Time to end the academic arms race

The first I'll concede, but the point is that the vast majority of wars aren't that popular; including conflicts like Iraq and Afghanistan.

Government sponsored war is totally unparalleled. People don't even know half of the conflicts they're paying for.

What I'd say about the second point is just look at the size of the state relative to its propensity to blow sh*t up; either directly or by proxy.

 

You can factor in Machiavellian self interest and how the size of the state is important for aggressive foreign policy. That's a different issue mind.

The chances of being a victim of conflict increase significantly if you're living in a developing country. These countries tend not to have particularly effective tax systems, with tariffs and resource exploitation funding any war machine

 

There is NO CONSOLIDATION OF POWER in Europe. The EU-states elect Prime Ministers, each of which is independent of Berlaymont (EU central office in Brussels).

There is no particular allegiance to either Berlaymont or the European parliament in Strasbourg. (Which should have happened for the good of EU-democracy but country PMs did not want see any of their powers constrained by the EU parliament.)

Country PMs meet altogether in Brussels regarding issues that will overcast all or large parts of the EU. Like they did when changing to the Euro.

The only time there is concerted retaliation by the EU is when international trade agreements are challenged. As Donald Dork is about to learn from his asinine change of import duties regarding several major European products.

As for war, there is no way in hell that the EU will ever go to war with anyone without being first attacked. The EU learned from WW2 the opposite lesson - that is, massive armament spending to ward off the Communism emanating from Russia is effectively wasted*.

Communism crumbled under its own dead-weight, and gave rise to the Russian oligarchs who now rule the Kremlin.

Btw, they LIKE Donald Dork. He's a business-man just like them.

Itz all aboud da muney ... !

*Any American who thinks that a Discretionary National Budget of which 53% is spent on the DoD is a "good thing" needs their head examined. There are other fiscal expenditures that would do far more good for many more people. (Namely National Health Care and Free Tertiary Education.)

 

of course if it was drivel the libcommie would not be so afraid to say why. What did you learn from your fear?

 

if no power in Brussels then then why is everyone leaving the socialist nightmare?

Brussels to pare back EU regulation to quell criticism | Centre for ...
www.cer.eu/in-the-press/brussels-pare-back-eu-regulation-quell-criticism
ne driving force of British euroscepticism is the belief that the Commission is a regulatory machine that has run out of control," said Charles Grant of the CER. "Any further initiatives to cut red tape may help to alleviate eurosceptic concerns in the UK a little." ..

 

Vietnam without the US was a warzone.
Civil war. War with France. War with China. War with Laos. War with Cambodia.
Israel has been a warzone since the dawn of written history. With or without US and Britain.
Under Britain it was very peaceful in fact.
Under Russia, Ukraine was peaceful. For a rare part of it's otherwise bloodthirsty history. The minute Russia left, oh guess what? They started a war again. Ukraine vs Ukraine.
Korea without the US and Russia was Korea vs Japan.
Followed by... Korea vs Korea.
Previously it had been Korea vs China.

So America tried to pacify Vietnam but failed.

But it succeeded in Japan and Germany and many other places too.

You can blame us for all the wars we got involved in, but they were going on before we arrived.
A good number of them, we ended.

 

Problem with this argument is that the EU isn't top dog. Russia and America and Britian are.
EU is lapdog barking.

In order for EU to become top dog it must defeat the bigger dogs in a war.
It has to start a war where there is currently none, to achieve that ambition.


We don't need to unify Scotland and England to prevent a war. Or the English counties etc. They have already been unified and the endless wars have stopped.

Those battles have been fought and won already. Top dog established. Peace dividend currently being enjoyed.


Same goes for Europe. War has been pacified. Pecking order established. Peace dividend being enjoyed.
The EU want's to change the established world order. That means another war.

 

In WW2 people collected everyone's steel as part of the war effort.
The war was paid for by tax but people all volunteered more. And despite conscription many people still volunteered.

I take your point and agree with it. But you are overplaying it in my opinion. It's not the root of all war. Or even the root of the majority of wars. A facilitator in many state led wars, yes. I agree.
The country has had an unpopular war in Iraq. That's all. You have a hang over.

 

Neatly sums up your non-economic approach...

 

"DEFENDING THE NATION"

Of course you are right. We have a standing army to (supposedly) defend the nation.

And then some crackpot of a PotUS from Texas (Bush the son), elected because his father was PotUS, decides that he needs absolutely to recover a Glock pistol that Hussein was carrying when found in a foxhole by American soldiers that had been gifted to him by Bush the father. (Btw, that pistol is now in his library to demonstrate why

And who are these people who think less of wasting in the desert the blood of American youths? (About 4500 Yanks died in Iraq) In that Bush Administration, they were all ex-business_men. The Replicant Party is replete with them, because that group is from where the Party gets funding to promote its political platform.

AND SO?

And so, until Americans see through the patently ideological Replicant-claptrap that party will continue on its merry way with complete disregard for the American lower classes.

