Defense Spending: Capitalism's Waste

[RichardAWilson]

http://www.opednews.com/articles/The-Pentagon-Rules-America-by-Sherwood-Ross-110730-468.html


Does the Pentagon need to spend $19.3-billion on atomic energy when the same sum could pay 295,000 elementary school teachers?



One reason the U.S. fell behind is that about 30 percent of the nation's engineers, scientists and technicians work for the military.




Pentagon has spent $445 billion to wage war in Afghanistan and $815 billion for Iraq, for a total of $1.26 trillion. This at a time when the American Society of Civil Engineers reckons $2.2 trillion is needed to restore our infrastructure




U.S. Conference of Mayors passed a resolution to spend at home the $125 billion the Pentagon is wasting this year waging wars in the Middle East.

In America's Auto City (Detroit), the jobless rate is 38%.

[RichardAWilson]

We could have universal health care for what we're wasting on war.

[hatzel]

Almost every country in the history of the world has spent much more than it needs to on its war machine. Even those that don't go to war waste money on maintaining a standing army when it's totally unnecessary. But as long as States exist - irrespective of their political and economic systems - with their monopoly on legitimate force, as Weber said, they'll be wasting money on an executive of that force...it's just the way it is...

[RichardAWilson]

Well, we (America) spend more than the European Union and Russia (Combined). We could halve our defense spending. However, since we're using imperialism to secure Middle Eastern oil, I doubt that'll happen.

[DarkPast]

We could have universal health care for what we're wasting on war.

We could have so much more than just that... it's probably enough to feed an entire continent.

[RichardAWilson]

True. We also produce enough food to feed the world. The problem is that the 50% of the world that earns less than 2 dollars per day can't afford it.


So instead of feeding them, the Department of Agriculture pays our agribusinesses to leave the land fallow and burn farmland to drive prices even higher.

[Judicator]

Why is military spending inherent in capitalism? European countries are capitalist as well and they spend next to nothing on defense.

[RichardAWilson]

European countries are Social-Democrat. Furthermore, total defense spending is still higher than is justifiable. England in Iraq?

[RGacky3]

Many european countries are social-democratic (some, like Norway and Germany, are others, like Italy and England arn't really).

But its inherent in Capitalism because Capitalism relies on the state, they are intertwined, and you start building a social-democracy and some people might start wanting more of it, which is unacceptable to the American ruling class, so instead they thow it in defense spending.

Capitalism and the State have always and always will be intertwined, the capitalist market, capitalist property and so on are institutions that came with and rely on the state.

[Judicator]

European countries are Social-Democrat. Furthermore, total defense spending is still higher than is justifiable. England in Iraq?

Are you just using "social democrat" as a term to describe capitalism plus a welfare state? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norway#Economy

[RichardAWilson]

I'm describing it more as a political ideology.

(European countries have stricter campaign finance standards and the trade unions and the states themselves have a larger role in financing Parties and Campaigns.)

Furthermore, the populations of Europe aren't as willing to endorse imperialism and militarism like in the United States.

You don't see French versions of Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics and Raytheon. Britain is Europe's most militaristic and it adheres to the Anglo-Saxon Model. Plus, when have I ever claimed that "all capitalist countries are created equal?"

Capitalism can be "social." I think Sweden provides an illustration of social capitalism. The Nordic-Model is borderline democratic-socialism.


Norway has a very low unemployment rate, currently 3.1%. 30% of the labor force is employed by the public sector, the highest share within the OECD.




The state has large ownership positions in key industrial sectors, such as the strategic petroleum sector (Statoil and Aker Solutions), hydroelectric energy production (Statkraft), aluminium production (Norsk Hydro), the largest Norwegian bank (DnB NOR), and telecommunication provider (Telenor). Through these big companies, the state controls approximately 30% of the stock values at the Oslo Stock Exchange.



The Norwegian welfare state makes public health care free (above a certain level), and parents have 46 weeks paid parental leave.

In Norway, the entire petroleum sector is state owned and managed, the high-speed rail system is state owned and managed, the passenger trains are state managed and even the nation's airline is state owned and managed. The jobs created in those industries are high-paying union jobs.

One could attribute those benefits to Norway's oil wealth. However, Sweden, Finland and Denmark also enjoy the benefits of state planning, high-paying union jobs, progressive taxation and public-spending and investments in infrastructure, education and health care.

[RichardAWilson]

Denmark had a state owned railway company in 1885. =) Why didn't we? We wouldn't have had the Long-Depression had we nationalized the railways, just like we wouldn't have had the Great-Depression had we nationalized the banks.

