13 Jul 10
Originally posted by EladarSo then we agree that the U.S. defence budget is just a kind of welfare state for arms manufacturers? Just tax payers money right?
Sure contractors make big bucks providing the US with the top military machines in teh world, and I'm sure many contractors get more money than deserve.
13 Jul 10
No, we agree that people steal from the government. As I pointed out people wrongfully claim money from that government in many different programs.
Many defense contractors perform a very important service for the US by providing for us the best military equimpent in the world. Today's military relies on both training and equipment. I suppose that's always been true, it is just that today's equipment relies so heavily on technilogy.
13 Jul 10
Originally posted by EladarBut surely large sums of money going from the U.S.Treasury to the Pentagon and then to U.S. defence contractors is wholly a U.S. affair.
The US military is the tit that the entire Western world suckles. We are the shield so that the other Western nations don't have to. It frees up the money so the Europeans can have their Socialized states.
The only sucking that Europe might be doing is when they occasionally win contracts and then it becomes U.S. tax payers money going from the U.S.Treasury to the Pentagon and then to European defence contractors. Hardly a big thing when you consider that defence contractors are often subsidiaries of multinational corporations anyway.
I don't see how U.S. defence spending "frees up the money so the Europeans can have their Socialized states" because if the U.S. 'withdrew' from Europe, I don't think Europe would increase its spending - why would it? Except maybe to create a bigger 'welfare state' for its own defence contractors - and what is more, if the U.S. 'withdrew' from Europe, the U.S. defence contractors would be up in arms about the shrinking of its own gravy train, surely?
13 Jul 10
Originally posted by EladarI am not denying this. But it's still only the taxpayer that pays which means that U.S. defence contractors are more akin to the public sector than they are to 'capitalist' entities. Why not halve the defence budget so as to contribute to living within your means?
Many defense contractors perform a very important service for the US by providing for us the best military equimpent in the world.
13 Jul 10
Originally posted by FMFIt is the country's responsiblity to defend the nation. Therefore it is the country's job to buy weapons for the military. It has nothing to do with being a nanny state.
I am not denying this. But it's still only the taxpayer that pays which means that U.S. defence contractors are more akin to the public sector than they are to 'capitalist' entities. Why not halve the defence budget so as to contribute to living within your means?
The government's job is to provide for a common defense as well as develop infrastructure. The nanny state comes into the picture when the government takes responsibilty for making sure that people have housing and food and things of this nature.
13 Jul 10
Originally posted by EladarWhat do you think U.S. defence contractors would think about (a) a doubling of the defence budget; (b) a halving of the defence budget? I don't accept your limited definition of 'nanny state'. I think a realistic definition, especially when a nation is talking about living beyond its means, must take into account the corporate comfort zone created for defence contractors - who do not themselves create wealth but instead only receive it - when there is extravagant overspending on defence.
It is the country's responsiblity to defend the nation. Therefore it is the country's job to buy weapons for the military. It has nothing to do with being a nanny state.
13 Jul 10
Originally posted by knightmeisterRising house prices is not growth. Inflated house prices are imaginary wealth.
Here in the Uk , like many places , there was massive growth. House prices went through the roof.
You convinced the rest of the world that your houses were valuable and they invested in them. Your own council and government invested in them. You managed the economy poorly, scared off the investors, nobody wants your houses any more, anyone who invested in them looses out.
Next time you invest, take the boom / bust cycle into account and don't count your winnings before the next bust. People were badly hurt by the recession because they not only spent their winnings, but they spent next years winnings too.
13 Jul 10
Originally posted by FMFYet a lot of money did go into somebody's pockets. Obviously not all the money from the boom years, but still a significant amount.
Money "lost" when the value of stock falls doesn't go into "somebody's pockets".
Anyone who got out first when the fall came is presumably better off than everyone else and has effectively gained wealth at the expense of others. In some cases it is perfectly legal gain as - since the stock market gambling system is legal - and in other case it was decidedly illegal gain - because they had insider knowledge and used it illegally - in some cases they deliberately mislead investors for personal gain.
13 Jul 10
Originally posted by twhiteheadYes, of course, you are right. What I meant to say was lost due to the extreme brevity of my post. What I actually was getting at was that if I bought 1,000 shares at $1 million and then saw their "value" rise to $5 million on the market and then fall to $1 million again, it does not mean I have lost $4 million. That $4 million was never actually in any pocket, unless I borrowed against it, in which case what I had was a debt in my pocket.
Anyone who got out first when the fall came is presumably better off than everyone else and has effectively gained wealth at the expense of others.
13 Jul 10
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFIt is important to remember though that a number of key players on wall street did come out wealthier.
Yes, of course, you are right. What I meant to say was lost due to the extreme brevity of my post. What I actually was getting at was that if I bought 1,000 shares at $1 million and then saw their "value" rise to $5 million on the market and then fall to $1 million again, it does not mean I have lost $4 million. That $4 million was never actually in any pocket, unless I borrowed against it, in which case what I had was a debt in my pocket.
I fully agree that someone who borrowed against their bubble wealth yet failed to get out at the peak lost out.
The real problem is the stock market is a gambling system yet was pitched as a 'sure thing' to everyone including banks, governments and ordinary people. The trick was to hide the risk under layers of complexity which made it look like you were investing in something solid like real estate when the real investment was in the really risky bit - the bubble part of the price. The people who lost out big time were not left with devalued real estate, they were left with nothing.
13 Jul 10
Originally posted by twhiteheadThis happened all over the world. We were all sold on the "boom" but nobody talked about the "bust". What I can't understand is how it seems as a nation we are more impoverished than we would have been if the "boom" had never happened.
Rising house prices is not growth. Inflated house prices are imaginary wealth.
You convinced the rest of the world that your houses were valuable and they invested in them. Your own council and government invested in them. You managed the economy poorly, scared off the investors, nobody wants your houses any more, anyone who invested in them looses out ...[text shortened]... e recession because they not only spent their winnings, but they spent next years winnings too.
It seems as if it's better to have 7 years of steady growth and then 7 years of slow recession , rather than 12 years of boom growth and then 2 years of crashing. It feels like 2 steps forward 4 backward.
What exactly was the point?