Only a Social Democracy cares about getting the poor out of abject poverty, whilst the Rabid Right is concerned only about assuring that tax-revenues go back to BigBusiness. And, until we as nation change fundamentally direction, that sad fact will not change.

As confirmed in this infographic of DoD budget share of government spending:


And so, I ask, "Is defending the nation the true central objective of discretionary budget spending? Must Uncle Sam remain the world's policeman?

Especially when internally we have so, so many domestic problems to solve ...

MY POINT?

"Guns or butter?" I remember that phrase from my first classes in Economics during the Vietnam War.

It is still valid today! Because We Yanks keep selecting "the guns" ...

 

Liberals have had 100% there way with the lower classes for 50 years and it has turned our inner cities into Chi-Raq's when before they were not that way at all. Really hard to imagine you didn't know that? You want more welfare even after we have seen how destructive it is. When Stalin's first 5 year plan failed, he doubled down just like you are doing!! Insanity to keep doing same thing -right , unless you are insane lberal??

 

"We can do without butter, but, despite all our love of peace, not without arms. One cannot shoot with butter, but with guns". Without actual economics (e.g. institutionalist analysis into how military expenditure generates a net loss), which this fellow never provides, that's all you have!

 

james M, That story is even worse in the UK.
and Reiver lives in the UK.

(although the term "Liberal" has the complete opposite meaning in the UK it does in America, so you should be careful the type of terminology you use with Reiver)

 

Liberal in the UK, refers to the liberal political philosophy as it does elsewhere.
It also refers to the "Liberal Democrat" party as it does elsewhere.

Colloquially, "lefty" and "liberal" are synominous.
The major left wing opposition in the UK are the Labour party who are ideologically socialist and not liberal.

 

It can be kind of confusing in an international discussion between people from different parts of the world.
"Liberal" in UK and Commonwealth countries = economically liberal, which is closely affiliated with Conservatism (although not exactly the same thing)
"Liberal" in US = socially liberal, which has mostly evolved into "Progressive" (i.e. the segment of the Left focused on advancing social issues)

 

As soon as you start defining Liberal or Socialist or Conservative you are going to get disputes in any country.
No two people completely agree.

 

Very correct!

Europe after WW2 moved to the Left, and embarked upon the development of a Social Democracy, where both nationalized Health Care and Tertiary Education were the key features. The US went home and did nothing - except to bask in limelight of "winners".

The US had an excellent opportunity to do the same. But no.

The old-ghosts of "selfish preoccupation" came to rear its ugly head, and what we have now is the the richest country in the world but the one also plagued by the worst Income Disparity.

So what do we have? Yes, millions for the billionaires. And a piss-poor existence from those below the poverty-threshold, which is 14% of the population or around 40 million American men, women and children.

Postwar and post demise of the Soviet Block, Uncle Sam returned to his selfishly bad ways ...

 

The UK was a lot less heterogeneous (socially, culturally, racially, etc.) than the US at the time.
But that may change in the future. It will be interesting to see how the UK's social institutions hold together as it becomes more diverse like the US.
We don't really have any clear historical precedent to know what will happen.
I'm predicting things in the UK will start looking more like things in the US, in particular the higher density population coastal areas.
You'll probably see a decrease in the quality of government provided social services, to the point that people won't want to use them if they have the money to afford not to. So in the end, Social Democracy will end up looking a little empty.

 

Liberalism is the opposite of Conservatism in the UK.
It used to be a two party system. Liberals vs Conservatives. (Tory's vs Whigs).

Around the WW1, Liberals got surplanted by socialists, Labour.


I already don't use social services.
Quality of them seems to have improved dramatically since the 70's when I stopped.
But I view all tax as theft. I consider them immoral on principle. So as far as possible I avoid any involvement with the state sector.


We won't change to anyone else's model of society. We are too full of ourselves.
We have our own style. And that's the way we like it.

UK is a very diverse society socially. We have higher levels of immigration than the USA. In my daily life about 1 in every 2 people has an English accent.
Mrs Baff is Japanese.

 

I define according to political economy.

 

why???i use current American definitions on an American website.American is the worlds language. if he wants to learn he has to learn American language first.

 

You don't use political economic definitions, ensuring that your position is no different to ideological rant.

 

Any country has a right to its own language and definitions of course but in USA we have Buckley Goldwater Reagan who defined conservatism as "against govt." Reagan said the last thing you want to hear is, "I'm from the govt and I want to help." It's very very simple, but liberals very need badly to complicate it so we wont see the perfect continuity from big govt liberalism to bigger govt socialist to ever bigger communism.

 

Our economic system runs upon predation, we do not invest in society, we extract wealth from it for concentration and redistribution to the aristocracy.

 

1) when a degree can cost upwards of $100k, its potential to earn you enough to easily pay that back MUST be the primary consideration. personal interest in the field would be the secondary consideration.

2) of course - see above.

3) only the very rich and very safe have the hubris to regard a tertiary education philosophically. the rest of us mere mortals must take it more seriously.