first place. I know ya'll I am naive about immigration and 'other people' but it seems that the only people who want others to bleed are the globalists who just can't seem to get enough money/treasure. It's about demanding someone give up something they have in abundance to another who is not willing to pay a fair price for it, so they decide to take it.

Don't give the song and dance about exporting democracy - we've outsourced too much as it is. We need to remember what it looks like here and it doesn't have a dollar sign in front of it, it has a Constitution. But with others just slavering over dead people, it's hard to approach life in Peace rather than Aggression. That's really respecting the sanctity of life - not sending other people's kids out to die over resources. Then we wouldn't have a bloated military, we'd have a properly outfitted defensive military - you know, old school.

Peace - Back By Popular Demand

So, Alan, the purpose of defense spending is to stimulate the economy? I always thought defense spending was for, well, defense. You know. to protect us from Hitler, Stalin, Mao and any other nut jobs out there.

The thing about defense is if you don't spend enough you work for those who do spend enough. that is if they let you live.

Alan, are you a fabian Socialist or a run of the mill Marxist?

Conrad Nimikos said:

Alan, are you a fabian Socialist or a run of the mill Marxist?

Click to expand...

Left-leaning ultra-conservative anarcho-fascist.

Do you mind if I just refer to you as "Nutjob"?

Conrad Nimikos said:

Do you mind if I just refer to you as "Nutjob"?

Click to expand...

Dear pudding-for-brains,

"Nutjob" will be just fine.

Sincerely,

Alan

"...So yes, of course, their governments are very small compared to ours,
because they do not have 900-lb gorillas in the room (gigantic
military/industrial establishments) the way we do...

Why do I have the feeling that their gov'ts take more taxes out of the pockets of the citizenry then our gov does? I sure have that feelling. Must be something going around.