Once again, some capitalists are smart enough to understand the sensibility of a "mixed economy."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_model

Germany also maintained a more socialised model.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_market_economy

[RGacky3]

Are you just using "social democrat" as a term to describe capitalism plus a welfare state?

No, Norway has about 25% working in the public sector and major industries owned by the state, and a lot of major industries with the state having a controlling share. Norway also has extremely strong unions and food cooperatives.

Germany also has Co-determination, which is one of hte most socialist policies around.

Capitalism + Welfare state is more greece :P, (which is'nt doing as well btw).

[RichardAWilson]

:cool:.... Don't forget Spain!

[gendoikari]

http://www.opednews.com/articles/The-Pentagon-Rules-America-by-Sherwood-Ross-110730-468.html

while military spending needs to be addressed, and the wars eliminated. There are reasons for military technologocial spending. A good deal of it has real world practical applications. GPS, The internet, Nuclear power. All came from the military. Now, wasteful projects like the osprey on the other hand...... chopping block.

[RGacky3]

Yeah, but that does'nt mean the internet and so on could'nt have been created by something else.

Also, if the government invented the internet, why could'nt we have set up public non-profit internet companies??? Why just turn it over to private industry? Rediculous.

[gendoikari]

Yeah, but that does'nt mean the internet and so on could'nt have been created by something else.

Also, if the government invented the internet, why could'nt we have set up public non-profit internet companies??? Why just turn it over to private industry? Rediculous.

I don't know, South carolina had a state run internet service proposal a while back, not sure if that ever took off. The hijacking of the internet is one of those things I leave alone as a story probably too depressing to read.

And yes they would have eventually come along, but military spending helped get them here faster. it's almost like small pockets of communism, particularly if you look at nasa. which isn't really military, but government spending all the same. And pure capitalism STILL would not have reached the moon by now. Hell, if we lived in a purely capitalistic society (assuming it didn't implode on itself) They'd be several hundred years away from sending man into space. Simply because there is no profit to be made. Well there is, it's just not monetary profit.

[RGacky3]

And yes they would have eventually come along, but military spending helped get them here faster. it's almost like small pockets of communism, particularly if you look at nasa. which isn't really military, but government spending all the same

Its not communism because its not for the public good, you can do research that benefits the public for its own sake, the military and nasa does reserach that sometimes benefits the public as a side note.


Simply because there is no profit to be made. Well there is, it's just not monetary profit.

All I'm saying is we can set up public companies, state controlled that are focused on research for everyone, and we can keep the revenue from it.

If we lived in a purely capitalistic society it would have collapsed right away.

[gendoikari]

Its not communism because its not for the public good, you can do research that benefits the public for its own sake, the military and nasa does reserach that sometimes benefits the public as a side note.



All I'm saying is we can set up public companies, state controlled that are focused on research for everyone, and we can keep the revenue from it.

If we lived in a purely capitalistic society it would have collapsed right away.

I'm gunna go ahead and disagree on the NASA bit. EVERYTHING they do is for the greater good. Military, well they're SUPPOSED to, what they have become is up for much debate, I mean when was the last war that we entered that we actually needed to enter to save lives, and not oil?

[RGacky3]

Not really, spending billions to see if maybe we kind find a special rock on mars does'nt really help peoples real needs, as for the military, it has'nt been for the public good for a long long time, maybe 5% of it is actually for the public good. Any public good from either of those is side benefits and would we'd be much better of public funding went to institutions that were actually for the public good.

[gendoikari]

Not really, spending billions to see if maybe we kind find a special rock on mars does'nt really help peoples real needs, as for the military, it has'nt been for the public good for a long long time, maybe 5% of it is actually for the public good. Any public good from either of those is side benefits and would we'd be much better of public funding went to institutions that were actually for the public good.

Looking at the rocks on mars is just part of the research, getting to know how the planet formed, what kind of soil we can expect there, ect., ect. we're learning about the universe, that alone is for the greater good. But we're also learning so that we can one day expand onto mars as a second home, and eventually into orbiting colonies. Everything they do is for the advancement of the human race. Whether or not most people can understand that is a different story. They are working for the LONG term survival of the human race.

[RGacky3]

Looking at the rocks on mars is just part of the research, getting to know how the planet formed, what kind of soil we can expect there, ect., ect. we're learning about the universe, that alone is for the greater good.

