military spending to the rescue

[marvenger]

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/...itary-build-up

Australia actually builds its own subs, very badly, the last lot had to be recalled coz you could hear them from several planets away, but at least it'll create jobs.

[metalman]

Re: military spending to the rescue

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/...itary-build-up

Australia actually builds its own subs, very badly, the last lot had to be recalled coz you could hear them from several planets away, but at least it'll create jobs.

yeh, was trying to get some shuteye the other night on a trip to san fran but could not sleep on account of an aussie sub rambling around pell bay. sounded like blender full of cats and rocks.

[marvenger]

Re: military spending to the rescue

maybe we're not so backward then, sleep deprivation is high on the US efficient torture list too.

[*T*]

Re: military spending to the rescue

lol!
Seriously, since when is creating jobs good when it's not for productive purposes?

[marvenger]

Re: military spending to the rescue

jesus, i wasn't being serious look at the title and the fact I mention we can't even build subs. war has been big buis forever though, now seems to be the first time its not having an effect on gdp.

[Ghent12]

Re: military spending to the rescue

lol!
Seriously, since when is creating jobs good when it's not for productive purposes?

The point of creating jobs is to create a job. Effective employment is a secondary goal.

Here's a neat trick from the 90's: take a job performed by a member of the armed services (senior technician at an intermediate repair depot, for instance), force every armed service member doing that job to retire or fill other billets, then open up new government jobs for the suddenly unfilled billets. End result is that you have increased the number of jobs gained in a month or quarter or FY by a certain amount but in effect changed exactly nothing.

[WildspitzE]

Re: military spending to the rescue

lol!
Seriously, since when is creating jobs good when it's not for productive purposes?

I always find all these efforts to create employment for the sake of employment (meaning, employment as a goal) rather funny.

After all, the most backwater tribe in africa out in the field probably has full employment -- but who cares, their standard of living is shit.

The goal should be productivity, and it should be aimed at increasing the standard of living... employment will be a by product of such efforts.

[*T*]

Re: military spending to the rescue

jesus, i wasn't being serious look at the title.

That was already understood, no worries

[BiscayneSunrise]

Re: military spending to the rescue

lol!
Seriously, since when is creating jobs good when it's not for productive purposes?

Well, maybe military spending can be assumed to have a productive purpose. Just as it is necessary to hire guards or police to protect the assets of society so does a nation need a military to protect national interests and supply chains.

Given that the US Department of Defense is staring at significant cuts, nations like Australia, Japan and Korea are beginning to realize they can't rely on the US defense umbrella so much. Hence the ramp up in defense spending around the Pacific rim.

[LargoWinch]

Re: military spending to the rescue

The goal should be productivity, and it should be aimed at increasing the standard of living... employment will be a by product of such efforts.

Wild, please stop it would you.

You are making too much sense.

Without wealth disparity how can "they" feel superior? Besides, they own congress and al.

[marvenger]

Re: military spending to the rescue

When the shit hits the fan the empire couldn't give two hoots about defenceless little friends. WW2 being a good example, the japanese were advancing on australia at a rate of knots, we asked for british help because our army was fighting for the brits in north africa and the brits did nothing. We had to send virtually untrained militia average age 18, we still send child soldiers to fight in contravention of UN rights of the child as min fighting age is 17 here, to stop the japanese just outside port morsbey. It was the first time the japanese had been defeated on land and they held on till the regular army arrived from north africa. So I guess we don't have good experiences of relying on empire.

[marvenger]

Re: military spending to the rescue

and if we hadn't done the fighting then the north of australia would probably be under US control and we'd be in real trouble. one of our main export earners, digging up red dirt and sending it to china would be in US control. Why can't we all just get along.

[BiscayneSunrise]

Re: military spending to the rescue

When the shit hits the fan the empire couldn't give two hoots about defenceless little friends. WW2 being a good example, the japanese were advancing on australia at a rate of knots, we asked for british help because our army was fighting for the brits in north africa and the brits did nothing. We had to send virtually untrained militia average age 18, we still send child soldiers to fight in contravention of UN rights of the child as min fighting age is 17 here, to stop the japanese just outside port morsbey. It was the first time the japanese had been defeated on land and they held on till the regular army arrived from north africa. So I guess we don't have good experiences of relying on empire.

Right, just as certain things are historical anomalies like a defined benefit pension with an luxurious retirement after only 20 years of labor. The western allies can no longer rely on the historical anomaly of Pax Americana to assure their safety. As the Canadian PM said shortly after 9/11 "we've been seated at the banquet without ever having to pay; that is about to end"

For too long, US allies have conveniently been in the washroom when the bill has arrived. No more.

So just as the Australians figured out they couldn't rely on the support of the dying British Empire in 1941; In 2009, they can no longer rely on a struggling and distracted US superpower.
For that matter, the western Europeans may come to a similar conclusion if they are smart.

[marvenger]

Re: military spending to the rescue

Not sure if you're trying to say I'm ungrateful, i think thats beside the point I was just trying to be objective and pragmatic in a what's likely to happen sense, though not my normative wish, and was basically agreeing with you. i wouldn't feel too sorry for yourself, the US did pretty well out of paying the bill and as Hudson points out they didn't even have to pay it, except of corse in lives and physical and mental scars of veterans. But as Bob Dylan points out the Masters of War don't care about that. Us littel guys are just pawns in the egomaniacs' world.

[BiscayneSunrise]

Re: military spending to the rescue

I'm not saying you are ungrateful at all. Like you I am trying to be objective and pragmatic, pointing out geopolitical realities.

As the saying goes, nations have no friends only interests. In the case, of Britain, they were willing to let Singapore and potentially Australia fall to the Japanese because they had to preserve assets to save the Britain itself.

For the past 60 years, US allies could pretty much rely on US protection. In the 21st Century, allies around the world sense that the US support may be waning so are taking steps to strengthen their own militaries.