Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Jack Ma: US wasted trillions on warfare instead of investing in infrastructure

cnbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 207 posts

Re: Jack Ma: US wasted trillions on warfare instead of investing in infrastructure

#171

Post by leetcrew »

marnett wrote: post #126
achou wrote: post #116

Folks, realize that US military spending: - backstops the US dollar as the world's reserve currency, which allows the US to have a large deficit with low risk to its economic system, which basically means the US can ship paper to other countries and they will send real stuff back to us in return. Let's not kid ourselves, this has a lot to do with the US' large military and financial advantage. - makes opportunistic a…

Sure we can all acknowledge those are all deeply complex and intertwined facts about the U.S. and its military strategy and spending. Foreign policy, both diplomatic and militaristic, are also not democratic - I think some people just want to call out "the worlds exemplar of democracy" spending the largest portion of its budget on undemocratic means. We The People want to see something more meaningful domestically fr…

> I think some people just want to call out "the worlds exemplar of democracy" spending the largest portion of its budget on undemocratic means.

what do you mean by "largest portion" here?

Re: Jack Ma: US wasted trillions on warfare instead of investing in infrastructure

#172

Post by dv_dt »

choko wrote: post #168
dv_dt wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Meanwhile a larger and larger portion of our population declines into third world living conditions.

According to the US Census Bureau, poverty in the US has been on the decline since 2010. It's still not below the 2000 levels, but is still declining.

It is possible for the total poverty rate to get lower, while the rate and absolute numbers of people in extreme poverty (hence the term third-world) increase.

https://inequality.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/media/_m...

Analysis in this paper also based on Census data.

Also, I don't know that I would exactly declare victory on poverty rate based on just recent data. It looks like we've just fought it to a rough standstill from the 70's on, which is disappointing from an advancement of civilization point of view. The 2010 decrease was just getting it back to 1970's level poverty after an increase bubbled up post-2008.

https://poverty.ucdavis.edu/faq/what-current-poverty-rate-un...

Note the rise in the below 50% poverty level figure in the chart.

Re: Jack Ma: US wasted trillions on warfare instead of investing in infrastructure

#173

Post by [deleted] »

achou wrote: post #116

Folks, realize that US military spending: - backstops the US dollar as the world's reserve currency, which allows the US to have a large deficit with low risk to its economic system, which basically means the US can ship paper to other countries and they will send real stuff back to us in return. Let's not kid ourselves, this has a lot to do with the US' large military and financial advantage. - makes opportunistic a…

[deleted]

Re: Jack Ma: US wasted trillions on warfare instead of investing in infrastructure

#174

Post by lamarpye »

m_fayer wrote: post #139
etrautmann wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are multiple points in the parent's post. While I agree that the idea of unnecessary military spending is noxious, the impact of safe global shipping and the unmeasurable deterrent effects for global stability may still be important. It's not clear to me how we measure and assess the value of this vs. hypothetical and more desirable alternatives.

If we weren't maintaining safe global shipping and other elements of global stability on the sly and with a self-serving twist, maybe the vacuum would have caused the global community to come together to achieve the same ends, in a more transparent and less lopsided and brutal (one can only hope) way.

Maybe and Hope are the usually the best plans.

Re: Jack Ma: US wasted trillions on warfare instead of investing in infrastructure

#175

Post by taobility »

nikofeyn wrote: post #91
snow_mac wrote: post #42

This is so true. I went to Shanghai about 3 summers ago right when Denver was finishing up the "A Line" train from Downtown to the Airport. This project cost over a billion dollars and the damn thing can't run smoothly or stay operational. Tons of issues. Meanwhile we took the Maglev train from the Pudong Airport to the Shanghai City Center. The Maglev cost $1.2 billion dollars [1]. The train can travel up to 270 MPH…

and that maglev train is basically a show piece and was considered way too expensive to develop. the high-speed trains in china aren't as fast, but they are still fast, quite cheap, as smooth as the maglev, comfortable, and most importantly, convenient in terms of their stops. so the u.s. is getting destroyed in regional travel options. it's embarassing.

US has self driving cars, which is much fancy.

Re: Jack Ma: US wasted trillions on warfare instead of investing in infrastructure

#176

Post by justin66 »

dgudkov wrote: post #123

While he has a point, it's worth noting that at the same time China's military spending have tripled over the last 10 years [1]. Did Jack Ma say anything about that? Or is he, as a member of the China Communist Party allowed to criticize only US government? He is an extremely talented person and smart entrepreneur, but it's hard to believe that his US foreign affair statements have no background agenda. It also could…

> Did Jack Ma say anything about that?

The statements quoted in the article are an oblique way of saying something about that.

Re: Jack Ma: US wasted trillions on warfare instead of investing in infrastructure

#178

Post by EGreg »

rohit2412 wrote: post #170
EGreg wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The velocity of money returns to normal after it is spent into the private sector again. It’s just one hop for how it is spent. In the meantime the taxed money may be held in some funds, and those funds may be invested in private banks. We really don’t know. The Grace Commission found that hardly anything from personal income taxes even reaches public works. There is hardly any difference if the government burned all…

I don't think the velocity of money returns to normal. Money used to buy a single Ferrari probably circulates less than money used to buy million gallons of milk. This should imply that for higher gdp we must tax the rich and spend on poor. American defense spending spends lesser on the poor, and the country does not even get bridges or trains in return.

Look, if you traced the money paid to defense contractors vs to the poor you may find that its velocity is the same after a month. Show me that it’s definitely not true. It seems quite plausible.

Re: Jack Ma: US wasted trillions on warfare instead of investing in infrastructure

#179

Post by masonic »

snowwrestler wrote: post #85
fowkswe wrote: post #36

Why haven't the ecosystem of infrastructure companies lobbied and infiltrated government the way that defense companies have?

Infrastructure spending has sadly become partisan because a higher percentage of infrastructure workers are unionized than in the broader economy. Obama and the Democratic Congress delivered a stimulus bill in 2009 that was largely "shovel-ready" infrastructure spending. Because of that, it was attacked by the GOP, who then took over Congress and has proceeded to underfund infrastructure as a means of weakening union…

  who then took over Congress
Two years later, and only the House at that. Obama had Democrat control of both houses until 2011, part of that with filibuster-proof control of the Senate.

Would you care to itemize specifics of those "shovel-ready" projects?

Re: Jack Ma: US wasted trillions on warfare instead of investing in infrastructure

#180

Post by masonic »

Aunche wrote: post #133
cpursley wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, it's not that black and white. Despite a pretty spastic and often misguided foreign policy, the US human rights record is much much better than other large political entities (i.e, USSR, China, etc).

> the US human rights record is much much better than other large political entities While the US treats its own residents better, their human record rights abroad is much worse. If China started the war in Iraq instead, all news outlets would have called it as genocide. The US basically toppled a ruler of a stable country, gave the "good side" a bunch of guns, and told them that anyone who opposes them is evil. Inev…

"The US basically toppled a ruler of a stable country, gave the "good side" a bunch of guns, and told them that anyone who opposes them is evil."

That "country" could also refer to Germany or Japan of 1941.

Post reply on HN