I'm pretty sure if we put it to popular vote we'd have totally different priorities, global warming will destroy the species long before we ever even have to dream of going to other planets, and I think people right now are concerned more about other stuff.

[RichardAWilson]

This is where you and I will have to disagree. NASA is valuable. Scientific research for the sake of scientific research is valuable because it yields positive innovation.

After all, in launching satellites and spacecraft, we've benefited from technological progress in photovoltaics, semiconductors, data storage and communications.

As for defense research, who cares if the internet began as a program designed for Post-Nuclear Communication?

Nonetheless, I will agree that those inventions should have spawned new socialised businesses that would have allowed for the self-financing of new research and undertakings.

[The Dark Side of the Moon]

detroit has always been a shithole(not the people in it) things falling apart buildings going to ruins etc

[RichardAWilson]

Well, it wasn't in 1960. It has been since 1970 that things have "gone to hell." Goes to show we need a massive PW-WPA System to rebuild our urban centers.

[Bardo]

We could have universal health care for what we're wasting on war.

We would probably save money just by implementing a single-payer system without even cutting anything other than programs which would be obsolete (medicare, medicaid). Universal health care itself would save billions.

Military spending is one of the things that confuses me the most about the "small government" crowd. They'll be the first to express outrage over military spending cuts because it costs jobs but at the same time their entire platform consists of spending cuts for non-military families. "Teachers are over paid, welfare programs reward the lazy" ect.

[RichardAWilson]

LOL! It's a hypocritical position. However, you'll also notice that those same right-winged Conservatives claim to be pro-life and then advocate the Death Penalty and cutting life-saving social aid (food, health care, etc.) to Africa.

Save the fetus and to hell with the child!

[gendoikari]

I'm pretty sure if we put it to popular vote we'd have totally different priorities, global warming will destroy the species long before we ever even have to dream of going to other planets, and I think people right now are concerned more about other stuff.

Global warming will not kill us all. at most it displaces 100 million worldwide and make georgia a bearable place to live (70 degree summers and rednecks heading for the hills, fuck yeah) The real dangers are overpouplation. and under production of food staples.

[RichardAWilson]

Are you joking? There's enough food in the world to eradicate malnutrition. The problem is that billions of men, women and children can't afford the food. Here in the United States, we compensate farmers to leave their land fallow. Food and overpopulation aren't the problem. The problem is economics and improper prioritization.

Meanwhile, global climate change is very serious. Most of the world's population is located along coastal areas. Global Climate Change will contribute to massive dislocation, desertification and a lowering of agricultural yields. Mosquitoes, malaria and the proliferation of disease and bacteria will also become more of an issue due to higher average global temperatures.

Nonetheless, NASA isn't responsible for Global Climate Change. We spend more on drinking, smoking and gambling than we do on NASA. The same can be said for Defense Research.

[gendoikari]

Are you joking? There's enough food in the world to eradicate malnutrition. The problem is that billions of men, women and children can't afford the food. Here in the United States, we compensate farmers to leave their land fallow. Food and overpopulation aren't the problem. The problem is economics and improper prioritization.

we are also only 7 billion on the planet right now. The estimate for the maximum sustainable population is about 9-10 billion. Best estimates put us at crossing the line in anywhere between 50 and 200 years from now. Personally with the data i've looked at I'd place the deadline at around 2125 give or take 50 years depending on societal and technological advancement.


Meanwhile, global climate change is very serious. Most of the world's population is located along coastal areas. Global Climate Change will contribute to massive dislocation, desertification and a lowering of agricultural yields.

Yeah but it won't kill us all as some would have us believe. More than likely it'll trigger the next ice age early. which is why i keep a close watch on the reports on the thermohaline cycle. I hear anything about that aren't really good i'm moving to the carribean.

[RGacky3]

we are also only 7 billion on the planet right now. The estimate for the maximum sustainable population is about 9-10 billion. Best estimates put us at crossing the line in anywhere between 50 and 200 years from now. Personally with the data i've looked at I'd place the deadline at around 2125 give or take 50 years depending on societal and technological advancement.


population won't grow indefinately, and I honlestly don't really believe the numbers from 9 to 10 billion, I'd like to see where you got the mfrom.

Anyway the point is NASA and Defense spending to sometimes yeild good results, but, what I'm saying is that if you had the spending being totally democratic, I'd bet the money would go first to other priorities.

[RichardAWilson]

Thomas Malthus predicted global starvation and overpopulation over two hundred years ago. The problem was that he couldn’t have predicted the Green Revolution that followed the invention of tractors, fertilizers, hybridization and modification (Genetic-Engineering). Since 1778, both the global population and average food consumption have increased.

Like I’ve said, the issue is economics and distribution.

Technological innovation will more than ensure overpopulation doesn’t have to be a problem in the future. This world can sustain more than 10 billion human beings. (I.e. If they’re urbanized, we institute universal recycling, switch to renewable energy and use hydroponics.)

In addition, your pessimism is questionable. As countries industrialize, birth rates fall. Have you heard of demographic transition? (I.e. Pre-Industrial, Industrial, Post-Industrial)

Western-Europe, Eastern-Europe, Russia and Japan are suffering from shrinking populations.

According to the United Nations, even China will begin suffering from depopulation by 2025. By 2100, there will be 400 million fewer people living in China. India's population will begin shrinking by around 2060.

[gendoikari]

Thomas Malthus predicted global starvation and overpopulation over two hundred years ago. The problem was that he couldn’t have predicted the Green Revolution that followed the invention of tractors, fertilizers, hybridization and modification (Genetic-Engineering). Since 1778, both the global population and average food consumption have increased.

Like I’ve said, the issue is economics and distribution.

Technological innovation will more than ensure overpopulation doesn’t have to be a problem in the future. This world can sustain more than 10 billion human beings. (I.e. If they’re urbanized, we institute universal recycling, switch to renewable energy and use hydroponics.)

you know a lot of that technology that helped agriculture..... NASA.

[progressive_lefty]

Like it has been mentioned, Defense spending in capitalism is equal to the massive investment in short-term unsustainable technologies ie. sources like oil, coal and uranium. Imagine if capitalism was inherently based around sustainable energy sources and manufacturing products that had the potential to offer massive profits in the long term. You'd think the greedy businessmen would be obsessed with such an idea, but as we see its one of those irony's about capitalism. The biggest business potential - sustainability, is entirely ignored.

[Bardo]

Like it has been mentioned, Defense spending in capitalism is equal to the massive investment in short-term unsustainable technologies ie. sources like oil, coal and uranium. Imagine if capitalism was inherently based around sustainable energy sources and manufacturing products that had the potential to offer massive profits in the long term. You'd think the greedy businessmen would be obsessed with such an idea, but as we see its one of those irony's about capitalism. The biggest business potential - sustainability, is entirely ignored.

The price of sustainable energies like solar power drop every day while non-renewable energy prices are constantly rising. I think it's only a matter of time before the price of fossil fuels surpass the price of renewable/sustainable energies, making them more attractive to investors. Eventually sustainability will be much more profitable than fossil fuels.

[heirofstalin]

capitalism needs war, it needs somewhere to put excess capital, no capitalism and investment in clean energy is the key to peace, otherwise were in for another century of war for resources.

[CHE with an AK]

capitalism needs war
http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j318/Tredcrow/2011/thechop-1.jpg

[DarkPast]

Thomas Malthus predicted global starvation and overpopulation over two hundred years ago. The problem was that he couldn’t have predicted the Green Revolution that followed the invention of tractors, fertilizers, hybridization and modification (Genetic-Engineering). Since 1778, both the global population and average food consumption have increased.

Like I’ve said, the issue is economics and distribution.

His theory is basically correct - but the Earth can provide for far more people than he envisioned.

Land can become infertile through ovefarming, lack of crop rotation, overfertilization etc. In fact, lage tracts of land in Africa have suffered this fate during the colonical era (and it is still going on in the neocolonial era).

Also, almost all the increased agricultural production can be traced to the massive increase in fossil fuel usage.


Technological innovation will more than ensure overpopulation doesn’t have to be a problem in the future. This world can sustain more than 10 billion human beings. (I.e. If they’re urbanized, we institute universal recycling, switch to renewable energy and use hydroponics.)

It may and may not. Right now, we're heavily dependant on fossil fuels and still lack viable, large-scale alternatives. The adventures of the US and EU in the Middle East are proof enough of this dependancy. In fact, these fuels are so valuable that fossil fuel lobbies have deliberately tried to stifle research in renewables. So yeah, I'm actually very worried about this. What's to stop the capitalists writing off millions of poor people as "acceptable losses" in their pursuit for profit? (there will always be oil for the richest 1%)

[CHE with an AK]

Does the Pentagon need to spend ...

Yes.

BCpGiNVw0zQ

[Die Neue Zeit]

As I said elsewhere, what's needed first and foremost is the expropriation of the military-industrial complex for transformation into a fully socialized defense industry.